teaching conversation in the second language classroom: problems and prospects
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/26/2019 Teaching Conversation in the Second Language Classroom: Problems and Prospects
1/22
Education Journal It tf ^
^g .
7 / H Chinese
U niversity
of
Hong Kong 1996
Winter 1995, Vol.
23
,No.2
ISSN
1025-1936/HKS50
Teaching
Conversation in the Second
Language Classroom: Problems and
Prospects
P A U L SZE
Th e Chinese UniversityofHong Kong
Th e
current skills orientation
to
second language teaching
an d
com-
munication activities employed in communicative approaches have in-
creased
the
amount of speaking practice
in the
classroom. Yet,
the
level
o f
conversational competence reached
by
most instructed second language
learners is far from satisfactory. This paper draws on concepts from con-
versational analysis, classroom discourse,
a nd
communicative competence
in
arguingfor adirect approach to the teaching of conversation skills. It
shows that materials and classroom activities used in communicative lan-
guage teaching
often
fail toaddress the interactional dimension
of
conver-
sation. The paper suggests principles and activities for the developm ent of
conversational competence
in the
classroom.
It
is
common pract ice
fo r
general-purpose second/foreign language
programmes toincorporatethe
teach ing
o fspeak ingski l ls .T herecogn i t ion
of sp eaking as part and parcel 01 a second lan gua ge curr icu lum is reflected
in
general methodology texts (e.g. , Bowen, Madsen,
& Hilfer ty ,
1985;
Doff,
1988;
N u n a n ,
1991), as well as in second language syllabuses
(e.g.,
Curriculum D evelopment Co mm it tee/Co uncil [CDC], 1981, 1983, 1994).
Speaking
is
often
broken down
in to
subskil ls ,one ofw hic his theabil i tyto
take part
in a
conversat ion
in the
target language. This abil i ty
is
often
believed to be parto f a learner 's
c o m m u n i c a t i ve
competence (Faerch an d
Kasper , 1983), the
ul t ima te
goal of second l ang uage learn ing.
N u n a n
(1991) suggested
that
to most people, mast ering the art of speaking is
the single most im portant aspectof
learning
a second or foreignl a n gu a ge ,
an d success is measured in t erms of the
abili ty
to carry out a conversa-
tion
in the l a n gu a ge (p . 39). T h e impor tance a t t achedtoconversa t ional
-
7/26/2019 Teaching Conversation in the Second Language Classroom: Problems and Prospects
2/22
23 0 Paul Sze
competence can be seen in the inclusion of a conversation section in many
language proficiency/achievement tests(e.g., Australian Second Language
Proficiency Ratings , Internat ional English Language Tes t ing System
Hong Kong Cert i f ica te of Educat ion Examinat ion (HKCE), Hong Kong
Advanced Level Exam inat ion (HK A L); see Boyle and Falvey, 1994, for a
review
of the
major local
an d
international proficiency tests). Coursebooks
fo r general-purpose second language programmes invariab ly embody
materials for developing
learners'
oral competence.
Yet, despite insights provided by
discourse
analysts int o the workings
of conversation, second language materials continue to present contrived
and artificial dialogues w hich purport to bedevelop ing learn ers' speaking
skills. Classroom procedures for teaching conversation often amount to
nothing more than
th e
parroting
of
dialogues (Richards
an d
Schmidt,
1983, p. 126). Afteryears ofconversation practice,man y learners are still
unable
to
engage
in
genuine conversation
in the
target language.
Examiners' Report of the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Exam.
(Hong Kong Examinations Authority [HKEA], 1993) has the following
comment
on
candidates' conversational
competence:
M an y
candidates could
not
hold
a
more th an rud imentary conversa t ion
mainly
due to a lacko fvocabulary to express their ideas
e f fec t ive ly . . . .
M a ny
candidates
satisfied
the m se lves
wi th
Yes
an d
No answers .
I nfact , ifthey
had
taken the in i tiative to say a bi t more, they wou ld have scored a much
better mark. (p. 103)
Whether
th i s
weaknesswas due to candidates ' lack of vocabula ryis
open
to
discussion,
but
th is inadequacy
i n
conversa t ional competence
is
comm on among second langu age learners: the inabil i ty to take up long
turns
in
conversation
is a
feature
o f
many second language speakers,
who
keep
to
short turns
an d
appear
to be
less
than collaborative conversational
partn ers (Rich ards, 1990, p. 70). A closer examination of the current
materials and techniques for teaching conversation suggests that they do
no t
actually develop learners ' conversational competence. General
methodology coursebooks give guidance on the teaching of speaking but
are in
fact pa yin g li t tle attention
to the
teaching
of
conversation.
Thispaper argues that this si tuation results from conceptual confusion
over th e teaching of speaking. I t wil l begin wi th a review of the charac-
teristics of conversa tional discourse. It w ill then point o ut th at most class-
room discourse in the form of interaction between teacher an d learners, is
-
7/26/2019 Teaching Conversation in the Second Language Classroom: Problems and Prospects
3/22
Teaching
Conversation in the Second Language Classroom 23 1
jnot conducive to fostering learners' conversational
skills.
The paper will
then arguef o r t h eteachingo fspecific conversational skills. I nthis
be
examined
and it
will
be
shownthat althoug h such activities
are
carried
[ o u t in the spoken m ode, they do not necessarily develop
learners'
conver-
sational competence. The paper will conclude with a discussion of the
principles for teaching conversation and suggestions for
classroom
ac -
t ivitiesthat im prove conversat ional skills.
What
Is
Conversation?
Before w elook intot henatureo fconversation, w emustaddresstheissue
of
what kind
of
talkqualifies
as
conversation.
While monologues suchas
lectures,speeches
and TV
new s reports
are
obviously
to be
ruled out, talk
involving more thanonespeakerdoes notnecessarily constitute conversa-
tion.
Take
th e
classroom.
Even though there may be agreat
deal
of
oral
interaction between teacher and students during a
lesson,
few
people
would accept that the teacher is having a ge nuine conversation w ith th e
s tudents .W hat is conversation, then ?
Goffman (1976)
offered the follow-
in g
defini t ion:
. . . conversation, restrictively defined,m ig h t be identified as the talk occur-
ring when asm all numbero f participants come together an d set t le into
w h a t
theyperceive
to be a few mom ents cut off from (o r
carried
on to thesideo f)
instrumental tasks;a
period
of idlingfelt to be an end in i tself, during w hich
everyone
is
accorded
th e
right
t o
talk
a s
well
as to
listen
and
wi tho ut reference
to a fixed schedule . . . and no final agreement or synthesis is demanded,
differences
of
opinion
to be
treated
as
unprejudicial
to the
cont inu ing rela t ion-
ship of the participants, (p. 264)
This definition may be overly technical ana indeed most people ca n
intuitively tell a conversation
from
o ther
speech
events (Hy mes, 1972).
But it is auseful
reminder
to the
teacher
w ho
sets
out to
teach conversa-
tion.
It isperhapsalacko faw arenessof the natureof conversation thathas
resulted in the chaos in the teaching of conversation. As Richards (1990)
puts
it, the 'conversation class' is som eth ing of an enigma in language
teaching
(p .
