teaching conversation in the second language classroom: problems and prospects

7/26/2019 Teaching Conversation in the Second Language Classroom: Problems and Prospects

1/22

Education Journal It tf ^

^g .

7 / H Chinese

U niversity

of

Hong Kong 1996

Winter 1995, Vol.

23

,No.2

ISSN

1025-1936/HKS50

Teaching

Conversation in the Second

Language Classroom: Problems and

Prospects

P A U L SZE

Th e Chinese UniversityofHong Kong

Th e

current skills orientation

to

second language teaching

an d

com-

munication activities employed in communicative approaches have in-

creased

the

amount of speaking practice

in the

classroom. Yet,

the

level

o f

conversational competence reached

by

most instructed second language

learners is far from satisfactory. This paper draws on concepts from con-

versational analysis, classroom discourse,

a nd

communicative competence

in

arguingfor adirect approach to the teaching of conversation skills. It

shows that materials and classroom activities used in communicative lan-

guage teaching

often

fail toaddress the interactional dimension

of

conver-

sation. The paper suggests principles and activities for the developm ent of

conversational competence

in the

classroom.

It

is

common pract ice

fo r

general-purpose second/foreign language

programmes toincorporatethe

teach ing

o fspeak ingski l ls .T herecogn i t ion

of sp eaking as part and parcel 01 a second lan gua ge curr icu lum is reflected

in

general methodology texts (e.g. , Bowen, Madsen,

& Hilfer ty ,

1985;

Doff,

1988;

N u n a n ,

1991), as well as in second language syllabuses

(e.g.,

Curriculum D evelopment Co mm it tee/Co uncil [CDC], 1981, 1983, 1994).

Speaking

is

often

broken down

in to

subskil ls ,one ofw hic his theabil i tyto

take part

in a

conversat ion

in the

target language. This abil i ty

is

often

believed to be parto f a learner 's

c o m m u n i c a t i ve

competence (Faerch an d

Kasper , 1983), the

ul t ima te

goal of second l ang uage learn ing.

N u n a n

(1991) suggested

that

to most people, mast ering the art of speaking is

the single most im portant aspectof

learning

a second or foreignl a n gu a ge ,

an d success is measured in t erms of the

abili ty

to carry out a conversa-

tion

in the l a n gu a ge (p . 39). T h e impor tance a t t achedtoconversa t ional


2/22

23 0 Paul Sze

competence can be seen in the inclusion of a conversation section in many

language proficiency/achievement tests(e.g., Australian Second Language

Proficiency Ratings , Internat ional English Language Tes t ing System

Hong Kong Cert i f ica te of Educat ion Examinat ion (HKCE), Hong Kong

Advanced Level Exam inat ion (HK A L); see Boyle and Falvey, 1994, for a

review

of the

major local

an d

international proficiency tests). Coursebooks

fo r general-purpose second language programmes invariab ly embody

materials for developing

learners'

oral competence.

Yet, despite insights provided by

discourse

analysts int o the workings

of conversation, second language materials continue to present contrived

and artificial dialogues w hich purport to bedevelop ing learn ers' speaking

skills. Classroom procedures for teaching conversation often amount to

nothing more than

th e

parroting

of

dialogues (Richards

an d

Schmidt,

1983, p. 126). Afteryears ofconversation practice,man y learners are still

unable

to

engage

in

genuine conversation

in the

target language.

Examiners' Report of the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Exam.

(Hong Kong Examinations Authority [HKEA], 1993) has the following

comment

on

candidates' conversational

competence:

M an y

candidates could

not

hold

a

more th an rud imentary conversa t ion

mainly

due to a lacko fvocabulary to express their ideas

e f fec t ive ly . . . .

M a ny

candidates

satisfied

the m se lves

wi th

Yes

an d

No answers .

I nfact , ifthey

had

taken the in i tiative to say a bi t more, they wou ld have scored a much

better mark. (p. 103)

Whether

th i s

weaknesswas due to candidates ' lack of vocabula ryis

open

to

discussion,

but

th is inadequacy

i n

conversa t ional competence

is

comm on among second langu age learners: the inabil i ty to take up long

turns

in

conversation

is a

feature

o f

many second language speakers,

who

keep

to

short turns

an d

appear

to be

less

than collaborative conversational

partn ers (Rich ards, 1990, p. 70). A closer examination of the current

materials and techniques for teaching conversation suggests that they do

no t

actually develop learners ' conversational competence. General

methodology coursebooks give guidance on the teaching of speaking but

are in

fact pa yin g li t tle attention

to the

teaching

of

conversation.

Thispaper argues that this si tuation results from conceptual confusion

over th e teaching of speaking. I t wil l begin wi th a review of the charac-

teristics of conversa tional discourse. It w ill then point o ut th at most class-

room discourse in the form of interaction between teacher an d learners, is


3/22

Teaching

Conversation in the Second Language Classroom 23 1

jnot conducive to fostering learners' conversational

skills.

The paper will

then arguef o r t h eteachingo fspecific conversational skills. I nthis

be

examined

and it

will

be

shownthat althoug h such activities

are

carried

[ o u t in the spoken m ode, they do not necessarily develop

learners'

conver-

sational competence. The paper will conclude with a discussion of the

principles for teaching conversation and suggestions for

classroom

ac -

t ivitiesthat im prove conversat ional skills.

What

Is

Conversation?

Before w elook intot henatureo fconversation, w emustaddresstheissue

of

what kind

of

talkqualifies

as

conversation.

While monologues suchas

lectures,speeches

and TV

new s reports

are

obviously

to be

ruled out, talk

involving more thanonespeakerdoes notnecessarily constitute conversa-

tion.

Take

th e

classroom.

Even though there may be agreat

deal

of

oral

interaction between teacher and students during a

lesson,

few

people

would accept that the teacher is having a ge nuine conversation w ith th e

s tudents .W hat is conversation, then ?

Goffman (1976)

offered the follow-

in g

defini t ion:

. . . conversation, restrictively defined,m ig h t be identified as the talk occur-

ring when asm all numbero f participants come together an d set t le into

w h a t

theyperceive

to be a few mom ents cut off from (o r

carried

on to thesideo f)

instrumental tasks;a

period

of idlingfelt to be an end in i tself, during w hich

everyone

is

accorded

th e

right

t o

talk

a s

well

as to

listen

and

wi tho ut reference

to a fixed schedule . . . and no final agreement or synthesis is demanded,

differences

of

opinion

to be

treated

as

unprejudicial

to the

cont inu ing rela t ion-

ship of the participants, (p. 264)

This definition may be overly technical ana indeed most people ca n

intuitively tell a conversation

from

o ther

speech

events (Hy mes, 1972).

But it is auseful

reminder

to the

teacher

w ho

sets

out to

teach conversa-

tion.

It isperhapsalacko faw arenessof the natureof conversation thathas

resulted in the chaos in the teaching of conversation. As Richards (1990)

puts

it, the 'conversation class' is som eth ing of an enigma in language

teaching

(p .

