Cook 2016

Second Language Learning
and Language Teaching

This page intentionally left blank
Second Language Learning
and Language Teaching
Fourth Edition
Vivian Cook
First published in Great Britain in 2001 by Arnold.
This fourth edition published in 2008 by
Hodder Education, an Hachette UK Company,
338 Euston Road, London NW1 3BH.
www.hoddereducation.com
© 2008 Vivian Cook
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or

transmitted in any form or by any means, electronically or mechanically,
including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval
system, without either prior permission in writing from the publisher or a
licence permitting restricted copying. In the United Kingdom such licences
are issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency: Saffron House,
6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.
Hachette Livre UK’s policy is to use papers that are natural, renewable and
recyclable products and made from wood grown in sustainable forests.
The logging and manufacturing processes are expected to conform to the
environmental regulations of the country of origin.
The advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate
at the date of going to press, but neither the authors nor the publisher can
accept any legal responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress
ISBN: 978 0 340 95876 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Cover © Marco Cristofori/zefa/Corbis
Typeset in 10/13 Stone Serif by Macmillan Publishing Solutions

(www.macmillansolutions.com)
Printed and bound in Malta
What do you think about this book? Or any other

Hodder Education title? Please send your comments to
the feedback section on www.hoddereducation.com
Any ancillary media packaged with the printed version of this book will not be included in this eBook.
Contents
Acknowledgements ix
Note to teachers x
1 Background to second language acquisition research

and language teaching 1
1.1 The scope of this book 1
1.2 Common assumptions of language teaching 2
1.3 What is second language acquisition research? 6
1.4 What a teacher can expect from SLA research 8
1.5 Some background ideas of SLA research 11
Discussion topics 16
Further reading 17
Glosses on language teaching methods 17
2 Learning and teaching different types of grammar 18

2.1 What is grammar? 18
2.2 Structure words, morphemes and sequences of
acquisition 23
2.3 The processability model 28
2.4 Principles and parameters grammar 33
2.5 L2 learning of grammar and L2 teaching 36
2.6 The role of explicit grammar in language teaching 39
Further reading 44
Some grammatical terms 44
3 Learning and teaching vocabulary 46

3.1 Word frequency 46
3.2 Knowledge of words 49
3.3 One word-store or two in the L2 user’s mind? 52
3.4 Types of meaning 53
3.5 Strategies for understanding and learning vocabulary 57
3.6 Vocabulary and teaching 62
vi Contents
Further reading 65
Answers to Box 3.1 65
4 Acquiring and teaching pronunciation 67

4.1 Phonemes and second language acquisition 69
4.2 Learning syllable structure 73
4.3 General ideas about phonology learning 75
4.4 Choosing a model for teaching pronunciation 78
4.5 Learning and teaching pronunciation 80
4.6 Learning and teaching intonation 82
Further reading 86
5 Acquiring and teaching a new writing system 87

5.1 Writing systems 87
5.2 Spelling 90
5.3 Punctuation 95
5.4 The writing system and language teaching 98
Further reading 103
Answer to Box 5.1 103
Answer to Box 5.8 103
6 Strategies for communicating and learning 105

6.1 Communication strategies 106
6.2 Learning strategies: how do learners vary in their
approaches to L2 learning? 113
Further reading 120
7 Listening and reading processes 121

7.1 Meaning and reading 121
7.2 Listening processes 125
Further reading 134
Contents vii
8 Individual differences in L2 users and L2 learners 135

8.1 Motivation for L2 learning 136
8.2 Attitudes 140
8.3 Aptitude: are some people better at learning
a second language than others? 144
8.4 Age: are young L2 learners better than old learners? 147
8.5 Are other personality traits important to L2 learning? 150
Further reading 154
9 Classroom interaction and Conversation Analysis 155

9.1 Language and interaction inside the classroom 155
9.2 Language input and language learning 161
9.3 Describing conversation 165
Further reading 169
10 The L2 user and the native speaker 170

10.1 The L2 user versus the native speaker in language teaching 170
10.2 Codeswitching by second language users 174
10.3 Using the first language in the classroom 180
10.4 Are native speakers better language teachers? 185
10.5 International languages: English as lingua franca (ELF) 189
Further reading 193
11 The goals of language teaching 194

11.1 The different roles of second languages in people’s lives 195
11.2 Language and groups of speakers 201
11.3 The goals of language teaching 205
Further reading 213
12 General models of L2 learning 214

12.1 Universal Grammar 214
12.2 Processing models 218
12.3 The socio-educational model 222
12.4 The interaction approach 224
viii Contents
12.5 Sociocultural SLA theory 228

12.6 Multi-competence – the L2 user approach 231
12.7 General issues 233
Further reading 234
13 Second language learning and language teaching styles 235

13.1 The academic style 237
13.2 The audio-lingual style 242
13.3 The communicative style 247
13.4 The task-based learning style 257
13.5 The mainstream EFL style 263
13.6 Other styles 266
13.7 Conclusions 270
Further reading 272
List of coursebooks mentioned 273

References 277
Index 295
Acknowledgements
The motto of this book, as before, comes from Otto Jespersen (1904): ‘The really
important thing is less the destruction of bad old methods than a positive indica-
tion of the new ways to be followed if we are to have thoroughly efficient teach-
ing in modern languages.’ The new edition has benefited from the feedback of
students, colleagues and readers. Without the musical influence of EST, Polar Bear
and Miles Davis, it would never have been finished.
Vivian Cook
January 2008
Note to teachers
This book provides an introduction to the application of second language acqui-
sition (SLA) research to language teaching suitable for language teachers, student
teachers and students on MA courses in applied linguistics, TESOL, methodology
of modern language teaching, and so on. It presupposes no previous background
and provides explanations and glossaries of important terms. Most sections of
each chapter start with focusing questions and keywords and end with summaries
of the area and of its application, as well as presenting discussion topics and fur-
ther reading.
The scope of the book ranges from particular aspects of language and language
teaching to broader contexts of second language acquisition and general ideas of
language teaching. After the general background in Chapter 1, the next four chap-
ters look at how people learn particular aspects of the second language: grammar
in Chapter 2, vocabulary in Chapter 3, pronunciation in Chapter 4, and the writ-
ing system in Chapter 5. The next three chapters treat learners as individuals,
dealing with learners’ strategies in Chapter 6, listening and reading processes in
Chapter 7, and individual differences in Chapter 8. Chapter 9 examines the char-
acteristics of language teaching in classrooms. The remaining chapters adopt a
wider perspective. Chapter 10 looks at the nature of the L2 user and the native
speaker, Chapter 11 at goals of language teaching, and Chapter 12 at models of
second language acquisition. The final Chapter 13 discusses different styles of lan-
guage teaching and looks for their foundations in SLA research.
From my own teaching of this material I have found that the teaching sequence
needs to vary to suit the interests and experience of the particular students on a
course. For some it is better to start with the factual language materials in
Chapters 2–5; those with more theoretical interests may start with the general
models of second language acquisition in Chapter 12; students with less experi-
ence of teaching may need to start with sections of Chapter 13, which provide a
quick background in teaching methods of the twentieth century; others may want
to concentrate on the more controversial society-related issues of Chapters 10 and
11. Apart from the introductory Chapter 1, the chapters can stand alone and do
not depend on previous chapters, though cross-references are made when neces-
sary and a glossary of all key terms is given online.
The writing of the fourth edition has been guided largely by feedback from stu-
dents, teachers and colleagues at Newcastle University. The broad framework and
approach of the third edition have been maintained. An additional feature has
been added, namely links to the website. For some time my website SLA Topics
(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/SLA/index.htm) has offered a wide range
of materials for SLA research. Recently, a portal has been created for users of this
book which can be found at www.hodderplus.com/linguistics. This site contains sup-
port materials, notes, questionnaires, a glossary of keywords, samples of research
techniques, further reading and lists of other related sites. The various question-
naires, summaries, data, and so on provided in the chapters are available online
and can be downloaded and printed, usually as Microsoft® Word files. Links to a
specific page on the website are indicated in the book by the mouse symbol. The
links to other people’s sites mentioned in the text are included on a single page of
useful links on the website.
Background to second
language acquisition research
and language teaching
1
Language is at the centre of human life. We use it to express our love or our
hatred, to achieve our goals and further our careers, to gain artistic satisfaction or
simple pleasure, to pray or to blaspheme. Through language we plan our lives and
remember our past; we exchange ideas and experiences; we form our social and
individual identities. Language is the most unique thing about human beings. As
Cicero said in 55 BC, ‘The one thing in which we are especially superior to beasts
is that we speak to each other.’
Some people are able to do some or all of this in more than one language.
Knowing another language may mean: getting a job; a chance to get educated; the
ability to take a fuller part in the life of one’s own country or the opportunity to
emigrate to another; an expansion of one’s literary and cultural horizons; the
expression of one’s political opinions or religious beliefs; the chance to talk to peo-
ple on a foreign holiday. A second language affects people’s careers and possible
futures, their lives and their very identities. In a world where probably more peo-
ple speak two languages than one, the acquisition and use of second languages are
vital to the everyday lives of millions; monolinguals are becoming almost an
endangered species. Helping people acquire second languages more effectively is
an important task for the twenty-first century.
1.1 The scope of this book

The main aim of this book is to communicate to those concerned with language
teaching some of the ideas about how people acquire second languages that emerge
from second language acquisition (SLA) research, and to make suggestions of how
these might benefit language teaching. It is not a guide to SLA research methodol-
ogy itself, or to the merits and failings of particular SLA research techniques, which
are covered in other books, such as Second Language Learning Theories (Myles and
Mitchell, 2004). Nor is it an overall guide to the methods and techniques of lan-
guage teaching; only to those which are related to an SLA research perspective. It is
intended for language teachers and trainee teachers. Most of the time it tries not to
take sides in reporting the various issues; inevitably my own interest in the multi-
competence approach is hard to conceal.
Much of the discussion concerns the L2 learning and teaching of English, mainly
because this is the chief language that has been investigated in SLA research. English
is used here, however, as a source of examples rather than forming the subject mat-
ter itself. The teaching and learning of other modern languages are discussed when
appropriate. It should be remembered that the English language is often in a unique
situation, being the only language that can be used almost anywhere on the globe
2 Background
between people who are non-native speakers. Most sections of each chapter start
with focusing questions and a display of defining keywords, and end with discus-
sion topics and further reading.
Contact with the language teaching classroom is maintained in this book chiefly
through the discussion of published coursebooks and syllabuses, usually for teach-
ing English. Even if good teachers use books only as a jumping-off point, they can
provide a window into many classrooms. The books and syllabuses cited are taken
from countries ranging from Germany to Japan to Cuba, though inevitably the bias
is towards coursebooks published in England for reasons of accessibility. Since many
modern language teaching coursebooks are depressingly similar in orientation, the
examples of less familiar approaches have often been taken from older coursebooks.
This book talks about only a fraction of the SLA research on a given topic, often
presenting only one or two of the possible approaches. It concentrates on those
based on ideas about language, that is, applied linguistics, rather than those com-
ing from psychology or education. Nevertheless it covers more areas of SLA
research than most books that link SLA research to language teaching, for exam-
ple, taking in pronunciation, vocabulary and writing, among other areas. It uses
ideas from the wealth of research produced in the past twenty years or so, rather
than just the most recent. Sometimes it has to go beyond the strict borders of SLA
research itself to include topics such as the position of English in the world and
the power of native speakers over their language.
The book is linked to an extensive website: www.hoddereducation.com/viviancook.
This contains pages for this book, such as questionnaires, displays, language data,
summaries, lists of links, and so on, as well as a great deal of other SLA informa-
tion not specific to the book. The pages can be downloaded and printed. The main
entry point is the index. The mouse symbol in the book indicates that there is a
particular aspect available online; the more general pages are not signalled every
time they might be useful.
1.2 Common assumptions of language teaching
Focusing question
● Answer the questionnaire in Box 1.1 to find out your assumptions about
language teaching.
Keywords
first language: chronologically the first language that a child learns

second language: ‘A language acquired by a person in addition to his mother
tongue’ (UNESCO)
native speaker: a person who still speaks the language they learnt in childhood,
often seen as monolingual
Glosses on names of teaching methods are provided at the end of the chapter.
Explanations of keywords throughout the book are available in the keyword
glossary on the website.
Common assumptions of language teaching 3
Box 1.1 Assumptions of language teaching
Tick the extent to which you agree or disagree with these assumptions
Neither
agree
Strongly nor Strongly
agree Agree disagree Disagree Disagree
1 Students learn ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
best through
spoken, not
written language.
2 Teachers and ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
students should
use the second
language rather
than the first
language in the
classroom.
3 Teachers should ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
avoid explicit
discussion of
grammar.
4 The aim of ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
language
teaching is to
make students
like native
speakers.
During the last quarter of the nineteenth century, a revolution took place that
affected much of the language teaching used in the twentieth century. The revolt
was primarily against the stultifying methods of grammatical explanation and
translation of texts which were then popular. (In this chapter we will use ‘method’
in the traditional way to describe a particular way of teaching, with its own tech-
niques and tasks; Chapter 13 replaces this with the word ‘style’.) In its place, the
pioneers of the new language teaching, such as Henry Sweet and Otto Jespersen,
emphasized the spoken language and the naturalness of language learning, and
insisted on the importance of using the second language in the classroom rather
than the first (Howatt, 2004). These beliefs are largely still with us today, either
explicitly instilled into teachers or just taken for granted. The questionnaire in
Box 1.1 tests the extent to which the reader actually believes in four of these com-
mon assumptions.
If you agreed with most of the statements in Box 1.1, then you share the com-
mon assumptions of teachers over the past 120 years. Let us consider them in
more detail.
4 Background
Assumption 1: The basis for teaching is the spoken, not the

written language
One of the keynotes of the nineteenth-century revolution in teaching was the
emphasis on the spoken language, partly because many of its advocates were pho-
neticians. The English curriculum in Cuba, for example, insists on ‘The principle
of the primacy of spoken language’ (Cuban Ministry of Education, 1999). The
teaching methods within which speech was most dominant were the audio-lin-
gual and audio-visual methods, which insisted on presenting spoken language
from tape before the students encountered the written form. Later methods have
continued to emphasize the spoken language. Communication in the commu-
nicative method is usually through speech rather than writing. The total physical
response method uses spoken, not written, commands, and storytelling, not story
reading. Even in the recent task-based learning approach, Ellis (2003: 6) points
out: ‘The literature on tasks, both research-based or pedagogic, assumes that tasks
are directed at oral skills, particularly speaking.’ The amount of teaching time that
teachers pay to pronunciation far outweighs that given to spelling.
The importance of speech has been reinforced by many linguists who claim that
speech is the primary form of language, and that writing depends on speech. Few
teaching methods in the twentieth century saw speech and writing as being
equally important. The problem with accepting this assumption, as we see in
Chapter 5, is that written language has distinct characteristics of its own, which
are not just pale reflections of the spoken language. To quote Michael Halliday
(1985: 91), ‘writing is not speech written down, nor is speech writing that is read
aloud’. Vital as the spoken language may be, it should not divert attention from
those aspects of writing that are crucial for students. Spelling mistakes, for
instance, probably count more against an L2 user in everyday life than a foreign
accent.
Assumption 2: Teachers and students should use the

second language rather than the first language in the
classroom
The emphasis on the second language in the classroom was also part of the revolt
against the older methods by the late nineteenth-century methodologists, most
famously through the direct method and the Berlitz method, with their rejection
of translation as a teaching technique. In the 1990s the use of the first language in
the classroom was still seen as undesirable, whether in England – ‘The natural use
of the target language for virtually all communication is a sure sign of a good
modern language course’ (DES, 1990: 58) – or in Japan – ‘The majority of an
English class will be conducted in English’ (MEXT, 2003). This advice is echoed in
almost every teaching manual: ‘the need to have them practising English (rather
than their own language) remains paramount’ (Harmer, 1998: 129). One argu-
ment for avoiding the first language is that children learning their first language
do not have a second language available, which is irrelevant in itself – infants do
not play golf, but we teach it to adults. Another argument is that students should
keep the two languages separate in their minds rather than linking them; this
adopts a compartmentalized view of the languages in the same mind, which is not
supported by SLA research, as we see everywhere in this book. Nevertheless, many
English classes justifiably avoid the first language for practical reasons, whether
Common assumptions of language teaching 5
because of the mixed languages of the students or because of the teacher’s igno-
rance of the students’ first language.
Assumption 3: Teachers should avoid explicit discussion of

grammar
The ban on explicit teaching of grammar to students also formed part of the rejec-
tion of the old-style methods. Grammar could be practised through drills or incor-
porated within communicative exercises, but should not be explained to students.
While grammatical rules could be demonstrated though substitution tables or sit-
uational cues, actual rules should not be mentioned. The old arguments against
grammatical explanation were, on the one hand, the question of conscious under-
standing – knowing some aspect of language consciously is no guarantee that you
can use it in speech – and, on the other, the time involved – speaking by con-
sciously using all the grammatical rules means each sentence may take several
minutes to produce, as those of us who learnt Latin by this method will bear
witness. Chapter 2 describes how grammar has recently made something of a
comeback.
Assumption 4: The aim of language teaching is to make