67). Labels such
a sspeech, oral, speaking, an dconversation
ar eoften used intercha ngeably. The Syllabus
for English
(CDC, 1983), for
-
7/26/2019 Teaching Conversation in the Second Language Classroom: Problems and Prospects
4/22
23 2
au lSze
example, states that speaking skills can be divided into three elements:
(a) the teaching ofp ronuncia t ion(speech training), (b ) manipulative ac -
tivities
(drills an d pattern practice),
and (c)
com mu nicativ e activi t ies
(purposeful use
of
language) (p . 63). Whileth e first tw o types ofactivity
will no doubt contribute toone's oral competence, they belong more in
Rivers and Temperley's (1978) category of sk ill-getting activities. In fact,
tn e
second
type
of
activity, drills
and
pattern
practice,
is
usually
carried
out
primarily for
practising languageform,
not for
improving speaking
skills.
In
the
Syllabus,
th e
category
of
com mu nicat ive activities comprises
a
range
of
fluency activi t ies such
as
problem -solving tasks, improvisations,
role-plays,
an d
interviews, w hic h provide
an
opportunity
fo r
students
to
use all
their language resources
fo r
fluency practice. Attention
t o
real life
conversation
skills, such asappropriacy of langu age (Widdowson , 1978)
and techniques for managing a conversation in a second language culture
(see Richards and Schmidt, 1983, for a review) is minimal. (See Tsui,
1993, for a comprehensive description of the functions ofconversational
utterancesinEnglish.) ->
;
Richards
(1990)
has highlighted one reason for this confusion. There
is one assumptioninsecond language acquisi t ionresearch that languageis
acquired through con versa tion (e.g., H atc h, 1978; Sato, 1986; Swain,
1985). Hatch asserted that one learnshow to do conversa t ion, onelearns
how tointeract verbally,and ou t of th i s interact ion syntact ic structuresar e
developed (p. 404). Tasks that promote conversa tion therefore facili tate
language acquisition. Swain has supported conversation practice in the
classroomon the grounds th at it promotes acqu isition since oral interaction
provides learnerswi th th e
oppor tun i ty
to push to the
l imi t
theiremerging
competence. Long
an d
Porter 's review (1985) also indicated that from
a
psycholinguis t ic
point
of view,
interlanguage talk, interaction between
non-native speaking learners, is conducive to interlanguage development.
However ,
we can see
thatwi th inth is v iew,
the
teaching
of
conversation
i s
a
means
to an end
(language acquisi t ion),
and not an end in
itself.
T he
result
is language being acquired, not enhanced conversa tion skills. While
th e goal of language acquisi t ionis certainly crucial, it is important that
teachers should be able to tell what an a ctiv ity labelled oral or conver-
sation
actually practises. They should be able to distinguish between
structural or
fluency practice carried
out by way of
dialogues,
and ac-
t ivitiesthat teach
a nd
practise
the skills fo r
tak ing part
in a
conversation
i n
the
target languag e.
-
7/26/2019 Teaching Conversation in the Second Language Classroom: Problems and Prospects
5/22
Teaching
Conversation
in the
Secondlanguage Classroom 23 3
The
NatureofConversation
Research
by ethnom ethodologis ts (e.g. ,
Goffman,
1976;
Jefferson,
1972;
Sacks,
1972; Schegloff, 1972)
an d
linguistic philosophers (e.g.,
Aus t in ,
1962;
Grice, 1975; Searle, 1969) has provided new insights in the charac-
teristics
of natu rally occurring conversation. Studies into aspects of con-
versation
such as turn-taking , topic negotiation and ma intenan ce, repairs,
openingsand
closings have revealed wh at genuine conversation
is
like.
Fo r
example,
Tsui's study of adjacency pairs in conversation confirms the
finding
tha t
conversation is by nomeans astring ofut terances tenuously
related to each other. It is organised in an orderly fashion. Not only are
there
sequencing rules governing what is
expected
to occur but also
w h a t
can
occur
if the
discourse
is to becoherent (1991,p .
128). Results
from
conversational
analysis show that neatly
constructed
dialogues that
often
dominate
instruct ional materials are highly unlikely to ex ist. Consider the
following
examplefrom a
coursebook
for
intermediate-level
EFL
learners:
Situational dialogue
Sam and Lyn are talking about what they can do.
Sam:
Le t ' s
go out for a
wa lk .
L yn : Th a t 's not a verygood idea. I t 's raining.
Sam: I l ikewalk ing w h e n i t ' sra in ing .
L yn : D o n ' t
b esilly .We can go out
tomorrow.
Sam:
W hy? Wha t's the weather forecast for tomorrow?
Ly n : I t ' s going to be hot .
Sam:
I
don't l ike walking when i t 's hot.
L yn : An d 1don ' t l ike walking when i t ' s ra in ing .
(Methold
an d
Tadm an, 1990,
p.
185)
It
is
highly unlikely thatconversations
in
whi ch
th e
speakers negotiate
for
something will develop
in
this fashion. O ften,
speakersproceed
step
b y
step,
so unding each other out .
T he
unnaturalness
of
this dialogue
will
be
seen
m ore clearlyif wecompare itwi ththe sample ofn atura lly occurring
converstionbelow:
Jack :
Sa y
wha t
ya
do i n?
Ju d y : Well , we 're going out . Wh y?
Jack: Oh, I wasjus t gonna sa ycome out andcome over here an d talk to the
people.
(Coul thard ,1977, p. 71)
Let's consider another example. The extract below, which is also
-
7/26/2019 Teaching Conversation in the Second Language Classroom: Problems and Prospects
6/22
234
PaulS ze
t aken from a coursebook for interm ediate learners, purports to practise
conversa tion:
Read
this
conversa t ion. Then, w i th your par tner ,
use the
notes below
to
practisesim ilar conversation. (You
may use
must
in
place
o f
have to.)
S1 :
What
do I
have
to do if I
(want
to
have
a
telepho ne installed)?
S2: You should (write to the Hong Kong Telephone Company).
SI : What happens then?
S2: Youhaveto (fill in aform).
S1: Wh at else should I do?
S2: You
(have
to pay a
deposit).
1 . You wa nt to have electricity installed/write to the Hong Kong Electric
Company/fill in aform/payadeposit.
(andso on)
(Howe,
T . A .
K irkpatrick,
& D . L .
Kirkpatrick, 1987,
p.
112)
This practice
is in the
form
of aconversation,but we caneasilysee
tha t what learners actually practise isproducing grammatically correct
sentenceswithhave
to ,must,
and should.
T h u s , dialogues in second language learning materials are often used
to exempl ify s tructures or com mu nicativ e funct ions. As a result , they
eas i ly
convey to the learner afalse pic ture of conversational discourse in
th e target language . T he above examples ignore at least tw o important
aspects
of
conversa tion:
1. The formal characteristics of spontaneous speech, such as false starts,
fillers,
re-phrasings, hesitations , slips
of the
tongue, repetitions, unfinished
sentences,
s ty les
of
speaking, etc.
2. The
techniques
ofengagingin a conversation in the target language, such
as
how to open and close a con versation, how to t ake and relinquish
speaking turn, how to show attention, how to agree and disagree, etc.
They need abun dant practice in taking turn s, interruptions and listening
actively.They need to practise how to hold back the more talkative mem-
bers and draw out the shy or self-conscious ones. They need to learn how
to request clarifications, how to slow dow n, and how to explain (Ernst,
1994,
p. 315).
