revisiting communicative competence in languages for specific purposes

REVISITING COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE IN LANGUAGES FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES: What counts as effective interaction and who is to judge?

wp.me/p28EmH-169

Département Langues et Cultures EA7437 Laboratoire Culture Education Sociétés(LACES)

Université de Bordeaux, jeudi 18 janvier 2018

SHONA WHYTE

Université Côte d’Azur, CNRS, BCL

Shona Whyte

• MCF-HDR anglais, Scottish-born, PhD Linguistics Indiana University

• Département des langues, section études anglophones, Université Nice Sophia Antipolis

• EFL, TEFL, CALL, ESP

• UMR 7320 Bases, Corpus, LangageECRIN Second Language Studies

[email protected]@whyshonaefl.unice.fr

Whyte, Université de Bordeaux 18.01.2018 3wp.me/p28EmH-169

http://wp.me/p28EmH-169

REVISITING COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE IN LANGUAGES FOR

SPECIFIC PURPOSESWhat counts as effective

interaction and who is to judge?4Whyte, Université de Bordeaux http://wp.me/p28EmH-169 18.01.2018

ARGUMENT

➤ we haven’t done a good job of understanding, interpreting, and implementing the concept of communicative competence to develop this capacity in our learners

➤ this is unfortunate, because it is arguably the most important concept in language for specific purposes

5Whyte, Université de Bordeaux http://wp.me/p28EmH-169 18.01.2018

“LSP is generally used to refer to the teaching and research in language in relation to the communicative needs of speakers of a second language in facing a particular workplace, academic, or professional context. In such contexts, language is used for a limited range of communicative events

Basturkmen & Elder, 2004: 6726Whyte, Université de Bordeaux http://wp.me/p28EmH-169 18.01.2018

ARGUMENT

➤ we haven’t done a good job of understanding, interpreting, and implementing the concept of communicative competence to develop this capacity in our learners

➤ this is unfortunate, because it is arguably the most important concept in language for specific purposes

7

➤ applied linguists in different domains related to L2 learning and teaching have tackled communicative competence: L2 researchers, L2 teachers, L2 testers

➤ revisiting this work can help interrogate our own understanding and practices

➤ and provide suggestions for a richer, more nuanced interpretation of communicative competence

Whyte, Université de Bordeaux http://wp.me/p28EmH-169 18.01.2018

PLAN

➤ what is communicative competence?

➤ different perspectives

➤ L2 researchers

➤ L2 teachers

➤ L2 testers

➤ conclusions and recommendations


MEDIA & COMMUNICATION CLASS

10

➤ task-based class for second year English majors

➤ authentic, real-world activity ➤ slide presentation on an idea

worth sharing (TED talks) ➤ story slam (Moth stories)

➤ evaluation of task success ➤ peer feedback on negotiated

criteria ➤ story slam judging panel

➤ focus on form/reflection ➤ teacher feedback on audio

recordings ➤ smartphone, SoundCloud,

Google apps


MEDIA & COMMUNICATION CLASS

11

➤ task-based class for second year English majors

➤ authentic, real-world activity ➤ slide presentation on an idea

worth sharing (TED talks) ➤ story slam (Moth stories)

➤ evaluation of task success ➤ peer feedback on negotiated

criteria ➤ story slam judging panel

➤ focus on form/reflection ➤ teacher feedback on audio

recordings ➤ smartphone, SoundCloud,

Google apps


EVALUATING TASK SUCCESS (1)


TEACHER ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

15

Excellent

3

Good

2

OK

1

Poor

0

Pronunciation 3 3 2 1/2 0/1

Grammar/vocabulary

3 3 2 1/2 0/1

Communication 3 2 2 1/2 0/1

Total/10 9 8 6 4 2

Bonus 0.5 or 1 0.5 or 1 0.5 or 1 0.5 or 1

Grade /20 18 16 12 8 4


16

From the teacher I got a really bad feedback. The pronounciation is not good, “too many stresses, no weak forms”; same thing about the vocabulary and the grammar “3rd person singular present s.” And for the communication, it’s also not very good. From the other students, I got a good feedback. They reproached me my grammar mistakes and also that I was too nervous. “Maybe be more confident and less shy.” Otherwise, they liked it. They found the topic interesting and that I was myself really interested by my topic, and it was a good thing. The contradictions are mainly about my grade. How can I get a grade around 15 with the students and only 7 with the teacher? I think the students are maybe too nice with me, but I also think that the teacher is expecting too much from me.