students like native speakers
One of the assumptions that is most taken for granted is that the model for lan-
guage teaching is the native speaker. Virtually all teachers, students and bilinguals
have assumed that success is measured by how close a learner gets to a native
speaker, in grammar, vocabulary and particularly pronunciation. David Stern
(1983: 341) puts it clearly: ‘The native speaker’s “competence” or “proficiency” or
“knowledge of the language” is a necessary point of reference for the second lan-
guage proficiency concept used in language teaching.’ Coursebooks are based on
native language speakers; examinations compare students with the native
speaker. Passing for a native is the ultimate test of success. Like all the best
assumptions, people so take this for granted that they can be mortally offended if
it is brought out into the open and they are asked, ‘Why do you want to be a
native speaker in any case?’ No other possibility than the native speaker is enter-
tained.
As we shall see, many of these background assumptions are questioned by SLA
research and have sometimes led to undesirable consequences. Assumption 1, that
students learn best through spoken language, leads to undervaluing the features spe-
cific to written language, as we see in Chapter 6. Assumption 2, that the L1 should be
minimized in the classroom, goes against the integrity of the L2 user’s mind, to be
discussed later in this chapter and in Chapter 10. Assumption 3, on not teaching
grammar, explicitly implies a particular model of grammar and learning, rather than
the many alternatives shown in Chapter 2. The native speaker assumption 4 has
come under increasing attack in recent years, as described in Chapter 10, on the
grounds that a native speaker goal is not appropriate for all circumstances and is
unattainable for the vast majority of students. Nevertheless, even if for the most part
these assumptions are unstated, they continue to be part of the basis of language
teaching, however the winds of fashion blow.
6 Background
1.3 What is second language acquisition research?
Focusing questions
● Who do you know who is good at languages? Why do you think this is so?
● Do you think that everybody learns a second language in roughly the same
way?
Keywords
Contrastive Analysis: this research method compared the descriptions of two

languages in grammar or pronunciation to discover the differences between
them; these were then seen as difficulties for the students that needed to be
overcome
Error Analysis (EA): this method studied the language produced by L2 learners
to establish its peculiarities, which it tried to explain in terms of the first lan-
guage and other sources
As this book is based on SLA research, the obvious question is: what is SLA
research? People have been interested in the acquisition of second languages since
at least the ancient Greeks, but the discipline itself only came into being around
1970, gathering together language teachers, psychologists and linguists. Its roots
were in the 1950s studies of Contrastive Analysis, which compared the first and
second languages to predict students’ difficulties, and in the 1960s Chomskyan
models of first language acquisition, which saw children as creators of their own
languages. Together these led to SLA research concentrating on the learner as the
central element in the learning situation.
In the early days much attention focused on the language the learner produced.
The technique of Error Analysis looked at the differences between the learner’s
speech and that of native speakers (Corder, 1981); it tried to establish what learner
speech was actually like. The next wave of research tried to establish stages of devel-
opment for the learner’s language, say, the sequence for acquiring grammatical
items like ‘to’, ‘the’ and ‘-ing’, to be discussed in Chapter 2. Now people started to
get interested in the qualities that learners brought to second language acquisition
and the choices they made when learning and using the language. And they started
to pay attention to the whole context in which the learner is placed, whether the
temporary context of the conversation or the more permanent situation in their
own society or the society whose language they are learning.
Nowadays SLA research is an extremely rich and diverse subject, drawing on
aspects of linguistics, psychology, sociology and education. Hence it has many
aspects and theories that are often incompatible. Most introductory books on sec-
ond language acquisition will attest to the great interest that SLA researchers have
in grammar. Yet many researchers are concerned exclusively with phonology or
vocabulary, with their own specialist books and conferences. And still other
groups are concerned with how Vygotsky’s ideas link to modern language teach-
ing, or how discourse and Conversation Analysis are relevant to second language
What is second language acquisition research? 7
acquisition. Much teaching-oriented SLA research now takes place at the interface
between cognitive psychology and educational research, called ‘usage-based
learning’ by Michael Tomasello (2003), leading to task-based learning. Though
some SLA research is intended to be applied to teaching, most is either ‘pure’
study of second language acquisition for its own sake, or uses second language
acquisition as a testing ground for linguistic theories.
The present book tries to be eclectic in presenting a variety of areas and
approaches that seem relevant for language teaching rather than a single unified
approach. Here are some ‘facts’ that SLA research has discovered; some of them
will be explained and applied in later chapters; others are still a mystery:
● English-speaking primary school children who are taught Italian for one hour a week
learn to read better in English than other children.
Such a small exposure to a second language as one hour a week can have use-
ful effects on other aspects of the child’s mind and is potentially an important
reason for teaching children another language. Language teaching affects more
than the language in a person’s mind.
● People who speak a second language are more creative and flexible at problem solving
than monolinguals (e.g. Einstein, Nabokov).
Research clearly shows L2 users have an advantage in several cognitive areas;
they think differently and perceive the world differently. This benefit is dis-
cussed in Chapter 10.
● Ten days after a road accident, a bilingual Moroccan could speak French but not
Arabic; the next day Arabic but not French; the next day she went back to fluent
French and poor Arabic; three months later she could speak both.
The relationship between the two languages in the brain is now starting to be
understood by neurolinguists, yet the diversity of effects from brain injury is still
largely inexplicable. The effects on language are different in almost every bilingual
patient; some aphasics recover the first language they learnt, some the language
they were using at the time of injury, some the language they use most, and so on.
● Bengali-speaking children in Tower Hamlets in London go through stages in learning
verb inflections; at 5 they know only ‘-ing’ (walking); at 7 they also know /t/ ‘walked’,
/d/ ‘played’ and ‘ate’ (irregular past tenses); at 9 they still lack ‘hit’ (zero past).
Learners all seem to go through similar stages of development of a second lan-
guage, whether in grammar or pronunciation, as we see in other chapters. This
has been confirmed in almost all studies looking at the sequence of acquisition.
Yet, as in this case, we are still not always sure of the reason for the sequence.
● The timing of the voicing of /t⬃d/ sounds in ‘ten/den’ is different in French people
who speak English, and French people who do not.
The knowledge of the first language is affected in subtle ways by the second lan-
guage that you know, so that there are many giveaways to the fact that you speak
other languages, whether in grammar, pronunciation or vocabulary. L2 users no
longer have the same knowledge of their first language as the monolingual
native speaker.
● L2 learners rapidly learn the appropriate pronunciations for their own gender, for
instance, that men tend to pronounce the ‘-ing’ ending of the English continuous form
‘going’ as ‘-in’, but women tend to use ‘-ing’.
People quickly pick up elements that are important to their identity in the second
language, say, men’s versus women’s speech – even if the teacher is probably
8 Background
unaware of what is being conveyed. A second language is a complex new addition

to one’s roles in the world.
● Remembering a fish tank they have been shown, Chinese people who also speak
English will remember the fish more than the plants to a greater extent than Chinese
monolinguals.
Different cultures think in different ways. Our cultural attitudes may be
changed by the language we are acquiring; in this case, the Chinese attention
to ‘background’ plants is altered by impact with the English attention to ‘fore-
ground’ fish.
1.4 What a teacher can expect from SLA research
Focusing questions
● How do you think SLA research could help your teaching?

● Have you seen it applied to language teaching before?
● Who do you think should decide what happens in the classroom – the gov-
ernment, the head teacher, the teacher, the students, the parents, or some-
one else?
Let us take three examples of the contribution SLA research can make to language
teaching: understanding the students’ contribution to learning, understanding
how teaching methods and techniques work, and understanding the overall goals
of language teaching.
Understanding the students’ contribution to learning

All successful teaching depends on learning; there is no point in providing enter-
taining, lively, well-constructed language lessons if students do not learn from
them. The proof of the teaching is in the learning. One crucial factor in L2 learn-
ing is what the students bring with them into the classroom. With the exception
of young bilingual children, L2 learners have fully formed personalities and minds
when they start learning the second language, and these have profound effects on
their ways of learning and on how successful they are. SLA research, for example,
has established that the students’ diverse motivations for learning the second lan-
guage affect them powerfully, as we see in Chapter 8. Some students see learning
the second language as extending the repertoire of what they can do; others see it
as a threat.
The different ways in which students tackle learning also affect their success.
What is happening in the class is not equally productive for all the students
because their minds work in different ways. The differences between individuals do
not disappear when they come through the classroom door. Students base what
they do on their previous experience of learning and using language. They do not
start from scratch without any background or predisposition to learn language in
one way or another. Students also have much in common by virtue of possessing
the same human minds. For instance, SLA research predicts that, however
What a teacher can expect from SLA research 9
advanced they are, students will find that their memory works less well in the new
language, whether they are trying to remember a phone number or the contents of
an article. SLA research helps in understanding how apparently similar students
react differently to the same teaching technique, while revealing the problems that
all students share.
Understanding how teaching methods and techniques work

Teaching methods usually incorporate a view of L2 learning, whether implicitly
or explicitly. Grammar-translation teaching, for example, emphasizes explana-
tions of grammatical points because this fits in with its view that L2 learning is the
acquisition of conscious knowledge. Communicative teaching methods require
the students to talk to each other because they see L2 learning as growing out of
the give-and-take of communication. For the most part, teaching methods have
developed these ideas of learning independently from SLA research. They are not
based, for example, on research into how learners use grammatical explanations
or how they learn by talking to each other. More information about how learners
actually learn helps the teacher to make any method more effective and can put
the teacher’s hunches on a firmer basis.
The reasons why a teaching technique works or does not work depend on many
factors. A teacher who wants to use a particular technique will benefit by knowing
what it implies in terms of language learning and language processing, the type of
student for whom it is most appropriate, and the ways in which it fits into the
classroom situation. Suppose the teacher wants to use a task in which the students
spontaneously exchange information. This implies that students are learning by
communicating, that they are prepared to speak out in the classroom and that the
educational context allows for learning from fellow students rather than from the
teacher alone. SLA research has something to say about all of these, as we shall see.
Understanding the goals of language teaching

The reasons why the second language is being taught depend on overall educa-
tional goals, which vary from one country to another and from one period to
another. One avowed goal of language teaching is to help people to think better –
brain training and logical thinking. Others are appreciation of serious literature;
the student’s increased self-awareness and maturity; the appreciation of other cul-
tures and races; communication with people in other countries, and so on. Many
of these have been explored in particular SLA research. For example, the goal of
brain training is supported by evidence that people who know two languages
think more flexibly than monolinguals (Landry, 1974). This information is vital
when considering the viability and implementation of communicative goals for a
particular group of students. SLA research can help define the goals of language
teaching, assess how achievable they may be, and contribute to their achieve-
ment. These issues are debated in Chapter 11.
SLA research is a scientific discipline that tries to describe how people learn and
use another language. It cannot decide issues that are outside its domain. While it
may contribute to the understanding of teaching goals, it is itself neutral between
them. It is not for the teacher, the methodologist or any other outsider to dictate
whether a language should be taught for communication, for brain training, or
whatever purpose, but for the society or the individual student to decide. One
10 Background
country specifies that group work must be used in the classroom because it
encourages democracy. Another bans any reference to English-speaking culture in
textbooks because English is for international communication, not for developing
relationships with England or the USA. A third sees language teaching as a way of
developing honesty and the values of good citizenship; a speaker at a TESOL con-
ference in New York proclaimed that the purpose of TESOL was to create good
American citizens (to the consternation of the British and Canadians present in
the audience). SLA research as a discipline neither commends nor denies the value
of these goals, since they depend on moral or political values rather than science.
But it can offer advice on how these goals may best be achieved and what their
costs may be, particularly in balancing the needs of society and of the individual.
Teachers need to see the classroom from many angles, not just from that of SLA
research. The choice of what to do in a particular lesson depends on the teacher’s
assessment of the factors involved in teaching those students in that situation. SLA
research reveals some of the strengths and weaknesses of a particular teaching
method or technique and it provides information that can influence and guide
teaching. It does not provide a magic solution to teaching problems in the form
of a patented method with an attractive new brand name.
Insights from SLA research can help teachers, whatever their methodological
slant. Partly this is at the general level of understanding; knowing what language
learning consists of colours the teacher’s awareness of everything that happens in
the classroom and heightens the teacher’s empathy with the student. Partly it is at
the more specific level of the choice of teaching methods, the construction of teach-
ing materials, or the design and execution of teaching techniques. The links
between SLA research and language teaching made here are suggestions of what can
be done rather than accounts of what has been done or orders about what should be
done. Since SLA research is still in its early days, some of the ideas presented here are
based on a solid agreed foundation; others are more controversial or speculative.
While this book has been written for language teachers, this is not the only way
in which SLA research can influence language teaching. Other routes for the
application of SLA research include:
1 Informing the students themselves about SLA research so they can use it in
their learning. This has been tried in books such as How to Study Foreign
Languages (Lewis, 1999) and How to Be a More Successful Language Learner (Rubin
and Thompson, 1982).
2 Basing language examinations and tests on SLA research, a vast potential appli-
cation but not one that has yet been tried on any scale, examination designers
and testers usually following their own traditions.
3 Devising syllabuses and curricula using SLA research so that the content of
teaching can fit the students better. We shall meet some attempts at this in var-
ious chapters here, but again, SLA research has not usually been the basis for
syllabuses.
4 Writing course materials based on SLA research. Some coursebook writers do
indeed try to use ideas from SLA research, as we shall see.
Often these indirect routes may have a greater influence on teaching than the
teacher.
Some background ideas of SLA research 11
1.5 Some background ideas of SLA research
Focusing questions
● Do you feel you keep your two languages separate or do they merge at some
point in your mind?
● Do you think students should aim to become as native-like as possible?
Keywords
multi-competence: the knowledge of more than one language in the same

mind
the independent language assumption: the language of the L2 learner can be
considered a language in its own right rather than a defective version of the
target language (sometimes called ‘interlanguage’)
L2 user and L2 learner: an L2 user uses the second language for real-life pur-
poses; an L2 learner is acquiring a second language rather than using it
second and foreign language: broadly speaking, a second language is for
immediate use within the same country; a foreign language is for long-term
future use in other countries
When SLA research became an independent discipline, it established certain prin-

ciples that underlie much of the research to be discussed later. This section pres-
ents some of these core ideas.
SLA research is independent of language teaching

Earlier approaches to L2 learning often asked the question: which teaching meth-
ods give the best results? Is an oral method better than a translation method? Is a
communicative method better than a situational one? Putting the question in this
form accepts the status quo of what already happens in teaching rather than look-
ing at underlying principles of learning: ‘Is what happens in teaching right?’
rather than ‘What should happen in teaching?’ A more logical sequence is to ask:
how do people learn languages? Then teaching methods can be evaluated in the
light of what has been discovered, and teaching can be based on adequate ideas of
learning. The first step is to study learning itself; the second step is to see how
teaching relates to learning, the sequence mostly followed in this book.
The teacher should be told from the start that there is no easy link between SLA
research and language teaching methods, despite the claims made in some course-
books or by some researchers. The language teaching approaches of the past 50 years,
by and large, have originated from teaching methodologists, not from SLA research.
The communicative approach, for example, was only remotely linked to the theories
of language acquisition of the 1960s and 1970s; it came chiefly out of the insight that
language teaching should be tailored to students’ real-world communication needs.
SLA research does not provide a magic solution that can be applied instantly to the
12 Background
contemporary classroom so much as a set of ideas that teachers can try out for them-
selves.
The new field did not blindly take over the concepts previously used for talking
about L2 learning. Language teachers, for example, often contrast second language
teaching (which teaches the language for immediate use within the same country,
say, the teaching of French to immigrants in France) with foreign language teaching
(which teaches the language for long-term future uses and may take place any-
where, but most often in countries where it is not an everyday medium, say, the
teaching of French in England). While this distinction is often convenient, it can-
not be taken for granted that learners in these two situations necessarily learn in two
different ways without proper research evidence. Indeed, later we shall look at many
other dimensions to the learning situation (see Chapter 10). (Also there seems to be
some variation between British and American usage of ‘foreign’ and ‘second’.)
The term second language (L2) learning/acquisition is used in this book to include all
learning of languages other than the native language, in whatever situation or for
whatever purpose: second simply means ‘other than first’. This is the sense of second
language defined by UNESCO: ‘A language acquired by a person in addition to his
mother tongue’. Nor does this book make a distinction between language ‘acquisi-
tion’ and language ‘learning’, as Stephen Krashen does (e.g. Krashen, 1981a).
A more idiosyncratic use here is the distinction between L2 user and L2 learner.
An L2 user is anybody making an actual use of the second language for real-life
purposes outside the classroom; an L2 learner is anybody acquiring a second lan-
guage. In some cases a person is both user and learner – when an L2 learner of
English in London steps out of the classroom, they immediately become an L2
user of English. The distinction is important for many countries where learners do
not become users for many years, if ever. The prime motivation for the term L2
user, however, is the feeling that it is demeaning to call someone who has func-
tioned in an L2 environment for years a learner rather than a user, as if their task
were never finished. We would not dream of calling a 20-year-old adult native
speaker an L1 learner, so we should not call a person who has been using a second
language for 20 years an L2 learner!
The different spheres of SLA research and language teaching mean that the con-
cepts of language they use are often different. The danger is when both fields use
the same terms with different meanings. To SLA researchers, for instance, the term
‘grammar’ mostly means something in people’s heads which they use for con-
structing sentences; to teachers it means a set of rules on paper which can be
explained to students. The type of grammar used in SLA research has little to do
with the tried and true collection of grammatical ideas for teaching that teachers
have evolved, as will be illustrated in Chapter 2. It is perfectly possible, for exam-
ple, for the same person to say ‘I hate grammar’ (as a way of teaching by explain-
ing rules) and ‘I think grammar is very important’ (as the mental system that
organizes language in the students’ minds). It is dangerous to assume that words
used by teachers every day, such as ‘vocabulary’, ‘noun’ or ‘linguist’, have the same
meaning in the context of SLA research.
L2 learning is independent of L1 acquisition