67). Labels such

a sspeech, oral, speaking, an dconversation

ar eoften used intercha ngeably. The Syllabus

for English

(CDC, 1983), for


4/22

23 2

au lSze

example, states that speaking skills can be divided into three elements:

(a) the teaching ofp ronuncia t ion(speech training), (b ) manipulative ac -

tivities

(drills an d pattern practice),

and (c)

com mu nicativ e activi t ies

(purposeful use

of

language) (p . 63). Whileth e first tw o types ofactivity

will no doubt contribute toone's oral competence, they belong more in

Rivers and Temperley's (1978) category of sk ill-getting activities. In fact,

tn e

second

type

of

activity, drills

and

pattern

practice,

is

usually

carried

out

primarily for

practising languageform,

not for

improving speaking

skills.

In

the

Syllabus,

th e

category

of

com mu nicat ive activities comprises

a

range

of

fluency activi t ies such

as

problem -solving tasks, improvisations,

role-plays,

an d

interviews, w hic h provide

an

opportunity

fo r

students

to

use all

their language resources

fo r

fluency practice. Attention

t o

real life

conversation

skills, such asappropriacy of langu age (Widdowson , 1978)

and techniques for managing a conversation in a second language culture

(see Richards and Schmidt, 1983, for a review) is minimal. (See Tsui,

1993, for a comprehensive description of the functions ofconversational

utterancesinEnglish.) ->

;

Richards

(1990)

has highlighted one reason for this confusion. There

is one assumptioninsecond language acquisi t ionresearch that languageis

acquired through con versa tion (e.g., H atc h, 1978; Sato, 1986; Swain,

1985). Hatch asserted that one learnshow to do conversa t ion, onelearns

how tointeract verbally,and ou t of th i s interact ion syntact ic structuresar e

developed (p. 404). Tasks that promote conversa tion therefore facili tate

language acquisition. Swain has supported conversation practice in the

classroomon the grounds th at it promotes acqu isition since oral interaction

provides learnerswi th th e

oppor tun i ty

to push to the

l imi t

theiremerging

competence. Long

an d

Porter 's review (1985) also indicated that from

a

psycholinguis t ic

point

of view,

interlanguage talk, interaction between

non-native speaking learners, is conducive to interlanguage development.

However ,

we can see

thatwi th inth is v iew,

the

teaching

of

conversation

i s

a

means

to an end

(language acquisi t ion),

and not an end in

itself.

T he

result

is language being acquired, not enhanced conversa tion skills. While

th e goal of language acquisi t ionis certainly crucial, it is important that

teachers should be able to tell what an a ctiv ity labelled oral or conver-

sation

actually practises. They should be able to distinguish between

structural or

fluency practice carried

out by way of

dialogues,

and ac-

t ivitiesthat teach

a nd

practise

the skills fo r

tak ing part

in a

conversation

i n

the

target languag e.


5/22

Teaching

Conversation

in the

Secondlanguage Classroom 23 3

The

NatureofConversation

Research

by ethnom ethodologis ts (e.g. ,

Goffman,

1976;

Jefferson,

1972;

Sacks,

1972; Schegloff, 1972)

an d

linguistic philosophers (e.g.,

Aus t in ,

1962;

Grice, 1975; Searle, 1969) has provided new insights in the charac-

teristics

of natu rally occurring conversation. Studies into aspects of con-

versation

such as turn-taking , topic negotiation and ma intenan ce, repairs,

openingsand

closings have revealed wh at genuine conversation

is

like.

Fo r

example,

Tsui's study of adjacency pairs in conversation confirms the

finding

tha t

conversation is by nomeans astring ofut terances tenuously

related to each other. It is organised in an orderly fashion. Not only are

there

sequencing rules governing what is

expected

to occur but also

w h a t

can

occur

if the

discourse

is to becoherent (1991,p .

128). Results

from

conversational

analysis show that neatly

constructed

dialogues that

often

dominate

instruct ional materials are highly unlikely to ex ist. Consider the

following

examplefrom a

coursebook

for

intermediate-level

EFL

learners:

Situational dialogue

Sam and Lyn are talking about what they can do.

Sam:

Le t ' s

go out for a

wa lk .

L yn : Th a t 's not a verygood idea. I t 's raining.

Sam: I l ikewalk ing w h e n i t ' sra in ing .

L yn : D o n ' t

b esilly .We can go out

tomorrow.

Sam:

W hy? Wha t's the weather forecast for tomorrow?

Ly n : I t ' s going to be hot .

Sam:

I

don't l ike walking when i t 's hot.

L yn : An d 1don ' t l ike walking when i t ' s ra in ing .

(Methold

an d

Tadm an, 1990,

p.

185)

It

is

highly unlikely thatconversations

in

whi ch

th e

speakers negotiate

for

something will develop

in

this fashion. O ften,

speakersproceed

step

b y

step,

so unding each other out .

T he

unnaturalness

of

this dialogue

will

be

seen

m ore clearlyif wecompare itwi ththe sample ofn atura lly occurring

converstionbelow:

Jack :

Sa y

wha t

ya

do i n?

Ju d y : Well , we 're going out . Wh y?

Jack: Oh, I wasjus t gonna sa ycome out andcome over here an d talk to the

people.

(Coul thard ,1977, p. 71)

Let's consider another example. The extract below, which is also


6/22

234

PaulS ze

t aken from a coursebook for interm ediate learners, purports to practise

conversa tion:

Read

this

conversa t ion. Then, w i th your par tner ,

use the

notes below

to

practisesim ilar conversation. (You

may use

must

in

place

o f

have to.)

S1 :

What

do I

have

to do if I

(want

to

have

a

telepho ne installed)?

S2: You should (write to the Hong Kong Telephone Company).

SI : What happens then?

S2: Youhaveto (fill in aform).

S1: Wh at else should I do?

S2: You

(have

to pay a

deposit).

1 . You wa nt to have electricity installed/write to the Hong Kong Electric

Company/fill in aform/payadeposit.

(andso on)

(Howe,

T . A .

K irkpatrick,

& D . L .

Kirkpatrick, 1987,

p.

112)

This practice

is in the

form

of aconversation,but we caneasilysee

tha t what learners actually practise isproducing grammatically correct

sentenceswithhave

to ,must,

and should.

T h u s , dialogues in second language learning materials are often used

to exempl ify s tructures or com mu nicativ e funct ions. As a result , they

eas i ly

convey to the learner afalse pic ture of conversational discourse in

th e target language . T he above examples ignore at least tw o important

aspects

of

conversa tion:

1. The formal characteristics of spontaneous speech, such as false starts,

fillers,

re-phrasings, hesitations , slips

of the

tongue, repetitions, unfinished

sentences,

s ty les

of

speaking, etc.

2. The

techniques

ofengagingin a conversation in the target language, such

as

how to open and close a con versation, how to t ake and relinquish

speaking turn, how to show attention, how to agree and disagree, etc.

They need abun dant practice in taking turn s, interruptions and listening

actively.They need to practise how to hold back the more talkative mem-

bers and draw out the shy or self-conscious ones. They need to learn how

to request clarifications, how to slow dow n, and how to explain (Ernst,

1994,

p. 315).

