file2.htmlon 12:
Social settings are ordered within amultiplex of standard functions according to the historicalrecord-keeping practices of a particularcommunity; thus, some particular settings are more uniform than others intheir routine recognizability; e.g., segments of discourse occasioned duringopening segments of face-to-face interaction are uniformly transacted with asmall number of standard functions, and of their corresponding topic nominals,compared to later segments; also, segments of discourse authored during areaction to someone's response to 'something that just went on' in aconversational interaction, is a setting that occasions topic functions ordiscourse segments that are uniformly recognized, given standard functionalcorrespondences, as to what-leads-to-what: e.g., if 'what just went on' is [theabsence of laughter] [at the end of telling my joke]then, my reaction is a setting [forthe evocation of discourse segments] [and topic nominals that are routinelyrecognizable]; e.g., in this example, "Oh, well, forget it!", orself-conscious nervous laughter, or deadpan freeze, etc. -- which are part of afinite set of standard functions interconnected to that particular socialsetting.

Proposition 13:

The interconnections between social settingsand discourse segments are indexed or catalogued by standard topic nominals;these will be referred to as the class of allstandard topic nominals, viz. displayrepertoire, as it might be represented by a transactionalglossary.

Proposition 14:

The production of discourse during aconversational interaction is occasioned by the standard function ofrelationship; this function occurs in the sub-class of all socialsettings that specify an interaction between at least two participants;

Proposition 15:

The production of discourse while making areport, telling a story, or rehearsing an argument is occasioned by the standardfunctions of imaginings; all particular identified social settings areeach interconnected to a specific set of imaginings called standardizedimaginings;

Proposition 16:

The functions of relationship and ofimaginings are built up into the set of "display repertoire": throughsocialization practices to be called "transactional engineering."

Proposition 17:

Transactional engineeringrefers to the strategic attempts of co-participants in an interaction to createtopical contention points that interconnect with particularstereotyped [functions of relationship] [and of imaginings]; e.g., a jokinginteraction occasions specific particular relationship functions --[camaraderie, showing off, etc.] -- and specific particular imaginings -- [thestory of the salesman who..]. Adjaceny pair refers to thedialectic of co-ordination necessary in an interaction; the first element, thecontention point, is treated as a signal, while the second element is treated asa counter-signal; any particular identified situated display may thus functionas a resolution to a prior contention point as well as a new contention point;the distinguishing marker differentiating the two functions is given by thelocus of connection backward or forward in the visible transcript; this locus iscalled topic focus.

Proposition 18:

Language teaching and learning are particularpractices that rely on transactional engineering as a means to build up acumulative store of display repertoire relating a finite set of topic nominalsto a finite set of topic functions; in other terms, relating social setting todiscourse segments in some target language; or, in still other terms, connectingthe individual's discourse production in the target language to situationallystandard adjacency-pairs through the cumulative buildup of a person's displayrepertoire; this functional connection between visible discourse segments andthe standard functions of relationship and imagining is accomplished through thepractice and rehearsing of framed instructional exercises called languageteaching programs; these are prepared by those involved in theiradministration to persons treated as language learners orstudents; thus, language teachers are transactional engineers,versed in the technology of discourse, who serve to enlarge the displayrepertoire of learners by engaging them in all sorts of interactions designed tocreate transactional contention points and their acceptableresolutions; the latter are always marked by direct signs (approval,legitimization) or by absence of a sign, where sign-giving is a priorly agreedupon procedure; lists of acceptable resolutions to identified contention pointsare indices and catalogues of display repertoire; they are calledtransactional glossaries; thus, the technologyof language teaching (see Corollaries, in next section)consists in the preparation of transactional glossaries suitable for practicingand rehearsing framed instructional exercises that use the principles oftransactional engineering (see below) to create all sorts of interactions withlearners that establish a functional connection between particular discoursesegments and their standard functions in relationship and imaginings.

Summary Principles Relating to the Technology ofDiscourse 15

P1: Discourse is a visible product of the interaction between the individualand the setting;

P2: Discourse is always treated as having been-authored by a particularperson;

P3: The production of discourse by a person is always spontaneous;

P4: Discourse is always produced in minimal units, sequentially over time;

P5: The minimal unit of discourse is the situateddisplay of the argument;

P6: Situated displays have a variable structure and a determinate (fixed)function called the standard:

P7: Particular displays routinely recognizable through their structure orformat have a specifiable standard function; these discourse segments are calledtransactional idioms:

P8: All social settings are particular and identifiable through localizationin time, sequence, and place;

P9: Every particular identified social setting is capable of evokingsituated displays, e.g., discourse segments treated as having been authored by aparticular person;