Or maybe it’s two different sets of criteria: how you present, and how good your oral English is


PLAN



➤ successful completion of communicative task

➤ and/or accuracy/complexity/fluency relative to NS norm


➤ L2 researchers

➤ L2 teachers

➤ L2 testers


L2 RESEARCH: FORMALIST VERSUS FUNCTIONALIST PERSPECTIVES

➤ competence versus performance (Chomsky 1965)

18

“

”

ideal speaker-hearer in a homogeneous speech community


20

“

”

we cannot really teach language, we can only

create conditions in which it will develop spontaneously in the mind in its own way

(Von Humboldt 1769-1859)


FORMALIST L2 RESEARCH

➤ code linguistics


21

“

”

errors (not mistakes) made in both second language

learning and child language acquisition are evidence that the learners uses a definite system of

learning at every point in his development. This system, or ‘built-in’

syllabus …



➤ code linguistics

➤ significance of learner errors (Corder 1967)


22

“

”

a separate linguistic system […] which

results from the learner’s attempted

production of a target language

norm



➤ code linguistics ➤ significance of learner errors

(Corder 1967)➤ interlanguage (Selinker

1972) ➤ generative grammar,

cognitivist approaches


➤ context linguistics ➤ communicative competence

(Hymes 1972) ➤ possible ➤ feasible ➤ appropriate ➤ performed (= attested)

23

“

”

there are rules of use without which the rules

of grammar would be useless

FUNCTIONALIST L2 RESEARCH


➤ context linguistics ➤ communicative competence

(Hymes 1972) ➤ possible ➤ feasible ➤ appropriate ➤ performed (= attested)

24

“

”

what people want to do through language is

more important than mastery of language as

an unapplied system

FUNCTIONALIST L2 RESEARCH


➤ notional/functional syllabus (Wilkins 1972)

➤ sociolinguistic, pedagogical research

PLAN




➤ L2 researchers

➤ interlanguage

➤ rules of use

➤ L2 teachers

➤ L2 testers


L2 TEACHING

➤ Canale & Swain 1980

➤ grammatical competence

➤ sociolinguistic competence

➤ discourse competence

➤ strategic competence

➤ Widdowson 2017

26

“grammatical competence should not be included in the construct of communicative

competence because

grammar relates to semantics and therefore to the language

code, whereas

communication involves language use in context, that

is, pragmatics. To claim otherwise is to

misrepresent the nature of communication”


CER

➤ “CEFR can be seen as the functional equivalent to the formalist concept of interlanguage” Widdowson 2017

➤ Common European Reference Framework for Languages (CER, CEFR; FR = CECRL)

➤ cross-linguistic competency framework based on fine-grained ‘can do’ statements

➤ both are concerned with identifying stages of approximation of native-speaker competence

➤ “shaky ground” (Hulstijn 2007) - descriptors written by teachers


ENGLISH GRAMMAR PROFILE: O’KEEFFE & MARK (2017)

➤ CER-calibrated learner corpus

➤ Cambridge written exams

➤ 55M words (64M tokens)

➤ 13 years’ data (1999-2012), 267K pass scripts, 143 first languages

➤ corpus analysis

➤ Sketch Engine - annotation, concordancing

➤ comparison with British National Corpus (written)

28

➤ search inventory based on “ELT canon”

➤ 19 superordinate grammatical categories (e.g., adjectives, negation, present time)

➤ criteria-based approach

➤ frequency (> BNC pmw)

➤ accuracy (formal + pragmatic) > 60%

➤ range/dispersion (user, L1 family, context, task)

