Dr. Leon James
University of Hawaii
(c) 1974
The old linguistic rationale
The traditional rationale for pattern practice in language teaching contains the following three assumptions:
1. Language learning is a cumulative process, proceeding from the initial acquisition of syntactically simple constructions to progressively more compled sentential structures;
2. Linguistic analysis of syntactic structures yields a hierarchy of sentential materials from simple to the more complex, and this hierarchy can then be used to grade practice exercises.
3. Practice by pattern exercises, chiefly through repetition of restricted dialogue frames, will produce inductive insights about the underlying structure of sentences and, consequently, pracctice on a restricted set will generalize to related sets not actually practiced.
It is not our intention to review here the literature on the instructional effectiveness of pattern practice for language teaching. This literature is now well known, and we have presented some of our objections to this technique elsewhere. Despite the controversy, the habit of pattern teaching continues as an important instructional strategy, both on the North American continent and elsewhere. Though we feel that the original objections still hold, nevertheless, because the habit continues, we wish to present a new rationale for its use, which we believe is theoretically more sound and leads to different and better selectional strategies for the graded exercises.
We can accept the first assumption presented above as a working hypothesis without insisting on empirical "proof", but also, without insisting that it is the only possible approach, or even that it is the best available. It seems intuitively reasonable to define the language acquisition process as cumulative, and progressing from simple skills to more complex ones. The problem begins when we attempt to specify the dimensions of simplicity and complexity of language skills. Assumption provides one possible rationale, one that reflects the close relationship that has developed historically between linguistics and language teaching. The specific assumption made in this connection is that the simplicity-complexity dimension that linguistic analysis yields is directly relevant to the simplicity-complexity dimension of language acquisition and use. This represents one possible rationale and its the one traditionally presented. Our position on this shall be that though linguistics may be a relevant source of information for planning instructional strategies in the language course, it should not be the only major source, and consequently, we shall present an additional rationale for selecting pattern practice materials.
In connection with the third assemption, though we subscribe to the notion that practice is esential in the development of skills, including language skills, we shall suggest a rationale for selecting authentic conversational contexts for pattern practice as a preferable alternative tot he current use of artificial dialogue.
Transactional Engineering Analysis (T.E.) and Language Teaching
Typically, language teachers see their task in two progressive steps: first, elementary language training to familiarize the student with the basics-the sounds, the articulations, the vocabulary, and the basic sentential patterns; second, advanced language training designed to liberate the student from speaking sentences to partaking in a conversational exchange on a more or less ordinary fluency basis. Rather than reject this widespread belief, as we have done in the past, we shall make some suggestions for ways in which these two steps can be more harmoniously integrated.
Recent work by a group of sociologists, among them Garfinkel, Schegloff and Sacks, has shown that conversational interaction can be analyzed in ways which exhibit its organizational structure. They refer to this approach as an ethnomethodological enterprise. For instance, they show that there are rules for opening and closing conversations, rules of interruption and taking turns in the conversation, rules for storytelling and reporting, and the like, all of which leads one to conclude that conversation has underlying syntactical structure whose adequate description represents a theoretical challenge no more nor less than what linguistics has already achieved for the description of grammar.
We label the approach introduced in this book transactional engineering analysis or T.E., for short. It is not related to Eric Berne's method of psychotherapy known as Transactional Analysis or T.A. This mehtod is in the ethnomethodological tradition and is closely associated with the work of Goffman on the ritual idiom. In content and motivation, though not perhaps in method and style, T.E. has some affinity with Firth's classic interest in the context of situation, and some current ongoing work in Britain. Similar in content, but still overlapping in motivation, is some recent work in sociolinguistics on situational context for speech, especially the formulations advanced by Dell Hymes on communicative competence.
That language is a structured system is, to the contemporary mind, a commonplace notion. But this was not always the case. The burden, of structural linguistics was, during its beginnings, the satisfactory demonstration ofthis notion. It succeeded in establishing this thesis by inventing a so called objective method of analyzing language data, though it fellshort of attaining descriptive adequacy. It is with a parallel motivation that we are introducing an objective mehtod for the analysis of conversational data, though we recognize that the task of arriving at an adequate description of these data remains to be pursued and is a task we expect to share with others.