The second point above implies that conversation practice in the class-
room should
not be
confined
t o
making
responses
only. Following work
o n
adjacency pairs (e.g., Coulthard, 1977; Schegloff
&
Sacks, 1973),
Richards (1977) drew at tention
to the
common practice
incoursebookso f
treating questions, especially yes/no questions,
as if
they belonged
to one
-
7/26/2019 Teaching Conversation in the Second Language Classroom: Problems and Prospects
7/22
Teaching Conversation
in the
Second Language Classroom
23 5
adjacency pair (i.e. , Request for Inform ation A nsw er) only. A s a result ,
many students are only capable of short stil ted replies such asYes, I can
or No, Ican't,w hic h
while
grammaticallycorrect,may be con versa tionally
inappropriate as second part cons titue nts of adjacency pairs (Rich ards &
Schmidt ,
1983, p. 130). The second textbook example quoted above,
hence,
m ay be
rewrit ten
as:
SI: Wh at do I have to do if I (want to have a telephone instal led?)
S2 :
Why? Something wrong with
the one
you're using?
SI: I tdoesn't work properly.
S2: Well , you should (write to the Hong K ong Telephone C ompan y).
SI :
Wh at happens then?
S2 : Look, I 'vegot (their guidebook) here.Let'sse ew h a titsays.
SI: It
says
yo u
have
t o
(fill
in a
form).
S2: Andtheny ouhavet o(paya deposit).
Brown an dYule(1983a)distinguishedtwofunctions of language: th e
transactional
use, which
isconcerned
with
th eexpression ofcontent,and
th einteractional use, whichi sconcernedw ith establishing an dmain ta in ing
social relationships. Bygate (1988)
has
contrasted motor-percept ive
skills
an d interaction skillsandpointedo ut tha tthelatter iscalled for in real
life
communicat ion:
Interact ional
skills
invo lve making dec is ions abou t com-
municat ion, such as :
what
to say,how to say it, and
w h e t h e r
todevelopit ,
in
accordance
with one's in tent ions, while maintaining th e desired rela-
tions
wi thothers (p. 6). He has
highl ighted three features which dist in-
guish speaking
from
writing, th e other productive
skill.
They are: (a )
Speech takes place under the pressure of t im e, (b) in terpersonal in teract io n
in conversat ion is two-way, and (c) this two-way comm unicat ion dem ands
the
abili tyto negot iate meaning and manage in teract ion. Nun an (1991) h as
emphasized th e greater unpredictability of interpersonal encou nters th at
are
carried
out to
main ta in
social
relationships.
T o
recap, conversation
is
muchm ore than the conveying ofinformation in the spoken mode. Brown
and Yule (1983b) has pointed out that the overriding function of spoken
language
is the
maintenance
of
social relationships: Mos t people spend
a
great deal
of
their everyday l ives
in ' cha ts ' ,
where
th e
primary purpose
is
to beniceto theperson the ya ret a lk ingto (p. 11).
T he
primarily interactional function
ofspoken
language
has
implica-
tions for teach ing. As Richards (1990) puts it , interactional uses of con-
versation are very
different
in both form and function from the kinds of
transactional language found
in
task-oriented communication,
an d
should
-
7/26/2019 Teaching Conversation in the Second Language Classroom: Problems and Prospects
8/22
23 6
Paul Sze
have
a
central
placein a conversation program (p.
79). This
was echoed
by
McCarthy (1991), who commented that
there
is no doubt that some
teachingmaterials are imba lanced between the two types of talk (p. 137).
The
Nature
of
Classroom Discourse
If second language materials seldom provide authentic conversational
samples, does classroom talk h elp? Research into the natu re of classroom
discourse (e.g., Coulthard, 1977; Holmes, 1983; Sinclair
and
Brazil, 1982)
has shown that most exchanges that happen in me classroom
follow
th e
teacher initiates
pupil responds
teacher com ments sequence.
Sinclairan d Brazil 's comprehensive s tudyo f teacher talk shows
that
stu-
dents have only very restricted opportunities toparticipate in thelanguage
of th eclassroom (p. 5) andthat the teacher dominates th etalk inquan-
tity, range,
anddegreeofcontrol (p. 7).
This
sequenceis
shaped
by the
role
ofteacher andthat of students in theclassroom (the teacher is the
authority figure) (see Gremmo, Holec an d Riley, 1985, for afuller discus-
sion),
th e
setting (the classroom requires students' obedience),
and the
relative knowledge level of the part icipants ( the teacher is the more
knowledgeab le person). Most classroom talk is concerned wi th pedagogi-
ca l
content
and not
wi th
th e teacher 's orstud ents ' real life experienceso r
feelings.
This meanstha t
al though
t heteacherisseemingly
talking
withth e
students, trying
to
involve
th e
students
as
mu c h
as
possible,
she is in
reality
talking at them (see Tsui, 1992, for a summ ary of the feat ures of teacher
talk). As a result , classroom discourse does not provide a model for stu-
dents to learn: (a) how to ini t ia te a conversat ion, (b) how to
nominate
topicsf orconversation,and vc) how to
initiate
exchanges duringaconver-
sation. This perhaps
explains
why the conversations between the ex-
aminer (a nauthority figure, usuallyateacher)and thecandidateinH K C E
English O ral testsoften sound more like interrogations than conversations.
Conversation andCommunicative Competence
One
migh t
argue: Is conversat ional competence that impor tan t? Is the
abili ty toconvey information asufficient goal fo r foreign language teach-
ing? H ow m any of our stude nts will really need to ma intain social relation-
ships in a foreign language? These questions about realistic goals are
certainly
important with respect
to an
ent ire foreign language programme
(Education Commission, 1995) and the teaching of the spoken language
-
7/26/2019 Teaching Conversation in the Second Language Classroom: Problems and Prospects
9/22
Teaching Conversation in theSecond Language
Classroom
23 7
(Brownan d Yule, 1983b).
T eachers
should always bear inmindthe needs
of their students and plan their programmes accordingly. Indeed, when
faced wi th
lo w
achievers, teachers
m ay
jus ti f iably accord priority
t o
w h a t
they consider to be the more
pressing
areas such as grammar,
vocabulary, and reading. H oweve r, one shou ld not lose sig ht of one of the
ultimate goals
of
second language instruction, which
is to
facilitate
learners'
acquisition
of communicative
competence (Faerch
and Kasper,
1983),
th e
ability
to
speak both accurately
an d
appropriately (Wolfson,
1989, p.36). ForHymes(1972), therea rerulesof use without whichth e
rules
of
grammar would
be
useless
(p .
45),
so
that t rue communicative
competence embraces knowing what to say to whom in what circumstan-
ces and how to say it. While priorities may vary from programme to
programme, appropriacy
of
language
us e
should
not be
dismissed
al -
together
from
second language teaching (Nolasco
an d
A rth ur, 1987,
p. 19).