➤ empirical findings

➤ increasing lexicogrammatical complexity and pragmatic subtlety

➤ complement to error analysis


PLAN




➤ L2 researchers

➤ L2 teachers

➤ grammar dimension

➤ ELT canon

➤ L2 testers


LSP TESTING

➤ high-stakes tests (gatekeeping - Fulcher 2013): physicists, students (EAP), veterinarians, medical doctors, airline pilots

➤ performance tests: content, method, assessment criteria

➤ inclusion of indigenous criteria (= views of occupational experts, non-language specialists, linguistic laypersons)

➤ use of actual examples of test performance and thematic coding of commentary

➤ Elder, McNamara, Kim, Pill & Sato 2017, Douglas 2001


PHYSICS CONFERENCE PRESENTATION

31

problem

characterise academic talk involving L1 and L2 speakers

participants

academics, researchers, graduate students at lab meetings

method

observation, conversation analysis, grounded theory for categorisation

findings

➤ focus entirely on content: effective presentation of scientific material

➤ no attention to L1 or L2 speech

Jacoby 1999, Jacoby & McNamara, 1999


ENGLISH FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES

32

problem

hypothesised mismatch between linguist and lay interpretations of oral competence

participants

lay judges of Chinese College English Test-Spokent English Test (monologue) and Cambridge English (paired interaction)

method

thematic coding

findings

➤ discrepancies between lay and language testers’ criteria

➤ overall impression + content (1/3 grade); linguistic resources (1/10)

Sato 2014, Elder et al. 2017


VETERINARY CONSULTATION

33

problem

evaluate special Rural and General Practice option in veterinary programme via Individual Process Assessment (role-play)

participants

veterinary professionals, veterinary students, applied linguists

method

comparison of categories across three groups

findings

➤ veterinary experts used most explicit and widest range of categories

➤ applied linguist and student views differed

Douglas & Myers, 2000


MEDICAL CONSULTATION

34

problem

Overseas English Test failed to identify proficient International Medical Graduates

participants

medical professionals

method

comparison of indigenous criteria with language testing specialists

findings

➤ discrepancies between doctor and linguist criteria

➤ revision of test to include new categories and delete irrelevant rubrics

Pill 2013, Elder et al. 2017


PILOT-TRAFFIC CONTROLLER EXCHANGE

35

problem

Korean English Proficiency Test for Aviation perceived as poor indicator of professional

competence participants

pilots and air traffic controllers

method

professionals’ feedback on recordings of abnormal/emergency/distress situations

findings

➤ discrepancies between pilot and language test criteria

➤ communication errors by both L1 and L2 speakers

Kim 2012, Kim & Billington 2016, Clark 2017, Elder et al. 2017


PLAN




➤ L2 researchers

➤ L2 teachers

➤ L2 testers

➤ indigenous criteria

➤ less grammar/NS norms


REVISITING COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE IN LSP

➤ native-speaker norms are NOT the most relevant in LSP ➤ indigenous criteria are also

important ➤ grammatical accuracy is less

important to non language specialists

➤ native-speakers also need to learn intercultural skills and accommodation strategies for LSP communication


REVISITING COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE IN LSP

➤ communicative language testing - and teaching - should involve a range of skills and abilities

➤ speakers should be able to ➤ accommodate

➤ tolerate different varieties of English ➤ rapidly attune to new patterns of phonology, syntax, etc ➤ use phonological features crucial for intelligibility with a

given interlocutor ➤ negotiate meaning; notice and repair breakdowns in

communication ➤ ascertain and deploy appropriate pragmatics (Harding 2014)

➤ appropriate content, method, but also assessment criteria


[email protected]@whyshonaefl.unice.fr

39

wp.me/p28EmH-169

What counts as effective interaction and who is to judge?

REVISITING COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE IN LANGUAGES FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES

Département Langues et Cultures EA7437 Laboratoire Culture Education Sociétés(LACES) Université de Bordeaux, jeudi 18 janvier 2018

Shona Whyte

http://wp.me/p28EmH-169