Teaching methods have often been justified in terms of how children learn their
first language, without investigating L2 learning directly. The audio-lingual
method of teaching, for instance, was based primarily on particular views of how
children learn their first language.
There is no intrinsic reason, however, why learning a second language should be

the same as learning a first. Learning a first language is, in Halliday’s memorable
phrase, ‘learning how to mean’ (Halliday, 1975) – discovering that language is used
for relating to other people and for communicating ideas. Language, according to
Michael Tomasello (1999), requires the ability to recognize that other people have
points of view. People learning a second language already know how to mean and
know that other people have minds of their own. L2 learning is inevitably differ-
ent in this respect from L1 learning. The similarities between learning the first and
second languages have to be established rather than taken for granted. In some
respects, the two forms of learning may well be rather similar, in others quite differ-
ent – after all, the outcome is often very different. Evidence about how the child
learns a first language has to be interpreted with caution in L2 learning and seldom
in itself provides a basis for language teaching.
L2 learners, in fact, are different from children learning a first language since there
is already one language present in their minds. There is no way that the L2 learner
can become a monolingual native speaker by definition. However strong the similar-
ities may be between L1 acquisition and L2 learning, the presence of the first lan-
guage is the inescapable difference in L2 learning. So our beliefs about how children
learn their first language cannot be transferred automatically to a second language;
some may work, some may not. Most teaching methods have claimed in some sense
to be based on the ‘natural’ way of acquiring language, usually meaning the way
used by L1 children; however, they have very different views of what L1 children do,
whether derived from the theories of language learning current when they origi-
nated or from general popular beliefs about L1 acquisition, say, ‘Children are good
at imitation, therefore L2 learners should have to imitate sentences.’
L2 learning is more than the transfer of the first language

One view of L2 learning sees its crucial element as the transfer of aspects of the
first language to the second language. The first language helps learners when it has
elements in common with the second language and hinders them when they dif-
fer. Spanish speakers may leave out the subject of the sentence when speaking
English, saying ‘Is raining’ rather than ‘It is raining’, while French speakers do not.
The explanation is that subjects may be omitted in Spanish, but they may not be
left out in French. Nor is it usually difficult to decide from accent alone whether a
foreigner speaking English comes from France, Brazil or Japan.
But the importance of such transfer has to be looked at with an open mind.
Various aspects of L2 learning need to be investigated before it can be decided
how and when the first language is involved in the learning of the second.
Though transfer from the first language indeed turns out to be important, often in
unexpected ways, its role needs to be established through properly balanced
research rather than the first language taking the blame for everything that goes
wrong in learning a second.
Learners have independent language systems of their own

Suppose a student learning English says, ‘Me go no school’. Many teachers would
see it as roughly the same as the native sentence, ‘I am not going to school’, even
if they would not draw the student’s attention to it overtly. In other words, this is
what the student might say if he or she were a native speaker. So this student is
14 Background
‘really’ trying to produce a present continuous tense ‘am going’, a first person sub-
ject ‘I’, a negative ‘not’, and an adverbial ‘to school’, ending up with the native
version ‘I am not going to school’. But something has gone drastically wrong with
the sentence. Perhaps the student has not yet encountered the appropriate forms
in English or perhaps he or she is transferring constructions from the first lan-
guage. The assumption is that the student’s sentence should be compared to one
produced by a native speaker. Sometimes this comparison is justified, as native-
like speech is often a goal for the student.
This is what many students want to be, however, not what they are at the
moment. It is judging the students by what they are not – native speakers. SLA
research insists that learners have the right to be judged by the standards appropri-
ate for them, not by those used for natives. ‘Me go no school’ is an example of
learner language that shows what is going on in their minds. ‘Me’ shows that they
do not distinguish ‘I’ and ‘me’, unlike native English; ‘no’ that negation consists
for them of adding a negative word after the verb, unlike its usual position before
the verb; ‘go’ that they have no grammatical endings such as ‘-ing’, and so on. All
these apparent ‘mistakes’ conform to regular rules in the students’ own knowledge
of English; they are only wrong when measured against native speech. Their sen-
tences relate to their own temporary language systems at the moment when they
produce the sentence, rather than to the native’s version of English.
However peculiar and limited they may be, learners’ sentences come from the
learners’ own language systems; their L2 speech shows rules and patterns of its
own. At each stage learners have their own language systems. The nature of these
learner systems may be very different from that of the target language. Even if they
are idiosyncratic and constantly changing, they are nonetheless systematic. The
starting point for SLA research is the learner’s own language system. This can be
called the ‘independent language assumption’: learners are not wilfully distorting
the native system, but are inventing a system of their own. Finding out how stu-
dents learn means starting from the curious rules and structures which they
invent for themselves as they go along – their ‘interlanguage’, as Larry Selinker
(1972) put it. This is shown in Figure 1.1.
Learner's
First Second
independent
language language
language
(L1) (L2)
(interlanguage)
Figure 1.1 The learner’s independent language (interlanguage)
The interlanguage concept had a major impact on teaching techniques in the

1970s. Teaching methods that used drills and grammatical explanations had
insisted on the seriousness of the students’ mistakes. A mistake in an audio-lingual
drill meant the student had not properly learnt the ‘habit’ of speaking; a mistake in
a grammatical exercise meant the student had not understood the rule. The concept
of the learner’s own system liberated the classroom and in part paved the way for
the communicative language teaching methods of the 1970s and 1980s, and the
task-based learning of the 1990s. Learners’ sentences reflect their temporary lan-
guage systems rather than their imperfect grasp of the target language. If a student
makes a ‘mistake’, it is not the fault of the teacher or the materials or even of the stu-
dent, but an inevitable and natural part of the learning process. Teachers could now
use teaching activities in which students talked to each other rather than to the
teacher, because the students did not need the teacher’s vigilant eye to spot what
they were doing wrong. Their mistakes were minor irritants rather than major haz-
ards. They could now work in pairs or groups, as the teacher did not have to super-
vise the students’ speech continuously to pinpoint their mistakes.
In my own view, not yet shared by the SLA research field as a whole, the inde-
pendent grammars assumption does not go far enough. On the one hand, we have
the user’s knowledge of their first language; on the other, their interlanguage in
the second language. But these languages coexist in the same mind; one person
knows both. Hence we need a name to refer to the overall knowledge that com-
bines both the first language and the L2 interlanguage, namely multi-competence
(Cook, 1992) – the knowledge of two languages in the same mind (shown in
Figure 1.2). The lack of this concept has meant SLA research has still treated the
two languages separately rather than as different facets of the same person, as we
see from time to time in the rest of this book.
Learner's
First Second
independent
language language
language
(L1) (L2)
(interlanguage)
Multicompetence
Figure 1.2 Multi-competence
Multi-competence
As this chapter has illustrated, one of the snags in discussing language teaching is
the very word ‘language’, which has many meanings to many people. The opening
sentence of this chapter said that ‘language is at the centre of human life’; here ‘lan-
guage’ is an abstract, uncountable noun used for a general property of human life
(Lang1), like vision, the meaning at stake in discussions of whether other species can
use language. The next paragraph said, ‘Some people are able to do all of this in
more than one language’; here ‘language’ is a countable noun – there is more than
one of it (Lang2); this meaning covers the English language, the French language,
and so on; that is to say, an abstraction describing one particular group of people,
often a nation, rather than another. Later in this chapter we said that ‘knowing
some aspect of language consciously is no guarantee that you can use it in speech’;
here ‘language’ has shifted meaning to the psychological knowledge in an individ-
ual human mind, what Chomsky (1965) meant by ‘linguistic competence’ (Lang5).
Then we talked about ‘the language the learner produced’, where ‘language’ now
means the actual sentences that someone has said or written (Lang3). Later still we
commented that ‘language is used for relating to other people’; ‘language’ also
means something that is used for social reasons as part of society (Lang4).
16 Background
It is always important, therefore, when discussing language teaching and language

acquisition, to remember which meaning of language we have in mind (Cook,
2007) – and there are doubtless many more meanings one could find. Sometimes
misunderstandings occur simply because people are using different meanings of ‘lan-
guage’ without realizing it. For example, an individual native speaker may know the
English language in the psychological sense, but probably knows only a fraction of
the words in any dictionary of the English language; students often feel frustrated
because they measure their knowledge of a language against the grammar book and
the dictionary (Lang2) rather than against what an individual speaker knows (Lang5).
Box 1.2 Meanings of ‘language’ (Cook, 2007)

● Lang1: a representation system known by human beings – ‘human
language’
● Lang2: an abstract entity – ‘the English language’
● Lang3: a set of sentences – everything that has been or could be said – ‘the
language of the Bible’
● Lang4: the possession of a community – ‘the language of French people’
● Lang5: the knowledge in the mind of an individual – ‘I have learnt French as
a foreign language for eight years’
Discussion topics
1 What do you think is going on in the student’s head when they are doing,
say, a fill-in exercise? Have you ever checked to see if this is really the case?
2 In what ways are coursebooks a good source of information about what is
going on in a classroom, and in what ways are they not?
3 Do your students share the language teaching goals you are practising or do
you have to persuade them that these are right? Do you have a right to
impose the goals you choose on them?
4 Why do you believe in the teaching method you use? What evidence do you
have for its success?
5 Are there more similarities or dissimilarities between L1 acquisition and L2
learning?
6 What should an L2 speaker aim at if not the model of the native speaker?
7 What factors in a teaching technique do you think are most
important?
8 What is wrong with the following sentences from students’ essays? If you
were their teacher, how would you correct them?
a Anyone doesn’t need any deposit in my country to rent an apartment.
(Korean student)
b I play squash so so and I wish in Sunday’s morning arrange matches with a
girl who plays like me. (Italian)
c Everytimes I concentrate to speak out, don’t know why always had Chinese
in my mind. (Chinese)
Glosses on language teaching methods 17
d Raelly I am so happy. I wold like to give you my best congratulate. and I wold
like too to till you my real apologise, becuse my mother is very sik. (Arabic)
e I please you very much you allow me to stay with you this Christmas. (Spanish)
Further reading
Good technical introductions to L2 learning and bilingualism can be found in
Myles and Mitchell, Second Language Learning Theories (2004) and VanPatten and
Williams (2006) Theories in Second Language Acquisition; a brief overview can be
found in ‘Linguistics and second language acquisition: one person with two lan-
guages’ (Cook, 2000) in The Blackwell Handbook of Linguistics. Useful books with
similar purposes but covering slightly different approaches to second language
acquisition are: Lightbown and Spada (2006) How Languages are Learned and Cohen
(1990) Language Learning. Some useful resources to follow up SLA and teaching on
the web are the Second Language Acquisition Bibliography (SLABIB) at http://home-
page.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/Vivian%20Cook.htm; the European Second Language
Association (EUROSLA) at http://eurosla.org; and Dave’s ESL Café at
www.eslcafe.com Those interested in the nineteenth-century revolution in lan-
guage teaching should go to Howatt (2004) A History of English Language Teaching.
More information is available on the website for this book, www.hoddereducation.
com/viviancook. The issue of the meanings of ‘language’ is treated at greater length
in Cook (2007).
Glosses on language teaching methods

audio-lingual method: this combined a learning theory based on ideas of habit
formation and practice with a view of language as patterns and structures; it
chiefly made students repeat sentences recorded on tape and practise structures in
repetitive drills; originating in the USA in the 1940s, its peak of popularity was
probably the 1960s, though it was not much used in British-influenced EFL (Note:
it is not usually abbreviated to ALM since these initials belong to a particular
trademarked method)
audio-visual method: this used visual images to show the meaning of spoken dia-
logues and believed in treating language as a whole rather than divided up into
different aspects; teaching relied on filmstrips and taped dialogues for repetition;
it emerged chiefly in France in the 1960s and 1970s
communicative teaching: this based language teaching on the functions that the
second language had for the student and on the meanings they wanted to express,
leading to teaching exercises that made the students communicate with each
other in various ways; from the mid-1970s onwards this became the most influen-
tial way of teaching around the globe, not just for English
direct method: essentially any method that relies on the second language
throughout
grammar-translation method: the traditional academic style of teaching which
placed heavy emphasis on grammar explanation and translation as a teaching
technique
task-based learning: this approach sees learning as arising from particular tasks
the students do in the classroom and has been seen increasingly as a logical devel-
opment from communicative language teaching
The details of many of these are discussed further in Chapter 13.
Learning and teaching
different types of grammar 2
A language has patterns and regularities which are used to convey meaning, some of
which make up its grammar. One important aspect of grammar in most languages
is the order of words: any speaker of English knows that ‘Mr Bean loves Teddy’ does
not have the same meaning as ‘Teddy loves Mr Bean’. Another aspect of grammar
consists of changes in the forms of words, more important in some languages than
others: ‘This bush flowered in May’ means something different from ‘These bushes
flower in May’ because of the differences between ‘This/these’, ‘bush/bushes’ and
‘flowered/flower’. The glossary on page 44 defines some grammatical terms.
Many linguists consider grammar to be the central part of the language in the
Lang5 sense of the knowledge in an individual mind, around which other parts
such as pronunciation and vocabulary revolve. However important the other
components of language may be in themselves, they are connected to each other
through grammar. Chomsky calls it the ‘computational system’ that relates sound
and meaning, trivial in itself but impossible to manage without.
Originally the word ‘glamour’ came from the same root as ‘grammar’; the per-
son who knew grammar was glamorous and could cast mysterious spells. In the
fifteenth-century ballad ‘King Estmere’, it is said of two brothers, ‘And aye their
swordes soe sore can byte, Through help of gramarye.’ Grammar is indeed one of
the mysteries of human life.
Grammar is the most unique aspect of language. It has features that do not
occur in other mental processes and that are not apparently found in animal lan-
guages. According to linguists (though psychologists often disagree), grammar is
learnt in different ways from anything else that people learn.
In some ways, as grammar is highly systematic, its effects are usually fairly obvi-
ous and frequent in people’s speech or writing – one reason why so much SLA
research has concentrated on grammar. This chapter first looks at different types
of grammar and then selects some areas of grammatical research into L2 learning
to represent the main approaches.
2.1 What is grammar?
Focusing questions
● What is grammar?
● How do you think it is learnt?
● How would you teach it?
What is grammar? 19
Keywords
prescriptive grammar: grammar that ‘prescribes’ what people should or