P10: Every discourse segment can always be marked, labeled, identified,referred to again, by a recognized procedural device called topic;

P11: Any social setting is interconnected with a finite set of standardfunctions; these are labeled and identified by discourse segments calledtopic nominals;

P12:. Particular and identified social settings are contrastive in terms ofthe specific composition of their standard functions as locally practiced;hence, they each evoke a finite set of discourse segments or topic nominals,each in correspondence to the finite specifiable set of their standardfunctions;

P13: Display repertoire is the class of all topic nominalsthat label specific standard functions; thus, it is an index or catalogue of alldiscourse segments that can be evoked by a particular identified social setting;an exhaustive catalogue of situated displays is called thetransactional glossary;

P14: Relationship is a standard function of all social settings thatspecify an interaction between at least two participants; e.g., the discoursesegments evoked in a conversational interaction are interconnected by thisfunction;

P15: Standardized imagining is a standard function of allsocial settings that specify the occurrence of discourse thinkingand private. nonvisible, dialogue; e.g., the production ofdiscourse segments while making a report, giving a description, or rehearsing anargument, are evoked by the functional connection between standardizedimaginings and the particular identified social setting;

P16: Transactional engineering involves the control of displayrepertoire through the functions of relationship and standardized imaginings;

P17: Co-participants in an interaction always treat another's situateddisplay as a signal for an obligatory return-signal; this pair of signals iscalled an adjacency pair; all adjacency pairs are composed of twoelements, the first of which is called the contentionpoint, while the second is called the resolution; thespecific relation between contention point and resolution is marked by a locuscalled topic focus;

P18: Since particular topic nominals, and their corresponding discoursesegments, are evoked by identifiable relationship functions and standardizedimaginings, they can be treated in specialized settings as capable of beingindexed and catalogued; these lists consist of finite entries calledtransactional glosses; the use of these glosses as a technique forsupplying discourse segments related to an imagined setting is calledlanguage learning; the programming of the order in which sub-listsof transactional glosses are practiced and rehearsed, is called languageteaching.

Corollaries on the Technology of LanguageTeaching

(1.) "Language use" can be approached pedagogically as equivalentto "the production of situated-discourse".

(2.) "Situated discourse" is visible text spontaneously evoked byparticular features of a social setting so long as individuals have had practicewith or have rehearsed appropriate interaction co-ordination.

(3.) "Appropriate interaction co-ordination" is the purpose oflanguage teaching; from the language teacher's point of view, it consists ofengaging the student-learner in practicings and rehearsings of all sorts ofadjacency-pairs; each adjacency-pair is composed of an initiating move thatfunctions as a standard contention point, followed by a second move, whichmust be treated as a reply move; this reply move is anacceptable version of a standard resolution to the particular contention raisedin the initiating move. And that's all! Anything additionalin terms of linguistics and psychodynamics is unnecessary and distracting, thusinterfering with the goal of enlarging the learner's display repertoire.

(4.) The attempt to deliberately practice and rehearse appropriateinteraction co-ordination between a language teacher and the students is greatlyfacilitated by an approach called transactional engineering. This approachtreats discourse (including discourse thinking) as composed of finiteidentifiable segments whose minimal unit is called topic nominal. Topic nominalsare segments of discourse or text that have a conventionalized, recognizableformat: e.g., words, terms, expressions, phrases, idioms, utterances, sentences,spaces on the page, pauses, looks, gestures, titles, labels, markers, etc.:these form a class of didactically maniputable units, that is, units ofdiscourse and text that can stand alone as nominal (framed and boxed andstandard), to which a complement can be attached or connected appropriately.

(5.) Finite lists of topic nominals presented with complements thattogether produce a situated or meaningful display can be constructed by thelanguage teacher; these lists would be called transactionalglossaries; an example would be the following:

Level 1: Private or Imagined Settings

Level 2: Interpersonal or Real Settings

(6) The transactional engineering approach avoids familiar problems in thelanguage classroom; e.g.:

(i) learner hesitations involved in voicing and articulating duringinteractions spontaneously disappear when their underlying justifications areremoved or rendered inoperative by the teacher; in other terms, thetransactional engineering approach using transactional glossaries (see precedingCorollary) to structure time of the students is void of those controllingconditions that make it undesirable to make mistakes or to produce incompleteand abnormal or non-standard display attempts; also absent are the dramatizedscenarios of role-interactions that often make psychodynamic interpretationsappear valid and actual; under these conditions, teacher and learners may waiverfrom their task and goal and be at times inefficient and distracted, but neverexploitative and victimizing;