We begin by specifying and defining the components of our system. The basic unit of our analysis is the transaction. We use the term to refer to social interactions with somewhat similar meaning to the ordinary expression, as in a business transaction. The psychological reality of transactions, as an interactional unit, is evidenced sufficiently by the existence of common terms people use to refer to social ongoings. Thus, if you show someone a description, in transactional terms, of a witnessed episode, the description should be found readlily understandable, meaningful, and representative of the witnessed events. For example,. the following is a sequential description of what happened when A and B met in the elevator on their way up to the office.
1. A, standing in the elevator, sees B
rushing towards the door. He displays recognizing B by a smile and a nod and holds
down the Door Open button
2. B enters the elevator, displays recognizing A by a smile and a nod.
3. B acknowledges A's help and courteousness by saying,
"Thanks"
4. A greets B by saying "Good Morning."
5. B greets A by saying "Good Morning."
6. B extends an invitation to A by using several steps, as follows
6a He announces to A that he has something to
say to him
6b He then extends the invitation.
6c He then elaborates upon the invitation
6d He then reiterates the invitation.
7. A turns down the invitation in two steps, as follows
7a He expresses an apology
7b He justifies the refusal.
7c He makes a request.
8. A acknowledges the accounted refusal and the request.
9. B expresses thanks and takes leave.
10. A takes leave.
Transactions are accomplished by participants through an exchange of transactional moves properly executed. A transactional move is made by a participant through a display. The transactional code, in force in a particular speech community, defines the format of proper displays in somewhat the sense that a dictionary defines words as the building blocks of sentences. Transactional displays may be made in a number of different ways; a nod of the head and saying OK or All right all constitute seperate displays available to give assent to a request. To display greeting, participants have a number of alternatives to select from.
Transactional idioms are displays whose transactional
signficance is recognizable through surface content. Because of this, they represent
a class of special interest for selecting pattern practice exercises, as we shall see in a
moment, But, when we examine the stram of conversational exchanges, it becomes
readily obvious that, for the most part, the significance of a transactional move is not
derivable solely fro its surface content, but instead is given by the locus of the display
within the transactional exchange. Consider, for instance, an instructional unit
designed to teach learners various display forms available in English for Asking
Permission as a transactional move. Part 1 of the unit might deal with transactional
idioms for asking permission, as follows.
LESSON UNIT: MAKING REQUESTS
Part 1: Transactional Idioms for asking permission
Token displays:
May I, please
........................................................................
May
I.....................................................................................
Could I
..................................................................................
Could I, please
......................................................................
I wonder if it would be possible for me to
..................................
Do you think I
could...............................................................
Do you think I could
possibly..................................................
I would like to ask you if I
could................................................
Perhaps I
might.....................................................................
It would be nice if I
could.........................................................
I'm sorry for disturbing you, but can
I........................................
Do you mind if I ask you whether I
could...................................
Completions Appropriate completions may be provided
by the teacher, depending on the instructional sequence she is following.
For example:
A. elementary level:
......join you?
......go now?
......leave?
......use your telephone?
......leave it here?
......borrow your umbrella?
B. intermediary level
......call upon you in case of an emergency?
......use your name as a reference?
......involve you in this matter?
......discuss this matter with you?
......change my mind about going along?
C. advanced level
.......discuss with you the ramifications of my decision to go along with the project?
.......explore the possibility of using your name as a reference should circumstances
warrant it?
.......borrow your car to pick up the pizza Mother ordered?
LESSON UNIT: MAKING REQUESTS
Part 2: Transactional exchanges
Token exchanges:
1) A: How are you coming along?
B: Fine, but I need additional space.
(=May I have some additional space?)
2) A: Is there anything else you need?
B: Yes. More thread.
(=May I have some more thread, please?)
3) A: It looks like everything is here.
B: Yes, except the thermos bottle.
(=Could you please get the thermos bottle?)
4) A: Time is up!
B: Five more minutes!
(May I have five more minutes, please?)