should not say
traditional grammar: ‘school’ grammar concerned with labelling sentences
with parts of speech, and so on
structural grammar: grammar concerned with how words go into phrases, and
phrases into sentences
grammatical (linguistic) competence: the knowledge of language stored in a
person’s mind
Glosses on some grammatical terminology are given at the end of the chapter and
appear on the website.
To explain what the term ‘grammar’ means in the context of L2 learning, it is
easiest to start by eliminating what it does not mean.
Prescriptive grammar
One familiar type of grammar is the rules found in schoolbooks, for example, the
warnings against final prepositions in sentences, ‘This can’t be put up with’, or the
diatribes in letters to the newspaper about split infinitives, ‘To boldly go where no
one has gone before’. This is called prescriptive grammar because it prescribes what
people ought to do. Modern grammarians have mostly avoided prescriptive gram-
mar because they see their job as describing what the rules of language are, just as
the physicist says what the laws of physics are. The grammarian has no more right
to decree how people should speak than the physicist has to decree how electrons
should move; their task is to describe what happens. Language is bound up with
human lives in so many ways that it is easy to find reasons why some grammat-
ical forms are ‘better’ than others, but these are based on criteria other than the
grammar itself, mostly to do with social status; for example, that you should not
say ‘ain’t’. The grammarian’s duty is to decide what people actually say; after this
has been carried out, others may decide that it would be better to change what
people say. Hence all the other types of grammar discussed below are ‘descriptive’
in that they claim to describe the grammar that real people know and use, even if
sometimes this claim is given no more than lip service.
Prescriptive grammar is all but irrelevant to the language teaching classroom.
Since the 1960s people have believed that you should teach the language as it is,
not as it ought to be. Students should learn to speak real language that people use,
not an artificial form that nobody uses – we all use split infinitives from time to
time when the circumstances make it necessary, and it is often awkward to avoid
them. Mostly, however, these prescriptive dos and don’ts about ‘between you and
me’ or ‘it is I’ are not important enough or frequent enough to spend much time
thinking about their implications for language teaching. If L2 learners need to
pander to these shibboleths, a teacher can quickly provide a list of the handful of
forms that pedants object to.
One area where prescriptive grammar still thrives is spelling and punctuation,
where everyone believes there is a single ‘correct’ spelling for every word: spell
receive as recieve or news as new’s at your peril. Another is word
20 Learning and teaching different types of grammar
processing; the program I use for writing this warns me against using final prepo-
sitions and passives, common as they are in everyday English. A third is journal edi-
tors, who have often been nasty about my sentences without verbs – to me a
normal variation in prose found on many pages of any novel.
Traditional grammar
A second popular meaning of ‘grammar’ concerns the parts of speech: the ‘fact’
that ‘a noun is a word that is the name of a person, place, thing, or idea’ is
absorbed by every school pupil in England. This definition comes straight from
Tapestry Writing 1 (Pike-Baky, 2000), a course published in the year 2000, but
which differs little from William Cobbett’s definition in 1819: ‘Nouns are the
names of persons and things’.
Analysing sentences in this approach means labelling the parts with their
names and giving rules that explain in words how they may be combined. This is
often called traditional grammar. In essence it goes back to the grammars of Latin,
receiving its English form in the grammars of the eighteenth century, many of
which in fact set out to be prescriptive. Grammarians today do not reject this type
of grammar outright so much as feel that it is unscientific. After reading the defi-
nition of a noun, we still do not know what it is, in the way that we know what a
chemical element is: is ‘fire’ a noun? ‘opening’? ‘she’? The answer is that we do
not know without seeing the word in a sentence, but the context is not men-
tioned in the definition. While the parts of speech are indeed relevant to gram-
mar, there are many other powerful grammatical concepts that are equally
important.
A useful modern source is the NASA Manual in the list of links on the website,
which provides sensible advice in largely traditional terms, such as: ‘The subject
and verb should be the most important elements of a sentence. Too many modi-
fiers, particularly between the subject and verb, can over-power these elements.’
Some language teaching uses a type of grammar resembling a sophisticated
form of traditional grammar. Grammar books for language teaching often present
grammar through a series of visual displays and examples. A case in point is the
stalwart Basic Grammar in Use (Murphy, 2002, 2nd edn). A typical unit is headed
‘flower/flowers’ (singular and plural). It has a display of singular and plural forms
(‘a flower some flowers’), lists of idiosyncratic spellings of plurals (‘babies,
shelves’), words that are unexpectedly plural (‘scissors’), and plurals not in ‘-s’
(‘mice’). It explains: ‘The plural of a noun is usually ‘-s’.’ In other words, it assumes
that students know what the term ‘plural’ means, presumably because it will
translate into all languages. But Japanese does not have plural forms for nouns;
Japanese students have said to me that they only acquired the concept of singular
and plural through learning English. Languages like Tongan, or indeed Old
English, have three forms: singular, plural and dual (‘two people’). The crucial
question, for linguists at any rate, is how the subject of the sentence agrees with
the verb in terms of singular or plural, which is not mentioned in Murphy’s text,
although two out of the four exercises that follow depend on it.
Even main coursebooks often rely on the students knowing the terms of tradi-
tional grammar. In the very first lesson of an EFL course for beginners called
Changes (Richards, 1998: 16), the grammar summary uses the technical terms in
English ‘subject pronouns’, ‘possessive adjective’, ‘contraction’ and ‘statement’.
Goodness knows how the students are supposed to have learnt these technical
What is grammar? 21
terms in another language; modern language teachers in UK schools lament that

pupils are no longer equipped with this framework of traditional grammatical term-
inology. Nor would switching to the students’ first language necessarily be much
help: in countries like Japan grammar does not come out of the Latin-based
European traditional grammar, and it uses quite different terms and concepts.
Structural grammar
Language teaching has also made use of structural grammar based on the concept of
phrase structure, which shows how some words go together in the sentence and
some do not. In a sentence such as ‘The man fed the dog’, the word ‘the’ seems some-
how to go with ‘man’, but ‘fed’ does not seem to go with ‘the’. Suppose we group the
words that seem to go together: ‘the’ clearly goes with ‘man’, so we can recognize a
structure ‘(the man)’; ‘the’ goes with ‘dog’ to get another ‘(the dog)’. Then these struc-
tures can be combined with the remaining words: ‘fed’ belongs with ‘(the dog)’ to get
a new structure ‘(fed the dog)’, not with ‘the man’ in ‘the man fed’. Now the two
structures ‘(the man)’ and ‘(fed the dog)’ go together to assemble the whole sentence.
This phrase structure is usually presented in tree diagrams that show how words build
up into phrases and phrases build up into sentences (see Figure 2.1).
The man fed the dog

Figure 2.1 An example of a phrase structure tree
Structural grammar thus describes how the elements of the sentence fit together
in an overall structure built up from smaller and smaller structures.
Teachers have been using structural grammar directly in substitution tables
since at least the 1920s. A typical example can be seen in the Bulgarian course-
book English for the Fifth Class (Despotova et al., 1988) (see Figure 2.2).
They can draw a black dog

I white car
You red rose
Figure 2.2 A typical substitution table
Students form sentences by choosing a word from each column: ‘I. . . can draw
a. . . black. . . rose’. They are substituting different words within a constant gram-
matical structure. Substitution tables are still common in present-day coursebooks
and grammar books, though more today as graphic displays of grammar, as
Chapter 13 illustrates.
Such exercises have long been a staple of language teaching in one guise or
another. Structure drills and pattern practice draw on similar ideas of structure, as
in the following exercise from my own Realistic English (Abbs et al., 1968):
You can go and see him.

Well, if I go. . .
He can come and ask you.
Well, if he comes. . .
They can write and tell her.
Well, if they write. . .
The students replace the verb each time within the structure ‘Well, if pronoun
verb’, dinning in the present tense for possible conditions. Chapter 13 provides
further discussion of such drills.
Grammar as knowledge in the mind

SLA research relies mainly on another meaning of ‘grammar’ – the knowledge of
language that the speaker possesses in the mind, known as linguistic or grammati-
cal competence, originally taken from Chomsky’s work of the 1960s. A more recent
definition is as follows:
By ‘grammatical competence’ I mean the cognitive state that encompasses all those
aspects of form and meaning and their relation, including underlying structures
that enter into that relation, which are properly assigned to the specific subsystem
of the human mind that relates representations of form and meaning. (Chomsky,
1980: 59)
All speakers know the grammar of their language in this Lang5 sense of ‘lan-
guage’ as a mental state without having to study it. A speaker of English knows that
‘Is John is the man who French?’ is wrong, without looking it up in any book –
indeed few grammar books would be much help. A native speaker knows the sys-
tem of the language. He or she may not be able to verbalize this knowledge clearly;
it is ‘implicit’ knowledge below the level of consciousness.
Nevertheless, no one could produce a single sentence of English without having
English grammar present in their minds. A woman who spontaneously says ‘The
man fed the dog’ shows that she knows the word order typical of English in which
the subject ‘The man’ comes before the verb ‘fed’. She knows the ways of making
irregular past tenses in English – ‘fed’ rather than the regular ‘-ed’ (‘feeded’); she
knows that ‘dog’ needs an article ‘the’ or ‘a’; and she knows that ‘the’ is used to
talk about a dog that the listener already knows about. This is very different from
being able to talk about the sentence she has produced, only possible for people
who have been taught explicit ‘grammar’.
A parallel can be found in a teaching exercise that baffles students – devising
instructions for everyday actions. Try asking the students, ‘Tell me how to put my
coat on.’ Everyone knows how to put a coat on in one sense, but is unable to describe
their actions. There is one type of knowledge in our mind which we can talk about
consciously, another which is far from conscious. We can all put on our coats or pro-
duce an English sentence; few of us can describe how we do it. This view of grammar
Structure words, morphemes and sequences of acquisition 23
as knowledge treats it as something stored unconsciously in the mind – the native

speaker’s competence. The rationale for the paraphernalia of grammatical analysis
such as sentence trees, structures and rules is ultimately that they describe the com-
petence in our minds.
As well as grammatical competence, native speakers also possess knowledge of
how language is used. This is often called communicative competence by those who
see the public functions of language as crucial (Hymes, 1972), rather than the ways
we use language inside our minds. Sheer knowledge of language has little point if
speakers cannot use it appropriately for all the activities in which they want to take
part – complaining, arguing, persuading, declaring war, writing love letters, buying
season tickets, and so on. Many linguists see language as having private functions
as well as public – language for dreaming or planning a day out. Hence the more
general term pragmatic competence reflects all the possible uses of language rather
than restricting them to communication (Chomsky, 1986): praying, mental arith-
metic, keeping a diary, making a shopping list, and many others. In other words,
while no one denies that there is far more to language than grammar, many lin-
guists see it as the invisible central spine that holds everything else together.
Box 2.1 shows the typical grammatical elements in beginners’ English course-
books. This gives some idea of the types of structure that are taught to beginners
in most classrooms around the world. The grammar is the typical medley of tradi-
tional and structural items. A clear presentation of this can be found in Harmer
(1998). Many of these items are the basis for language teaching and for SLA
research.
Box 2.1 Grammar for beginners

Here are the elements of English grammar common to lessons 1–5 of three
modern beginners’ books for adults, with examples:
1 present of to be: It’s in Japan. I’m Mark. He’s Jack Kennedy’s nephew.
2 articles a/an: I’m a student. She is an old woman. It’s an exciting place.
3 subject pronouns: She’s Italian. I’ve got two brothers and a sister. Do you
have black or white coffee?
4 in/from with places: You ask a woman in the street the time. I’m from India.
She lives in London.
5 noun plurals: boys / parents / sandwiches.
2.2 Structure words, morphemes and

sequences of acquisition
Focusing questions
● What do you understand by a structure (function) word?

● What do you think are the main characteristics of beginners’ sentences in
English or another modern language?
Keywords
content words such as ‘table’ or ‘truth’ have meanings that can be found in dic-
tionaries and consist of nouns, verbs, adjectives and (possibly) prepositions
structure (function) words such as articles ‘the’ and ‘a’ exist to form part of
phrases and structures and so have meanings that are difficult to capture in
the dictionary
morpheme: the smallest unit of grammar, consisting either of a word (‘toast’)
or part of a word (‘’s’ in ‘John’s’)
morphology and syntax: morphology is the branch of linguistics that deals
with the structure of morphemes; syntax is the branch that deals with the
structure of phrases above the level of the word
grammatical morphemes are morphemes such as ‘-ing’ and ‘the’ that play a
greater part in structure than content words such as ‘horse’ (lexical mor-
phemes)
order of difficulty: the scale of difficulty for particular aspects of grammar for L2
learners
sequence of acquisition: the order in which L2 learners acquire the grammar,
pronunciation, and so on of the language
Box 2.2 Types of grammar

Grammar can be:
1 a way of telling people what they ought to say, rather than reporting what
they do say (prescriptive grammar);
2 a system for describing sentence structure used in English schools for cen-
turies, based on grammars of classical languages such as Latin (traditional
grammar);
3 a system for describing sentences based on the idea of smaller structures
built up into larger structures (structural grammar);
4 the knowledge of the structural regularities of language in the minds of
speakers (linguistic/grammatical competence);
5 EFL grammar combining elements of (2) and (3).
An important distinction for language teaching has been that between ‘content’
words and ‘structure’ words, also known as ‘function’ words. Here is a quotation
from a Theodore Sturgeon story that combines made-up content words with real
structure words:
So on Lirht, while the decisions on the fate of the miserable Hvov were
being formulated, gwik still fardled, funted and fupped.
The same sentence with made-up structure words might have read:
So kel Mars, dom trelk decisions kel trelk fate mert trelk miserable slaves hiv
polst formulated, deer still grazed, jumped kosp survived.
Only the first version is comprehensible in some form, even if we have no idea
how you fardle and funt.
Content words have meanings that can be looked up in a dictionary and they
are numbered in many thousands. ‘Beer’ or ‘palimpsest’ are content words refer-
ring to definable things. A new content word can be invented easily; advertisers
try to do it all the time – ‘Contains the magic new ingredient kryptonite’.
Structure words, on the other hand, are limited in number, consisting of words
like ‘the’, ‘to’ and ‘yet’. A computer program for teaching English needs about 220
structure words; the ten most common words in the British National Corpus 100
million sample are all structure words, as we see in Chapter 3. Structure words are
described in grammar books rather than dictionaries. The meaning of ‘the’ or ‘of’
depends on the grammatical rules of the language, not on dictionary definitions.
It is virtually impossible to invent a new structure word because it would mean
changing the grammatical rules of the language, which are fairly rigid, rather than
adding an item to the stock of words of the language, which can easily take a few
more. Science fiction novelists, for example, have a good time inventing new
words for aliens, ranging from ‘Alaree’ to ‘Vatch’; new nouns for new scientific
ideas, ranging from ‘noocyte’ (artificially created intelligent cells) to ‘iahklu’ (the
Aldebaranian ability to influence the world through dreams). Where Lewis Carroll
once coined nouns like ‘chortle’, William Gibson now contributes ‘cyberpunk’ to
the language. But no writer dares invent new structure words. The only exception
perhaps is Marge Piercy’s non-sexist pronoun ‘per’ for ‘he/she’ in the novel
Woman on the Edge of Time, first coined by the psychologist Donald McKay.
Table 2.1 shows the main differences between content and structure words. As
can be seen, the distinction is quite powerful, affecting everything from the
spelling to speech production. Nevertheless, this simplistic division needs to be
made far more complicated to catch the complexities of a language like English,
as we shall see.
As well as words, most linguists’ grammars use a unit called the morpheme,
defined as the smallest element that has meaning. Some words consist of a single
morpheme – ‘to’, ‘book’, ‘like’ or ‘black’. Some words can have morphemes added to
show their grammatical role in the sentence, say ‘books’ (books) or ‘blacker’
(blacker). Other words can be split into several morphemes: ‘mini-supermarket’
might be ‘mini-super-market’; ‘hamburger’ is seen as ‘ham-burger’ rather than
‘Hamburg-er’. When the phrase structure of a sentence is shown in tree diagrams, the
whole sentence is at the top and the morphemes are at the bottom: the morpheme is
the last possible grammatical fragment at the bottom of the tree. The structure and
behaviour of morphemes are dealt with in the area of grammar called morphology.
In some SLA research, grammatical inflections like ‘-ing’ are grouped together
with structure words like ‘to’ as ‘grammatical morphemes’. In the 1970s Heidi
Dulay and Marina Burt (1973) decided to see how these grammatical morphemes
were learnt by L2 learners. They made Spanish-speaking children learning English
describe pictures and checked how often they supplied eight grammatical mor-
phemes in the appropriate places in the sentence. Suppose that at a low level, L2
Content words Structure words
are in the dictionary: ‘book’ are in the grammar: ‘the’
exist in large numbers, 615,000 in the are limited in number, say, 220 in
Oxford English Dictionary English
vary in frequency: ‘book’ versus ‘honved’ are high frequency: ‘to’, ‘the’, ‘I’
are used more in written language are used more in spoken language
are more likely to be preceded by a are less likely to be preceded by a pause