Theinclusionof anoral
test
in the Advanced SupplementaryLevel
Use ofEnglish Examination from 1994 reflects th e
importance
that ex -
amination
bodies
attach to
speaking
abilities and, inparticular, conversa-
t ional competence. Part 2 of this test requires cand idat es to take part in a
group discussion for the p lann ingof aproject . This is not amere fluency
tes t , because the candidate who monopolizes the g roup discussion
will
in
fact bepenalized.I noth er words,th istest
involves
interpersonal in terac-
t ion and the candidates
will
therefore be assessed on much higher level
skillsofcomm unicative abil ites over an dabovepurely l inguist icabil i t ies ,
including
fluency, turn-taking, range of vocabulary and structures and
in tel l igibil i ty (Fullilove, 1992,
p .
143).
If languageis to be learntfo r communica t ion (Widdow son , 1978) so
that lingu istic competence alone is not enough , it is necessary to exam ine
wha t comm unicativ e competence embraces. W olfson (1989) pointed out
that
th e
notion
of
communicative
competence
by
Hymes
(1967,
1972)
has
often been misinterpreted in
second
language teaching, so that grammati-
ca l competence was regarded as something separate from communica t ive
competence instead of an intrinsic part of what speakers need to know in
order to communicate effectiv ely (p. 46). Th is has resulte d in approaches
that either ignore gram matical accuracy or treat the teach ing of wh at to
say towhom under what circumstances as something separate from work
on accuracy. Some methodologis ts have somewhat equated communica-
t ive competence with fluency or the ability to get one's meaning across
only.
-
7/26/2019 Teaching Conversation in the Second Language Classroom: Problems and Prospects
10/22
238
aul Sze
CanaleandSwain
(1980)
identified three components ofcommunica-
tive competence: grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence,
an d strategic competence. Under sociolinguistic competence are twosets
of
rules: sociocultural rulesof use andrulesofdiscourse:
Sociocultural rules
of use
will specify
th e
ways
in
which utterances
are
produced an d understood appropriately
with
respect to the component of
communicative events outlined
by Hymes.... The
primary focus
of
these
rules
is on the
extent
to
which certain propositions
an d
communicative
func-
tions
are
appropriate within
a
given
sociolinguistic
context depending
on
contextual factors such astopic, role of participants, setting, an dnormsof
interaction,
(p. 30)
Strategic competence consists of the verbal and nonverbal com-
munication
strategies
that
can
help learners
to
copewith
or
remedy break-
downs in communication which result
from
lack of proficiency in the
language (Canale &Swain, 1980, p. 30). Different typologies of com-
munication
strategies
have been
proposed
toAccountforwhatlearnersdo
: . . ; . . . . * * . ' *i n . - . . V
:
AV i - S - - . - >r/._,
when faced withalinguistic gap(e.g.,Faerch andKasper,1983; Tarone,
1977). Canale (1983) emphasized that th eframeworkof communicative
competence was to prepare an dencourage learners to exploit in an op-
t imal way
their limited communicative competence
in the
second language
in
order to participate in
actual
communica t ive situations (p . 17). T o
rephrase
th e
above
in
plain language,
a
person
w ho
communicates well
not
only knowswhat to say andwhen to say it, but also knows
what
to do
when
hedoesn't knowhow to saysomething. While thisiswidely recog-
nized
in L1(first
language) communicat ion(Cook, 1991,
p.
70).
th e
ques-
t ion
of how to
make
up for
lack
of
language
in L2
(second language)
communication
is
neglected
in
second language teaching. Faerch
an d
Kasper have argued
for the
need
to
foster learners' ability
to
apply com-
munication strategies sincenolanguage programmescanaddressall the
learners'
future
communicative needs. Cook suggested that while
we may
no t
need toteach communicat ive strategies directly, thisdoes no tmean
that
i t may not be
beneficial
fo r
students
to
have their attention drawn
to
them so
thatthey
are
reminded that these strategies
ca n
indeed
be
used
in
an
L2 as they formpartof thenormal repertoire oftheir communicative
competence
(p.
71). (See Bialystock, 1990, Chap.
8, for a
discussion
of
th e teachabili tyo fcommunicat ionstrategies.)
A second language teacher's job, hence, is to help learners attain
communicative
competence which consists
of the
abili ty
to
produce
-
7/26/2019 Teaching Conversation in the Second Language Classroom: Problems and Prospects
11/22
Teaching
Conversation
in the
SecondLanguage Classroom
23 9
grammatical
sentences,the
ability
to
communicate appropriately according
to
the
social
situation, and the ability to cope with gaps in their inter-
language. We can seethen
tha t
th edevelopmentofconversational com-
petence should not be treated as a low-priority concern. In the words
of Richards
and
Schmidt (1983), conversational competence
is
just
as
important
a
dimension
of
second language learning
as the
grammatical
competence which is the
focus
of much
formal
language Naming (p.
150).
Some methodologists have argued that given
the constraintsof the
classroom, communicative competence isunattainableinformalinstruction
(Jakobovits
&
Gordon,
1980).
Harmer (1983),
foi
example, argued that
a
more realistic aim for the classroom was communicative efficiency :
Here we will expect our students to be able to express what it is they wish to
say. In other words, if they wish to express disagreement we can ensure that
they areable to do so andthat their meaningisunderstood.... We are not
teachingourstudentsto bemodel EnglishmenorAmericans, etc.but to use
th e
tool
of theEnglish
language
to
communicate,
(p. 24)
While there is reason to be realistic
wi th
the
goals
of a language
programme,
an argument like the one put forward by Harmer is not
without problems. Af ter all, on e major reason fo r second language in -
s truction
is to
facilitate
intercultural
communica t ion .
T he
classroom
m ay
no t be an ideal place to develop sociolinguistic competence (Scarcella,
Anderson
and Krashen, 1990, p. 284), and not all learners are integra-
t ively motivated (Gardner and Lambert, 1972), but these are not reasons
fo r excluding sociolinguistic competence in alanguage programme. In
fact,
the
fourth
component in Canale an d Swain's (1980) framework,
strategic
competence,
is
vital even
to
communication between non-native
speakers. Scarcella (1990)hashighlightedspecifically th enegative
effects
on second language speakers that a lack of conversational competence
produces.
Nevertheless, communicativeefficiency
h as
come
to
dominate com-
municat iveapproaches
to
language teaching, both
in
terms
of
materials
designand classroom procedures.
Conversation and Communicative Language Teaching
Communica t ive
approaches
to
second language teaching have generally
increased the amount of speaking practice in the classroom. Activities such
-
7/26/2019 Teaching Conversation in the Second Language Classroom: Problems and Prospects
12/22
24 0 Paul Sze
as
information-gaptasks, games, role-plays, an d interviews, are usually
done orally. In the accuracy/fluency polarity
(Brumfi t ,
1984), such ac-
t ivit iesa re
us ually employed
for the
development
of
fluency.
In
respect
of
eachact ivi ty , success is measured by how accuratelyinformat ionh as been
conveyed, or how well a problem has been solved. In other words, many
communicative activities involve transactional language only (Brown
and
Yule,
1983b).
A tthe same time, it is common
practice
for materials and programm es
tha t claim
to be communicative to be
based
on a
notional-functional
syllabus
(e.g.,
Munby, 1978; Yalden, 1983).Different structures th at real-
ize a language function are grouped together and presented to learners
(e.g., Blundell, Higgens,
&
Middlemiss,
1982).
Although this approach
seemst ofacilitatet hedevelopment of conversational skills,theimplemen-
tation actually displays
a
number
ofproblems.