The second point above implies that conversation practice in the class-

room should

not be

confined

t o

making

responses

only. Following work

o n

adjacency pairs (e.g., Coulthard, 1977; Schegloff

&

Sacks, 1973),

Richards (1977) drew at tention

to the

common practice

incoursebookso f

treating questions, especially yes/no questions,

as if

they belonged

to one


7/22

Teaching Conversation

in the

Second Language Classroom

23 5

adjacency pair (i.e. , Request for Inform ation A nsw er) only. A s a result ,

many students are only capable of short stil ted replies such asYes, I can

or No, Ican't,w hic h

while

grammaticallycorrect,may be con versa tionally

inappropriate as second part cons titue nts of adjacency pairs (Rich ards &

Schmidt ,

1983, p. 130). The second textbook example quoted above,

hence,

m ay be

rewrit ten

as:

SI: Wh at do I have to do if I (want to have a telephone instal led?)

S2 :

Why? Something wrong with

the one

you're using?

SI: I tdoesn't work properly.

S2: Well , you should (write to the Hong K ong Telephone C ompan y).

SI :

Wh at happens then?

S2 : Look, I 'vegot (their guidebook) here.Let'sse ew h a titsays.

SI: It

says

yo u

have

t o

(fill

in a

form).

S2: Andtheny ouhavet o(paya deposit).

Brown an dYule(1983a)distinguishedtwofunctions of language: th e

transactional

use, which

isconcerned

with

th eexpression ofcontent,and

th einteractional use, whichi sconcernedw ith establishing an dmain ta in ing

social relationships. Bygate (1988)

has

contrasted motor-percept ive

skills

an d interaction skillsandpointedo ut tha tthelatter iscalled for in real

life

communicat ion:

Interact ional

skills

invo lve making dec is ions abou t com-

municat ion, such as :

what

to say,how to say it, and

w h e t h e r

todevelopit ,

in

accordance

with one's in tent ions, while maintaining th e desired rela-

tions

wi thothers (p. 6). He has

highl ighted three features which dist in-

guish speaking

from

writing, th e other productive

skill.

They are: (a )

Speech takes place under the pressure of t im e, (b) in terpersonal in teract io n

in conversat ion is two-way, and (c) this two-way comm unicat ion dem ands

the

abili tyto negot iate meaning and manage in teract ion. Nun an (1991) h as

emphasized th e greater unpredictability of interpersonal encou nters th at

are

carried

out to

main ta in

social

relationships.

T o

recap, conversation

is

muchm ore than the conveying ofinformation in the spoken mode. Brown

and Yule (1983b) has pointed out that the overriding function of spoken

language

is the

maintenance

of

social relationships: Mos t people spend

a

great deal

of

their everyday l ives

in ' cha ts ' ,

where

th e

primary purpose

is

to beniceto theperson the ya ret a lk ingto (p. 11).

T he

primarily interactional function

ofspoken

language

has

implica-

tions for teach ing. As Richards (1990) puts it , interactional uses of con-

versation are very

different

in both form and function from the kinds of

transactional language found

in

task-oriented communication,

an d

should


8/22

23 6

Paul Sze

have

a

central

placein a conversation program (p.

79). This

was echoed

by

McCarthy (1991), who commented that

there

is no doubt that some

teachingmaterials are imba lanced between the two types of talk (p. 137).

The

Nature

of

Classroom Discourse

If second language materials seldom provide authentic conversational

samples, does classroom talk h elp? Research into the natu re of classroom

discourse (e.g., Coulthard, 1977; Holmes, 1983; Sinclair

and

Brazil, 1982)

has shown that most exchanges that happen in me classroom

follow

th e

teacher initiates

pupil responds

teacher com ments sequence.

Sinclairan d Brazil 's comprehensive s tudyo f teacher talk shows

that

stu-

dents have only very restricted opportunities toparticipate in thelanguage

of th eclassroom (p. 5) andthat the teacher dominates th etalk inquan-

tity, range,

anddegreeofcontrol (p. 7).

This

sequenceis

shaped

by the

role

ofteacher andthat of students in theclassroom (the teacher is the

authority figure) (see Gremmo, Holec an d Riley, 1985, for afuller discus-

sion),

th e

setting (the classroom requires students' obedience),

and the

relative knowledge level of the part icipants ( the teacher is the more

knowledgeab le person). Most classroom talk is concerned wi th pedagogi-

ca l

content

and not

wi th

th e teacher 's orstud ents ' real life experienceso r

feelings.

This meanstha t

al though

t heteacherisseemingly

talking

withth e

students, trying

to

involve

th e

students

as

mu c h

as

possible,

she is in

reality

talking at them (see Tsui, 1992, for a summ ary of the feat ures of teacher

talk). As a result , classroom discourse does not provide a model for stu-

dents to learn: (a) how to ini t ia te a conversat ion, (b) how to

nominate

topicsf orconversation,and vc) how to

initiate

exchanges duringaconver-

sation. This perhaps

explains

why the conversations between the ex-

aminer (a nauthority figure, usuallyateacher)and thecandidateinH K C E

English O ral testsoften sound more like interrogations than conversations.

Conversation andCommunicative Competence

One

migh t

argue: Is conversat ional competence that impor tan t? Is the

abili ty toconvey information asufficient goal fo r foreign language teach-

ing? H ow m any of our stude nts will really need to ma intain social relation-

ships in a foreign language? These questions about realistic goals are

certainly

important with respect

to an

ent ire foreign language programme

(Education Commission, 1995) and the teaching of the spoken language


9/22

Teaching Conversation in theSecond Language

Classroom

23 7

(Brownan d Yule, 1983b).

T eachers

should always bear inmindthe needs

of their students and plan their programmes accordingly. Indeed, when

faced wi th

lo w

achievers, teachers

m ay

jus ti f iably accord priority

t o

w h a t

they consider to be the more

pressing

areas such as grammar,

vocabulary, and reading. H oweve r, one shou ld not lose sig ht of one of the

ultimate goals

of

second language instruction, which

is to

facilitate

learners'

acquisition

of communicative

competence (Faerch

and Kasper,

1983),

th e

ability

to

speak both accurately

an d

appropriately (Wolfson,

1989, p.36). ForHymes(1972), therea rerulesof use without whichth e

rules

of

grammar would

be

useless

(p .

45),

so

that t rue communicative

competence embraces knowing what to say to whom in what circumstan-

ces and how to say it. While priorities may vary from programme to

programme, appropriacy

of

language

us e

should

not be

dismissed

al -

together

from

second language teaching (Nolasco

an d

A rth ur, 1987,

p. 19).

