SOUNDING LIKE A NATIVE SPEAKER (NS): What for?

Articulo publicado en:

ENLETAWA Journal. No. 2. 2009.
Revista de la Maestria en Docencia de Idiomas
Universidad Pedagogica y Tecnologica de Colombia


Abstract

This paper attempts to re-evaluate one of the 20th century language teaching principles that states that the goal of language teaching is to become as close as possible to the native speaker (NS). Although the NS has become an unavoidable term of comparison in the context of second language acquisition (SLA), this essay argues that the image of the NS becomes a subjective model impossible to replicate or accomplish as a teaching goal. NSs display varied levels of L1 competence, knowledge or proficiency, for example, hard to define, achieve or assess as part of the task of language teaching. This paper also attempts to approach the current debate of usage of English that has broken down the barriers of geographical limits or a nation-linguistic right to serve to the purposes of world-wide users. An effective L2 user is also proposed as an alternative for the Colombian situation.

Este ensayo intenta reevaluar uno de los principios de la enseñanza del siglo XX que establece que el una de las metas de la enseñanza de las lenguas es aproximarse al máximo al hablante nativo (HN). Aunque el HN ha sido un tema de comparación difícil de evitar en el contexto del aprendizaje de la segunda lengua, este documento plantea que la imagen del HN se constituye en un modelo subjetivo difícil de reproducir o alcanzar como meta de enseñanza. Los HNs demuestran diferentes de niveles de competencia, conocimiento o proficiencia de la L1, por ejemplo, lo cual es difícil de definir, alcanzar o evaluar en la tarea de enseñar la lengua. Este ensayo además intenta aproximarse al debate actual del uso del Ingles que ha sobrepasado los límites de las barreras geográficas o de propiedad exclusiva de algunos paises, para servir a los propósitos de hablantes del todo el mundo. Se sugiere un hablante efectivo como alternativa para el contexto Colombiano.


Key Words: Second Language Acquisition.

Palabras Clave: Adquisición de la Segunda Lengua

1. Introduction

Although everybody is an NS in his own right, the first account of the concept seems to appear in Bloomfield (1933) who states that ‘the first language a human being learns to speak is his native language’ (p. 43). Although it does not include situations where a child acquires two languages simultaneously or a language that is ‘acquired later’ (Lee, 2005: p. 154) the concept of the NS has since then become a subject of analysis and research (Davis, 1991; Ellis, 1993). Being an NS has been widely accepted as something naturally inherited and where a second chance, to accept or reject it, does not exist. It simply means that an NS ‘is an unalterable historic fact’ (Cook, 1999: 185). But if a native language is a property shared by all human beings (I do not want to exclude people with articulatory or hearing limitations for example), the story of second language learning (SLL) has a different interpretation. There is always a topic of debate when scholars, researchers, practitioners or evaluators have to define, report, teach or assess an L2 learner. Categories such as bilingual, native-like, competent, advanced, intermediate, beginner, successful or incompetent are commonly a matter of identification.

There is an unavoidable distinction when categorising a speaker of a language in terms of native or non-native. These two labels have echoed plenty of expectations, models to follow or teaching and learning directions. The image of the NS is then a paradigm that has been going round and round in second language pedagogy. The NS is acknowledged as one who: masters the rules of L1 subconciously, is able to succeed in almost all the communicative settings or is fluent in discourse, among many others (Stern, 1983; Davids, 1995). Those features are undoubtedly over-generalised and make no distinction among natives in spite of obvious differences in language capabilities. On the other hand, a non-native speaker (NNS) is invariably acknowledged as somebody who is linguistically inferior in comparison with an NS. Even if he has a very good command of the target language, not being born as a member of the target language community creates certain sense of category discrimination.

While an NS becomes an ideal model for SLL, an NNS is seen as an user always being a subject for perfection. It has created, in my opinion, a big gap in the way the idea has been treated in SLA. If there is almost a unique chance to become an NS - with the only exception of bilingual children who acquire two languages simultaneously- there is no point comparing L2 users within the same parameters of the NS. Former and current foundations that have arisen from second language acquisition research have extensively theorised about the process of L2 learning (see for example Krashen, 1981a; Krashen, et al. 1982; Myles & Mitchell, 1998; Pienemann, 1998; Cook, 2001), claimed that if the process of learning the L1 is significantly different from the one undertaken in L2, an L2 learner cannot sound like a native and it is simply a paradox that subjugates the potential of language learning to such an unachievable goal.

The NS becomes a subjective model impossible to replicate or accomplish as a teaching goal. If NSs display varied levels of L1 competence, knowledge or fluency, for example, (Rampton, 1990), it is hard to decide on what to achieve. Even if it is taken for granted that the NS is a perpetual user by right of the L1, an NS as a language model becomes a subjective concept hard to define and to accomplish in its own nature. Furthermore, while the views of an NS look at linguistic components most of the time, an L2 learner offers a more complex dimension including social, cognitive and multicultural magnitudes that could not be easily subjugated to the acquisition of native-like paramenters of subjective proficiency. People learn languages for different resasons and purposes beyond the restrictions of communicating with NSs exclusively. There is a new reality to approach in language teaching: a world-wide community of users of English who have broken down the barriers of imposed linguistic geographical limits and use it as a lingua franca which serves multiple dimensions without any concern whether the speaker is a native or a non-native ( Firth, 1996; Gnutzmann, 1999; Seidlhofer, 2003).

This paper briefly approaches the paradox of sounding like an NS as an aim for language teaching and supports the construct that it has ‘little meaning as a L2 goal’ (Cook, 2007: 240). Different alternatives have been suggested that could significantly represent a further step in moving from subjective achievements towards a more accomplished reality. Terms such as ‘proficient user’ (Paikeday, 1985); ‘language expert’ (Rampton, 1990); ‘multicompetent user’ (Cook, 1991); ‘competent language user’ (Lee, 2005) have emerged as constructs for theoretical re-evaluation. I do not attempt to enlarge the list by suggesting terminology and rather intend to expand on teaching goals that take into account Colombian needs, for example, a context where being able to use the language becomes much more relevant than measuring it in terms of sounding like a native. The Colombian Ministry of Education has adopted the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFRL). Most of the criteria for the ‘recognition’ of a competent L2 user have a strong connection to how close or distant to an NS the user is. ‘To have no difficulty in understanding any kind of spoken language, whether live or broadcast, even when delivered at fast native speed’ (www.coe.int/T/DG4/Linguistic/Source/Framework.EN.pdf).

This paper first revises some general theoretical constructs from the perspective of a research background, then describes the Colombian teaching situation and intends to support the argument of the paradox of sounding like an NS in such a context and finally draws some conclusions as a general contribution with the intention of furthering the debate of this 20th teaching and learning principle.

2. Research background

How to understand the processes, variables or strategies in SLA has always been a matter of theoretical and research consideration (Corder, 1967; Bayley, et al. 1974; Ellis, 1985b; Gass, 1996; Cook, 2001). While first language acquisition has been seen by linguists as a complex system that includes the analysis of phonologic, syntactic, morphologic, semantic or lexic levels, for example, some others have focused on the kind of connection between grammar and meaning (Chomsky, 1975; Firth cited in Stubbs, 1996). It has undoubtedly influenced the conception of second language teaching and learning. In fact, the linguistic or communicative emphasis, that have characterised former and current trends and directions in SLA, have been determined by the prevalent construct of the particular epoch.