First,
it
gives
th e
learner
th e
false impression tha t there exists
a
one-to-
on ecorrespondence
between form
and
function.
Inreality,
this matching
is
no t
asstraightforward as one
might
haveimagined;
Sinclair
and Coulthard
(1992) exemplified with th e
interrogative What
are you laughing at?
(said
by a teacher to a student) and showed th at wheth er the utterance is to
be
interpreted
as a
genuine question
or a
warning
from th e
teacher depends
on
a host of factors, many of which are not linguistic (see also Holmes,
1983, for an
analysis
of children's interpretationof teacher 's directives) .
Nolasco and A rthur (1987) warned that any approach that leads students
to
equa teon epar t icular language form w itho ne par t icularfunction, will
lead to misunderstanding in conversation because an important require-
ment fo r success isbeing ablet o interpretintended speech acts correctly
(p. 8).Th is v iewwasechoed byMcC arthy (1991),w hoacknowledgedth e
necessity of showing learners the structures that serve a certain language
function bu t pointed out that most utterances in a language couldnot be
categorized into functions simply by their surface form, and that most
coursebooks were exemplifying a very small subset of form-function
matchesonly (p. 10).
Second, many of the communicative functions deal with social for-
mulas(Blundell , H iggens,
&
Middlemiss, 1982), su ch
as
asking
and
giving
direct ions, greeting someone, congratulating, thanking,
and so on, or in-
itiating specific actions, such as offering, accepting and refusing help,
asking and giving permission, and so on. While such expressions are
important, they are not enough for sustaining a conversation. Genuine
conversations require speakers to take longer turns
from
time to time.
-
7/26/2019 Teaching Conversation in the Second Language Classroom: Problems and Prospects
13/22
Teaching Conversation in the Second Language Classroom
24 1
Activities that practise social formulas only are not enough todevelop
students ' abili tytosustainaconversation (Brown&Yule,1983b).
Communica t ivelangu age eachin g also relies heavily
on
activities that
convey information
an d
m eaning .
A s
pointed
outearlier,
communicative
efficiency, or how much and how accurately a message has been con-
veyed,
is
often used
as the
yardstick
fo r
evaluating performance
on a
communicative task. Littlewood (1981)d istinguished between functional
comm unication activities
andsocial
interaction
activities.In
social
interac-
tion
activities, learnersmu st sti ll
aim to
convey meanings effectively,
bu t
must also
pa y
greater attention
to the
social context
in
which
the
interac-
tion takesplace
(p.
20). Nu nan(1989)em phasized
the
need
to
consider
th e
goal behind
an y
com mu nicat ive task.
The
goal provides
a
point
of
contact between
the
task
and the
broader curriculum
(p.
48). Nunan
has
drawn attention
to an
example
of
goal classification provided
by the
Australian
Language Levels project.
A s far as the
development
of
conver-
sational skills isconcerned, the following goals seem crucial to com-
mu nicative language teaching (Clark,1987): ' r * '
1. Establish an d main ta in interpersonal relationships, an d through
this
to
exchange info rmat ion, ideas , opinions, a t t i tudes ,
an d
feel-
ings,
and to get
t hing s done.
(p .
226)
2.
H ave some
unders tandingof how
interpersonal relations
are
con-
ducted in the target language speech com mu nity, (p. 229)
3. H ave some insight into the cultural traditions of the target lan-
guage com muni ty ,
(p .
229)
The
project recomm ended conversa t ion
an d
correspondence
in
order
to
establish
an d
maintain interpersonal relations.
T o
this end, activities
should
b e
organizedthatenab le learners
t o:
solve
problems through
social
interaction with
others, for example,
par-
ticipate in conversation related to the pursui t of a common activi ty with
others,
obtain
goodsandservicesandnecessary
information through
conver-
sation or correspondence, make arrangements andcome to decisions wi th
others; to establish and ma intain relationships and discuss topics of interest
through the exchang e of information, ideas, opinions, at t i tudes, feelings, ex-
periences,a nd
plans,
( p.
227)
In other words, opportunities should be created for learners to
engage
in
genuine conversa t ion. Conversa tions should
not be
used only
fo r
-
7/26/2019 Teaching Conversation in the Second Language Classroom: Problems and Prospects
14/22
242
Paul Sze
relaying information, practising structures or comm unicative functions
and developing flueuc y.
Pedagogical Considerations
While successful language learners have reported on their
strategies
fo r
improving communicative competence (Naiman, Frohlich,
Stern, &
Todesco,
1978), we know very lit t le about how conversational competence
can be developed in the classroom. Fo r instance, many of the skills re-
quired for Pan 2 of the oral test in the new A.S. Level Use of English
Examination, cannot be taugh t in a programmed or mechanistic way
because stud ents need to be aware not only of the linguistic features or
spoken discourse,
bu t also of
paralinguistic
and
extralinguistic,
or
proxemic, features (Ingham & Murphy, 1994, p. 92). Suggestions in
termsof classroom technique(e.g.,Ernst, 1994; Nolasco &Arthur, 1987),
methodological framework
(e.g., Littlewood, 1992), approach (e.g.^
Richards,
1990),
syllabus design
(e.g.,
Domyei
Thurrell 1994),and
general principles
(e.g.,
Scarcella, 1990) have been made,
bu t
there
are no
coherent
frameworks for
t eaching conversa t ion
an d
incorporating
it into a
general-purpose
second lang uage programme.
I nthisconcluding
section,
I
shall start
with
d iscuss ingth e main principles of teaching conversation.
Then I shall suggest a n u m b e r of classroom activi ties fo rdeveloping
students' conversational competence.
The
follow ing principles should
be
considered wh en teaching conver-
sation:
1. Do not
confuse
th e t eachingof conversationwi th other activities
that ar edone ora lly, suchaspro nunc iation drills, gramm ar drills,
language games, informat iong ap act ivi t ies, language
functions
incorporated in dialogues, etc.
2. D istinguish between speaking skills and conversation skills. In the
words of Nolasco and Arthur (1987), being able to speak
reasonably correct
an d
even fluent English
is one
thing. Being
able
to
engage
in
on-going, in teract ive, mental ly sat isfying con-
versation
is anoth er (p. 3).
3. Do not assume that all ofone's conversational competence in the
mother tonguei s t ransferableto a second language. Becauseof
cultural differences,
transfer
of features of first language conversational
competence
into
-
7/26/2019 Teaching Conversation in the Second Language Classroom: Problems and Prospects
15/22
Teaching
C onversation in the Second Language Classroom
24 3
English
... may
have much more serious consequences than errors
at
th e level of syntaxof s i c ] pro nuncia tion, because conversational com -
petence is closely related to the presenta t ionof self, that is , c om m uni -
cating
an image of ourselves to others. (Richards & Schmidt, 1983,
p.
150)
There
ar e
specific culturally appropriate skills
of
conversation
whichneed
to be
learnt,
as not all
such ski l ls
are
transferable
from
th e first language (Keenan, 1976). (For cultural differences in
conversational
skills, see, e.g., work
b y
Maynard, 1990,
on
back-
channel expressions; Testa, 1988, on interruptions; and Garcia,
1989,
on
politeness
in
apologies.)