Theinclusionof anoral

test

in the Advanced SupplementaryLevel

Use ofEnglish Examination from 1994 reflects th e

importance

that ex -

amination

bodies

attach to

speaking

abilities and, inparticular, conversa-

t ional competence. Part 2 of this test requires cand idat es to take part in a

group discussion for the p lann ingof aproject . This is not amere fluency

tes t , because the candidate who monopolizes the g roup discussion

will

in

fact bepenalized.I noth er words,th istest

involves

interpersonal in terac-

t ion and the candidates

will

therefore be assessed on much higher level

skillsofcomm unicative abil ites over an dabovepurely l inguist icabil i t ies ,

including

fluency, turn-taking, range of vocabulary and structures and

in tel l igibil i ty (Fullilove, 1992,

p .

143).

If languageis to be learntfo r communica t ion (Widdow son , 1978) so

that lingu istic competence alone is not enough , it is necessary to exam ine

wha t comm unicativ e competence embraces. W olfson (1989) pointed out

that

th e

notion

of

communicative

competence

by

Hymes

(1967,

1972)

has

often been misinterpreted in

second

language teaching, so that grammati-

ca l competence was regarded as something separate from communica t ive

competence instead of an intrinsic part of what speakers need to know in

order to communicate effectiv ely (p. 46). Th is has resulte d in approaches

that either ignore gram matical accuracy or treat the teach ing of wh at to

say towhom under what circumstances as something separate from work

on accuracy. Some methodologis ts have somewhat equated communica-

t ive competence with fluency or the ability to get one's meaning across

only.


10/22

238

aul Sze

CanaleandSwain

(1980)

identified three components ofcommunica-

tive competence: grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence,

an d strategic competence. Under sociolinguistic competence are twosets

of

rules: sociocultural rulesof use andrulesofdiscourse:

Sociocultural rules

of use

will specify

th e

ways

in

which utterances

are

produced an d understood appropriately

with

respect to the component of

communicative events outlined

by Hymes.... The

primary focus

of

these

rules

is on the

extent

to

which certain propositions

an d

communicative

func-

tions

are

appropriate within

a

given

sociolinguistic

context depending

on

contextual factors such astopic, role of participants, setting, an dnormsof

interaction,

(p. 30)

Strategic competence consists of the verbal and nonverbal com-

munication

strategies

that

can

help learners

to

copewith

or

remedy break-

downs in communication which result

from

lack of proficiency in the

language (Canale &Swain, 1980, p. 30). Different typologies of com-

munication

strategies

have been

proposed

toAccountforwhatlearnersdo

: . . ; . . . . * * . ' *i n . - . . V

:

AV i - S - - . - >r/._,

when faced withalinguistic gap(e.g.,Faerch andKasper,1983; Tarone,

1977). Canale (1983) emphasized that th eframeworkof communicative

competence was to prepare an dencourage learners to exploit in an op-

t imal way

their limited communicative competence

in the

second language

in

order to participate in

actual

communica t ive situations (p . 17). T o

rephrase

th e

above

in

plain language,

a

person

w ho

communicates well

not

only knowswhat to say andwhen to say it, but also knows

what

to do

when

hedoesn't knowhow to saysomething. While thisiswidely recog-

nized

in L1(first

language) communicat ion(Cook, 1991,

p.

70).

th e

ques-

t ion

of how to

make

up for

lack

of

language

in L2

(second language)

communication

is

neglected

in

second language teaching. Faerch

an d

Kasper have argued

for the

need

to

foster learners' ability

to

apply com-

munication strategies sincenolanguage programmescanaddressall the

learners'

future

communicative needs. Cook suggested that while

we may

no t

need toteach communicat ive strategies directly, thisdoes no tmean

that

i t may not be

beneficial

fo r

students

to

have their attention drawn

to

them so

thatthey

are

reminded that these strategies

ca n

indeed

be

used

in

an

L2 as they formpartof thenormal repertoire oftheir communicative

competence

(p.

71). (See Bialystock, 1990, Chap.

8, for a

discussion

of

th e teachabili tyo fcommunicat ionstrategies.)

A second language teacher's job, hence, is to help learners attain

communicative

competence which consists

of the

abili ty

to

produce


11/22

Teaching

Conversation

in the

SecondLanguage Classroom

23 9

grammatical

sentences,the

ability

to

communicate appropriately according

to

the

social

situation, and the ability to cope with gaps in their inter-

language. We can seethen

tha t

th edevelopmentofconversational com-

petence should not be treated as a low-priority concern. In the words

of Richards

and

Schmidt (1983), conversational competence

is

just

as

important

a

dimension

of

second language learning

as the

grammatical

competence which is the

focus

of much

formal

language Naming (p.

150).

Some methodologists have argued that given

the constraintsof the

classroom, communicative competence isunattainableinformalinstruction

(Jakobovits

&

Gordon,

1980).

Harmer (1983),

foi

example, argued that

a

more realistic aim for the classroom was communicative efficiency :

Here we will expect our students to be able to express what it is they wish to

say. In other words, if they wish to express disagreement we can ensure that

they areable to do so andthat their meaningisunderstood.... We are not

teachingourstudentsto bemodel EnglishmenorAmericans, etc.but to use

th e

tool

of theEnglish

language

to

communicate,

(p. 24)

While there is reason to be realistic

wi th

the

goals

of a language

programme,

an argument like the one put forward by Harmer is not

without problems. Af ter all, on e major reason fo r second language in -

s truction

is to

facilitate

intercultural

communica t ion .

T he

classroom

m ay

no t be an ideal place to develop sociolinguistic competence (Scarcella,

Anderson

and Krashen, 1990, p. 284), and not all learners are integra-

t ively motivated (Gardner and Lambert, 1972), but these are not reasons

fo r excluding sociolinguistic competence in alanguage programme. In

fact,

the

fourth

component in Canale an d Swain's (1980) framework,

strategic

competence,

is

vital even

to

communication between non-native

speakers. Scarcella (1990)hashighlightedspecifically th enegative

effects

on second language speakers that a lack of conversational competence

produces.

Nevertheless, communicativeefficiency

h as

come

to

dominate com-

municat iveapproaches

to

language teaching, both

in

terms

of

materials

designand classroom procedures.

Conversation and Communicative Language Teaching

Communica t ive

approaches

to

second language teaching have generally

increased the amount of speaking practice in the classroom. Activities such


12/22

24 0 Paul Sze

as

information-gaptasks, games, role-plays, an d interviews, are usually

done orally. In the accuracy/fluency polarity

(Brumfi t ,

1984), such ac-

t ivit iesa re

us ually employed

for the

development

of

fluency.

In

respect

of

eachact ivi ty , success is measured by how accuratelyinformat ionh as been

conveyed, or how well a problem has been solved. In other words, many

communicative activities involve transactional language only (Brown

and

Yule,

1983b).

A tthe same time, it is common

practice

for materials and programm es

tha t claim

to be communicative to be

based

on a

notional-functional

syllabus

(e.g.,

Munby, 1978; Yalden, 1983).Different structures th at real-

ize a language function are grouped together and presented to learners

(e.g., Blundell, Higgens,

&

Middlemiss,

1982).

Although this approach

seemst ofacilitatet hedevelopment of conversational skills,theimplemen-

tation actually displays

a

number

ofproblems.