(ii) since discourse is evoked by the setting, and the setting is viewed asa functional system connecting particular topic nominals to identified standardfunctions of relationship and imagining, the learner is freed from thetraditional focus on "how to say it or write it or express it", andinstead, relaxes into the transactional engagements into which he is pulled bythe teacher; under these conditions, language learning is spontaneous,engrossing, useful, and informative about the real world of social practices;

(iii) the traditional arsenal erected against the language learner is mostimpressive (e.g. see the lists in James, 1970; and Mackey, 1964) and includeslanguage learning ability or aptitude; memorization skills and skills ofdiscrete-point testing; motivation, persistence, attitude, and intelligent studyhabits; drills in pronunciation, grammar, and prompted moves in practiceinteractions; grades, contracts; levels; programs; and others; under theseconditions there is plenty of opportunity for dramatizing teacher-pupilsyndromes: resentment; fear; avoidance; emotional involvement that remainsun-topicalized and un-admitted; learning that is private and un-shared;competitive focus and insecurity; and etc.; these psychodynamic syndromes arethus co-ordinated functional exchanges governed by practices in the community ofthe school and neighborhood to which the classroom members belong and withoutwhich they couldn't be in school: they are occasioned by the socio-culturalrealities and contingencies of the public life of the citizens; these exchangesare naturally of all types (good or bad, etc.) and in their aggregate,characterize the educational climate; the language teacher who uses atransactional engineering approach re-asserts his professional status as"expert discourse technologist" by staying clear of distractingsocio-cultural and psychodynamic dramatizations in their relationship withstudents, and focuses instead, as the primary raison d'etre of theirrelationship, on the simple and literal fact - "stubborn fact" - thatthey each must find an acceptable justification for their co-presence; whateverthey do, in each other's public presence, must have this stamp of approval, orelse, raise trouble in the form of psychodynamic dramatizations; thus,authenticity in being who one wants to be seen as being, or in other terms,authenticity viewed as joyous self-approval, accompanied by feelings ofgenuineness and secure well-being; in short, authenticity is the best conductfor the professional student and professional teacher alike.

(7) The transactional engineering approach restores the language teacher toa crucial position in the educational curriculum; this is a consequence of hisspecial interest in and cumulative experience with the functions of discourse inrelationship and in imaginings; since this approach involves practicingobjectivity in interactional exchanges between teacher and students, thelanguage classroom also serves as an ordinary social locale in whichtransactional skills are rehearsed, as well as discourse segments produced in aforeign-sounding signaling game; this by-product of the language course is avaluable feature of the language teacher's contribution.

Viewed in historical perspective the alliance between linguistics andlanguage teaching has served the interests of the publishing industry more thanthose of the language teaching profession. A serious consequence of the languageteacher's reliance on the linguistic approaches in their multiplicity ofmethodological variations has been a loss in his status in the educationalestablishment ("What more can we show for the near-universal enrollments inlanguage courses??") and, inevitably, in his own esteem("Unfortunately, we never get to the advanced stages with them!"). Allthis is not necessary. Current language teaching objectives are maintained byreference standards and norms that are linguistically defined rather thanpedagogically identified. National tests of language achievement have prosperedand grown as a practice serving selection officers and committees involved incollege student admissions and curricular planning; these test are developed andadministered, along with other course subjects, by concerns that do not servethe language teacher's interests. National testing programs and uniformpublishing designs for linguistically based language materials have both helpedcreate the current status of language teaching as specialized; of secondaryimportance in the curriculum; uninteresting but required; methodologicallypreoccupied and unstable; self-searching and diversionary.

Instead of this, the transactional engineering approach makes availableto the language teacher a technology of discourse that is designed to serve hisinterests and the interests of his students. It does not preoccupy the teacherwith the mechanics of correct expressions and preempt his authenticparticipation in classroom interactions. Instead, correct expression andstandard format of displays are left out of the teaching interaction. They areno more necessary to the language acquisition process than conscious efforts areat teaching one's infant to talk faster or differently! One might say that thelinguistics approach to language teaching is an instance of superstitiousbehavior: we seldom get a chance to find out it's not related to learning!