pause in speech in speech
consist of nouns ‘glass’; verbs ‘move’; consist of prepositions ‘to’; articles ‘a’;
adjectives ‘glossy’, etc. pronouns ‘he’, etc.
are always pronounced and spelt the vary in pronunciation for emphasis,
same: ‘look’ /lυk/ etc.: ‘have’ /hv, hɘv, ɘv, v/
have a fixed stress or stresses: ‘pilot’ are stressed for emphasis, etc.: ‘the’
/ði ~ ðɘ/
have more than two letters: ‘eye’, ‘Ann’ can consist of one or two letters: ‘I’, ‘an’
are pronounced with an initial voiceless are pronounced with an initial voiced
‘th’: ‘theory’ /θ/ ‘th’: ‘there’ /ð/
can always be invented: ‘cyberpunk’ can seldom be invented
Table 2.1 Content words and structure words
learners say sentences with two content words, like ‘Girl go’. How do they expand
this rudimentary sentence into its full form?
1 Plural ‘-s’. The easiest morpheme for them was the plural ‘-s’, getting ‘Girls go’.
2 Progressive ‘-ing’. Next easiest was the word ending ‘-ing’ in present continuous
forms like ‘going’, ‘Girls going’.
3 Copula forms of ‘be’. Next came the use of ‘be’ as a copula, that is, as a main verb
in the sentence (‘John is happy’) rather than as an auxiliary used with another
verb (‘John is going’). Changing the sentence slightly gets ‘Girls are here’.
4 Auxiliary form of ‘be’. After this came the auxiliary forms of ‘be’ with ‘-ing’,
yielding ‘Girls are going’.
5 Definite and indefinite articles ‘the’ and ‘a’. Next in difficulty came the definite
and indefinite articles ‘the’ and ‘a’, enabling the learners to produce ‘The girls
go’ or ‘A girl go’.
6 Irregular past tense. Next were the irregular English past tenses such as ‘came’
and ‘went’, that is, those verbs that do not have an ‘-ed’ ending pronounced in
the usual three ways /d/, /t/ or /id/, ‘played’, ‘learnt’ and ‘waited’, as in ‘The
girls went’.
7 Third person ‘-s’. Next came the third person ‘-s’ used with verbs, as in ‘The girl
goes’.
8 Possessive ‘’s’. Most difficult of the eight endings was the ‘’s’ ending used with
nouns to show possession, as in ‘The girl’s book’.
The sequence from 1 to 8 mirrors the order of difficulty for the L2 learners
Dulay and Burt studied. They had least difficulty with plural ‘-s’ and most diffi-
culty with possessive ‘’s’. The interesting discovery was the similarities between
the L2 learners. It was not just Spanish-speaking children who have a sequence of
difficulty for the eight grammatical morphemes. Similar orders have been found
for Japanese children and for Korean adults (Makino, 1980; Lee, 1981), though
not for one Japanese child (Hakuta, 1974). The first language does not seem to
make a crucial difference: all L2 learners have much the same order. This was quite
surprising in that people had thought that the main problem in acquiring gram-
mar was transfer from the first language; now it turned out that learners had the
same types of mistake whatever the first language they spoke. The other surprise
was that it did not seem to matter if the learners were children or adults; adults
have roughly the same order as children (Krashen et al., 1976). It does not even
make much difference whether or not they are attending a language class (Larsen-
Freeman, 1976). There is a strong similarity between all L2 learners of English,
whatever the explanation may be. This research with grammatical morphemes
was the first to demonstrate the common factors of L2 learners so clearly.
While grammatical morphemes petered out as a topic of research in the 1990s,
it was the precursor of much research to do with the acquisition of grammatical
inflections such as past tense ‘-ed’ which is still common today. Yet there are still
things to learn from this area. Muhammad Hannan (2004), for instance, used it to
find a sequence of acquisition for Bengali-speaking children in East London, as
mentioned in Chapter 1. At the age of 5, they knew only ‘-ing’, as in ‘looking’; by
6 they had added past tense /t/ ‘looked’; by 7 irregular past tenses such as ‘went’,
and regular /d/ ‘played’; by 8 past participles ‘-en’ ‘been’; by 9 the only persistent
problem was with ‘zero’ past ‘hit’. Clearly these children made a consistent pro-
gression for grammatical morphemes over time.
This type of research brought important confirmation of the idea of the
learner’s independent language, interlanguage. Learners from many backgrounds
seemed to be creating the same kind of grammar for English out of what they
heard, and were passing through more or less the same stages of acquisition. They
were reacting in the same way to the shared experience of learning English. While
the first language made some difference, its influence was dwarfed by what the
learners had in common. Indeed, at one point Dulay and Burt (1973) dramatically
claimed that only 3 per cent of learners’ errors could be attributed to interference
from the first language. While later research has seldom found such a low inci-
dence, nevertheless it became clear that much of the learning of a second lan-
guage was common to all L2 learners rather than being simply transfer from their
first language.
One of the best demonstrations of the independence of interlanguage came
from a research programme that investigated the acquisition of five second lan-
guages by adult migrant workers in Europe, known as the ESF (European Science
Foundation) project. Researchers found a basic grammar that all L2 learners
shared, which had three simple rules; a sentence may consist of:
● a noun phrase followed by a verb, optionally followed by another noun phrase

‘girl take bread’;
● a noun phrase followed by a copula and another noun phrase or an adjective

‘it’s bread’;
● a verb followed by a noun phrase ‘pinching its’.
Box 2.3 Early acquisition of grammar

● Content and structure words differ in many ways, including the ways they
are used in sentences and how they are pronounced.
● Grammatical morphemes (structure words and grammatical inflections) are
learnt in a particular sequence in L2 acquisition.
● L2 learners acquire the same basic grammar regardless of the first and sec-
ond languages involved.
L2 learners not only have an interlanguage grammar, they have the same interlan-
guage grammar, regardless of the language they are learning. In other words, all
that teachers can actually expect from learners after a year or so is a sparse gram-
mar having these three rules; whatever the teacher may try to do, this may be
what the learners achieve.
2.3 The processability model
Focusing questions
● Do you find problems in following certain structures in your L2, or indeed

your L1?
● Why do you think you find some structures more difficult to follow than others?
Keywords
movement: a way of describing some sentences as being based on moving var-

ious elements about
processability: sequences of acquisition may reflect the ease with which certain
structures can be processed by the mind
sequence of development: the inevitable progression of learners through defi-
nite stages of acquisition
the teachability hypothesis: ‘an L2 structure can be learnt from instruction
only if the learner’s interlanguage is close to the point when this structure is
acquired in the natural setting’ (Pienemann, 1984: 201)
The problem with research into sequences of acquisition was that it tended to say
what the learners did rather than why they did it. During the 1980s an attempt was
made to create a broader-based sequence of development, first called the multidi-
mensional model, later the processability model, which believed that the explanation
The processability model 29
John is nice John is where? John will go where?
Is John nice? Where is John? Where will John go?

Figure 2.3 Examples of movement in syntax
for sequences must lie in the expanding capacity of the learner’s mind to handle
the grammar of L2 sentences. The core idea was that some sentences are formed by
moving elements from one position to another. English questions, for example,
move the auxiliary or the question word to the beginning of the sentence, a famil-
iar idea to language teachers. So ‘John is nice’ becomes ‘Is John nice?’ by moving
‘is’ to the beginning; ‘John is where?’ becomes ‘Where is John?’ by moving ‘where’
and ‘is’; and ‘John will go where?’ becomes ‘Where will John go?’ by moving both
‘where’ and ‘will’ in front of ‘John’.
The multidimensional model sees movement as the key element in understand-
ing the learning sequence. The learner starts with sentences without movement
and learns how to move the various parts of the sentence around to get the final
form. The learner ascends the structural tree from bottom to top, first learning to
deal with words, next with phrases, then with simple sentences, and finally with
subordinate clauses in complex sentences.
Stage 1
To start with, the learners can produce only one word at a time, say, ‘ticket’ or
‘beer’, or formulas such as ‘What’s the time?’ At this stage the learners know con-
tent words but have no idea of grammatical structure; the words come out in a
stream without being put in phrases and without grammatical morphemes, as if
the learners had a dictionary in their mind but no grammar.
Stage 2
Next learners acquire the typical word order of the language. In both English and
German this is the subject verb object (SVO) order – ‘John likes beer’, ‘Hans liebt
Bier’. This is the only word order that the learners know; they do not have any
alternative word orders based on movement such as questions. So they put nega-
tives in the front of the sentence as in ‘No me live here’ and make questions with
rising intonation such as ‘You like me?’, both of which maintain the basic word
order of English without needing movement.
In the next stages the learners discover how to move elements about, in partic-
ular to the beginnings and ends of the sentence.
Stage 3
Now the learners start to move elements to the beginning of the sentence. So they
put adverbials at the beginning – ‘On Tuesday I went to London’; they use wh-
words at the beginning with no inversion – ‘Who lives in Camden?’; and they
move auxiliaries to get yes/no questions – ‘Will you be there?’ Typical sentences
at this stage are ‘Yesterday I sick’ and ‘Beer I like’, in both of which the initial ele-
ment has been moved from later in the sentence.
Stage 4
At the next stage, learners discover how the preposition can be separated from its
phrase in English – ‘the patient he looked after’ rather than ‘the patient after
which he looked’ – a phenomenon technically known as preposition-stranding,
which is the antithesis of the prescriptive grammar rule. They also start to use the
‘-ing’ ending – ‘I’m reading a good book’.
Stage 5
Next come question-word questions such as ‘Where is he going to be?’; the third
person grammatical morpheme ‘-s’, ‘He likes’; and the dative with ‘to’, ‘He gave
his name to the receptionist’. At this stage the learners are starting to work within
the structure of the sentence, not just using the beginning or the end as locations
to move elements to. Another new feature is the third person ‘-s’ ending of verbs,
‘He smokes’.
Stage 6
The final stage is acquiring the order of subordinate clauses. In English this some-
times differs from the order in the main clause. The question order is ‘Will he go?’
but the reported question is ‘Jane asked if he would go’, not ‘Jane asked if would he
go’, to the despair of generations of EFL students. At this stage the learner is sort-
ing out the more untypical orders in subordinate clauses after the ordinary main
clause order has been learnt. In addition, this stage includes structures such as ‘He
gave me the book’, where the indirect object precedes the direct object, as
opposed to ‘He gave the book to me’ with the reverse order.
The multidimensional model stresses that L2 learners have a series of interim
grammars of English – interlanguages. Their first grammar is just words; the sec-
ond uses words in an SVO order; the third uses word order with some elements
moved to the beginning or end, and so on. As with grammatical morphemes, this
sequence seems inexorable: all learners go through these overall stages in the
same order. The recent development of the multidimensional model has been
called the processability model because it explains these sequences in terms of the
grammatical processes involved in the production of a sentence, which are
roughly as follows:
1 The learner gets access to individual content words ‘see. car.’

2 The learner gets access to grammatical structure words ‘see. the car.’ (called the
‘category procedure’).
3 The learner assembles these into phrases ‘he see. the car.’ (the ‘phrasal procedure’).
4 The learner puts the phrases together within the sentence ‘he will see the car’
(the ‘S-procedure’).
5 The learner can work with both main clauses and subordinate clauses: ‘If he looks
out of the window, he will see the car’ (the ‘subordinate clause procedure’).
The processability model 31
In a sense, the teacher is helpless to do much about sequences like the grammat-
ical morphemes order. If all students have to acquire language in more or less the
same sequence, the teacher can only fit in with it. This processability model leads
to the teachability hypothesis: ‘an L2 structure can be learnt from instruction only
if the learner’s interlanguage is close to the point when this structure is acquired
in the natural setting’ (Pienemann, 1984: 201). So teachers should teach accord-
ing to the stage that their students are at. To take some examples from the above
sequence:
● Do not teach the third person ‘-s’ ending of present tense verbs in ‘He likes’ at
early stages as it inevitably comes late.
● In the early stages concentrate on the main word order of subject verb object
(SVO), ‘Cats like milk’, and do not expect learners to learn the word order of
questions, ‘What do cats like?’, and so on, until much later.
● Introduce sentence-initial adverbials, ‘In summer I play tennis’, as a way into
the movement involved in questions, ‘Do you like Brahms?’
These are three possible suggestions out of the many that arise from the research.
They conflict with the sequence in which the grammatical points are usually intro-
duced in textbooks; ‘-s’ endings and questions often come in opening lessons; ini-
tial adverbial phrases are unlikely to be taught before questions. It may be that
there are good teaching reasons why these suggestions should not be taken on
board. For instance, when people tried postponing using questions for the first year
of teaching to avoid movement, this created enormous practical problems in the
classroom, where questions are the lifeblood. But these ideas are nevertheless
worth considering in the sequencing of materials, whatever other factors may over-
rule them.
Let us compare the sequence of elements in a typical EFL course with that in the
processability model. A typical modern course is Flying Colours (Garton-Sprenger
and Greenall, 1990), intended for adult beginners. Unit 1 of Flying Colours starts
with the student looking for ‘international words’ such as ‘bar’ and ‘jeans’, and
repeating short formulas such as ‘What’s your name?’ and ‘I don’t understand’.
Thus it starts with words rather than structures, as does the processability model.
Unit 2, however, plunges into questions: ‘What is your phone number?’, ‘Would
you like some French onion soup?’, ‘What does Kenneth Hill do?’ In terms of the
processability model these come in stages 3 and 5 and should not be attempted
until the students have the main subject verb object structure of English fixed in
their minds. Certainly this early introduction of questions is a major difference
from the processability model. Unit 3 introduces the present continuous tense –
‘She’s wearing a jacket and jeans’. While this is already late compared to courses
that introduce the present continuous in lesson 1, it is far in advance of its posi-
tion in the processability model sequence at stage 4. Subordinate clauses are not
mentioned in Flying Colours, apart from comparative clauses in Unit 6. Looking
through the text, however, one finds in Unit 1 that the students have to under-
stand sentences such as ‘When he goes to a foreign country, he learns. . .’ (‘when’
clause), ‘Listen and say who is speaking’ (reported speech clause), ‘Boris Becker
wins after a hurricane stops the match’ (‘after’ clause), ‘The only other things I
buy are a map and some postcards’ (relative clause). Clearly subordinate clauses
are not seen as particularly difficult; the processability model, however, insists
that they are mastered last of all.
Some other differences between the L2 stages and the sequences in EFL course-
books are:
● The textbook collapses two L2 stages into one. Atlas 1 (Nunan, 1995), for exam-
ple, teaches auxiliary questions ‘Can you come to my birthday party tomor-
row?’, copula questions ‘Are you Michael Shaw?’, wh-questions ‘Where are you
from?’ and reported questions ‘Talk about where you are from’ all in Unit 1 of
a ‘beginning’ course, despite the fact that in the processability model these
would be scattered across stages 3 to 6.
● The textbook goes against some aspects of the order. For example, Tapestry 1
Writing (Pike-Baky, 2000) for ‘high beginning’ students uses subordinate
clauses from the outset, despite their apparent lateness in acquisition. Chapter
2 has instructions ‘Think about where you go every day’, text sentences ‘So he
designed an environment where people “can take their minds off” their prob-
lems’, and completion sentences ‘I believe that Feng Shui. . .’, all of which
would be impossible for students below the most advanced stage of the
processability model.
● The coursebook omits some stages, for instance, not teaching initial adverbs and
preposition-stranding, unmentioned in the grammatical syllabuses for, say, New
Cutting Edge (Cunningham et al., 2005), New Headway (Soars and Soars, 2002) or
Just Right (Harmer, 2004), even if they doubtless creep in somewhere.
● When coursebooks make use of grammatical sequences at all, they tend to rely
on a skeleton of tenses and verb forms, by no means central to the processabil-
ity model or indeed to any of the approaches found in SLA research. For
instance International Express (Taylor, 1996) for pre-intermediates follows the
sequence present simple (Unit 1), present continuous (2), past simple (3), pres-
ent perfect (6), future ‘will’ (9), passives (12) – a typical EFL teaching sequence
for most of the twentieth century but virtually unconnected to any of the L2
learning sequences.
One problem is very hard for language teaching to resolve. Learners’ interlan-
guages contain rules that are different from the native speaker’s competence. The
student may temporarily produce sentences that deviate from native correctness,
say, stage 2 ‘No me live here’. Many teaching techniques, however, assume that the
point of an exercise is to get the student to produce sentences from the very first
lesson that are completely correct in terms of the target language, even if they are
severely restricted in terms of grammar and vocabulary. The students are not sup-
posed to be producing sentences like ‘No me live here’ in the classroom. Teaching
materials similarly only present sentences that are possible in terms of the target
language, never letting learners hear sentences such as ‘No me live here’. Hence the
classroom and the textbook can never fully reflect the stages that interlanguages go
through, which may well be quite ungrammatical in terms of the target language
for a long time – just as children only get round to fully grammatical sentences in
their first language after many years. There is an implicit tension between the pres-
sure on students to produce well-formed sentences and the natural stages that stu-
dents go through. Should learners be allowed to produce these ‘mistakes’ in the
classroom, since they are inevitable? Or should the teacher try to prevent them?
The answers to these questions also affect when and how the teacher will correct
the student’s ‘mistakes’.
Principles and parameters grammar 33
Box 2.4 Processability