First,

it

gives

th e

learner

th e

false impression tha t there exists

a

one-to-

on ecorrespondence

between form

and

function.

Inreality,

this matching

is

no t

asstraightforward as one

might

haveimagined;

Sinclair

and Coulthard

(1992) exemplified with th e

interrogative What

are you laughing at?

(said

by a teacher to a student) and showed th at wheth er the utterance is to

be

interpreted

as a

genuine question

or a

warning

from th e

teacher depends

on

a host of factors, many of which are not linguistic (see also Holmes,

1983, for an

analysis

of children's interpretationof teacher 's directives) .

Nolasco and A rthur (1987) warned that any approach that leads students

to

equa teon epar t icular language form w itho ne par t icularfunction, will

lead to misunderstanding in conversation because an important require-

ment fo r success isbeing ablet o interpretintended speech acts correctly

(p. 8).Th is v iewwasechoed byMcC arthy (1991),w hoacknowledgedth e

necessity of showing learners the structures that serve a certain language

function bu t pointed out that most utterances in a language couldnot be

categorized into functions simply by their surface form, and that most

coursebooks were exemplifying a very small subset of form-function

matchesonly (p. 10).

Second, many of the communicative functions deal with social for-

mulas(Blundell , H iggens,

&

Middlemiss, 1982), su ch

as

asking

and

giving

direct ions, greeting someone, congratulating, thanking,

and so on, or in-

itiating specific actions, such as offering, accepting and refusing help,

asking and giving permission, and so on. While such expressions are

important, they are not enough for sustaining a conversation. Genuine

conversations require speakers to take longer turns

from

time to time.


13/22

Teaching Conversation in the Second Language Classroom

24 1

Activities that practise social formulas only are not enough todevelop

students ' abili tytosustainaconversation (Brown&Yule,1983b).

Communica t ivelangu age eachin g also relies heavily

on

activities that

convey information

an d

m eaning .

A s

pointed

outearlier,

communicative

efficiency, or how much and how accurately a message has been con-

veyed,

is

often used

as the

yardstick

fo r

evaluating performance

on a

communicative task. Littlewood (1981)d istinguished between functional

comm unication activities

andsocial

interaction

activities.In

social

interac-

tion

activities, learnersmu st sti ll

aim to

convey meanings effectively,

bu t

must also

pa y

greater attention

to the

social context

in

which

the

interac-

tion takesplace

(p.

20). Nu nan(1989)em phasized

the

need

to

consider

th e

goal behind

an y

com mu nicat ive task.

The

goal provides

a

point

of

contact between

the

task

and the

broader curriculum

(p.

48). Nunan

has

drawn attention

to an

example

of

goal classification provided

by the

Australian

Language Levels project.

A s far as the

development

of

conver-

sational skills isconcerned, the following goals seem crucial to com-

mu nicative language teaching (Clark,1987): ' r * '

1. Establish an d main ta in interpersonal relationships, an d through

this

to

exchange info rmat ion, ideas , opinions, a t t i tudes ,

an d

feel-

ings,

and to get

t hing s done.

(p .

226)

2.

H ave some

unders tandingof how

interpersonal relations

are

con-

ducted in the target language speech com mu nity, (p. 229)

3. H ave some insight into the cultural traditions of the target lan-

guage com muni ty ,

(p .

229)

The

project recomm ended conversa t ion

an d

correspondence

in

order

to

establish

an d

maintain interpersonal relations.

T o

this end, activities

should

b e

organizedthatenab le learners

t o:

solve

problems through

social

interaction with

others, for example,

par-

ticipate in conversation related to the pursui t of a common activi ty with

others,

obtain

goodsandservicesandnecessary

information through

conver-

sation or correspondence, make arrangements andcome to decisions wi th

others; to establish and ma intain relationships and discuss topics of interest

through the exchang e of information, ideas, opinions, at t i tudes, feelings, ex-

periences,a nd

plans,

( p.

227)

In other words, opportunities should be created for learners to

engage

in

genuine conversa t ion. Conversa tions should

not be

used only

fo r


14/22

242

Paul Sze

relaying information, practising structures or comm unicative functions

and developing flueuc y.

Pedagogical Considerations

While successful language learners have reported on their

strategies

fo r

improving communicative competence (Naiman, Frohlich,

Stern, &

Todesco,

1978), we know very lit t le about how conversational competence

can be developed in the classroom. Fo r instance, many of the skills re-

quired for Pan 2 of the oral test in the new A.S. Level Use of English

Examination, cannot be taugh t in a programmed or mechanistic way

because stud ents need to be aware not only of the linguistic features or

spoken discourse,

bu t also of

paralinguistic

and

extralinguistic,

or

proxemic, features (Ingham & Murphy, 1994, p. 92). Suggestions in

termsof classroom technique(e.g.,Ernst, 1994; Nolasco &Arthur, 1987),

methodological framework

(e.g., Littlewood, 1992), approach (e.g.^

Richards,

1990),

syllabus design

(e.g.,

Domyei

Thurrell 1994),and

general principles

(e.g.,

Scarcella, 1990) have been made,

bu t

there

are no

coherent

frameworks for

t eaching conversa t ion

an d

incorporating

it into a

general-purpose

second lang uage programme.

I nthisconcluding

section,

I

shall start

with

d iscuss ingth e main principles of teaching conversation.

Then I shall suggest a n u m b e r of classroom activi ties fo rdeveloping

students' conversational competence.

The

follow ing principles should

be

considered wh en teaching conver-

sation:

1. Do not

confuse

th e t eachingof conversationwi th other activities

that ar edone ora lly, suchaspro nunc iation drills, gramm ar drills,

language games, informat iong ap act ivi t ies, language

functions

incorporated in dialogues, etc.

2. D istinguish between speaking skills and conversation skills. In the

words of Nolasco and Arthur (1987), being able to speak

reasonably correct

an d

even fluent English

is one

thing. Being

able

to

engage

in

on-going, in teract ive, mental ly sat isfying con-

versation

is anoth er (p. 3).

3. Do not assume that all ofone's conversational competence in the

mother tonguei s t ransferableto a second language. Becauseof

cultural differences,

transfer

of features of first language conversational

competence

into


15/22

Teaching

C onversation in the Second Language Classroom

24 3

English

... may

have much more serious consequences than errors

at

th e level of syntaxof s i c ] pro nuncia tion, because conversational com -

petence is closely related to the presenta t ionof self, that is , c om m uni -

cating

an image of ourselves to others. (Richards & Schmidt, 1983,

p.

150)

There

ar e

specific culturally appropriate skills

of

conversation

whichneed

to be

learnt,

as not all

such ski l ls

are

transferable

from

th e first language (Keenan, 1976). (For cultural differences in

conversational

skills, see, e.g., work

b y

Maynard, 1990,

on

back-

channel expressions; Testa, 1988, on interruptions; and Garcia,

1989,

on

politeness

in

apologies.)

4. If we accept that com mu nicative competence is theultimate goal

of language instruction, then sociolinguistic competence

an d

strategic competence should form part of any language

programme.