While the mastering of linguistic forms and model structures centralised the efforts of the L2 classroom by the 50’s and 60’s, some strong similarities between the process undertaken in L1 and L2, that were found by the 70’s, influenced SLL strongly (Myles & Mitchell, 1998). The birth of error analysis, studies of morpheme sequences and Krashen’s monitor model have undoubtedly marked both, SLA research and classroom practices. Krashen’s theory is still a great source of contentious debate. The researchers of the late 80’s and 90’s divorced themselves from previous findings and went on a more autonomous framework of reference. Issues such as language and cognition, studies of neuro and psycholinguistics or sociocultural domains have enriched and enlarged the foundations of SLA. The beginning of the new century has seen expansion on crucial facts where issues such as competence, language user, NS vs NNS as a teaching and learning paradigm, classroom interaction, the post-method era, corpus linguistics, content language integrated learning –CLIL- or the perspective of English as a lingua franca are central in SLA research and classrom experiences.

The image of an NS has explicitly or implicitly guided most of the SLA directions. When language learning was hypothetised as a complex system of structure mastery in the early 50’s, the methodology of L2 turned its attention to linguistic forms as a paramount goal to be achieved. Plenty of instructional materials and the proliferation of audio-equipment in the form of expensive language-laboratories, for example, were some of the expressions of language classrooms. Teacher training was carefully planned with the intention of achieving a native-like linguistic command. Learners were also expected to be as close as possible to the parameters of natives. The audiolingual method signalled an epoch where successful language learning was ruled by the acquisition of the skills that a standard NS possesses.

A second influential SLA theory accounted for more cognitive-oriented perspectives. The learner was viewed ‘as an autonomous actor, processing language data available in the environment’ (Myles & Mitchell, 1998: 121). The binomial connotation of ‘input-output’ was assumed to explain the process of SLA. Once again, the efforts of the language classroom turned to this direction. Although the image of the NS was not explicitly highlighted, it drove most of the teaching goals indirectly. Fluency development retrieved, to some extent, the image of the NS. A new theory turned the attention of theoreticians and practioners towards the hypothesis that SLA was driven by ‘the urge to communicate meanings, in social settings’ (Ibid). This particular view of SLL also paved the road for classroom actions and achievements. Although the image of the NS dropped significantly as a teaching goal, the functional/pragmatic study of learners’ interlanguage revived its image behind the learning and teaching scenario. The way learners cope with the demands of communication forms part of some of the framework of this theoretical construct.

To view SLA as the result of social processes that are determined by interaction was crucial in the theory of SLL. Michael Long in the early 80’s stated that in order to understand the effect of input - as Krashen’s input hypothesis claimed - the interactions for the negotiation of meaning, in which learners were engaged, were also crucial. This new perspective of SLA led plenty of research studies (Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991; Pica, 1994). The image of the NS served again as a point of reference. In fact, Long, in his doctoral research conducted a study of face-to-face oral tasks to analyse the interaction that resulted from NS-NS exchange in comparison to those of NS-NNS. Although some similarities were found, some distinctive differences were also identified. It reveals to some extent that the model of the NS is a task almost impossible to achieve as a goal for SLL.

This simplied overview of the background of SLA research portrays an image of a NS that is difficult to avoid in language teaching. Nevertheless, the argument of this paper speculates that sounding like an NS is a paradox hard to accomplish as a teaching goal. It seems to me that some of the distinctive components to measure SLL to the parameters of a NS are concerned with the learner’s mastering of grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation, among others. Although research on the L2 learner’s grammar has been extensively hypothesised, pronunciation, vocabulary and writing have not been a focus of attention (Cook, 2001: 46). In the case of pronunciation, Cook provides a good set of phoneme samples which are very close to each other and that are the cause of trouble for many L2 users, like ship and sheep, for example. Although he asserts that ‘the habit of producing the sound /I/ is acquired by repeating it over and over again and by being corrected when it is said wrongly’ (p. 48), my experience as a L2 learner first, and as a language teacher secondly, has showed me something different. There is no doubt that the problem can be substantially improved by repeating it several times, but it does not work for every single learner, or not with the same effectiveness, at least. If the problem is overcome in several occurrences of the phoneme, it does not mean that it is going to happen every single time that it arises. With such a vast source of problems, the chance of sorting most of them out is simply an impossibility. Because of the limits of this paper in terms of word-length, I can not expand on even more complex matters, such as stress or intonation which are sometimes even harder to tackle. This reality forces me to claim how teachable pronunciation could be and if the potential of teaching could be disminished to achieve native-like pronunciation, a task rarely targeted.

With the acquisition of vocabulary or the writing system, the gap between NS and NNS is substantially large. If the chance to shorten it is rather complex, the task of language teaching has to focus on more tangible achievements. Being aware of the possibilities and impossibilities of the classroom is something that teachers and course planners will be more concerned about. Every learner is a resourceful, creative and effective L2 user in his own right and there is no need to compare his ability to somebody external to his needs, somebody isolated in a paradigmatic and controversial definition as an NS. The so-called NNS possesses far much more attributes than a monolingual. Cook (2002: 5-24) mentions some of the distinctive ‘characteristics of L2 users’. His attributes include, among others, the ability of ‘code-switch from one language to another; the L2 user’s knowledge of their first language is in some respects not the same as that of a monolingual; L2 users have different minds from monolinguals’. Although research has also drawn conclusions about L2 users who ‘ had slight cognitive deficits on certain tasks compared with monolinguals’, for example (Magiste, 1986; Ransdell and Fischler, 1987 cited in Cook, 2002: 8), the NNS deserves attention for his own capacities which are far beyond the nature of the monolingual.

In summary, although the NS has always been quoted in the theoretical background of influencial SLL research as something worthy of attention, the argument of this paper states that sounding like a native is not a priority. I also claim for an efficient user who should be able to cope with a new reality where English is used for different reasons within a worlwide community. The frontiers and inheritance that a few nations presumed to own, now seem to be overcome.

3. An effective L2 user: an achievable goal for SLL in Colombia

The two previous sections in this paper have highlighted the big gap that exists between an NS and an NNS. It has also set out the paradox of sounding like a native in SLL. This study also attempts to approach the current debate of L2 usage that has collapsed the barriers of geographical limits to serve to the purposes of a world-wide community of users. The use of English by a permanently increasing number of new speakers has led to approaching a new reality which is recognised under the label of World Englishes (WEs) or English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) (Jenkis, 2006). Jenkis also states that in the case of WEs its definition includes ‘covering all varieties of English worlwide’ or ‘to refer to the so-called new Englishes in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean’ (p: 159). On the other hand ELF seems to expand also on terms such as English as an international language. To one extent or an other, what seems to be clear now is that English is now used anywhere by speakers who have no concern whether their counterparts are native or non-native. How to understand it in the light of a new social and political re-configuration of the world could be an enrichable path to follow.