● Learners acquire a second language in a sequence of six grammatical
stages.
● These stages relate to the learners’ growing ability to process language in
their minds.
● Sequences of teaching currently do not fit these six stages and may place
undue demands on learners.
2.4 Principles and parameters grammar
Focusing questions
● Do you think that you learnt your first language entirely from your parents or
do you think some of it was already present in your mind?
● If you came from Mars, what would you say all human languages had in
common?
Keywords
Universal Grammar: the language faculty built into the human mind consisting
of principles and parameters
principles of language: aspects of human language present in all human
minds, for example, the locality principle – why you cannot say ‘Is John is the
man who happy?’
parameters: aspects that vary from one language to another within tightly set
limits, whether or not subjects are required in the sentence – the pro-drop
parameter
So far, this chapter has discussed grammar in terms of morphemes, content and
structure words, and movement. All these capture some aspect of L2 learning and
contribute to our knowledge of the whole. A radically different way of looking at
grammar that has become popular in recent years, however, tries to see what
human languages have in common. This is the Universal Grammar theory associ-
ated with Noam Chomsky. Universal Grammar (UG) sees the knowledge of gram-
mar in the mind as made up of two components: ‘principles’ that all languages
have in common and ‘parameters’ on which they vary. All human minds are
believed to honour the common principles that are forced on them by the nature
of the human mind that all their speakers share. They differ over the settings for
the parameters for particular languages. The overall implications of the UG model
are given in Chapter 12.
Principles of language
One principle that has been proposed is called locality. How do you explain to a stu-
dent how to make English questions such as ‘Is Sam the cat that is black?’ One pos-
sible instruction is to describe the movement involved: ‘Start from the sentence:
“Sam is the cat that is black” and move the second word “is” to the beginning.’
This works satisfactorily for this one example. But if the students used this rule,
they would go completely wrong with sentences such as ‘The old man is the one
who’s late’, producing ‘Old the man is the one who’s late?’ Something obvious
must be missing from the explanation.
To patch it up, you might suggest: ‘Move the copula “is” to the beginning of the
sentence.’ So the student can now produce ‘Is the old man the one who’s late?’ But
suppose the student wanted to make a question out of ‘Sam is the cat that is black’?
As well as producing the sentence ‘Is Sam the cat that is black?’ the rule also allows
‘Is Sam is the cat that black?’ It is obvious to us all that no one would ever dream of
producing this question; but why not? It is just as possible logically to move one ‘is’
as the other.
The explanation again needs modifying to say: ‘Move the copula “is” in the
main clause to the beginning of the sentence.’ This instruction depends on the lis-
teners knowing enough of the structure of the sentence to be able to distinguish
the main clause from the relative clause. In other words, it presupposes that they
know the structure of the sentence; anybody producing a question in English
takes the structure of the sentence into account. Inversion questions in English,
and indeed in all other languages, involve a knowledge of structure, not just of the
order of the words. But they also involve the locality principle which says that
such movement has to be ‘local’, that is, within the same area of structure rather
than across areas of structure that span the whole sentence. There is no particular
reason why this should be so; computer languages, for instance, do not behave
like this, nor do mathematical equations. It is just an odd feature of human lan-
guages that they depend on structure. In short, the locality principle is built into
the human mind. The reason why we find it so ‘obvious’ that ‘Is Sam is the cat
that black?’ is ungrammatical is because our minds work in a particular way; we
literally cannot conceive a sentence that works differently.
This approach to grammar affects the nature of interlanguage – the knowledge of
the second language in the learner’s mind. From what we have seen so far, there
might seem to be few limits on how the learners’ interlanguage grammars develop.
Their source might be partly the learners’ first languages, partly their learning strate-
gies, partly other sources. However, if the human mind always uses its built-in lan-
guage principles, interlanguages too must conform to them. It would be impossible
for the L2 learner, say, to produce questions that did not depend on structure. And
indeed no one has yet found sentences said by L2 learners that break the known lan-
guage principles. I tested 140 university-level students of English with six different
first languages on a range of structures including locality; 132 of them knew that sen-
tences such as ‘Is Sam is the cat that black?’ were wrong, while only 76 students knew
that ‘Sam is the cat that is black.’ and ‘Is Sam the cat that is black?’ were right. Second
language learners clearly have few problems with this deviant structure compared to
other structures. Interlanguages do not vary without limit, but conform to the over-
all mould of human language, since they are stored in the same human minds. Like
any scientific theory, this may be proved wrong. Tomorrow someone may find a
learner who has no idea that questions depend on structure. But so far no one has
found clear-cut examples of learners breaking these universal principles.
Principles and parameters grammar 35
Parameters of variation
How do parameters capture the many grammatical differences between lan-
guages? One variation is whether the grammatical subject of a declarative sen-
tence has to be actually present in the sentence. In German it is possible to say ‘Er
spricht’ (he speaks), but impossible to say ‘Spricht’ (speaks); declarative sentences
must have subjects. The same is true for French, for English and for a great many
languages. But in Italian, while it is possible to say ‘Il parla’ (he talks), it is far more
usual to say ‘Parla’ (talks) without an expressed subject; declarative sentences are
not required to have subjects. The same is true in Arabic and Chinese and many
other languages. This variation is captured by the pro-drop parameter – so-called for
technical reasons we will not go into here. In ‘pro-drop’ languages such as Italian,
Chinese or Arabic, the subject does not need to be actually present; in ‘non-pro-
drop’ languages such as English or German, it must always be present in declara-
tive sentences. The pro-drop parameter variation has effects on the grammars of
all languages; each of them is either pro-drop or non-pro-drop.
Children learning their first language at first start with sentences without subjects
(Hyams, 1986). Then those who are learning a non-pro-drop language such as
English go on to learn that subjects are compulsory. The obvious question for L2
learning is whether it makes a difference if the first language does not have subjects
and the second language does, and vice versa. Lydia White (1986) compared how
English was learnt by speakers of French (a non-pro-drop language with compulsory
subjects) and by speakers of Spanish (a pro-drop language with optional subjects). If
the L1 setting for the pro-drop parameter has an effect, the Spanish-speaking learn-
ers should make different mistakes from the French-speaking learners. Spanish-
speaking learners were much more tolerant of sentences like ‘In winter snows a lot
in Canada’ than were the French speakers. Oddly enough, this effect does not nec-
essarily go in the reverse direction: English learners of Spanish do not have as much
difficulty with leaving the subject out as Spanish learners of English have with put-
ting it in.
One attraction of this form of grammar is its close link to language acquisition,
as we see in Chapter 12. The parts of language that have to be learnt are the set-
tings for the parameters on which languages vary. The parts which do not have to
be learnt are the principles that all languages have in common. Learning the
grammar of a second language is not so much learning completely new structures,
rules, and so on, as discovering how to set the parameters for the new language –
for example, whether you have to use a subject, what the word order is within the
phrase – and acquiring new vocabulary.
Another attraction is that it provides a framework within which all languages
can be compared. It used to be difficult to compare grammars of different lan-
guages, say, English and Japanese, because they were regarded as totally different.
Now the grammars of all languages are seen as variations within a single overall
scheme. Japanese can be compared to English in its use of locality (unnecessary in
Japanese questions because Japanese does not form questions by moving elements
of the sentence around); in terms of the pro-drop parameter (English sentences
must have subjects, Japanese do not have to); and in terms of word order param-
eters (Japanese has the order phrase head of phrase, for example, noun phrase
followed by postposition ‘Nihon ni’ (Japan in), English phrases have the order
head noun phrase, for example, preposition followed by noun phrase ‘in
London’). This helps with the description of learners’ speech, which fits within
the same framework regardless of their first language and reveals things they have
in common. Chinese, Arabic or Spanish students all have problems with the sub-
ject in English because of their different setting for the pro-drop parameter.
The implications of this overall model for language learning and language teach-
ing are described in greater detail in Chapter 11. For the moment we need to point
out that the study of grammar and of acquisition by linguists and SLA researchers
in recent years has been much more concerned with the development of abstract
ways of looking at phenomena like pro-drop than with the conventional grammar
of earlier sections. Language teaching will eventually miss out if it does not keep up
with such new ideas of grammar (Cook, 1989).
Box 2.5 L2 learning of principles and parameters grammar

● L2 learners do not need to learn principles of Universal Grammar as they will
use them automatically.
● L2 learners need to acquire new parameter settings for parameters such as
pro-drop, often starting from their first language.
● All L2 learners can be looked at within the same overall framework of gram-
mar as it applies to all languages.
2.5 L2 learning of grammar and L2 teaching
Focusing questions
● What do you think is easy grammar for a beginner?

● What do you think is the best order for teaching grammar?
Teachers are often surprised by what ‘grammar’ means in SLA research and how
much importance is given to it. While the grammar used here has some resem-
blance to the traditional and structural grammars with which teachers are famil-
iar – ‘structures’, ‘rules’, and so on – the perspective has changed. The SLA research
category of grammatical morphemes, for instance, cuts across the teaching cat-
egories of prepositions, articles and forms of ‘be’. Principles and parameters theory
puts grammar on a different plane from anything in language teaching. Hence
teachers will not find any quick help with carrying out conventional grammar
teaching in such forms of grammar. But they will nevertheless understand better
what the students are learning and the processes they are going through. For
example, sentences without subjects are not only common in students’ work, but
can also be explained simply by the pro-drop parameter. It is an insightful way of
looking at language which teachers have not hitherto been conscious of.
Let us gather together some of the threads about grammar and teaching intro-
duced so far in this chapter. If the syllabus that the student is learning includes
grammar in some shape or form, this should be not just a matter of structures and
rules but a range of highly complex phenomena, a handful of which have been
discussed in this chapter. The L2 learning of grammar has turned out to be wider
and deeper than anyone supposed. It ranges from morphemes such as ‘the’, to
L2 Learning of grammar and L2 teaching 37
processes of sentence production, to parameters about the presence of subjects.

Above all, grammar is knowledge in the mind, not rules in a book – Lang5 in the
sense of language given in Chapter 1; the crucial end-product of much teaching is
that students should ‘know’ language in an unconscious sense so that they can
put it to good use. Teaching has to pay attention to the internal processes and
knowledge the students are subconsciously building up in their minds.
Grammar is also relevant to the sequence in which elements of language are
taught. Of necessity, language teaching has to present the various aspects of lan-
guage in order, rather than introducing them all simultaneously. The conven-
tional solution used to be to sequence the grammar in terms of increasing
complexity, say, teaching the present simple first ‘He cooks’, and the past perfect
continuous passive last ‘It has been being cooked’, because the former is much
‘simpler’ than the latter. Box 2.6 gives the teaching sequence for grammatical
items in Move (Bowler and Parminter, 2007), a recent beginners’ course. This is
typical of the sequences that have been developed for EFL teaching over the past
hundred years, based chiefly on the tense system. While it has been tested in prac-
tice, it has no particular justification from SLA research.
Box 2.6 The grammatical sequence in Move (Bowler and

Parminter, 2007)
1 articles and determiners
2 present simple
3 present continuous
4 countable and uncountable nouns
5 simple past
6 present perfect
7 comparative and superlative
As Robert DeKeyser (2005) points out, it is almost impossible for researchers to agree
on which forms are more complex, which comparatively simple. When language use
and classroom tasks became more important to teaching, the choice of a teaching
sequence was no longer straightforward, since some way of sequencing these
non-grammatical items needed to be found. SLA research has often claimed that there
are definite orders for learning language, particularly for grammar, as we have seen.
What should teachers do about this? Four extreme points of view can be found:
1 Ignore the parts of grammar that have a particular L2 learning sequence, as the
learner will follow these automatically in any case. Nothing teachers can do
will help or hinder the student who is progressing through the grammatical
morpheme order from plural ‘-s’ to irregular past tense to possessive ‘’s’.
Teachers should therefore get on with teaching the thousand and one other
things that the student needs, and should let nature follow its course.
2 Follow the L2 learning order as closely as possible in the teaching. There is no
point in teaching ‘not’ with ‘any’ to beginners ‘I haven’t got any money’,
because the students are not ready for it. So the order of teaching should follow
the order found in L2 learning as much as possible. Language used in the class
might then be geared to the learners’ stage, not of course by matching it exactly
since this would freeze the learner at that moment in time, but by being
slightly ahead of the learner all the time, called by Krashen (1985) ‘i1’ (one
step on from the learner’s current language).
3 Teach the last things in an L2 learning sequence first. The students can best be
helped by being given the extreme point of the sequence and by filling in the
intermediary positions for themselves. It has been claimed, for example, that
teaching the most difficult types of relative clauses is more effective than teach-
ing the easy forms, because the students fill in the gaps for themselves sponta-
neously rather than needing them filled by teaching.
4 Ignore grammar altogether. Some might argue that, if the students’ goals are to
communicate in a second language, grammar is an optional extra. Obviously
this depends on the definition of grammar: in the Lang5 sense that any speaker
of a language knows the grammatical system of the language, then grammar is
not dispensable in this way, but plays a part in every sentence anybody pro-
duces or comprehends for whatever communicative reason.
As with pronunciation, an additional problem is which grammar to use.

Typically the description seems to be slanted towards the grammar of written lan-
guage with its complete ‘textual’ sentences, rather than spoken language with its
elliptical ‘lexical’ sentences (Cook, 2003). For example, English teachers have
spent considerable energy on teaching students to distinguish singular ‘there is’
from plural ‘there are’, yet the distinction barely exists in spoken language, which
uses /ðɘz/ for both. The publisher of my first EFL coursebook objected to the sen-
tence ‘Good book that’ occurring in a dialogue, an unremarkable spoken form; of
course, the publisher won.
Traditionally for English the model has been taken to be that of a literate edu-
cated native speaker from an English-speaking country. This, however, ignores the
differences between varieties of English spoken in different countries. An
Irishman means something quite different from an Englishman by ‘she’s after
doing it’, and an Indian by ‘I am thinking it’; North Americans have past tenses
like ‘dove’ and past participles like ‘gotten’ that no longer exist in British speech.
Nor does it encompass variation between people in one country, for example, the
people of Norwich, who do not use the singular ‘s’ on verbs ‘he ride’, or the
Geordie who distinguishes singular ‘you’ from plural ‘yous’. And it treats English
as having a singular genre; you must always have a subject in the sentence, even
if it is perfectly normal to leave it out in diaries and emails, ‘Went out’ or ‘Like it’.
And similar issues arise in choosing a grammatical model for most languages that
are used across a variety of countries: should French be based on Parisians and
ignore the rest of France, along with the Frenches spoken in Switzerland, Quebec
and Central Africa?
No one would probably hold completely to these simplified views. The fuller
implications of the L2 order of learning or difficulty depend on the rest of teach-
ing. Teaching must balance grammar against language functions, vocabulary, class-
room interaction, and much else that goes on in the classroom to find the
appropriate teaching for those students in that situation. Teachers do not necessar-
ily have to choose between these alternatives once and for all. A different decision
may have to be made for each area of grammar or language and each stage of acqui-
sition. But SLA research is starting to provide information about sequences based
on the processes going on in the learners’ minds, which will eventually prove a
gold mine for teaching.
The role of explicit grammar in language teaching 39
Box 2.7 Alternative ways of using L2 sequences in

language teaching
● Ignore the parts of grammar that have a particular L2 learning sequence, as
the learner will follow these automatically anyway.
● Follow the L2 learning order as closely as possible in the teaching.
● Teach the last things in an L2 learning sequence first.
● Ignore grammar altogether.
2.6 The role of explicit grammar in language teaching
Focusing questions
● Did hearing about grammar from your teacher help you learn a second lan-
guage? In what way?
● How aware are you of grammar when you are speaking (a) your first lan-
guage (b) your second language?
Keywords
consciousness-raising: helping the learners by drawing attention to features of

the second language
language awareness: helping the learners by raising awareness of language
itself
sensitization: helping the learners by alerting them to features of the first lan-
guage
focus on FormS: deliberate discussion of grammar without reference to mean-
ing
focus on form (FonF): discussion of grammar and vocabulary arising from
meaningful language in the classroom
It is one thing to make teachers aware of grammar and to base coursebooks, syl-
labuses and teaching exercises on grammar. It is something else to say that the stu-
dents themselves should be aware of grammar. Indeed, Chapter 1 showed that the
nineteenth- and twentieth-century teaching tradition has avoided explicit gram-
mar in the classroom. This section looks at some of the ideas that have been raised
about using grammatical terms and descriptions with the student. Though the dis-
cussion happens to concentrate on grammar, the same issues arise about the use of
phonetic symbols in pronunciation teaching, the class discussion of meanings of
words, or the explanations of language functions, all of which depend on the stu-
dents consciously understanding the rules and features of language.
One issue is the extent to which grammatical form and meaning should be sep-
arated. Mike Long (1991) makes a distinction between focus on FormS, which is
deliberate discussion of grammatical forms such as ‘’s’ or the past tense, and focus
on form (FonF), which relates the form to the meaning arising from language in the
classroom. A linguist might object that grammar is a system for encoding and
decoding particular meanings; any teaching of grammar that does not involve
meaning is not teaching grammar at all. However, the distinction between FormS
and FonF does focus attention away from grammar explanation for its sake,
towards thinking how grammar may contribute within the whole context of lan-
guage teaching methodology, as described in Chapter 13.
Explicit grammar teaching