5. Aprogramme thatis based on afunctional/notional syllabusand

makes abundant use of speaking

activities

doesnot

necessarily

lead

t o

conversational

competence.

6. The

teaching

of

conversa t ion should

be

organized

and

should

form

a

coherent part

of the

ov eral l language programm e (N olasco

& Ar thur ,

1987;

see

Richards , 1990,

pp .

79-84,

fo r

suggest ions

for a

direct approach

to

teaching casual conversation;

see

Dornyei

Th urrell, 1994, for a suggested in vento ry of skills for a conver-

sation programme organized around conversational rules an d

structures, conversational strategies,

funct ions

and meaning in

conversation, social

an d

cul tural contexts).

7.

Studen ts should

be

m ade aware

of the

d ynamic na ture

of

conver-

sation.

A n

utterance

in a

conversation produces meaning

by

inter-

acting with other utterances in the conversation. Moreover, speech

acts

are

oftenmulti functional (Richards

&

Schmidt. 1983,

p.

126).

The

teaching

of

conversation

is

hence far more than

th e

parroting

of

dialogues (p. 126).

8. The interactional funct ion of language should not be neglected.

This means helping learners with strategies for casual conversa-

tion. Richards

(1990)

advocates a two-pronged approach wh ich

teaches conversation indirectly through interactive tasks and

directly through practice that focuses explicity on the skills of

conversation.


16/22

24 4 PaulSze

Basedon theaboveprinciples, some classroom activities that develop

conversation skillsare now suggested:

1. Expose students to recordings of unscripted conversations be -

tween nat ive speakers.

If

such recordings cannot

be

obtained,

semiprepared conversations

such

as

interviews, forums,

and

phone-in talk shows

on the

radio

and

television, also provide

examplesof theskills ofconversat ion. Draw their at tent ion to the

conversation skills involved, suchasopeningandclosinga con-

versation (see Schegloff & Sacks, 1973), turn-taking (Sacks,

Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974), providing feedbackto thespeaker,

negotiat ing an d changing a topic (H atch , 1978), repairing

(Schegloff, Jefferson,&Sacks, 1977;see vanLier, 1988, Chap.7

fo r

adiscussion of developing repair skills in the classroom),

conversational routines (Pawley & Syder, 1983; Richards &

Sukwiwat, 1983),

and so

for th .

Ask

students suchquestions

as:

Ho

w

did

Speaker

A

indicatethat

he

wanted

to

speak?

What

didSpeakerB say to indicate thathewantedtofinishthe

conversation?

2.

Conversat ion involves nonve rbal s trategies . H ence,

the use of

video recordings should also be cons idered in conducting the

awareness-raising act ivi t ies me ntione d above.

3. M any second langu age learners

th ink

that (a) spoken English is

written English said aloud, and (b) utterances produced bynative

speakers are always perfectly organized and constructed (Lewis,

1993, n . 53). A s a resul t , they tend to overm oni tor their speech

(Krashen, 1982), or produce ut terances

wh ic h

ar ebookish . Show

students transcripts of

informal

conve rsat ion so they have a bet ter

idea of what spontaneous speech by nat ive speakers is like.

(Rings, 1992, suggested showing learners

a

transcript

of a

casual

conversation

and a

formal wr i t ten text

on the

same subject

fo r

comparison.) For instance, show students that interactional talk

consis ts not of complete gram matical u t terances , but of what

Bygate (1988) calls satelli te un i t s ,

wh ic h

are moodless u t terances

which lack a finite verb or verb group. Students will also realize

that authentic conversation is full of false starts , hesitations,

fillers, unfinished utterances, insertions, repeti tions, grammatical

deviations , and so on, and that nat ive speakers apply commun ica-

tion strategies whe n the y are lost for words


17/22

TeachingConversation in the Second Language Classroom 24 5

4. Eve n in conversations that reallypractise language form or func-

t ion,have stud ents practise asking questions after they hav e made

arespon se. This practises th e important skillo f sustainingacon-

versa tion(Holmes & Brow n, 1976).

5.

C ondu ct awareness activities that help students

to

interpret

th e

speech act of anutteranceor theintentionof the speaker-

H ow

do w e know that Mr Wong

didn't

really w ant to go to th e

party?

Was the teacher scolding Peter when sh e said Why are you

laughing ?

What did Mr Chan say that showed that he did not agree with

Miss Lam?

(See Nolasco an d Arthur, 1987, Section2, for sample awareness

activities.)

6.

Teach expressions

fo r

taking part

in

pairwork/grou pwork early

in

th e programme,

so

that students

can use

them

in communicative

activities(see Klippel, 1984, p. 194, for alistofsampleexpres-

sions). Communicative activities, besides their use for fluency

work,

provide opportuni t iesto r pract is ing sociol inguis t icallyap -

propriatebehaviours .

7. A f luency activity may be attempted twice. In the

first

a t t empt ,

s tudents concentrate on conveying meaning . In the second at -

tempt, they repeat the activity, paying special attention to ap-

propriacy of language. (See Richards, 1990, pp . 81-84, for a

sample teaching sequence thatdevelopsboth th etransactionalan d

in teract ionaluse of languagethrough commu nica t ive t a sks .)

Conclusion

The current skills orientation to second language teaching, coupled with

th e view of teaching language fo r communica t ion , has led to increased

attention to the teaching of speaking skills in the classroom. However,

fluency inspeech is

often

inad vertently confused with conversational com-

petence. Even materials that purport to develop conversation skills are

often a far cry

from what

naturally

occurring conversation

is

like.

A s

Richards

a ndSukwiwat(1983)put it :

Theories of how we teach conversation reflect our view of what conversation

is. Conversation is

often

defined very narrowly as the oral exchange of


18/22

24 6 PaulSze

-information.ESL/EFL materialsoften focuson thefinished productof the act

of

comm unication, rather thanon theprocesses

that

underlie conversational

discourse,

(p .

124)

A s a consequence, learners w ho have gone through several yearsof

information gap tasks may not be able to carry out a simple casual conver-

sation

in the

target language. This paper began with

a

quotation

from the

Examiners' Report of the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Exam.

(HKEA,

1993),

which pointed

to the

appalling state

of

candidates' conver-

sationalcompetence.

A t the

same time,

from

1994, candidates

who sit for

th e

Advanced Level Examinat ion will

find

their conversational skills

tapped even further

as

they have

to

carry

out a

conversation among them -

selves in small groups,wi thno participation of the oral exam iner. The oral

skillstestedinclude seekingunderstandingandclarification throu gh ques-

tioninganddiscussion an d using appropriate interaction skills (HKEA,

1994). This development

is a

further sign

of the

importance that second

language,instruction attaches to conversational

competence.

However,

much more thoughthas to begivento the teaching ofconversationin the

second language classroom, if we are to stop condemning students for

failing

to

speak beyond Yes

an d

No.

