Главная страница
Дипломные работы
Английский язык
Developing Speaking Skills in Foreign Language Teaching
Developing Speaking Skills in Foreign Language Teaching
Загружено в:
29.06.2021
Скачано:
0
Размер:
76.7392578125 KB
Скачать
Похожие
Motivational Teaching Strategies in Teaching Foreign
Promotion of speaking skills through drama technique
Teaching English for Specific Purposes in the tourism sphere
Implementing effective techniques for developing efl learners’ listening skills
Developing reading comprehencion through defferent classroom technics for B1 level learners
![what the main features of speaking are, as opposed to writing for example, and what skills are involved in the ability to speak a second language. These are the main points presented in this chapter. 1.2. DISORGANISED NATURE OF SPEAKING One of the basic features of speaking is that it takes place in real time. Due to the time constraints that allow speakers only limited planning time, speech production requires ‘real-time processing’ (Thornbury 2005: 2). This is one of the main reasons why language learners, and this isnot only restricted to true beginners, tend to find speaking difficult. Strategies used to ‘buy planning- time’ (Thornbury and Slade 2007) significantly shape the nature of speaking and distinguish it from writing. Crystal and Davy also mention time as “the main factor which distinguishes written from spoken language” (1979: 87). Consequently, ‘instances of disfluency’ (Thornbury and Slade 2007) like hesitations, word repetitions, false starts, unfinished utterances and repairs make speaking look less neat and tidy than writing when transcribed. Therefore one might assume that speaking is disorganized or even inferior to writing. But this is not true in reality. As Holliday explains “the formlessness of speech is a fact of the transcription”. If judged from the perspective of written texts, spoken language will always look chaotic on paper because first and foremost, “it wasn’t meant to be written down”. (Holliday 1989: 77) Burns and Joyce also state that “[...] speech, far from being disorganized, has its own systematic patterns and structures – they are just somewhat different from those in written language” (Burnsand Joyce 1997: 7). For this reason, judging speech through the measures of writing means to deny to basic characteristics and the purpose for which it is used. Likewise if written texts like contracts, articles and reviews are rendered in spoken form, they also sound unnatural. Moreover, they are difficult for listeners to follow because they were originally created to be used for a different purpose and through a different channel (Crystal and Davy 1979). An analogy, is also true for spoken texts. 6](/data/documents/ec52545b-ae7c-4c1d-abbf-a5aa8cc334cd/page-6.png)
![As early as in 1989, Holliday argues that “the spoken language is every bit as highly organized as the written, and is capable of just as great a degree of complexity. Only it is complex in a different way.” (Holliday, 1989: 87) In the book Spoken and Written Language, he also suggests that unlike written texts, spoken texts are dynamic and tend to have a lower degree of lexical density. By dynamics he means the tendency of spoken language to represent experience as processes. According to his words, written language describes the world in terms of its products and makes a greater use of nominalization, e.g. improvement instead of improve. By contrast, when one talks, one says that “something happened or something was done” (1989: 81) and one therefore tends to use more verbs. In reference to lexico-grammatical structures, Holliday states that written texts are lexically dense and their sentence grammar is simple, whereas spoken texts having a lower level of lexical density have a greater degree of grammatical intricacy. In conversation, however, this intricacy may be realized across turns. Illustrating his view on a number of examples, he further explains that by grammatical intricacy humans the tendency to use a broader variety of tenses and aspects in speaking. According to him, spoken discourse makes a frequent use of clauses and employs a greater variety of both syntactic and semantic relationships. He says that “it is often thought that sequences of conversational discourse […] are simply strings of ‘ands’. […] Rather, they are intricate constructions of clauses, varying not only in the kind of interdependency (parataxis or hypotaxis) but also in the logical semantic relationships involved.” (1989: 86) On the same subject, in particular syntactic relationships in spoken texts, Crystal and Davy state that “the most obvious continuity feature is simple addition of another structure, itself grammatically independent, using a conjunction” (Crystal and Davy 1979: 88), a view that Holliday seems to find too simplistic as suggested above. 7](/data/documents/ec52545b-ae7c-4c1d-abbf-a5aa8cc334cd/page-7.png)