5) A: Well, it looks like it's in the
bag!
B: If only I could have Steve's blessing!
(=Could you possibly intercede with him on my
behalf?)
6) A: You're wanted on the telephone.
B: Who is it?
A: Your friend, George.
B: Well, I'm in the bathtub.
(=Could you tell him I can't come to the phone
right now?)
7) A:It looks very nice on you.
B: It's gorgeous, but I can't affort it.
A: It's a very good buy.
B: How about a discount?
(=Can you discount the price for me?)
The most prevalent conception of language teaching takes the sentence as the unit of instructional discourse. This is because language teachers are themselves taught the so called linguistic approach. They may be aware that natural speech does not proceed by and exchange of sentences, as is to be found in the lesson dialogues, but they assume that teaching sentences is a necessary step before teaching the natural and grammatically incomplete flow of utterances in a conversational interaction. We do not subscribe to this sequential hypothesis and note that, under natural conditions of language acquisiton, child or adult, the learners are exposed to the natural flow of conversational speech, yet they still learn the notion of a grammatically complete sentence. It is evident, therefore, that teaching stences is not a prerequisite activity for the eventual skill of recognzing and using grammatically complete sentences. On the other hand, it may be that pattern practice may be useful for certain purposes, and since current practice of it continues unabated, we are offering a transcational rationale for the selection of specific pattern practice exercises.
We suggest the following convenient method the teacher may use to make up pattern practice exercises:
Step 1: Define the transactional skills to be covered
in a course or, within a course, in a block of lessons.
Lesson 1: Greeting and Leave Taking
Lesson 2: Making Requests: Part 1
Lesson 3: Making Requests: Part 2
Lesson 4: Extending Invitations
Lesson 5: Making Apologies
Lesson 6: Describing Events: Part 1
Lesson 7: Describing Events: Part 2
Lesson 8: Describing Events: Part 3
Lesson 9: Reporting Events: Part 2
Lesson 10: Reporting Events: Part 3
Step 2: Define the structural components for the
transactional type listed in each lesson.
As an illustration, let us present an elaboration of Lessons 2 and 3
Lesson 2: Making Requests: Part 1
A. Asking Informational Questions
A.1. That take Yes/No Answers
A.2. Other.
B. Requesting Agreement
B.1. For personal opinion or feeling;
B.2. For proposed action.
C. Asking for permission
Lesson 3: Making Requests: Part 2
D. Demanding Justification
D.1. For expressed claim or belief;
D.2. For behavior.
E. Requesting Help
Step 3: Provide frame sentences that exemplify some transactional idioms available for
each transactional type specified in Step 2.
We have already given an illustration of this at three
different levels earlier in the case of 2C: Asking Permission. Here, now, is another
illustration:
2B. Requesting Agreement
B.1. For personal opinion or feeling:
(i) S+ don't you think
so?
(ii) S+isn't?
(iii) S+ wouldn't you
agree?
B.2. For proposed action:
(i) How would you like
to +VP
(ii) How about +NP
(iii) I'm proposing
that we +S
(iv) Let's +VP
Step 4: Provide conversational exchanges that exemplify the transaction but without the use of transactional idioms. Here are some illustrations:
B1. Requesting Agreement for personal
opinion or feeling:
(i) A: Children are nice
B: They're a lot of
trouble though
A: Yes, that's fine.
(ii)A: How are you coming along?
B: It's very difficult
A: Yes, it is, at first
(iii)A:Are you coming over?
B: I'm
tired. Can we make it another time?
A: Sure.
B2 Requesting Agreement for proposed action:
(i) A: Shall we do it
again?
B: Do you know it's almost five?
A: Oh in that case, we'll do it first thing in the morning
(ii) A: Shall we quit
now?
B: Not yet.
A: OK
(iii) A: What do you
propose?
B: I'll check the basement, and you go upstairs.
A: Right.
A Transactional Rationale
for Pattern Practice
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
First
Selection
Second Selection
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Sequencing of
Transaction
Types
Sequencing of Syntactic Types
1.
Greeting
(May I+V?
Level 1a (
2. Leave
taking
(Could I+VP?