This paperh ashighlighted someof thecharacteristicso fconversation-

al discourse, an d pointed ou t that classroom talk between teacher an d

students, and the

st ilted dialogues

in

second language

learning

materials,

are not conducive to developing learners ' conversational competence. It

ha s

argued

fo r

keeping conversational competence

as a

goal

fo r

second

language teaching. It has suggested some principles and techniques for

teaching

conversa t ionin theclassroom. Yet, second language specialists

havet ocontinuetosearchfor acoherentframework fo rte aching conversa-

tion

and for integrating i t into ageneral-purpose programm e.

References

Austin,J.(1962).How to dothingsw ith words.Oxford: C larendon Press.

Bialystock,

E.(1990).

Comm unicationstrategies.

Oxford:

Basil

Blackwell .

Blundell, J., Higgens, J., & Middlemiss, N .(1982).FunctioninEng lish.Oxford:

Oxford University

Press.

Bowen, J . D. ,

M adsen,

H., &

Hilferty,

A .

(1985).

TESOL:

Techniques

an d

proce-

dures.Boston, MA: H einle &

H einle .

Boyle,

J., &

Falvey,

P .

(Eds.). (1994).English language

testing

in Hong Kong.

HongKong:TheChineseU niversity Press.


19/22

Teaching

Conversation in the Second La nguag e Classroom

247

Brown,

G., &

Yule,

G.

(1983a).

Discourse analysis.

Cambridge: Cambridge

Univers i tyPress.

Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983b).

Teaching the spoken language: An approach

based on the analysis of conversational English.


Univers i ty

Press.

Brumfi t ,

C .

(1984). Communicative methodology in language teaching.

Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Bygate ,

M .

(1988).Speaking.

Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Canale,

M. (1983).

From communicative

competenceto communicative

language

pedagogy.

In J. C.

Richards

& R. W.

Schmidt (Eds.),

Language

and

com-

munication

(pp.2-27).

London:

Lo n gman .

Canale,

M., &

Swain ,

M.

(1980). Theoretical

basesof communicative approaches

to

second language teaching

and

testing.

Ap plied Linguistics,

7(1), 1-47.

Clark,

J. L. (1987). Curriculum renewal

in

school foreign langauge learning.

Oxford:

Oxford U niversityPress.

Cook, V. (1991).

Second language learning and language teaching.

London:

Edward Arnold.

Coulthard,M.(1977).An

introduction

to

discourse ana lysis.

London:

Longman.

Curriculum

Development Committee.

(1981).Syllabusesfor English: P.I to P.6.

H ong

Kong: Government Printer.

Curr iculum D evelopme nt Com mi t tee . (1983) .

Syllabus for English: Forms J-V.

H ong

Kong : Governm ent P r in ter .

Curr icu lum

Development Counci l . (1994) .

Target Oriented Curriculum: Pro-

grammeo f

study

for En glish language.

H ong Kong: Government P r in ter.

Doff,

A .

(1988). Teach English: A training course for teachers

Trainer's hand-

book.

Cambridge: Cambridge Universi tyPress.

Dornyei, Z., & Thurrell , S.

(1994).

Teaching conversational

skills

intensively:

Course

con ten tan d

ra t ionale .

E LT

Journa l, 48(1),

4049.

Educat ion Co m mi s s i o n . ( 19 9 5 ).

Education Com mission Report

No. 6. H o n g

K ong :Go v ern men tPrinter.

Ernst, G. (1994). Talking Circle : Conversation and negotiation in the ESL

classroom.

TESOL Quarterly, 28(2),

293-322.

Faerch,

C., &

Kasper,

G.

(1983). Plans

and

strategies

in

foreign language com-

munica t ion . In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.),

Strategies in interlanguage

communicat ion

(pp.20-60). London: Longman.

Ful l i love , J. (1992).T he

tail

tha t wags .Institute of Language in Education Jour-

nal 131-147.

Garcia, C . (1989). Apologies inEng lish: Poli teness s trategies used by nat ivean d

non-na t ivespeakers.

Multi l ingua, 8(1),

3-20.

Gardner ,

R. C. , & Lamber t , W. E . (1972) .

Attitudes an d m otivation in second

language learning.

R o wl ey , M A : N ew b u ry Ho u se .

Goffman, E. (1976). Replies and responses.

Language in Society, 5,

257-313.


20/22

24 8

Paul

S ze

Gremmo,M . J.,H olec,H ., &Riley,P .

(1985).Interactional structure:

T he

role

of

role.

In P.

R iley (Ed.),Discourseandlearning

(pp. 35-66).

London: Longman.

Grice, H. P . (1975 ). Logic and co nversat io n. In P. Cole & J . M organ(Eds.),Syntax

an d semantics: Vol.

3.

Speech acts(pp. 41-58).N ewYork: AcademicPress.

H armer, J. (1983).

Th e

practice of English language teaching. London: Longman.

Hatch ,

E. M.

(1978). Discourse analysis,

an d

second language acquisition.

In

E. M.H atch (Ed.),S econd language acquisit ion(pp. 401-435). Rowley, M A :

N e wb u r yHouse .

Holme*,J .

(1983).

T hestructureof

teachers'

directives. In J. C.Richards & R . W.

Schmid t (Eds.). Language an d communicat ion

(pp. 89-113).

London:

Longman.

Holmes,

J., &

Brown,

D. F .

(1976). Developing sociolinguistic competence

in a

second language.

TESO L Quarterly,

10,423-431.

Hong Kong Ex amina t ions Author i ty .(1993). Exam iners' report on the Hon g

Kong

Certificate of

Education Exam. 1992. Hong Kong: Author.

Hong Kong Examinations Authority.(1994). Hong Kong Advanced Level Ex-

amination: Regulations

a nd

syllabuses. Hong Kong: Author.

Howe,D. H., Kirkpatrick,T. A., &

Kirkpatrick,

D. L.(1987),Access today 3.

Hong Kong: Oxford University

Press.

Hymes, D. H. (1967).

Models

of the

in terac t ion

o f

language

an d

social setting.

Journal

of

S ocial Issues. 23(2),8-28,

H y m e s ,

D . H .

(1972). Models

of

in terac t ion

of

language

a nd social

life.

In J. J.

Gumperz & D. H.

H y m e s

(Eds.) ,

Directions

in

sociolingu istics:

The

ethnog-

raphy

of

communicat ion (pp. 35-71). N ew York: Hol t , Rinehart an d

Wins ton .

Ingham,

M., &

M u r p h y ,

M .

(1994).

T he

performace principle: Towards

a

more

act ive role in the Hong Kong Engl ishclassroom. Institute of Language in

Education,

11.92-98.

Jakobovits, L. , &

Gordon,

B .

(1980). Language teaching

vs. the

teaching

of

talk.

International JournalofPsycholinguistics, 6(4),5-22.

Jefferson,G . (1972). Side sequence. In D. Sudn ow(Ed.),S tudies insocial interac-

tion(pp.

294-338).

EnglewoodCliffs,N J: Prentice Hall .

Keenan, E. O. (1976). On the un iversal ity of conversat ional postulates.Language

in

Society,

5,67-80.

Klippel ,

F .

(1984). Keep talking: Comm unicative fluency a ctivities for lan guage

teaching.