4. If we accept that com mu nicative competence is theultimate goal
of language instruction, then sociolinguistic competence
an d
strategic competence should form part of any language
programme.
5. Aprogramme thatis based on afunctional/notional syllabusand
makes abundant use of speaking
activities
doesnot
necessarily
lead
t o
conversational
competence.
6. The
teaching
of
conversa t ion should
be
organized
and
should
form
a
coherent part
of the
ov eral l language programm e (N olasco
& Ar thur ,
1987;
see
Richards , 1990,
pp .
79-84,
fo r
suggest ions
for a
direct approach
to
teaching casual conversation;
see
Dornyei
Th urrell, 1994, for a suggested in vento ry of skills for a conver-
sation programme organized around conversational rules an d
structures, conversational strategies,
funct ions
and meaning in
conversation, social
an d
cul tural contexts).
7.
Studen ts should
be
m ade aware
of the
d ynamic na ture
of
conver-
sation.
A n
utterance
in a
conversation produces meaning
by
inter-
acting with other utterances in the conversation. Moreover, speech
acts
are
oftenmulti functional (Richards
&
Schmidt. 1983,
p.
126).
The
teaching
of
conversation
is
hence far more than
th e
parroting
of
dialogues (p. 126).
8. The interactional funct ion of language should not be neglected.
This means helping learners with strategies for casual conversa-
tion. Richards
(1990)
advocates a two-pronged approach wh ich
teaches conversation indirectly through interactive tasks and
directly through practice that focuses explicity on the skills of
conversation.
-
7/26/2019 Teaching Conversation in the Second Language Classroom: Problems and Prospects
16/22
24 4 PaulSze
Basedon theaboveprinciples, some classroom activities that develop
conversation skillsare now suggested:
1. Expose students to recordings of unscripted conversations be -
tween nat ive speakers.
If
such recordings cannot
be
obtained,
semiprepared conversations
such
as
interviews, forums,
and
phone-in talk shows
on the
radio
and
television, also provide
examplesof theskills ofconversat ion. Draw their at tent ion to the
conversation skills involved, suchasopeningandclosinga con-
versation (see Schegloff & Sacks, 1973), turn-taking (Sacks,
Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974), providing feedbackto thespeaker,
negotiat ing an d changing a topic (H atch , 1978), repairing
(Schegloff, Jefferson,&Sacks, 1977;see vanLier, 1988, Chap.7
fo r
adiscussion of developing repair skills in the classroom),
conversational routines (Pawley & Syder, 1983; Richards &
Sukwiwat, 1983),
and so
for th .
Ask
students suchquestions
as:
Ho
w
did
Speaker
A
indicatethat
he
wanted
to
speak?
What
didSpeakerB say to indicate thathewantedtofinishthe
conversation?
2.
Conversat ion involves nonve rbal s trategies . H ence,
the use of
video recordings should also be cons idered in conducting the
awareness-raising act ivi t ies me ntione d above.
3. M any second langu age learners
th ink
that (a) spoken English is
written English said aloud, and (b) utterances produced bynative
speakers are always perfectly organized and constructed (Lewis,
1993, n . 53). A s a resul t , they tend to overm oni tor their speech
(Krashen, 1982), or produce ut terances
wh ic h
ar ebookish . Show
students transcripts of
informal
conve rsat ion so they have a bet ter
idea of what spontaneous speech by nat ive speakers is like.
(Rings, 1992, suggested showing learners
a
transcript
of a
casual
conversation
and a
formal wr i t ten text
on the
same subject
fo r
comparison.) For instance, show students that interactional talk
consis ts not of complete gram matical u t terances , but of what
Bygate (1988) calls satelli te un i t s ,
wh ic h
are moodless u t terances
which lack a finite verb or verb group. Students will also realize
that authentic conversation is full of false starts , hesitations,
fillers, unfinished utterances, insertions, repeti tions, grammatical
deviations , and so on, and that nat ive speakers apply commun ica-
tion strategies whe n the y are lost for words
-
7/26/2019 Teaching Conversation in the Second Language Classroom: Problems and Prospects
17/22
TeachingConversation in the Second Language Classroom 24 5
4. Eve n in conversations that reallypractise language form or func-
t ion,have stud ents practise asking questions after they hav e made
arespon se. This practises th e important skillo f sustainingacon-
versa tion(Holmes & Brow n, 1976).
5.
C ondu ct awareness activities that help students
to
interpret
th e
speech act of anutteranceor theintentionof the speaker-
H ow
do w e know that Mr Wong
didn't
really w ant to go to th e
party?
Was the teacher scolding Peter when sh e said Why are you
laughing ?
What did Mr Chan say that showed that he did not agree with
Miss Lam?
(See Nolasco an d Arthur, 1987, Section2, for sample awareness
activities.)
6.
Teach expressions
fo r
taking part
in
pairwork/grou pwork early
in
th e programme,
so
that students
can use
them
in communicative
activities(see Klippel, 1984, p. 194, for alistofsampleexpres-
sions). Communicative activities, besides their use for fluency
work,
provide opportuni t iesto r pract is ing sociol inguis t icallyap -
propriatebehaviours .
7. A f luency activity may be attempted twice. In the
first
a t t empt ,
s tudents concentrate on conveying meaning . In the second at -
tempt, they repeat the activity, paying special attention to ap-
propriacy of language. (See Richards, 1990, pp . 81-84, for a
sample teaching sequence thatdevelopsboth th etransactionalan d
in teract ionaluse of languagethrough commu nica t ive t a sks .)
Conclusion
The current skills orientation to second language teaching, coupled with
th e view of teaching language fo r communica t ion , has led to increased
attention to the teaching of speaking skills in the classroom. However,
fluency inspeech is
often
inad vertently confused with conversational com-
petence. Even materials that purport to develop conversation skills are
often a far cry
from what
naturally
occurring conversation
is
like.
A s
Richards
a ndSukwiwat(1983)put it :
Theories of how we teach conversation reflect our view of what conversation
is. Conversation is
often
defined very narrowly as the oral exchange of
-
7/26/2019 Teaching Conversation in the Second Language Classroom: Problems and Prospects
18/22
24 6 PaulSze
-information.ESL/EFL materialsoften focuson thefinished productof the act
of
comm unication, rather thanon theprocesses
that
underlie conversational
discourse,
(p .
124)
A s a consequence, learners w ho have gone through several yearsof
information gap tasks may not be able to carry out a simple casual conver-
sation
in the
target language. This paper began with
a
quotation
from the
Examiners' Report of the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Exam.
(HKEA,
1993),
which pointed
to the
appalling state
of
candidates' conver-
sationalcompetence.
A t the
same time,
from
1994, candidates
who sit for
th e
Advanced Level Examinat ion will
find
their conversational skills
tapped even further
as
they have
to
carry
out a
conversation among them -
selves in small groups,wi thno participation of the oral exam iner. The oral
skillstestedinclude seekingunderstandingandclarification throu gh ques-
tioninganddiscussion an d using appropriate interaction skills (HKEA,
1994). This development
is a
further sign
of the
importance that second
language,instruction attaches to conversational
competence.
However,
much more thoughthas to begivento the teaching ofconversationin the
second language classroom, if we are to stop condemning students for
failing
to
speak beyond Yes
an d
No.