This revives the classical debate in language teaching about whether grammar
should be explained to the students, as mentioned in Chapter 1. Usually the kind
of grammar involved is the traditional or structural grammar described earlier,
exemplified in books such as Basic Grammar in Use (Murphy, 2002); seldom does
it mean grammar in the sense of knowledge of principles and parameters such as
locality and pro-drop. Hence it has often been argued that the problem with
teaching grammar overtly is not the method itself but the type of grammar that
has been used. Most linguists would regard these grammars as the equivalent to
using alchemy as the basis for teaching chemistry.
Other types of grammar are hardly ever used. The pro-drop parameter, for exam-
ple, is a simple idea to explain and might well be a useful rule for students of English
from Japan or Greece, or indeed for learners of the vast majority of the world’s lan-
guages; yet it is never mentioned in materials that teach grammar. If the grammar
content were better, perhaps explicit grammar teaching would be more effective.
The use of explicit explanation implies that L2 learning is different from L1
learning, where it never occurs. The belief that L2 learning can potentially make
use of explanation underlies distinctions such as those made by Harold Palmer
(1926) between ‘spontaneous capacities’ for acquiring speech and ‘the studial
capacity’ through which people study language, and by Krashen (1981a) between
‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’ (the latter being conscious and available only to older
learners), as well as by many others.
The main issue is the connection between conscious understanding of a rule
and the ability to use it. Any linguist can tell you facts about languages such as
Japanese or Gboudi that their native speakers could not describe. This does not
mean the linguists can say a single word, let alone a sentence, of Japanese or Gboudi
in a comprehensible way. They have acquired a pure ‘academic’ knowledge of the
languages. In their case this satisfies their needs. Grammatical explanation is a way
of teaching facts about the language – that is to say, a form of linguistics. If the
aim of teaching is academic knowledge of language, conscious understanding is
acceptable as a form of L2 learning. But students who want to use the language
need to transform this academic knowledge into the ability to use it, going
beyond the Lang5 mental sense to the Lang4 social sense of ‘language’.
Grammatical explanation in the classroom has relied on the assumption that
rules which are learnt consciously can be converted into unconscious processes of
comprehension and production. Some people have questioned whether academic
knowledge ever converts into the ability to use the language in this way. The
French subjunctive was explained to me at school, not just to give me academic
knowledge of the facts of French, but to help me to write French. After a period of
absorption, this conscious rule was supposed to become part of my unconscious
The role of explicit grammar in language teaching 41
ability to use the language – unfortunately not so much enabling me to use it eas-
ily as making me freeze whenever I anticipated a subjunctive coming over the
horizon.
Stephen Krashen (1985), however, has persistently denied that consciously
learnt rules change into normal speech processes in the same way as grammar that
is acquired unconsciously, sometimes called the non-interface position, that is, that
learnt grammar does not convert into the acquired grammar that speech depends
on. If Krashen’s view is accepted, people who are taught by grammatical explana-
tion can only produce language by laboriously checking each sentence against their
conscious repertoire of rules, as many had to do with Latin at school – a process that
Krashen calls ‘monitoring’. Or they can use it for certain ‘tips’ or rules of thumb,
such as ‘i before e except after c or before g’. Conscious knowledge of language rules
in this view is no more than an optional extra. This mirrors the traditional teach-
ing assumption, summed up in the audio-lingual slogan ‘teach the language not
about the language’, more elegantly phrased by Wilma Rivers (1964) as ‘analogy
provides a better foundation for foreign language learning than analysis’, as dis-
Convincing as these claims may be, one should remember that many graduates
of European universities who learnt English by studying traditional grammars
turned into fluent and spontaneous speakers of English. I asked university-level
students of English which explicit grammar rules they had found useful; almost
all said that they still sometimes visualized verb paradigms for English to check
what they were writing. This at least suggests that the conversion of conscious
rules to non-conscious processes does take place for some academic students;
every teaching method works for someone somewhere.
Language awareness
An alternative possibility is that raising awareness of language in general helps
second language learning. Eric Hawkins (1984) suggested that the learners’ gen-
eral awareness of language should be raised before they start learning the L2,
partly through grammar. If the students know the kind of thing to expect in the
new language, they are more receptive to it. Hawkins advocates ‘an exploratory
approach’ in which the pupils investigate grammar, for example, by deciding
where to insert ‘see-through’ in the sentence ‘She put on her cosy, old, blue,
nylon, blouse’. They invent their own labels for grammar, rather than being
taught a pre-established system. As Hawkins puts it, ‘grammar approached as a
voyage of discovery into the patterns of the language rather than the learning of
prescriptive rules, is no longer a bogey word’. It is not the teaching of particular
points of grammar that matters, but the overall increase in the pupil’s language
sensitivity. The textbook Learning to Learn English (Ellis and Sinclair, 1989) pro-
vides some exercises to make EFL learners more aware of their own predilections,
for instance, suggesting ways for the students to discover grammatical rules them-
selves. Philip Riley (1985) suggested sensitization of the students by using features
of the first language to help them understand the second, say, by discussing puns
to help them see how speech is split up into words. Increasing awareness of lan-
guage may have many educational advantages and indeed help L2 learning in a
broad sense. Raised awareness of language is in itself a goal of some language
teaching. It has no particular seal of approval from the types of grammar consid-
ered in this chapter, however.
Focus on form (FonF)

An issue in recent research is how focus on form contributes to the student’s
learning. As Mike Long (1991: 45–6) puts it, ‘focus on form . . . overtly draws stu-
dents’ attention to linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in lessons whose
overriding focus is on meaning or communication’. Several ways exist of drawing
the students’ attention to grammar without actually explaining grammar expli-
citly. Grammatical items or structures may be brought to the students’ attention by
some graphic or auditory device, provided it does not distort the patterns of the
language – stressing all the grammatical morphemes in speech to draw attention
to them, for example, would be a travesty – ‘IN THE town WHERE I WAS born
lived A man WHO sailed TO sea’. In L1 research James Morgan (1986) showed that
adults used pauses and intonation to provide children with clues to the structure
of the sentence so that they could tell which noun was the subject of the sentence,
that is, indicating that the sentence ‘The cat bit the dog’ has the structure seen in
(The cat) (bit the dog) not (The cat bit) (the dog).
SLA research by Joanna White (1998) drew the students’ attention to grammat-
ical forms such as pronouns by printing them in italic or bold face, for instance,
‘She was happy when she saw her ball’. However, she found variation between
individuals rather than a consistent pattern. The minor problem is that italic and
bold letter-forms are used for emphasis in English and, however much the stu-
dents’ pronouns might improve, it could have bad effects on their knowledge of
the English writing system. Jessica Williams and Jacqueline Evans (1998) con-
trasted two structures, participial adjectives such as the familiar confusion
between ‘He is interesting/interested’ and passives such as ‘The lake was frozen’.
One group heard language with many examples of these structures; another group
was given explicit explanation of their ‘form, meaning, and use’; a third had no
special teaching. The group who were given explanations did indeed do better
than the other groups for the adjectives, but there were only slight effects for pas-
sives. Hence there seems to be a difference in the extent to which grammatical
forms lend themselves to focus on form: participial adjectives do, passives do not.
Of course, not too much should be made of the specific grammatical points used
here; some accounts of English, after all, put participle adjectives like ‘interested’
and passives such as ‘frozen’ on a continuum rather than seeing them as entirely
different. Nevertheless, the point is that all the parts of grammar cannot be treated
in the same way. Because we can help students by clearing up their confusions
over past tense endings, we cannot necessarily do the same with relative clauses.
The teaching applications of FonF are discussed at greater length in Chapter 13 as
part of task-based teaching. The overall feeling is that judicious use of focus on form
within other activities may be useful, rather than full-scale grammar explanation.
Having once seen a teacher explain in English the differences between ‘must’ and
‘have to’ to a class of Japanese children for 45 minutes, I can only agree that explicit
grammar instruction is hugely ineffective; even as a native speaker, I cannot remem-
ber the differences she explained. The focus on form (FonF) argument combines sev-
eral different threads, all of which are fruitful for teachers to think about: how they
can highlight features of the input, subtly direct attention to grammatical errors
through recasting, and slip grammatical discussion in as support for other activities,
all of which are sound classroom practice. None of them, however, is novel for prac-
tising teachers who have probably always from time to time stressed words to draw
the students’ attention, paraphrased the students’ mistakes, or given a quick gram-
matical explanation during the course of a communicative exercise. The overall
question is whether these activities have anything to do with ‘form’; calling them
‘focus on meaning’ would be as suitable, given that grammatical form is there to
serve meaning. Nor does it answer the question of which type of grammar is appro-
priate for language teaching. Much teaching simply uses structural or traditional
grammar without realizing that there are alternative approaches, or indeed that
such approaches are not taken seriously as grammar today.
Box 2.8 Grammar and language teaching

● Teachers have to be aware of the many ways in which grammar comes into
language learning and use, and the many types of grammar that exist in
choosing which grammar to teach and how to teach it.
● L2 learners go through distinct stages of acquisition, for reasons still only
partially understood. Teaching can utilize the known facts about these
stages in several ways.
● Many aspects of grammar do not need to be taught as they are already
present in the learner’s mind and need instead to be activated.
● Conscious explanation of the L2 grammar is seen as beneficial in some cir-
cumstances, as is raising of language awareness.
Discussion topics
1 Here are seven techniques for teaching grammar. Decide in the light of the var-
ious approaches in this chapter what the chief advantage or disadvantage may
be for each.
Grammar teaching technique Advantage Disadvantage

explanation ...... ......
use of context/situation ...... ......
fill-in-the-blank exercises ...... ......
drilling ...... ......
substitution tables ...... ......
‘games’ ...... ......
consciousness-raising, etc. ...... ......
2 Take any current coursebook you have to hand, and look at one or two gram-
mar-based exercises. What type of grammar does it employ? How successfully?
3 What aspects of grammar do you feel strongly about? For example, what things
do you feel people should not say? For example, ‘between you and I’? Why?
4 How important are grammatical morphemes to the student? How much atten-
tion do they receive in teaching? How much should they receive?
5 Do the learners you know conform to the stages of the processability model?
6 If you should only teach what a student is ready to receive, how do you estab-
lish what the student is actually ready for?
7 SLA research thinks that the order of acquisition is a very important aspect of
learning. How important do you think that order of presentation is to language
teaching?
8 Are there occasions when it would be right to start by teaching the students
the most difficult or most complex aspect of grammar rather than the easiest
or simplest?
9 What aspects of grammar that you have acquired consciously do you think are
useful?
10 What ways of making other aspects of language conscious are there, for exam-
ple, pronunciation, intonation or speech functions? Would this be a good
idea?
Further reading
A good overview of grammatical morphemes research is in Goldschneider and
DeKeyser (2001). An introduction to principles and parameters grammar can be
found in Cook and Newson (2007) Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An Introduction.
Various viewpoints on grammar and language teaching are summarized in Odlin
(1994) Pedagogical Grammar. Otherwise the reader is referred to the books and arti-
cles cited in the text. The processability model is in Pienemann (1998) Language
Processing and Second-language Development: Processability Theory. A good collection
on focus on form is Doughty and Williams (eds) (1998) Focus on Form in Classroom
Second Language Acquisition. The most accessible of Chomsky’s own recent writings
on Universal Grammar is probably Chomsky (2000) The Architecture of Language.
Some grammatical terms

(See also the glossary on the website.)
articles: specifiers of nouns divided in English into definite articles ‘the man in
the photo’, indefinite articles ‘a man came in’, and zero article (i.e. none) ‘Man is
mortal’
grammar: the system of relationships between elements of the sentence that links
the ‘sounds’ to the ‘meanings’, using word order, word forms, and so on
number: this is a way of signalling how many entities are involved, for example,
through the forms of nouns, pronouns and verbs. English has two numbers: sin-
gular (he) and plural (they); other languages do not have grammatical number
(Japanese), have three numbers (Old English), and so on
passive and active: passive sentences express similar meanings to active sen-
tences by shifting focus from the agent doing the object to the object enduring
the action ‘I broke the mirror’/ ‘The mirror was broken’
phrase structure: one way of linking all the parts of a sentence together in a struc-
ture like that of a family tree, by splitting the sentence into smaller and smaller
bits
preposition: prepositions are words like to, by and with which come before nouns
to make preposition phrases; when they come after a noun, as in Japanese, they
are called ‘postpositions’ ‘Nippon ni’ ( Japan in)
subject pronouns: some languages show the role of nouns in the sentences with
different case forms; in English this only applies to the pronouns – ‘she’ is the sub-
ject form, ‘her’ is the object form, and so on
tense: the relationship between the sentence and time is indicated by tense,
English having present and past tenses but no future; in English the two tenses are
shown by inflections ‘-s’ and ‘-ed’, with several regular and irregular forms
Some grammatical terms 45
wh-questions: many languages make a difference between questions that demand

a yes or no answer ‘Can you drive a lorry?’ and questions that are open-ended ‘What
can you drive?’; the latter are called question word questions, or wh-questions, in
English because question-words mostly happen to start with ‘wh’, such as ‘when’
and ‘who’
word order: for many languages the order of the main elements in the sentence
is crucial, whether subject (S) verb (V) object (O), as in English, SOV in Japanese,
VSO in Arabic, or whatever; other word order variations are whether the language
has prepositions ‘in New Orleans’ or postpositions ‘Nippon ni’ (Japan in) and
whether questions or subordinate clauses have distinctive word orders.
Learning and teaching
vocabulary 3
The acquisition of vocabulary at first sight seems straightforward; we all know you
need a large number of words to speak a language. Just how many is anybody’s
guess: one estimate claims 20,000 word ‘families’, that is, counting related words
as one word – ‘teacher’ / ‘teaches’ / ‘teaching’/ ‘taught’, and so on.
But there is far more to acquiring vocabulary than the acquisition of words.
Since the late 1980s there has been a massive explosion in research into the acqui-
sition of vocabulary, seen in books such as Nation (2001). However, much of it is
concerned with the acquisition of isolated words in laboratory experiments and is
tested by whether people remember them, not whether they can use them. While
such research gives some hints, much of it has little to say about how we can teach
people to use a second language vocabulary.
3.1 Word frequency
Focusing questions
● What do you think are the ten most frequent words in English? Would you
teach them all to beginners?
● Why do you think frequency is important?
Keywords
word frequency: simply measured by counting how often a word or word form
occurs in a large sample of spoken or written language, such as the British
National Corpus (BNC) (www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk)
Much teaching has been based on the idea that the most frequently used words in
the target language should be taught first. Almost all beginners’ books restrict the
vocabulary they introduce in the first year to about a thousand of the most fre-
quent items. My beginners’ coursebook People and Places (Cook, 1980), for
instance, had about 950 separate words; the American course I Love English
(Capelle et al., 1985) lists about 750 words. Traditional syllabuses for language
teaching usually include lists of the most frequent words.
The French course Voix et Images de France (CREDIF, 1961) was perhaps the first
to choose its vocabulary by actually counting how often words were used by
Word frequency 47
native speakers. The COBUILD English Course (Willis and Willis, 1988; COBUILD
stands for ‘Collins and Birmingham University International Data Base’) similarly
bases itself on a corpus of speech. Its first lesson teaches 91 words including ‘per-
son’ and ‘secretary’, unlikely to be in the opening lessons of most coursebooks.
Now that vast collections of language are easily accessible on the computer,
counting the frequencies of words is fairly simple. The list below cites the 50 most
frequent words in the British National Corpus (BNC) sample of 100 million words.
The most frequent word ‘the’ occurs no less than 6,187,267 times and the 50th
word ‘her’ 218,258 times. The top 100 words account for 45 per cent of all the
words in the BNC; in other words, knowing 100 words would allow you at least to
recognize nearly half of the words you meet in English.
1 the 11 I 21 are 31 which 41 their

2 of 12 for 22 not 32 or 42 has
3 and 13 you 23 this 33 we 43 would
4 a 14 he 24 but 34 an 44 what
5 in 15 be 25 ‘s (poss) 35 n’t 45 will
6 to 16 with 26 they 36 ‘s (verb) 46 there
7 it 17 on 27 his 37 were 47 if
8 is 18 that (conj) 28 from 38 that (det) 48 can
9 was 19 by 29 had 39 been 49 all
10 to (prep) 20 at 30 she 40 have 50 her
The first surprise on looking at this list is that most of the words feature in the
discussion of grammar in Chapter 2 since they are structure words, such as articles
‘the’, pronouns ‘it’, auxiliaries ‘would’ and forms of the verb ‘be’. Usually the
teaching of structure words is seen as part of grammar, not vocabulary. Frequency
is taken to apply more to content words. Nevertheless we should not forget that
the most frequent words in the language are mostly structure words: the top 100
words only include three nouns.
The 20 most frequent words in the BNC for three types of content word are
given in Table 3.1 overleaf.
This list also has some surprises for teachers. The nouns ‘government’ and ‘sys-
tem’, the verbs ‘become’ and ‘seem’, and the adjectives ‘social’ and ‘public’ are sel-
dom taught in beginners’ courses, despite their high frequency. Many of the
nouns have vague, general meanings, like ‘people’ and ‘thing’; many words are
abstract, like ‘seem’ or ‘available’, or involve subjective evaluation, ‘think’ and
‘good’. The first lesson of the elementary course Move (Bowler and Parminter,
2007) concentrates on specific concrete nouns like ‘cinema’ and ‘shops’, and verbs
for actions such as ‘study’ or ‘visit’.
While word frequency has some relevance to teaching, other factors are also
important, such as the ease with which the meaning of an item can be demon-
strated (‘blue’ is easier to explain than ‘local’) and its appropriateness for what the
students want to say (‘plane’ is more useful than ‘system’ if you want to travel).
Indeed the frequency-based French course Voix et Images needed to amplify the
list of frequent words with those that were ‘available’ to the speaker, which may
not necessarily be very common. The word ‘surname’ found in lesson 1 of Changes
48 Learning and teaching vocabulary
Position Nouns Verbs Adjectives