The Colombian situation is not far away from such a reality. Some institutions are proud of having NSs as members of their staff and some others advertised American or British models for language achievements. The Colombian Ministry of Education has prioritised two basic SLL directions: the adoption of the CEFRL and the national programme of bilingualism (www.mineducacion.gov.co). The first is adopted as an official yardstick to measure learners’ proficiency, and the second as a 10 year long term process for ‘a bet on the country we all desire’ - the bilingual education programme, public policies for foreign language education – (Ibid). Although the NS is not used explicitly, his image underlies as the benchmark to judge target language achievements. The effects of the policy have significantly influenced the curriculum, the teacher training programmes and the teaching and learning goals.

Some assumptions related to the image of an NS as a political imposition has also to be part of the debate. There is no doubt that the U.S.A and England have extensevely dominated the SLL scenario. Having a look at SLL materials, for example, the model of the NS is always British or American. There are no references to Australians, New Zealanders, Scottish, Irish, South Africans or Jamaicans. There are also implicit models of ‘idealised’ pronunciation and language use. That not entirely truthful NS model leads me to re-evaluate its convenience as a teaching goal for Colombian L2 learners. Because of political and economic dependence on America, the Colombian learner is always tied to a steoretyped model of society. Countries with equal cultural and lingustic rights – Jamaica, Belize, Trinidad and Tobago or the Caiman Islands - are never introduced as part of the multicultural competence of an L2 learner. Those learning environments could be even easier to reach because they are geographically closer to Colombia.

The Colombian L2 learners are located in an area where face-to-face contact with an NS is scarcely possible. If they have no chance to meet NSs very often, our teaching concern should be directed towards an effective L2 user able to cope with the demands of worldwide communication. Hundred of thousands of users of English meet on the internet for different reasons – business, entertainment, study or tourism – every day. The percentage of NSs is significantly lower than NNSs who engage in active and successful language use. Nobody cares whether each single interaction is properly accomplished or not, according with the parameters of the CEFRL, for example. The Colombian L2 learners are never tested by international users from Tokyo, Manila, Milan, Kiev, Berlin or Stambul. They are not asked to re-sit exams and are not categorised with labels such as C1, C2, B2, B1, A3 either (look at the standards of the CEFRL). There are also underlying principles of negotiation for meaning and cooperation. In such a context, I can see neither the reason nor the need for a Colombian learner to sound like a native.

Another interesting reference has to deal with the expectations or interactions that Colombian learners are going to face and what they need the L2 for. Cook (2002: 329) states a list of ‘multi goals of language teaching’ which includes, among others:

• a vehicle to self-development,
• a method of training new cognitive processes,
• a way-in to the mother tongue,
• the way of promoting intercultural undersanding and peace.

If the Colombian authorities, scholars, researchers, in-service and pre-service teachers engage through a course of discussion and re-evaluation of the current and future policies, a more promising SLL environment could emerge.

An efficient L2 user might then cope with the demands of a new era where SLL forms part of a new reality that should highlight a peaceful understanding and cooperation as a paramount target. An efficient L2 user is conceived in this paper as somebody who:

• shows motivation and high engagement for language improvement,
• assumes the task of language learning beyond schooling,
• commits himself to achieving competent command of the L2,
• is able to succeed in communication in any setting,
• gains multi-cultural understanding of the Englishes in the world.

If they are totally or partially achieved, then we can assure that the goals of language teaching might respond to create conditions for effective target learning environments. The paradigm of an NS might then be avoided in the search for a more fruitful exploration. Anyway the dilemma is not yet sorted out and plenty more studies have to draw conclusions from new and updated foundations.

Conclusion

An NS is argued to be a model impossible to replicate in SLL (Cook, 2007; Quirk, 1990). NSs appear as subjective figures with levels of linguistic command, knowledge or competence which are hard to define or accomplish in the language classroom. This paper also intends to demostrate that there is a new reality that has emerged as a result of a new configuration of the world where English is used for reasons and needs beyond the simplistic distinction between native and non-native speakers. A L2 learner who is able to use English efficiently is proposed as an alternative for second language teaching (Cook, 1999; Lee, 2005; Paikeday, 1985; Rampton, 1990).

The Colombian context displays a scene where its teaching goals have been defined under the parameters of the CEFRL. L2 competence is measured with reference to a set of pre-defined standards which are very close to the definition of a ‘competent’ NS. Nevertheless, with the increasing use of computer-mediated communication, for example, L2 learners are facing a new demand that includes real and authentic possibilities to interact with users of English worlwide. Sounding native-like is not a priority any more. An efficient user of English should be recognised in its own right with linguistic constraints and strengths, but never undervalued in comparison with the NS. A classroom that expands its own horizons towards more achievable goals, could overcome the paradigm of sounding like an NS.

Bibliography

Bayley, N., Madden, C. and Krashen, S. (1974) 'Is there a 'natural sequence' in adult language learning?' Language learning, (24), pp. 235-43.

Blomfield, L. (1993) Language. New York: Holt Rinehart Winston

Chomsky, N. (1957) Syntactic structures. Mouton: The Hague.

Cook, V. (1999) 'Going beyond the Native Speaker in language teaching', TESOL Quarterly, 33, (2), pp. 185-209.

Cook, V. (2001) Second language learning and language teaching. Oxford: Arnold.

Cook, V. (ed.) (2002) Language Teaching Methodology and the L2 User Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Cook, V. (ed.) (2007) The goals of ELT: reproducing native speakers or promoting multi-competence among second language users? Kluwer: Springer.

Corder, S. P. (1967) 'The significance of learners' errors', Interactional review of Applied Linguistics, (5), pp. 161-9.

Davis, A. (1991) The Native Speaker in Applied Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP.

Davis, A. (ed.) (1995) Proficiency or the native speaker: what are we trying to achieve in ELT? Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Davis, A. (ed.) (1996) Proficiency or the native speaker: what are we trying to achieve in ELT? : in Cook, G. and Seidlhofer, B. (eds.) Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: OUP

Ellis, J. M. (1993) Language, thought, and logic. Evanston: North-western University Press.

Ellis, R. (1985b) Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Firth, A. (1996) 'The discursive accomplishment of normality. On ‘lingua franca’ English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics,26, (3), pp. 237-59.

Gass, S. M. (1996) 'Second language acquisition and linguistic theory: the role of language transfer', in Ritchi, W. C. and Bhatia, T. K.(eds.) Handbook of second language acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press.

Gnutzmann, C. (1999) Teaching and Learning English as a global language. Tubingen: Stauffenburg

Jenkis, J. (2006) 'Current Perspectives on Teaching World Englishes and English as a Lingua Franca', TESOL Quarterly, 40, (1), pp. 157-181.

Krashen, S. (1981a) Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.

Krashen, S., Scarcella, R. C. and Long, M. H. (1982) Child-Adult differences in second Language Acquisition (Issues in Second Language Research). Rowley: M.A. Newbury House Publishers.

Larsen-Freman, D. and Long, M. H. (1991) An introduction to second language acquisition research. Harlow: Longman.

Lee, J. J. (2005) 'The Native Speaker: An Achievable Model?' Asian EFL Journal, 7, (2), pp. 152-163.