This paperh ashighlighted someof thecharacteristicso fconversation-
al discourse, an d pointed ou t that classroom talk between teacher an d
students, and the
st ilted dialogues
in
second language
learning
materials,
are not conducive to developing learners ' conversational competence. It
ha s
argued
fo r
keeping conversational competence
as a
goal
fo r
second
language teaching. It has suggested some principles and techniques for
teaching
conversa t ionin theclassroom. Yet, second language specialists
havet ocontinuetosearchfor acoherentframework fo rte aching conversa-
tion
and for integrating i t into ageneral-purpose programm e.
References
Austin,J.(1962).How to dothingsw ith words.Oxford: C larendon Press.
Bialystock,
E.(1990).
Comm unicationstrategies.
Oxford:
Basil
Blackwell .
Blundell, J., Higgens, J., & Middlemiss, N .(1982).FunctioninEng lish.Oxford:
Oxford University
Press.
Bowen, J . D. ,
M adsen,
H., &
Hilferty,
A .
(1985).
TESOL:
Techniques
an d
proce-
dures.Boston, MA: H einle &
H einle .
Boyle,
J., &
Falvey,
P .
(Eds.). (1994).English language
testing
in Hong Kong.
HongKong:TheChineseU niversity Press.
-
7/26/2019 Teaching Conversation in the Second Language Classroom: Problems and Prospects
19/22
Teaching
Conversation in the Second La nguag e Classroom
247
Brown,
G., &
Yule,
G.
(1983a).
Discourse analysis.
Cambridge: Cambridge
Univers i tyPress.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983b).
Teaching the spoken language: An approach
based on the analysis of conversational English.
Cambridge: Cambridge
Univers i ty
Press.
Brumfi t ,
C .
(1984). Communicative methodology in language teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Bygate ,
M .
(1988).Speaking.
Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Canale,
M. (1983).
From communicative
competenceto communicative
language
pedagogy.
In J. C.
Richards
& R. W.
Schmidt (Eds.),
Language
and
com-
munication
(pp.2-27).
London:
Lo n gman .
Canale,
M., &
Swain ,
M.
(1980). Theoretical
basesof communicative approaches
to
second language teaching
and
testing.
Ap plied Linguistics,
7(1), 1-47.
Clark,
J. L. (1987). Curriculum renewal
in
school foreign langauge learning.
Oxford:
Oxford U niversityPress.
Cook, V. (1991).
Second language learning and language teaching.
London:
Edward Arnold.
Coulthard,M.(1977).An
introduction
to
discourse ana lysis.
London:
Longman.
Curriculum
Development Committee.
(1981).Syllabusesfor English: P.I to P.6.
H ong
Kong: Government Printer.
Curr iculum D evelopme nt Com mi t tee . (1983) .
Syllabus for English: Forms J-V.
H ong
Kong : Governm ent P r in ter .
Curr icu lum
Development Counci l . (1994) .
Target Oriented Curriculum: Pro-
grammeo f
study
for En glish language.
H ong Kong: Government P r in ter.
Doff,
A .
(1988). Teach English: A training course for teachers
Trainer's hand-
book.
Cambridge: Cambridge Universi tyPress.
Dornyei, Z., & Thurrell , S.
(1994).
Teaching conversational
skills
intensively:
Course
con ten tan d
ra t ionale .
E LT
Journa l, 48(1),
4049.
Educat ion Co m mi s s i o n . ( 19 9 5 ).
Education Com mission Report
No. 6. H o n g
K ong :Go v ern men tPrinter.
Ernst, G. (1994). Talking Circle : Conversation and negotiation in the ESL
classroom.
TESOL Quarterly, 28(2),
293-322.
Faerch,
C., &
Kasper,
G.
(1983). Plans
and
strategies
in
foreign language com-
munica t ion . In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.),
Strategies in interlanguage
communicat ion
(pp.20-60). London: Longman.
Ful l i love , J. (1992).T he
tail
tha t wags .Institute of Language in Education Jour-
nal 131-147.
Garcia, C . (1989). Apologies inEng lish: Poli teness s trategies used by nat ivean d
non-na t ivespeakers.
Multi l ingua, 8(1),
3-20.
Gardner ,
R. C. , & Lamber t , W. E . (1972) .
Attitudes an d m otivation in second
language learning.
R o wl ey , M A : N ew b u ry Ho u se .
Goffman, E. (1976). Replies and responses.
Language in Society, 5,
257-313.
-
7/26/2019 Teaching Conversation in the Second Language Classroom: Problems and Prospects
20/22
24 8
Paul
S ze
Gremmo,M . J.,H olec,H ., &Riley,P .
(1985).Interactional structure:
T he
role
of
role.
In P.
R iley (Ed.),Discourseandlearning
(pp. 35-66).
London: Longman.
Grice, H. P . (1975 ). Logic and co nversat io n. In P. Cole & J . M organ(Eds.),Syntax
an d semantics: Vol.
3.
Speech acts(pp. 41-58).N ewYork: AcademicPress.
H armer, J. (1983).
Th e
practice of English language teaching. London: Longman.
Hatch ,
E. M.
(1978). Discourse analysis,
an d
second language acquisition.
In
E. M.H atch (Ed.),S econd language acquisit ion(pp. 401-435). Rowley, M A :
N e wb u r yHouse .
Holme*,J .
(1983).
T hestructureof
teachers'
directives. In J. C.Richards & R . W.
Schmid t (Eds.). Language an d communicat ion
(pp. 89-113).
London:
Longman.
Holmes,
J., &
Brown,
D. F .
(1976). Developing sociolinguistic competence
in a
second language.
TESO L Quarterly,
10,423-431.
Hong Kong Ex amina t ions Author i ty .(1993). Exam iners' report on the Hon g
Kong
Certificate of
Education Exam. 1992. Hong Kong: Author.
Hong Kong Examinations Authority.(1994). Hong Kong Advanced Level Ex-
amination: Regulations
a nd
syllabuses. Hong Kong: Author.
Howe,D. H., Kirkpatrick,T. A., &
Kirkpatrick,
D. L.(1987),Access today 3.
Hong Kong: Oxford University
Press.
Hymes, D. H. (1967).
Models
of the
in terac t ion
o f
language
an d
social setting.
Journal
of
S ocial Issues. 23(2),8-28,
H y m e s ,
D . H .
(1972). Models
of
in terac t ion
of
language
a nd social
life.
In J. J.
Gumperz & D. H.
H y m e s
(Eds.) ,
Directions
in
sociolingu istics:
The
ethnog-
raphy
of
communicat ion (pp. 35-71). N ew York: Hol t , Rinehart an d
Wins ton .
Ingham,
M., &
M u r p h y ,
M .
(1994).
T he
performace principle: Towards
a
more
act ive role in the Hong Kong Engl ishclassroom. Institute of Language in
Education,
11.92-98.
Jakobovits, L. , &
Gordon,
B .
(1980). Language teaching
vs. the
teaching
of
talk.
International JournalofPsycholinguistics, 6(4),5-22.
Jefferson,G . (1972). Side sequence. In D. Sudn ow(Ed.),S tudies insocial interac-
tion(pp.
294-338).
EnglewoodCliffs,N J: Prentice Hall .