3. Asking for Permission (Part
1)
(Do you think I could +V
(
4. Extending
Invitation
(
Level 1b (Do you think I couild+VP
5.
Apologizing
Level 2a (It'd be nice if I could
(
6. Asking for
Permission (Part
2)
(+VP or +S
7. etc. etc.
Authentic Conversational Context for Pattern Practice
We now turn to a discussion of the instructional possibilities open to a well entrenched foreign language educational establishment. An issue that has been on people's mind for a number of years relates to the possible diversification of the foreign language curriculum. One aspect of this problem has to do with student options concerning the choice of the language to be studied, when to start, and for how many years. Clearly it is the case that these sorts of opitons have been and continue to be rapidly expanding. Another aspect has to do with choice of method to be used, and this has had a long and turbulent history, as we're all aware, sometimes painfully so. A third aspect tot he diversification issue relates to the specification of a package of behavioral objectives, and it is here that we wish to linger for a while in our discussion.
In the United States, the entire public educational establishement is gearing itself towards this conception, long in the making. Like standardized testing, accountability through behavioral objectives is an inevitable step in the historical evolution of the practice of mass education. It seems important, therefore, to examine the kinds of problems that this development is raising for the foreign language teacher.
We see two sorts of problems involved. The first is the choice of meaningful behavioral objectives for the foreign language course. The second is their effective instruction. Let us look at both of these.
First, the choice of meaningful behavioral objectives. No doubt it can be appreciated that this problem is another version of one raised earlier in connection with the diversification of the foreign language curriculum. If the goal is defined in terms of a predefined level of achievement on a standardized discrete point test, the problem of selecting behavioral objectives becomes a routine problem of transforming the items or subtests of standard language tests into smaller steps defined in operational terms relative to them. But, now, if the goal is defined in terms of transactional performances, then it is clear the choice of appropriate behavioral objectives will depend on a suitable operational taxonomy of transactional performances.
Summary
Our purpose here has been to provide a new (transactional) rationale for the selection of appropriate materials for pattern practice in language teaching. The old (linguistic) rationale provides a grading hypothesis based on syntactic complexity. The two rationale, transactional and linguistic, are not exclusionary, and we have proposed their integration into a two step selectional procedure: grading based on syntactic complexity is to be made within previously selected transactional types.
In addition to introducing a transactional rationale for grading pattern practice materials, we have specified two conditions for avoiding the artificiality of the restricted simulated dialogue and encouraging instead an authentic conversational context that approximates more nearly the target register. One condition involves the selection of pattern practice materials relevant to the authentic instructional register inthe language classroom. The other condition involves the enactment of the self in conversational practice rather than the unnatural enactment of others.
References
Garfinkel, H. Studies in
Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrenticeHall, 1968
Goffman, E. Relations in Public. New York: Basic Books, 1971
Halliday, M.A.K. "Language in a Social Perspective." In A. Wilkinson, (ed),
"The context of Language" (Special Issue), Educational Review, 23 (3), 1971.
(School of Education, University of Birmingham).
Jakobovits, L.A. Foreign Language Learning. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House Publishers,
1970.
Jakobovits, L.A. and Gordon, B.I. Introduction to Ethnomethodological Psycholinguistics.
(in preparation 1974)
---. (in collaboration with Gaston Renaud and Johanna Vander Beek).
Transactional Engineering and Language Teaching. Verbatim. (in
press, 1974)
---."An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing
sociology." In David Sudnow (ed) Studies in Social Interaction. New York: The Free
Press, 1972
Schegloff, E.A. "Notes on a conversational Practice: Formulating Place," In
David Sudnow (ed.), Studies in Social Interaction. New York: The Free Press, 1972
Sinclair, J. McH., Forsyth, I.J., Coulthard, R.M., and Ashby, M. The English Used by
Teachers and Pupils. Final Report to SSRC, August, 1972. (Department of English Language
and Literature, The University of Birmingham.)
| My Home Page || Gender Differences || New Directions || Pattern Practice || Freedom to Teach || Review Study Questions ||Appendix I|| Appendix II | Dr. Leon James Home Page |