Long, M. H. (1991) 'Focus on form: a design feature in language teaching methodology', in de Bot, K., Ginsberg, R. and Kramsch, C.(eds.) Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Myles, F. and Mitchell, R. (1998) Second language learning theories. London: Arnold.

Paikeday, T. M. (1985) The native speaker is dead. Toronto: Paikeday Publishing inc.

Pica, T. (1994) 'Research on negotiation: what does it reveal about second language learning conditions, process and outcomes?' Language Learning, (44), pp. 493-527.

Pienemann, M. (1998) language processing and second language development: process-ability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Quirk, R. (1990) 'Language varieties and standard language', English Today, 21, (6), pp. 3-10.

Rampton, M. B. H. (1990) 'Displacing the "native-speaker": expertise, affiliation and inheritance', ELT Journal, 44, (2), pp. 338-342.

Seidlhofer, B. (2001) 'Closing a conceptual gap: the case for a description of English as a lingua franca’. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11, (2), pp. 133 - 58.


Stern, H. H. (1983) Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stubbs, M. (1996) Text and corpus analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.

www.mineducacion.gov.co
www.coe.int/T/DG4/Linguistic/Source/Framework.EN.pdf

Portraits of Interaction in a Foreign Language Classroom

Articulo publicado en:

ENLETAWA JOURNAL. No. 1. 2008
Revista de la Maestria en Docencia de Idiomas
Programa de la Facultad de Ciencias de la Educacion, Escuela de Idiomas
Universidad Pedagogica y Tecnologica de Colombia

Abstract
This study applies the methodology of Conversation Analysis (CA) as a way to categorise and analyse the talk produced in a foreign Language Classroom. The transcripts of six fragments of a lesson, which were video-recorded, will be used to identify some of the characteristics and organisation of the interactive exchange circulating when teaching English.

Although the machinery that underpins the act of communication in the institutional setting of the classroom could be extensively examined, the current study focuses its attention on just two particular features of organization: repair in the form of clarification request and confirmation check, and turn-taking. The pedagogical agenda of the teacher appears to provide opportunities for learning and negotiation of meaning and displays some traces of interaction promoted to engage foreign language learners in conversation, although the lesson is still highly controlled by the teacher. The analysis might be used to raise teacher awareness about how to create more opportunities for foreign language learning.

Key Words: Conversation Analysis (CA), Classroom Interaction, Foreign Language Teaching.

1.Introduction

This study emerged as an intention to analyse teacher talk in a foreign language classroom and in an attempt to reveal the language mediating the process of interaction between teacher & learners in a foreign language setting. It is also a criterion to understand some of the main issues resulting from the pedagogical agenda and the communicative exchange as participants become involved in conversation.

What happens in a foreign language context in terms of classroom talk has been a matter of analysis and research in apparently recent studies (van Lier, 1988, 1996; Seedhouse, 2004; Walsh, 2006) and the insights which have emerged undoubtedly construct foundations to understanding the complexity of the dynamics resulting from the language used as a perspective to portray an amazing micro-world of meaningful dialogue.

The study builds up from some of the approaches used by CA to interpret the data gathered to analyse some of the main issues arising when a teacher and a group of adult foreign language learners commit themselves through a course of action and engagement, in an attempt to learn the target language. Two main constructs will be analysed: repair in the form of clarification request and confirmation check and turn taking.

The transcripts of over -5- minutes talks in a monolingual Spanish setting are used to understand that language is produced under complex dynamics ranging between pedagogical goals, interaction patterns or traces of communicative exchange and authenticity, because ‘the classroom is in principle and in potential just as communicative or uncommunicative as any other speech setting, no more, no less’ (van Lier, 1988: 267).

2. Views of classroom talk

The foreign language classroom can be defined as an extraordinary micro-world where plenty of situations, experiences and linguistic interventions take place. The complex reality and structure, relationship and language that underline most of its functions attract the attention of linguists and researchers for the purpose of generating understanding and interpretation of some of the features revealing and portraying some of its most common actions.

Such a unique picture of a daily contextual live scene where potential communicators, constructors and de-constructors of meaning, and eventually producers of knowledge get together under the label of teachers and learners becomes in itself worthy of attention a place to look at when attempting to approach some of its dynamics. The variety of contexts that emerge in the classroom, the opportunities created for the negotiation of meaning, the way input-output is provided or simply the dimension of its participants’ talk, create a potential scenario for understanding some of the characteristics for second language acquisition.

Johnson (1995) highlights the importance of communication in the foreign language classroom and anticipates that understanding it is not a simple task. Any opportunity planned with the intention of engaging learners through the use of the target language is attempting to generate and propitiate second language learning. The results in terms of competence achievement or success should be understood under a variety of circumstances including the learners’ background, motivation or commitment.

In second language classrooms, the language, whether it is English or another language, is the medium through which teachers teach, and students demonstrate what they have learned. Acquiring that language is the ultimate instructional goal of second language education. (p. 3). The point of discussion here has to deal with the function of conversation in the process of second language learning. Wells (1985) claims that ‘children develop language in and through meaningful interaction with their caretakers’. For second language acquisition the process seems to be rather similar. Hatch (1978) claims that ‘conversational or discourse structure forms the basis for development of syntax. In this view conversation is a sine qua non for language acquisition’.

If communication is a key matter for second language acquisition, the interaction that feeds the whole process is then crucial. Everything a teacher does in order to engage learners talk and learning goes in the direction of creating opportunities for communicative competence to be strengthened. The patterns of communication are continuously deconstructed and reconstructed by the variables determining the direction of the classroom talk. The participants create and agree on conditions for communication to be fostered, and the classroom itself establishes certain rules of authentic dialogues emerging and maintained within its own borders.

The talk mediating most of the classroom actions creates, to some extent, and for many learners, the only opportunity they have to use and learn the target language. The teacher becomes the main source of input and correction for any non-appropriate forms of communication which arise and she/he is responsible for promoting or inhibiting learning. The communicative behaviour of the participants is permanently shaped by the way interaction is fostered and maintained and the teacher plays a unique role in such endeavour.

There are still many constructs to be revealed when understanding some of the theoretical beliefs, experience or professional knowledge that underpin most of the actions undertaken by a foreign language teacher inside the classroom. The way she/he controls and keeps the flow of communication, creates opportunities for learning, corrects mistakes or establishes the conditions for the negotiation of meaning, among many others, are certainly a matters of interest and endless debate, research and involve former and current trends about second language acquisition.

3. Methodology

Transcripts of an over -5- minutes classroom video-recorded talk of a lesson in English as a Foreign language in a Spanish School, were used to collect data to provide the necessary foundations to approach, to some extent, the context of the lesson, its pedagogical goals and some of the features that underpin the task-based interaction with the aim of revealing the voices of that particular classroom. An experienced foreign language teacher, whose methodology and confident linguistic and pedagogic behaviour transmit a good sense of professional performance, was video-recorded.

Six extracts were chosen in order to carry out the current analysis. Each turn was carefully interpreted building up a connection with current trends in Second Language Acquisition, communication in the foreign language classroom and CA research and theoretical foundations.