(8) The transactional engineering approach allows the language teacher todefine his goals and specific objectives in terms that are not injurious to hisrelationship to the students or to the supervisors, The conflict does not arisebetween spending time on structure and practicing using the language for real.All the time available in the classroom and additional time outside is spentpracticing using the target language for real. The amount of materialsstudents produce when engaged by the teacher in activities of the type describedin transactional glossaries (see Corollary 5) is stupendous: they maketranscripts; they translate dictionaries; they write objective diaries in whichthey index their moves on the daily round; they search through libraries makingconceptual lists of topics; they catalogue, categorize, and interconnectsemantic and lexical fields; they produce tapes of their readings, recitations,rehearsals, and horse-plays; they memorize utterances to please you and writeyou half-legible notes that are delightful; they ask questions and can keep alist of them under specified conditions; and many other very impressive thingsthat no supervisor or parent or legislator can easily scoff at! And, thatis language teaching. And if someone should dare ask you "But can Johnnytalk French?", you must show them all what Johnny has done toFrench in those impressive piles of work. Following that, you will tellthat person that the only way Johnny is going to talk French is to take theHonors Program in French in college, as a result of which he'll get to spendsummers in France or Quebec and then he'll talk French. If he reallywants to. In the meantime, will anyone deny that Johnny's contributions to hisunderstanding of discourse functions are a sufficiently important by-product ofthe language teacher's efforts, and his own? Does not such language teachingdeserve our support more than the current euphemisms of applied linguistics,sociolinguistics, and psychodynamics?

In that case let us begin the new era of language teaching in thisBicentennial!

VII. Implementing a Transactional EngineeringProgram: Hints to the Language Teacher

In this final section we come down to nitty-gritty: the specification ofclassroom exercises. The following discussion might serve as a guide forlanguage teachers who wish to ease themselves out of a linguistically basedapproach to one oriented towards the acquisition of functional control oflanguage use. The sample program sheets discussed here are the type that alanguage teacher may devise for his class on any particular day or other stretchof time.

Giving up the stubborn and pseudo-logical habit of looking at languageteaching as linguistic fragments, frees the teacher from the necessity ofcoercing pupils into learning and practicing; liberates him from the shackles oflock-step curriculum, and test-norm accountability; and allows him, instead, toadopt a more pragmatic, more personal, and more local stand on what isappropriate, suitable, and obviously functional to the needs of the individualsand community. The activities described on these sample program; sheets need noexternal and statistical validation: any objective supervisor or discerninglegislator may examine the work or visible consequences produced by theseexercises; and could anyone imagine that they should prefer drills?

We can conceive of methods that would complicate these simple programsheets into a "stack of them" ordered by level and supplied with testsheets for assessing achievement. But we wish to avoid such complication for tworeasons. One is that such ordered stacks would eventually become curriculummaterials developed by others which teachers will start using. The other is thatif such stacks are ordered, students might get the idea that they are toProgress through them.

Instead, we think that the language teacher should be a transactionalengineer. He should develop his own program sheets according to the local feelof the moment, and not impose a prior, and pre-emptive set of conditions. Thestudent should not be encouraged in a preoccupation or a fascination withprogress, competition, and linguistic and psychodynamic dramatizations.

The proof lies in demonstration. Any language teacher whose base ofoperation is professional and personal, and who relates to his pupils, will feelconfident in his accomplishments. After all, he is the author of the programsheets, he is the coach of the exercises, and therefore, the master of hisdomain. He knows what his pupils know -- and he can prove it. These exercisesare also demonstrations of competence and of achievement in the cumulative,built-up repertoire, of the functional control of language use. We presentexamples from 5 teaching areas:

A. EXERCISES FOR
CONVERSATIONAL
INTERACTION

B. EXERCISES FOR
READINGSKILLS

C. EXERCISES FOR
WRITINGSKILLS

D. EXERCISES FOR
COMMUNICATIVE
CONTACT

E. EXERCISES FOR
VERBALARTICULATION

(A.) Note that the exercises for conversational interaction are suitablesituations for any language learner, first day in school to"advanced." For example, a kindergarten child may be trained orcoached in operating a tape recorder; thereafter he may be given all sorts ofthings to record; in this process, exercise (1) is being fulfilled. See andwatch how much that child learns. (No need to test him, but he'll be glad todemonstrate his knowledge to a visiting stranger!). Calling each other upinvolves outside-class execution but inside class reporting and discussion. Forexample, in a beginner's class, regardless of age, the discussion may not gofurther than nods to the teacher's inquiries of "Did you call John?"and silence (and giggles) to "What did you talk about?" (Can youimagine that conversation? But surely they must have at least said"Bonjour. Je suis Danny"!)---but all of that is not particularly ofimportance, since the nods and the giggles will have fulfilled exercises (2).That's the only thing that counts because doing it is purpose, not managingits specific outcome. The outcome is always unpredictable and spontaneous -- andchanging with the conditions. Despite any of these operational details, however,doing it, will move the learner to the next step, inevitably, spontaneously,delightfully.

| Back To Table of Contents | PreviousSection | Next Section | Finalsection |