Keenan, E. O. (1976). On the un iversal ity of conversat ional postulates.Language
in
Society,
5,67-80.
Klippel ,
F .
(1984). Keep talking: Comm unicative fluency a ctivities for lan guage
teaching.
C ambr idge: Cambr idge Un ivers i tyPress.
Krashen,
S. D.
(1982). Principles and practice in second langauge acquisition.
Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Lewis , M. (1993).The lexical approach: Th e state of ELT and a way forward.
Hove,England:L anguage T eaching Publ ica t ions.
Li t t lewood , W. (1981) . Communicat ive language teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge
Universi ty Press.
-
7/26/2019 Teaching Conversation in the Second Language Classroom: Problems and Prospects
21/22
Teaching
Conversation in the Second Languag e Classroom 249
Litt lewood, W. (1992).
Teaching oral communication: A methodological
framework. Oxford: Blackwell.
Long,
M. H., &
Pouer,
P. A.(1985).
Group work, interlanguage talk
and
second
l anguage
acquisition.
TESOL Quarterly, 19(2),207-228.
Maynard, S.
(1990).
Conversation management in contrast: Listener response in
Japanese and American English.
Journal of Pragmatics, J4(3),
397-412.
McCarthy,
M.
(1991).
Discourse analysis
for
langauge teachers.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
U niversity
Press.
Methold,
K., &
Tadman,
J.(1990). New integrated English 3
(2nd ed,). Hong
Kong:
Longman
Group
(F.E.)Ltd.
Munby,
J.
(1978).
Communicative syllrbus design.
Cambridge: Cambridge
Universi ty
Press.
Naiman,
N.,Frohlich,M.,
Stem,
H. H., &Todesco,A.(1978).Thegood language
learner.Toronto,
Canada:Ontario Insti tu te for Studies in Education.
Nolasco,
R., &
Arthur,
L.
(1987).
Resource books
for
teachers: Conversation.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
N una n ,D.(1989).Designing tasksfor the communicative classroom.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversity Press.
Nunan ,D.(1991).Langua ge teaching methodology:Atextbookfor teachers.New
York:Prentice
Hall.
Pawley, A . , &
Syder,
F . H .
(1983).
T w o
puzzles
fo r
l ingui s t i c
theory : N at ivel ike
selection
an d
nativelike
fluency. In J . C .
Richards
& R . W. Schmid t
(Eds.),
Language and communicat ion
(pp.191-225).London: Longm an.
Richards,
J. C. (1977). Answers to yes/no
ques t ions . ELT Journal, 31(2),
136-
141.
Richards,
J. C. (1990).The language teaching matrix.
Cambridge: Cambridge
Universi tyPress.
Richards, J. C., & Schmid t , R. W. (1983). Conversational analysis . In J. C.
Richards
& R. W. Schmid t (Eds . ) ,
Language and communicat ion
(pp. 117-
154). London: Longm an.
Richards, J . C., & Sukw iwat, M. (1983). L anguage t ransfer and conversat ional
competence.Applied Lin guistics, 4(2),
113-125.
Rings,
L. (1992).
Authentic spoken texts
as
examples
of
language variation:
Gramm atical , s i tuational,
and
cultural teaching models.
IRAL, 30(1),21-33.
Rivers, W., & Tem perley, M. (1978).
A practical g uide to the teaching of English
as a second or foreign language.
N ew York : Oxford Univers i ty
Press.
Sacks, H . (1972). On the analysabil i ty of s tories by c hi ldren. In J. J . Gumperz
D . H .
H ymes (Eds .) ,
Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography
of
com-
munication (pp.
325-45).
New York : Hol t , Rinehar t and W ins ton .
Sacks,H .,
Schegloff,
E. A., &
Jefferson,
G .
(1974).
A
simplest systematics
for the
organisation of
turn
ta king for conversation.
Language,
50,696-735.
Sato,
C. J .
(1986). Conversation
an d in te r language
development : Rethink ing
th e
-
7/26/2019 Teaching Conversation in the Second Language Classroom: Problems and Prospects
22/22
25 0 PaulS ze
connection. In R. R. Day (Ed.) , Talking to learning: Conversat ion in second
language
acquisition(pp.23-45).Rowley,
MA:
New bury House .
Scarcella,
R. C.(1990).Comm unication difficul t iesin
second
language produc-
t ion,developm ent, and instruction. In R. C. Scarcella, E. S. Anderson, & S. D .
Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicat ive competence in a second language
(pp.337-352).Boston,MA:HeinleandHeinle.
Scarcella,
R. C.,
Anderson,
E. S., &
Krashen,
S. D.
(Eds.).
(1990).
Developing
communicat ive competence in a second language.
Boston,
MA:
Heinle
and
Heinle.
Schegloff,
E. A.
(1972).
Noteson aconversational
practice:
Formulating place.In
D. Sudnow (Ed.) , Studies in social interaction (pp.75-119).N e w Y or k : T h e
Free Press.
Schegloff,E. A., &Sacks,H.
0973).
Openingupclosings.Semiotica,
289-327.
Schegloff, E. A . ,
Jefferson,
G., & Sacks, H .
(1977).
T he
preference
fo r
self-
correction
in theorganisation of
repair
inconversation. Language,53,361-82:
Searle,J. R.
(1969).
Speech acts.Cambridge: Cambridge U niversity
Press.
Sinclair,
J. M., &
Brazil,
D.
(1982).
Teacher talk.
O xford: Oxford Univers ity
Press.
Sinclair, J.,
Coulthard,M. (1992). Towards an analysisof discourse. In M.
Coulthard (Ed.),
Advances
in
spoken discourse analysis
(pp.
1-34).
London:
Routledge &
K e g a n P a u l .
Swain , M. (1985). Com mu nica tive competence: Some roles of comprehensible
inpu t an d comprehensible output in itsdevelopment . In S.Gass & C .Madden
(Eds.), Input
in
second language acquisi t ion (pp.
235-253). Ro wl e y ,
M A :
N e wb u r yHouse .
Tarone, E. (1977). Conscious co mm unic atio n strategies: A progress report . In
H. D.
Brown,
C.
Yorio,
& R.
Crymes (Eds.) , On T ES O L 1 9 77
(p.
197).
Washington ,
DC: TESOL.
Testa, R . (1988). Interruptive strategies in Engl ish an d
I tal ian
conversa t ion:
Smooth versus contrast ivelinguis ticpreferences.M ulti lingua, 7(3),285-312.
Tsu i , A. B. M. (1991). Sequencing rules an d coherence in discourse.
Journal of
Pragm atics, 15(2), 111-129.
Tsui ,A. B. M.
(1992).
Classroom discourse analysis in ESL teacher education.
Institute
of Languagei nEducation Journal , 9,
81-96.
Tsu i ,
A . B. M. (1993). English conversat ion.O xford: Oxford U nivers i ty Press.
va nL ier , L .
(1988).
The classroom and the languag e learner.London: Longman.
Widdowson , H. (1978). Teaching language as communicat ion. Oxford: Oxford
Universi ty Press.
Wolfson , N . (1989). Perspect ives: Sociol inguist ics and TESOL. New York:
N e wb u r yH ouse.
Yalden,J. (1983).T he comm unicat ive syl labus: Evo lut ion, design and implemen-
tation.
Ox ford: Pergamon.