The questions below are intended to be answered in this study:

1. To what extent does the model of repair submitted by the foreign language teacher engage learner-learner interaction?

2. What does turn-taking strategies reveal about classroom talk?

4. Leaning and teaching setting

The setting portrays a group of 20 adult-learners, studying English in a monolingual context -Spanish- 19 females and 1 male, showing a great level of motivation and learning engagement, willing to participate in the activities planned and responding with resolution to the tasks as the teacher involves them through the teaching agenda.

There is certain limited communicative ability (turns 12, 18, 35, 45, 60) which may presumably suggest that they belong to a pre-intermediate level, but additionally, because of the range of vocabulary used in the class and the linguistic structure scheduled as a pedagogical goal, used to. It seems that they have achieved certain previous command of the target language. Because of the particular L2 features revealed by most of the learners whose voices are heard in the video-recording of the lesson, they share a similar background and there is no sign of any learner with a dominant speaking skill over the rest of the class.

Some features regarding involvement and classroom context can be easily identified: Laughs, friendly and non-threatening atmosphere, cooperative communication are permanent and recognizable features of the learning situation. Both teacher and learners look highly engaged and the picture gained from the classroom creates a sense of an ideal context for target language achievement.

5. Data analysis: Traces of an interaction-oriented classroom

A good number of the actions regulating the conversational patterns between teacher and learners have to be explained from the way repair circulates and underpins most of the communication taking place in the foreign language classroom. ‘Conversational repair is viewed by SLA researchers as the sociopsychological engine that enables learners to get comprehended input’ (Markee, 2000 cited in Seedhouse, 2004: 141). Though repair is basically understood as the way teachers correct the arisen learners’ L2 mistakes, or in the words of Seedhouse (2004: 143) ‘as the treatment of trouble occurring in interactive language use’, those communicative forms of classroom interaction adopt a flexible organization and structure.

It is widely accepted that genuine communication under the model of repair is characterised through, for example, clarification requests and confirmation checks (Cullen 1998: 182) and for some extended practices where learners ‘should be encouraged to ask for information, seek clarification, express an opinion, agree or disagree with peers and teachers’ (Kumaravadivelu, 1993:12).

This study will then analyse some characteristics of repair in the form of clarification request and confirmation check as two of the main issues that emerged in the focussed foreign language classroom studied.

5.1. Clarification request

van Lier (1988b: 274) mentions that ‘one of the most common speech acts in the classroom is the question’. Questioning is then one of the most recurrent strategies used by teachers with the intention of creating atmospheres for target language use and interaction flow. Although the teacher, most of the time unfortunately, is the one in charge of establishing and controlling the conditions under either ‘a question-answer routine or sequence’ (ibid), it is through the display of questions that most of the pedagogical focus is addressed and achieved.

Clarification request is then understood as an interactive construct settled as part of the communicative tasks aimed at fostering interaction in the foreign language classroom. The teacher uses the clarification request as a strategy for skill empowerment and talk to be promoted. There is no point in reminding that any process of teaching and learning a foreign language relies on communication as a basic principle for second language acquisition.

Walsh (2006: 121) mentions that ‘facial expressions, single interjections, or direct questions all serve the same function: Seek clarification, compelling learners to reformulate what they have said’. He also mentions that ‘by accepting a response that is only partially understood, teachers may be doing their learners a great disservice, again passing over a learning opportunity, constructing a smooth-flowing discourse, but missing a valuable opportunity to clarify’ (p. 121).

The next extracts were selected to establish some crucial stages in the lesson where interaction was highly addressed.

Extract 1: (in turns 7-12)

07 S2: I used to play with my sisters at home
08 S1: I (0.1) didn’t.
09 T: you didn’t?
10 S1: no
11 T: did you like er, do you have any. I mean have you got sisters

or brothers to play with?
12 S1: yes, er. (.) I was ((L1 use)). I’m, er (0.1) one sister, but I was, er ten years,
he was (0.2) one year.

Extract 1 illustrates a potential seek clarification situation that fits into the model as previously mentioned by Walsh (2006). The pedagogical agenda of the teachers switches in favour of routes for communication and understanding and interaction copes with this part of the lesson; the teacher certainly opens a door for communication to be maintained. Another extra feature to be mentioned here is that in seeking clarification she builds it up from a question made by another student previously (turn 7) serving to engage the other learner through a dialogic intervention (turn 9) .

The teacher creates an opportunity for the student to learn and through it she involves her in an authentic communicative situations taking place in the classroom certainly, but not obeying the pre-established rules of the pedagogical agenda and thus generating room for real interaction to take place and learning to be strengthened as the learner is able to react communicatively to the request made (turn 12).

It is generally believed ‘that teachers who do not always accept the first contribution a student offers are more likely to maximise learning potential than those who do not’ (Walsh, 2002: 12). What is clearly illustrated is that the teacher establishes the conditions for creating opportunities for learning and the classroom appears as a context for authentic communication to be promoted. Those unpredictable questions, which emerge, place the act of interaction in a dimension where communication flows unplanned and at that particular moment the classroom resembles what happens in any informal or even formal social exchange (turn 11).

The teacher talk is characterised by the use of ‘referential’ questions ‘to which she/he does not know the answer and which therefore has a genuine communicative purpose’ (Cullen, 1998: 181). If the classroom does not entirely follow the patterns of communication taking place in outdoor settings, it should be understood from the perspective that the rules and conventions of the classroom are different and that it is conceived ‘for pedagogical rather social reasons’ (Cullen, 1998: 181). However, nobody can deny that such extracts of linguistic-social exchange takes place beyond the frontiers of the classroom as well, because any language user, native or non-native, permanently faces similar requests when using the language for any kind of purpose.

Extract 2: (in turns 24-31)

24 S4: I didn’t. I used to go with my friends
25 T: Did you? And what did you do with (0.2)

what did you use to do with your
friends? Or what did you use to go, or do?
26 S4: mm (0.5) we used to (0.6) to walk, er
27 T: [hmmm, along
28 S4 along (place name)
29 T: right. Did you use to go and (0.2)

for a picnic from time to time with your
Friends?
30 S4: yes, sometimes hmm (0.3) on Saturdays, for example.
31 T: hmmm, yes. Did you enjoy it? Yes?

The teacher appears to understand in extract 2 that the focus of the lesson can be mismatched (turn 25) and as the first part of question seems to go in an uncontrolled direction according to the teaching goal, she redirects the interactional objective to make sure the next couple of questions, in the same turn -25-, were clearly restated under the structure of ‘used to’, though at the end of the extract (turn 31) communication seems to take control by itself again.

Some relevant paralinguistic features are introduced here that clearly create a sense of cooperative construction and as a principle for language learning that ‘arises not through interaction but in interaction’ (Ellis, 2000: 209). The teacher intentionally signposts through body language (laughs or facial expressions) and clearly creates a sense of cooperation and communication flow or single interjections (Walsh, 2006: 121) such as ‘hummm’ (turns 27 & 31) or utterances of approval such as ‘yes’ (turn 31) that establish the conditions of this lesson as a setting where the teacher provides plenty of opportunities for learning through language use.