![(Burns and Joyce 1997: 14) All these facts have important implications for LT, which are to be presented in the section that follows. 1.3. CLASSROOM IMPLICATIONS: TEACHERS’ EXPECTATIONS This section explores several important implications for classroom teaching arising from what was mentioned above. Firstly, it is crucial for teachers to realize that spoken language is essentially different from the written one. Teachers therefore cannot expect their students to speak in full sentences as if, in fact, they were producing written texts. Not only is this not the way people speak in reality but also expecting and requiring such skills from learners, would place extremely high pressure on their speech production for no reason at all. Such expectations might result in the learners’ later reluctance or anxiety to speak. Secondly, teachers should help their students understand the important differences between speaking and writing and instruct them in the ways to use this knowledge effectively when speaking. For example, learners may be less hesitant to express themselves if they are shown that speakers string chunks of language together bit by bit without composing entire sentences in their minds before they start to speak. They may also find it useful to learn that repairs, hesitations, repetitions and vague language are acceptable in spoken language because without it speech production would be made impossible. Consequently, all these aspects can be practiced in class through the use of meaningful tasks. Because as Thornbury and Slade point out: “If this organization [meaning the organized nature of speaking] can be described in ways that are accessible to teachers and learners, there are likely to be practical classroom applications. (This does not mean, of course, that one such application would simply be to ‘deliver’ the description to learners without some form of pedagogical mediation.)” (2007: 27). The next point is that teachers involved in their own course design, may find it useful to make their teaching more data-driven and consult further 10](/data/documents/ec52545b-ae7c-4c1d-abbf-a5aa8cc334cd/page-10.png)
![literature dealing with detailed description of spoken language and its use of lexico-grammatical structures. There has been a significant rise in research in this area in recent years and books like Longman student grammar of spoken and written English (Bieber et al. 2004) or preferably Longman grammar of spoken and written English (Biber1999) provide quite detailed accounts of spoken language use based on corpus research. Another book dealing with spoken grammar in an unconventional way, which has already been mentioned, is A Grammar of Speech (Brazil 1995).Furthermore, teachers may also find it beneficial to make use of spoken language corpora that are accessible on the Internet. They may even choose to teach corpus-based techniques in classroom for the benefit of their learners. Conrad reports that even though “there is little empirical research into the effectiveness of corpus-based techniques for language learning, […] there are a variety of theoretical reasons for using them and many reports by teachers of student interest and improvement” (Conrad 2008: 402).Finally, it is essential for teachers to seek ways to give their learners enough systematic training in the relevant skills, the full scope of which is to be discussed at a later stage of this paper. 1.4. CLASSROOM IMPLICATIONS: TEACHING MATERIALS As has been indicated, spoken texts are not normally placed out of context in real life. The same fact should be reflected in the classroom setting. Structures and vocabulary should be viewed in their immediate context. Longer stretches of spoken discourse can prove extremely useful in demonstrating how different elements combine and work together to create a successful conversational exchange. Consequently, teachers should consider if materials and textbooks they use reflect the features of spoken language both in their recorded and transcribed forms. If not, they may want to consider searching for other samples of spoken language which can be transcribed for a later systematic training in class. Recordings are more accessible nowadays than they used to be and it is not 11](/data/documents/ec52545b-ae7c-4c1d-abbf-a5aa8cc334cd/page-11.png)
![explained that as a record of natural speech, performance is imperfect carrying numerous false starts, deviations from rules, etc. In contrast, Hymes (as cited in Magnan 2007: 350) defines communicative competence as the ability ‘to participate in [the child’s] society as not only a speaking, but also a communicating member. Hymes’s understanding of competence is much broader than to comprise only a linguistic perspective. Trosborg notes that Hymes expands the definition to encompass “all rule-systems underlying language use, and thus accords a central role to socio cultural factors” (Trosborg 1986: 9). On the same page, she further adds that the work of Hymes “exemplifies the shift away from the study of language as a system in isolation towards the study of language as communication”. So far, the notion of communicative competence has been discussed mainly from the perspective of Canale and Swain’s four-dimensional framework. There have been several more attempts to describe language knowledge and skills that competent speakers have at their disposal. For example, a more recent model by Bachman expands the concept of communicative language ability to include several broad areas: organizational competence including grammatical and textual competence, pragmatic competence including illocutionary and sociolinguistic competence, strategic competence and psycho physiological mechanisms (Magnan 2007). Other models also draw heavily on Canale and Swain’s model from 1980. All in all, the crucial point to be made here is that through the use of CLT it has become widely understood that communicative competence should be the primary goal of LT (Savignon 1997). Theeventual model that is chosen to describe this concept is secondary to this realization. Teaching speaking skills is no exception here (Hughes 2011).Along the same lines, Bygate argues that for teachers the central problem in conceptualizing the teaching and learning of speaking may be the fact that “it can be hard to disentangle the different dimensions of foreign language speaking” (Bygate 2009). In the next section, 22](/data/documents/ec52545b-ae7c-4c1d-abbf-a5aa8cc334cd/page-22.png)