C ambr idge: Cambr idge Un ivers i tyPress.

Krashen,

S. D.

(1982). Principles and practice in second langauge acquisition.

Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Lewis , M. (1993).The lexical approach: Th e state of ELT and a way forward.

Hove,England:L anguage T eaching Publ ica t ions.

Li t t lewood , W. (1981) . Communicat ive language teaching. Cambridge:

Cambridge

Universi ty Press.


21/22

Teaching

Conversation in the Second Languag e Classroom 249

Litt lewood, W. (1992).

Teaching oral communication: A methodological

framework. Oxford: Blackwell.

Long,

M. H., &

Pouer,

P. A.(1985).

Group work, interlanguage talk

and

second

l anguage

acquisition.

TESOL Quarterly, 19(2),207-228.

Maynard, S.

(1990).

Conversation management in contrast: Listener response in

Japanese and American English.

Journal of Pragmatics, J4(3),

397-412.

McCarthy,

M.

(1991).

Discourse analysis

for

langauge teachers.

Cambridge:

Cambridge

U niversity

Press.

Methold,

K., &

Tadman,

J.(1990). New integrated English 3

(2nd ed,). Hong

Kong:

Longman

Group

(F.E.)Ltd.

Munby,

J.

(1978).

Communicative syllrbus design.


Universi ty

Press.

Naiman,

N.,Frohlich,M.,

Stem,

H. H., &Todesco,A.(1978).Thegood language

learner.Toronto,

Canada:Ontario Insti tu te for Studies in Education.

Nolasco,

R., &

Arthur,

L.

(1987).

Resource books

for

teachers: Conversation.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

N una n ,D.(1989).Designing tasksfor the communicative classroom.Cambridge:

CambridgeUniversity Press.

Nunan ,D.(1991).Langua ge teaching methodology:Atextbookfor teachers.New

York:Prentice

Hall.

Pawley, A . , &

Syder,

F . H .

(1983).

T w o

puzzles

fo r

l ingui s t i c

theory : N at ivel ike

selection

an d

nativelike

fluency. In J . C .

Richards

& R . W. Schmid t

(Eds.),

Language and communicat ion

(pp.191-225).London: Longm an.

Richards,

J. C. (1977). Answers to yes/no

ques t ions . ELT Journal, 31(2),

136-

141.

Richards,

J. C. (1990).The language teaching matrix.


Universi tyPress.

Richards, J. C., & Schmid t , R. W. (1983). Conversational analysis . In J. C.

Richards

& R. W. Schmid t (Eds . ) ,

Language and communicat ion

(pp. 117-

154). London: Longm an.

Richards, J . C., & Sukw iwat, M. (1983). L anguage t ransfer and conversat ional

competence.Applied Lin guistics, 4(2),

113-125.

Rings,

L. (1992).

Authentic spoken texts

as

examples

of

language variation:

Gramm atical , s i tuational,

and

cultural teaching models.

IRAL, 30(1),21-33.

Rivers, W., & Tem perley, M. (1978).

A practical g uide to the teaching of English

as a second or foreign language.

N ew York : Oxford Univers i ty

Press.

Sacks, H . (1972). On the analysabil i ty of s tories by c hi ldren. In J. J . Gumperz

D . H .

H ymes (Eds .) ,

Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography

of

com-

munication (pp.

325-45).

New York : Hol t , Rinehar t and W ins ton .

Sacks,H .,

Schegloff,

E. A., &

Jefferson,

G .

(1974).

A

simplest systematics

for the

organisation of

turn

ta king for conversation.

Language,

50,696-735.

Sato,

C. J .

(1986). Conversation

an d in te r language

development : Rethink ing

th e


22/22

25 0 PaulS ze

connection. In R. R. Day (Ed.) , Talking to learning: Conversat ion in second

language

acquisition(pp.23-45).Rowley,

MA:

New bury House .

Scarcella,

R. C.(1990).Comm unication difficul t iesin

second

language produc-

t ion,developm ent, and instruction. In R. C. Scarcella, E. S. Anderson, & S. D .

Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicat ive competence in a second language

(pp.337-352).Boston,MA:HeinleandHeinle.

Scarcella,

R. C.,

Anderson,

E. S., &

Krashen,

S. D.

(Eds.).

(1990).

Developing

communicat ive competence in a second language.

Boston,

MA:

Heinle

and

Heinle.

Schegloff,

E. A.

(1972).

Noteson aconversational

practice:

Formulating place.In

D. Sudnow (Ed.) , Studies in social interaction (pp.75-119).N e w Y or k : T h e

Free Press.

Schegloff,E. A., &Sacks,H.

0973).

Openingupclosings.Semiotica,

289-327.

Schegloff, E. A . ,

Jefferson,

G., & Sacks, H .

(1977).

T he

preference

fo r

self-

correction

in theorganisation of

repair

inconversation. Language,53,361-82:

Searle,J. R.

(1969).

Speech acts.Cambridge: Cambridge U niversity

Press.

Sinclair,

J. M., &

Brazil,

D.

(1982).

Teacher talk.

O xford: Oxford Univers ity

Press.

Sinclair, J.,

Coulthard,M. (1992). Towards an analysisof discourse. In M.

Coulthard (Ed.),

Advances

in

spoken discourse analysis

(pp.

1-34).

London:

Routledge &

K e g a n P a u l .

Swain , M. (1985). Com mu nica tive competence: Some roles of comprehensible

inpu t an d comprehensible output in itsdevelopment . In S.Gass & C .Madden

(Eds.), Input

in

second language acquisi t ion (pp.

235-253). Ro wl e y ,

M A :

N e wb u r yHouse .

Tarone, E. (1977). Conscious co mm unic atio n strategies: A progress report . In

H. D.

Brown,

C.

Yorio,

& R.

Crymes (Eds.) , On T ES O L 1 9 77

(p.

197).

Washington ,

DC: TESOL.

Testa, R . (1988). Interruptive strategies in Engl ish an d

I tal ian

conversa t ion:

Smooth versus contrast ivelinguis ticpreferences.M ulti lingua, 7(3),285-312.

Tsu i , A. B. M. (1991). Sequencing rules an d coherence in discourse.

Journal of

Pragm atics, 15(2), 111-129.

Tsui ,A. B. M.

(1992).

Classroom discourse analysis in ESL teacher education.

Institute

of Languagei nEducation Journal , 9,

81-96.

Tsu i ,

A . B. M. (1993). English conversat ion.O xford: Oxford U nivers i ty Press.

va nL ier , L .

(1988).

The classroom and the languag e learner.London: Longman.

Widdowson , H. (1978). Teaching language as communicat ion. Oxford: Oxford

Universi ty Press.

Wolfson , N . (1989). Perspect ives: Sociol inguist ics and TESOL. New York:

N e wb u r yH ouse.

Yalden,J. (1983).T he comm unicat ive syl labus: Evo lut ion, design and implemen-

tation.

Ox ford: Pergamon.

teaching conversation in the second language classroom: problems and prospects

Documents