Although the pedagogical goals remain established and the linguistic features resulting from the participants’ interventions are clearly approached, the use of the form ‘used to’, in the teacher’s questions (turns 25 & 29) and the response of the leaner accepts the structure as a rule to be followed (turn 26), the level of interaction forces the participants to follow less-established or agreed criteria and both accept to be ruled by communication imposing its own rules and portraying some features of authentic linguistic and social exchange (turns 30 & 31).

The teaching goal goes beyond the control of the language produced by the learners and there is no any attempt to obstruct the communicative effort the learner tries to use (turns 26-28 & 30). The teacher’s sense of cooperation, tolerance and negotiation potentially portrays a situation lived in the foreign language classroom where opportunities for learning appear to be clearly scheduled in the teacher’s pedagogical purpose.

Some other features revealed as a subject of interpretation have to deal with how to promote student–student interaction because the lesson is still entirely initiated, controlled and guided by the teacher (turns 25, 27, 29, 31) and students appear not to be ready to assume the guidance yet themselves. There is still a kind of teacher-centred responsibility in the way interaction is controlled and there are still many constructs left to reveal when re-placing the role of the teacher as promoter of student-student interaction because it ‘may actually be more important for educational success than teacher-student interaction’ (Johnson, 1995: 112).

In spite of the claims about the artificiality of the language produced in the classroom and the need to naturalise it, in the sense of mirroring ‘it less as a classroom and more as any other place’ (van Lier, 1996: 123)- the airport, a social meeting, a pub, a surgery appointment, etc.- such attempts are clearly paradoxes, because ‘it then becomes unauthentic as a classroom’ (van Lier, 1996: 123). There is no point ‘suggesting that classrooms only need to replicate communicative behaviour outside the classroom in order to become communicative’ (Cullen, 1998: 181).

The utterances produced in the interactive intervention of that particular momentum in the classroom (Extract 2) are not too far from any daily life context where two partners meet to exchange information as a mater of social interaction, even if we have to label them as potentially occurring among non-natives or native - non-native speakers’ communications.


5.2. Confirmation check

It has already been said that a way to elicit students’ participation in the foreign language classroom is through the use of questioning. Although most of the questions asked are display ones (whose answer is known by the teacher), it is still one of the accepted ways to foster communication. The teacher asks questions to make sure he ‘has correctly understood learner’s contribution’ (Walsh, 2006: 168). That particular way to test understanding of students turns is called confirmation check.

Some samples of confirmation check are identified through the interpretation of the data gathered. This feature of classroom interaction serves to expand a little more on the analysis of the lesson portrayed as a micro-world for communicative exchange.

Extract 3: (in turns 37, 38)

37 S6: French, and sometimes ((L1 use)) (0.4)

when I have er (0.5) a big time
I er (0.8) pass my (0.4) my holidays on er (0.4)

climb ((pronounced [klImb]))
38 T: yes, you spend your holidays emm (0.3) practicing exercise, you mean
climbing up and down the mountains?


One of the most interesting features of extract 3 is the way the teacher is able to get across the message and ensure that communication takes place . Acting as a partner willing to grasp the meaning and help the learner to keep the channels for communicative exchange open creates a potential model for interaction to flow (turn 38). There are no restrictions in terms of accuracy or appropriateness and the learner is fully aware that she counts on a partner –the teacher- ready to help her to be understood.

The communicative intervention that emerged as the result of task-involvement mirrors an engaged setting where learning takes place through models of interaction and language use. The teacher even takes advantage of the situation to the extent of enlarging the learner’s range of vocabulary (turn 38). Language input is provided as required beyond the lesson plan or the teaching agenda, as teacher talk is now generally recognised, ‘as a potentially valuable source of comprehensible input for the learner’ (Collen, 1998: 179 )as well as being the same as to be ‘essential for language acquisitio’ (Krashen, 1981).

The leaner contribution certainly lacks the features to be measured in terms of correctness or appropriate structure (turn 37) but in compensation she feels her attempt to get across the message has been successfully understood and that learning is occurring as the target language operates as a vehicle for the expression of meaning.

Extract 4: (in turns 91-94)

91 S7: I used to err (0.6) working a nurse
92 T: as a nurse?
93 S7: as a nurse
94 T: oh good! she used to work as a nurse. and er (0.2) another one


Extract 4 provides another example of confirmation check. The teachers again uses her ability to decode the meaning (turn 92) in spite of the problems in structure as uttered by the leaner (turn 91) and becomes more interested in fostering communicative confidence instead. There is no attempt to claim these utterances to be unrealistic or authentic because of the context where they are produced.

The classroom itself ‘is in principle and in potential just as communicative or uncommunicative as any other speech setting, no more, no less’ (van Lier, 1988: 267) and that intervention (turn 94) was as naturally produced as if it were uttered by two partners who agreed with a social exchange and language use. The point is then that the ‘classroom work must be interaction that is authentic to the setting’ (van Lier, 1988: 267).

In making sure the teacher has understood (turn 92) what the learner wants to mean (turn 91) she maintains a channel for communication to flow. It is unfortunately not completely clear to what extent this teacher is fully aware of most of the principles that underpin her teaching behavior in the classroom, but what seems to be undeniable is that most of her actions are directed to creating opportunities for learning to emerge and interaction to take place. Most of her attitudes and friendly image as a cooperative partner create a sense of awareness of the foreign language classroom as a potential space for interaction to be promoted.

5.3. Turn-taking

One of the most important characteristics of the talk taking place in the classroom has to deal with the rules controlling interaction in the form of turn-taking. It is basically understood that any structure towards the dialogic intervention of a few or a large number of partners wanting to communicate in a classroom should be governed by certain criteria, either imposed or previously agreed by the members of the speech community: teacher and learners, but generally regulated by a pedagogical agenda wishing to cope with the constraints of the curriculum or the institutional plan.

Teaching talking time (TTT) has been a matter of discussion and research interest for decades. Although there is a claim that ‘any attempt to understand the nature of classroom discourse should focus on quality rather than quantity by recognizing the important relationship between language use and pedagogic purpose’ (Walsh 2002: 4) there is still a kind of obscure attraction not easy to avoid in terms of quantity when looking at turn-taking in a foreign language classroom, because ‘a particular pedagogical focus is reflexively related to a particular speech exchange system’ (Seedhouse, 2004: 101).

The features revealing the way interaction takes place during the lesson time analysed mirror 111 turns, 50 of them taken by the teacher and only 51 undertaken by her counterparts: 20 learners. 13 had the chance to talk, certainly, however 7 remained silent. We can not measure opportunities for learning in terms of quantity because, anyway, the time of the lesson analysed is very short indeed; however there is still a kind of tight teacher control of the turn taking system and she is undoubtedly assuming the direction of most of the communicative exchange mediating the language classroom.

Extract 5 will support some of the findings related to turn taking in the lesson described in this study:

Extract 5: (in turns 52-66)

52 S1: true and the second is false.
53 T: right, so. You have a perfectly right, so er
54 S1: two points
55 T: two points for group B, two points. Right er (0.1)

Sonia and er Paquita, come on.
56 S2: Sonia w (0.2) when Sonia was ten er (0.3) she used to live on a farm
57 T: on a farm? Good. Another one?
58 S2: er (0.3) when Sonia was (0.2) five she used to have bl (0.2)

very blonde hair.
59 T: ((laughing)) good. What about you?

oh I have forgotten about yours Margarita. All right?
60 S3: er (0.3) when Paquita was ten I used er (0.4) to speak five language.
61 T: she used to speak five languages, or you? Paquita or you?
62 S3: Paquita.
63: T: Paquita used to speak five languages, good. And another one?
64 S3: er (0.4) when she er (0.3) he was er four I used to help emm his mother.
65 T: you used to help her mother.
66 S3: in cooking.

What extract 5 reveals is not precisely the best picture of a balanced turn taking scenario. There are 4 people involved in the communicative exchange and nearly half of the turns are controlled and taken by the teacher (7), while 3 learners share the remaining turns (8) in a sort of pre-defined pattern of interaction: S1 (twice), S2 (twice), and S3 (4 times). The teacher is the one who initiates, maintains and ends communication and the learners only tend to respond to what the pedagogical focus is asking them to follow.

The structure of the conversation follows a fixed and controlled TST (teacher– student - teacher) scheme for interaction, where T maintains the flow of communication mainly through a question (turn 59) and S fulfils the demands imposed by her/his occasional partner (turn 60). There is only one attempt by S to initiate the exchange (turn 54) but as the T is the one in charge of the communicative load and focus, and interaction should move on according to the pedagogical purpose, although the response of the S is validated and recognised, it ends there without any chance to expand on meaning as the leaner attempted to do.

There is no point in raising the alarm and looking at the figures coldly. The classroom should follow its own dynamics and the teacher is the person in charge of such endeavour. However the picture reveals that half of the interaction time is assumed by the teacher and learners have only a very little chance to make themselves understood. Such an image of the communication taking place in the classroom ‘leads to a learner role which is reactive rather than proactive, and this means that opportunities for initiative or choice in participation are minimised’ (van Lier, 1988: 274).

The teacher makes use of a range of questions in attempting to engage the learners through the act of communication, but in such an effort she is the only one in charge of the course of interaction. Students rarely initiate any communicative exchange and the teacher nominates who should respond in the next turn. Each participants seems to have her/his own opportunity to answer the questions put by the teacher, generally stated under a tight control of the turn taking system that allocates each one’s intervention. It is eventually expanded a little more with an extra question but provides very few opportunities for learners to have on no more than two turns (56 & 58) in most of the cases and only a few of them cross over the fence to 4 turns as a maximum (60, 62, 64, 66).

The teacher’s interest is clearly concentrated on promoting fluency rather than accuracy, for that reason she ‘does not attempt at any point to correct minor linguistic errors, as these did not impede communication’ (Seedhouse, 2004: 117). The teachers works cooperatively as a partner and gets the message across easily (turn 65) creating the conditions for the learner to make certain decision in making the resolution to take her own turn (turn 66), even if the attempt ends there because the teacher allocates a new turn to somebody else.

Some other features characterising the turn taking system reveal that apart from the tight control of the communicative exchange mediating the features of interaction in the classroom, a kind of unbalanced meaning and linguistic load supports each utterance produced by the teacher and the learners. While the teacher’s utterances expand on the complex and full context addressed (turns 90, 94, 96, 99), the utterances of the students lie on ‘elliptical responses, often in the form of isolated words, rarely longer than a phrase’ (van Lier, 1988: 275) (turns 87, 89, 93, 95, 98) as illustrated in extract 6 below:

Extract 6: (turns 87 – 99)

87 S8: a snake
88 T: a snake?
89 S8: yes.
90 T: my goodness! She used to have a snake at home. Right remember them. What about you, Carmen? Tell me something incredible
about you.
91 S7: I used to err (0.6) working a nurse.
92 T: as a nurse?
93 S7: as a nurse.
94 T: oh good! She used to work as a nurse. And er (0.2) another one.
95 S7: er (0.3) Santa Marina er
96 T: no, another sentence. A new one. Another one, yes.
98 S7: only one now.
99 T: ((laughing)) just one sentence! And enough for you. a lot of work, all right. Could you tell me if emm (0.3) just to finish if er (0.2) it is false?

The foreign language classroom portrays a turn taking system highly manipulated and determined by the teacher who, though creating certain opportunities for skill empowerment and learning to occur, inhibits and determines most of the patterns of interaction promoted. The teacher’s talking time still remains very high and most of the communicative load is placed on the teacher’s action rather than on the learners. The effects of such a classroom atmosphere on learning and second language acquisition will still occupy the interest of research and further studies for some decades, surely. Final answers are nowhere near being reached.

Conclusion

Communication directs most of the actions of the lesson and learners count on a cooperative partner, the teacher, ready to help and able to establish principles for fluency rather than linguistic focus. Though there is still a very tight and controlled scheme based on questioning as a way to initiate communication, students are able to succeed under the parameters of the pedagogical agenda of the lesson planned and the communicative features reveal some good attempts to generate authentic communication in the foreign language classroom.
Most of the lesson time is devoted to fostering foreign language communication and the teachers manages to provide contexts for language use and the expression of meaning. Although there are some established linguistic targets, the teacher is fully aware that the goal to be achieved relies on empowering foreign language learning through principles of negotiation for meaning and communicative exchange.

Most of the communicative responsibility is placed on the teacher who decides, controls and makes decisions about the initiation, flow and end of interaction. Some more action and decision making should be placed on learners as the ones responsible for their own learning. The turn taking system is entirely controlled and dependant on the teacher and students are still not willing to assume some degree of control of communication emerging through interaction among themselves.

CA should be used to raise foreign language teachers awareness about the process of foreign language teaching and learning. If interaction is at the heart of it, what teachers plan, do, reflect and critically evaluate might create better and more successful context for foreign language achievement. Although the pedagogical agenda should be unavoidable and not easy to reject, foreign language teachers should analyse in more detail, through research and theoretical foundations ideally, that the opportunity to be in the classroom is unique and that learning is far more than the manipulation of pre-established linguistic patterns.

Appendices

Appendix 1:

Transcription system:

The transcription system is taken from Walsh (2006) and adapted from van Lier (1988b) and Johnson (1995).

T teacher
L learner (not identified)
L1: L2: etc. identified learner
/ok/ok/ok/ overlapping or simultaneous utterances by more than one learner
[do you understand?]} overlap between teacher and learner
[I see]
= turn continues, or one turn follows another without any pause
… pause of one second or less marked by three periods
(4) silence; length given in seconds
? rising intonation –question or other
CORrect emphatic speech: falling intonation
((4)) unintelligible 4 seconds: a stretch of unintelligible speech with the
length given in seconds
Rosa, Alisa, Paquita capitals are only used for proper nouns




Appendix 2:
Transcripts

1 S1: Er (0.4) when I was a child (0.3) I used to be very fat but now I don’t eat
too much, and I was thin.
2 T: yes, great. what about you? can you make=
3 S2: [no I didn’t. I was very thin, and (0.3) I used to have short blonde hair
4 T: really? ((laughs))
5 S1: and what did use to (0.5) to do in your spare time?
6 T : yes.
7 S2: I used to play with my sisters at home.
8 S1: I (0.1) didn’t.
9 T: you didn’t?
10 S1: no.
11 T: did you like er, do you have any. I mean have you got sisters or
brothers to play with?
12 S1: yes, er (.) I was (0.2) well ((L1 use)). I’m, er (0.1) one sister, but I was, er ten years, he was (0.2) one year.
13 T: oh, I see, so different ages, good. What about you two, Alisa and (0.2)
Rosa?
14 S3: er ( .) what did you use to look like as a child?
15 S4: I used to have short hair.
16 S3: er oh, I didn’t. I used to have long hair.
17 T: did you? Long hair? What about now? What have you done with
your long hair?
18 S3: is more (0.3) ((L1 use)=
19 T: =[comfortable.
20 S3: comfortable.
21 T: yes, good!
22 S4: er (0.4) what did you use to do in your spare time?
23 S3: er (0.3) I used to play tennis.
24 S4: I didn’t. I used to go with my friends.
25 T: did you? and what did you do with (0.2) what did you use to
do with your friends? What did you use to play with your friends?
or what did you use to go, or do?
26 S4 mm (0.5) we used to (0.6) to walk, er
27 T: [hmmm, along
28 S4: along ((place name))
29 T: right. Did you use to go and (0.2) for a
picnic from time to time with your friends?
30 S4: yes, sometimes hmm (0.3) on Saturdays, for example.
31 T: hmmm, yes. Did you enjoy it? Yes?
32 S4: yes
33 T: right, what about you two?
34 S5: er (0.1) what did you use er (0.3) to er (0.3) spend your holidays?
35 S6: I used to go (0.5) Europe=
36 T: = to Europe
37 S6: French and, and sometimes (( L1 use)) (0.4) when I have er (0.5)
a big time I er (0.8) pass my (0.4) my holidays on er (0.4) climb ((pronounced [klImb]))

38 T: yes, you spend your holidays emm (0.3) practising exercise, you
mean climbing up and down the mountains?
39 S6: yeah.
40 T: with your friends?
41 S6: yeah.
42 T: and you, and you?
43 S5: no I didn’t=
44 T: = you didn’t. You don’t look like a (0.2) a climber.
45 S5: no, I spend (0.4) I used to spend my holidays in Palencia.
Or, er (0.5) I used to emm (0.3) go to know er the outs the
outskirts, the (0.4) Mad (0.3) of Madrid.
46 T: good.
47 S5: er the bor (0.4) bordering province.
48 T: yes, good. So you …
49 S5: such as Madrid, Segovia, Toledo
50 T: right. It’s a very good thing at least you know places, and er
anybody can tell me …
(A new scene)
51 T: right, so (0.2) um you are going to (.1) for example, every pair of students every pair of you er (0.3) to think or to say aloud three (0.4) Well, three would be too much, two, two each eh? Two each four altogether. Two sentences talking about er (0.2) past habits eh? Past routines, but the more incredible the better. Do you know why? Because then the other group hmmm (0.1) has to tell if the sentences they said were true or false, right?
(A new scene)
52 S1: true and the second is false.
53 T: right, so. You have a perfectly right, so er
54 S1: two points
55 T: two points for group B, two points. Right er (0.1) Sonia
and er Paquita, come on.
56 S2: Sonia w (0.2) when Sonia was ten er (0.3) she used to live on a farm
57 T: on a farm? Good. Another one?
58 S2: er (0.3) when Sonia was (0.2) five she used to have bl (0.2) very
blonde hair.
59 T: ((laughing)) good. What about you? oh I have forgotten about yours Margarita. All right?
60 S3: er (0.3) when Paquita was ten I used er (0.4) to speak five language.
61 T: she used to speak five languages, or you? Paquita or you?
62 S3: Paquita.
63: T: Paquita used to speak five languages, good. And another one?
64 S3: er (0.4) when she er (0.3) he was er four I used to help emm his mother.
65 T: you used to help her mother.
66 S3: in cooking.
67 T: cooking, doing the cooking and so on? What’s your opinion er on
Paquita’s sentences, true or false?
68 S4: I think er (0.2) the last sentence in (0.3) is true and er (0.3) first is false.
69 T: what’s your opinion? Were you bluffing or were you telling the truth?
70 S2: I er (0.2) was bluffing.
71 T: you were bluffing? Number one, so?
72 S2: no.
73 S5: yes!
74 S2: no, the two. The two sentences are er (0.1) bluffing.
75 T: so, how many points?
76 S6: one.
77 T: only one? Ok, but I forgot about Margarita, so I have to for (0.2)
forget about it. So only one person in each group, all right?
What about you two? come on.
78 S7: when did you (0.4)?
79 T: ((laughing)) don’t be so impatient, Carmen.
80 S8 er (0.3) no, er (0.2) Carmen, the last year er (0.2) met er handsome man
er and she is going to get married with.
81 S7: yes, I am going to marry! This year.
82 T: we are not using used to, but it’s ok. And the second one? Try to use
used to.
83 S8: ok er (0.3) er she used to (0.4) to have emm (0.1) emm emm (10.3) I don’t (0.2) know.
84 T: a small (0.4)? cat at home?
85 S8: no (0.5) in the
86 T: [a what?
87 S8: a snake
88 T: a snake?
89 S8: yes.
90 T: my goodness! She used to have a snake at home. Right remember them. What about you, Carmen? Tell me something incredible about you.
91 S7: I used to err (0.6) working a nurse.
92 T: as a nurse?
93 S7: as a nurse.
94 T: oh good! She used to work as a nurse. And er (0.2) another one.
95 S7: er (0.3) Santa Marina er
96 T: no, another sentence. A new one. Another one, yes.
98 S7: only one now.
99 T: ((laughing)) just one sentence! And enough for you. a lot of work, all right. Could you tell me if emm (0.3) just to finish if er (0.2) it is false?
100 S2: I think, er (0.4) your name?
101 S1: Antratxa.
102 S2: Antratxa is bluffing.
103 T: yes?
104 S2: in both.
105 T: in both?
106 S9: in both.
107 T: were you bluffing?
108 S9: yes, I was.
109 T: So you are completely right, so=
110 S9: =two points
111 T: poi (0.2) no two points. Team B. ok. So we cannot go on. So we can say that the winner is (0.4) group B.

Bibliography

Cullen, R (1998). Teacher talk and the classroom context. ELT Journal. Volume 52/3 July 1998. Oxford university Press.

Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 49: 193-220

Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse Analysis and Second Language Acquisition. In E. Hatch (ed.), Second Language Acquisition: A book of readings. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

Johnson, K.E (1995). Understanding Communication in Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and second Language Learning. Oxford. Pergamon

Kumaravadivelu, B. (1993). Maximising learning potential in the communicative classroom. ELT Journal 47/1: 12-21

Seedhouse, P (2004). The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A Conversation Analysis Perspective. London, Blackwell

Sinclair, J and Coulthard, R (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford. Oxford University Press.

Van Lier, L. (1988b) ‘What’s wrong with classroom talk?’ Prospect, 3:267-83

Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the Language Curriculum: Awareness, Autonomy and Authenticity. New York. Longman

Walsh, S. (2002). Construction or obstruction: teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 6,1. pp. 3-23

Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. London: Routledge

Wells, G. (1985). Language Development in the Pre-School Years. Cambridge University Press.