1 time say new
2 people know good
3 way get old
4 year go different
5 government see local
6 day make small
7 man think great
8 world take social
9 work come important
10 life use national
11 part give British
12 number want possible
13 children find large
14 system mean young
15 case look able
16 thing begin political
17 end help public
18 group become high
19 woman tell available
20 party seem full
Table 3.1 The 20 most frequent nouns, verbs and adjectives in English
Box 3.1 Test how many words you know

Complete these definitions, then look at the answers at the end of the chapter
on page 65.
1 a round object often used as a toy is a b__________
2 something you carry and put things in is a b_________
3 a pipe or channel through which things flow is a c__________
4 to give way to someone is to y__________
5 a person who works without being paid is a v__________
6 a preparation for preventing infectious disease is a v__________
7 a heavy glass with a handle is known as a t__________
8 a type of brain chemical is s__________
9 a sailor’s word for a clumsy fellow is a l__________
10 the effects of wind, rain, and so on, on objects is w__________
11 a heavy wheel used to store power is a f__________
12 something engraved on stone is l__________
Knowledge of words 49
and module 1 of New Cutting Edge is far from frequent, in fact number 19,467 on
the BNC list, but it is certainly available to speakers and, quite rightly, needs to be
taught in the very early stages, particularly when the naming systems differ
between languages and it is unclear which of a person’s names might count as
their surname in English; the use of ‘last name’ in Unit 1 of Touchstone (McCarthy,
2005) seems particularly dubious given that family names come first in Chinese.
Carter (1988) has proposed that a language has a ‘core’ vocabulary found in all its
uses, plus ‘subject’ cores specific to specialist subject matters, and a non-core
vocabulary.
Influential as frequency has been in teaching, it has not played a major role in
SLA research. It belongs more to the descriptive Lang3 sense of ‘language’ as a col-
lection of sentences. It is true that you are more likely to remember a word you
meet every day than one you only meet once. But there are many other factors
that make students learn words. A swear word ‘****’ said accidentally when the
teacher drops the tape recorder is likely to be remembered by the students for ever,
even if it is never repeated. Common words like ‘because’ and ‘necessary’ are still
spelt wrongly after students have been meeting them for many years.
Frequency of vocabulary has been applied in teaching mainly to the choice of
words to be taught. In a sense, the most useful words for the student are obviously
going to be those that are common. But it is unnecessary to worry about fre-
quency too much. If the students are getting reasonably natural English from
their coursebooks and their teachers, the common words will be supplied auto-
matically. The most frequent words do not differ greatly from one type of English
to another; the commonest five words in Jane Austen’s novels are ‘the’, ‘to’, ‘and’,
‘of’, ‘a’; in 7-year-old native children’s writing ‘and’, ‘the’, ‘a’, ‘I’, ‘to’; in the BNC
‘the’, ‘of’, ‘and’, ‘a’, ‘in’; and in Japanese students of English ‘I’, ‘to’, ‘the’, ‘you’,
‘and’. Any natural English the students hear will have the proper frequencies of
words; it is only the edited texts and conversations of the classroom that do not
have these properties, for better or worse.
Box 3.2 Frequency of words

● Frequency is usually established nowadays from a large corpus of a
language, such as the BNC for English.
● Words vary extremely in how often they are used.
● Frequency is only one factor in the choice of words to teach.
3.2 Knowledge of words
Focusing questions
● What do you know about a word like ‘man’ if you speak English?
● When you teach students the meaning of a word, what do you mean by
‘meaning’ and how do you teach it?
Keyword
argument structure: the aspect of a word that dictates the structures in which it
may be used, for example, the verb ‘give’ requires an animate subject, a direct
object and an indirect object: ‘Peter gave a stone to the wolf’
Most people assume that knowing a word is a matter of knowing that ‘plane’ in
English means or that the English word ‘plane’ means the same as ‘l’aereo’ in
Italian. Learning vocabulary means acquiring long lists of words with their mean-
ings, whether through some direct link or via translation into the first language.
Coursebooks often have vocabulary lists that organize the words in the course
alphabetically, sometimes with brief translations. The Italian coursebook Ci Siamo
(Guarnuccio and Guarnuccio, 1997) indeed lists ‘l’aereo plane’.
However, a word in the Lang5 sense of language as knowledge in the mind is
more than its meaning. Let us illustrate some aspects of vocabulary by using the
word ‘man’. What does any person who knows English know about ‘man’?
Forms of the word

● Pronunciation. We know how to pronounce ‘man’ as /mn/. Each word is asso-
ciated in our memory with a specific pronunciation and is tied in to the pronun-
ciation rules of the language; for instance, ‘man’ is pronounced /mɘn/ in
compounds such as ‘chairman’.
● Spelling. If we can read, we know that the word is spelled as man. Words
have specific spellings and are linked to the spelling rules of the language. The
letter n in man, for example, needs to be doubled when followed by
-ing: ‘Overmanning is a real problem in the car industry’.
Grammatical properties
● Grammatical category. We know that the word ‘man’ is either a noun (‘a man’) or
a verb (‘to man’), that is to say, we know the grammatical category or categories
that each word belongs to. This dictates how it behaves in the structure of the
sentence; as a noun ‘man’ can be part of a noun phrase acting as the subject or
object of the sentence ‘The man left’, ‘They shot the man’; if it is a verb, it can be
part of the verb phrase ‘They manned the barricades’. Like most nouns, it will
have a possessive form ‘man’s’ and a plural ‘men’. While ‘man’ as a noun occurs
58,769 times in the BNC, as a verb it only occurs 12 times.
● Possible and impossible structures. We know the types of structure that ‘man’ can
be used in. When ‘man’ is a verb, the sentence must have a subject that is ani-
mate ‘She manned the barricades’, not ‘It manned the barricades’; and it must
have an object ‘They manned the barricades’, not ‘They manned’. This is called
the ‘argument structure’ of the verb – which arguments (subject, object, etc.)
may or may not go with it in the structure of the sentence. The Universal
Grammar model of language acquisition, described in Chapter 12, claims that
the argument structure of words is pivotal in language acquisition. Maurice
Gross (1991) found 12,000 ‘simple’ verbs in French of which no two could be
used in exactly the same way in sentences.
Knowledge of words 51
● Idiosyncratic grammatical information. The plural spoken form of ‘man’ is /men/;

the written form is men, that is, we know that it is an exception to the usual
rules for forming noun plurals in English. In addition, the noun ‘man’ can be
either countable ‘A man’s a man for a’ that’ or uncountable ‘The proper study of
Mankind is Man’, depending on the sense with which it is used.
● Word building. There is a whole family of related words to ‘man’, such as ‘man-
nish’, ‘manlike’, ‘unmanly’. These are made by adding various prefixes such as
‘un-’ and suffixes such as ‘-ish’ to the stem ‘man’.
Lexical properties
● Collocations. We know many more or less set expressions in which the word
‘man’ conventionally goes with other words, such as ‘my good man’, ‘man in
the street’, ‘man to man’, ‘Man of God’, ‘to separate the men from the boys’, ‘my
man Jeeves’, and many others.
● Appropriateness. ‘my man’ may be used as a form of address ‘Hi my man’. The
prime minister might be surprised at being greeted with ‘Hi my man’, a pop star
might not. We have to know when and to whom it is appropriate to use a word.
Meaning
● General meanings. We know general properties about the meaning of ‘man’, such
as ‘male’, ‘adult’, ‘human being’, ‘concrete’, ‘animate’. These aspects of meaning,
called ‘semantic features’ or ‘components of meaning’, are shared with many
other words in the language.
● Specific meanings. We know a range of specific senses for ‘man’. The OED has 17
main entries for ‘man’ as a noun, ranging from ‘A human being (irrespective of
sex or age)’ to ‘One of the pieces used in chess’.
Acquiring a word is not just linking a form with a translated meaning ‘man
l’uomo, il signore’, as in the Ci Siamo wordlist. It is acquiring a complex range of
information about its spoken and written form, the ways it is used in grammatical
structures and word combinations, and diverse aspects of meaning. Knowing that
‘man’ equals ‘l’uomo’ is only one small part of the total knowledge necessary for
using it. Of course, nobody completely knows every aspect of a word. I may know
how to read something but not how to say it; for years I assumed ‘dugout’ was pro-
nounced /dut/ rather than /da t/ by analogy with ‘mahout’. Nor does any
individual speaker possess all the dictionary meanings for a word. The OED mean-
ing for ‘man’ of ‘a cairn or pile of stones marking a summit or prominent point of
a mountain’ would not be known by many people outside Cumbria.
Hence the message for language teaching is that vocabulary is everywhere. It
connects to the systems of phonology and orthography through the actual forms
of the words, to the systems of morphology and grammar through the ways that
the word enters into grammatical structures and through grammatical changes to
the word’s form, and to the systems of meaning through its range of general and
specific meanings and uses. To quote Noam Chomsky (1995: 131), ‘language
acquisition is in essence a matter of determining lexical idiosyncrasies’. Effective
acquisition of vocabulary can never be just the learning of individual words and
their meanings in isolation. The pre-intermediate course International Express
(Taylor, 1996) admirably has a section in the very first unit entitled ‘Learning
vocabulary’, which encourages students to organize words in topics, word groups
and word maps, and gets them to keep a vocabulary notebook for recording
meaning and pronunciation. Later units have sections on ‘word-power’, mostly
treating vocabulary in topic groups such as ‘food’, or word families such as ‘busi-
ness headlines’. As in most coursebooks, the main emphasis here is on learning
vocabulary as meaning, organized in a systematic, logical fashion, rather than on
the other aspects mentioned above, which are usually dealt with incidentally in
the texts and dialogues rather than in specific vocabulary work.
Box 3.3 Knowing a word

● Knowing a word means its spoken and written forms, its grammatical and
lexical properties and its meaning.
● Vocabulary impinges on all areas of language acquisition and is not just
learning sets of words and meanings.
3.3 One word-store or two in the L2 user’s mind?
Focusing questions
● When you learn a new word in a second language, do you try to keep it sep-
arate from your first language words?
● When you teach a new word do you try to link it to words in the first lan-
guage, say, by translation, or do you keep it separate?
The fundamental question in SLA vocabulary research is how the words of the two
languages are stored in the mind. The various alternatives are set out below.
1 Separate stores. The vocabulary of the second language is kept entirely separate
from that of the first: an English person who learns the word ‘libre’ in French
keeps it separate from the English word ‘free’.
2 L2 store dependent on L1 store. The two word-stores are tightly linked so that L2
words are always related to L1 words; to think of the French word ‘libre’ means
thinking first of the English word ‘free’.
3 Overlapping stores. There is an overlapping system so that some words are
shared, some not; ‘libre’ in French might be associated with English ‘free’, ‘lib-
erty’ or ‘liberal’.
4 Single store. There is a single overall word-store for both languages; French
‘libre’ and English ‘free’ are stored together.
At the moment it is far from certain which of these possibilities is correct. People
with two languages are still aware of the words of one language when the other is
not being used. Using a word like ‘coin’ with a different meaning in English (money)
and French (corner), bilinguals were shown to have access to both meanings rather
Types of meaning 53
L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1
libre
libre free libre free libre free
free
Separate L1 and L2 L2 store dependent Overlapping Single L1 and L2

stores on L1 store L1 and L2 stores stores
Figure 3.1 Different ways of storing the vocabulary of two languages in the mind
than just to the one specific to the language being used; one language is not totally
deactivated when you are speaking the other (Beauvillain and Grainger, 1987). So it
seems unlikely that there are entirely separate stores. People take about the same
time to say whether a ‘table’ is ‘furniture’ in their first language as in their second
language (Caramazza and Brones, 1980). On the other hand, speed of mental access
to a word is helped by hearing another word in the same language rather than a
word in the speaker’s other language (Kirsner et al., 1980), suggesting the two stores
are separate in the mind. So the question of one dictionary or two is unanswerable
at the moment. What seems clear is that the extreme models (‘separate’ versus ‘sin-
gle store’) are unlikely to be true; and that there is overlap at many points.
Box 3.4 Words in the L2 user’s mind

● The L1 and the L2 sets of vocabulary in the L2 user’s mind may be related in
various ways, ranging from completely separate to completely integrated.
● Research suggests that in many cases the two vocabulary stores are closely
linked.
3.4 Types of meaning
Focusing questions
● What do you mean by meaning?

● What nouns can you remember learning first in your first language? In your
second?
Keywords
components of meaning: general aspects of meaning which are shared by

many words; ‘boy’ has the components ‘male’, ‘human’, ‘young’, and so on
prototype theory: words have whole meanings divided into basic level (‘car’),
subordinate level (‘Ford’) and superordinate level (‘vehicle’)
It seems easy enough to say what a word means. To an English speaker ‘plane’
means , ‘dog’ means ; indeed many SLA researchers are content to explore how
this type of meaning is acquired in a second language, that is, how ‘avion’ comes to
mean and ‘chien’ for the English person who knows French. Linguists have
spent at least a century exploring the different types of meaning that words can
have. Here we look at three types that have been linked to L2 acquisition.
Components of meaning
Often the meaning of a word can be broken up into smaller components. Thus the
meaning of ‘girl’ is made up of ‘female’, ‘human’ and ‘non-adult’. The meaning of
‘apple’ is made up of ‘fruit’, ‘edible’, ‘round’, and so on. The components view of
meaning was used to study the development of words such as ‘before’ and ‘big’ in
English children. At one stage they know one component of the meaning but not
the other. They know ‘big’ and ‘small’ share a meaning component to do with
size, but think they both mean ‘big’; or they know that ‘before’ and ‘after’ are to
do with ‘time’ but do not know which one means ‘prior’ (Clark, 1971). Indeed, L2
beginners in English found it much easier to understand ‘Mary talks before Susan
shouts’ than ‘Caroline sings after Sally dances’ (Cook, 1977); they had not
acquired the component ‘prior’. Paul Nation (1990) describes learners of Samoan
who confuse ‘umi’ (long) with ‘puupuu’ (short) because they have acquired the
component ‘length’ for both but have not sorted out which is which.
Students are learning components of meaning for a word, not necessarily all of
the word’s meaning at once. An informal version of this components approach can
be found in coursebooks such as The Words You Need (Rudzka et al., 1981). Students
look at a series of ‘Word study’ displays showing the different meaning components
of words. For example, a chart gives words that share the meaning ‘look at/over’
such as ‘check’, ‘examine’, ‘inspect’, ‘scan’ and ‘scrutinise’. It shows which have the
component of meaning ‘detect errors’, which ‘determine that rules are observed’,
and so on. Students are encouraged to use the meaning components to build up
their vocabulary while reading texts.
Lexical relations
Words do not exist by themselves, however, but are always in relationship to other
words. The meaning of ‘hot’ relates to ‘cold’; the meaning of ‘run’ to ‘walk’, of ‘high’
to ‘low’, of ‘pain’ to ‘pleasure’, and so on. When we speak, we choose one word out
of all those we have available, rejecting all the words we could have said: ‘I love you’
potentially contrasts with ‘I hate you’. Words function within systems of meaning.
A metaphor for meaning that is often used is traffic lights. When a traffic light has
two colours, red and green, red means ‘stop’, contrasting with green ‘go’. Hence ‘red’
does not just mean ‘stop’, it also means ‘not green’, that is, ‘don’t go’, a system with
two options. Add another colour, called ‘amber’ in England, and the whole system
changes, with amber acting as a warning that something is going to change, having
two possibilities: amber alone, officially ‘stop’ (unofficially, ‘prepare to stop’), and
amber and red together, officially ‘stop’ (unofficially ‘prepare to go’). If a simple
three-colour system can lead to such complexity of meanings (and indeed traffic acci-
dents), think what happens with the thousands of words in any human language.
In his book Lexical Semantics Cruse (1986) brought out many relationships
between words. Words can be synonyms if they have the same meaning – ‘truthful’
Types of meaning 55
and ‘honest’; hyponyms if they belong to the same group with a single superordi-
nate name – ‘dogs’, ‘cats’ and ‘horses’ are kinds of animals. Each category may have
many variations. For example, antonyms are pairs with the opposite meaning –
‘good’ versus ‘bad’. But there are several ways in which words can be opposites:
‘top’ and ‘bottom’ form a scale with extremes (called antipodals); ‘concave’ and
‘convex’ have reverse directions (counterparts); ‘rise’ and ‘fall’ are movements in
opposite directions (reversives); ‘above’ and ‘below’ are the relationship of one
direction to another (converses). And doubtless many more.
Prototypes
Some aspects of meaning cannot be split up into components but are taken in as
wholes. According to Eleanor Rosch’s prototype theory (Rosch, 1977), an English
person who is asked to give an example of a typical bird is more likely to say ‘spar-
row’ than ‘penguin’ or ‘ostrich’; sparrows are closer to the prototype for ‘birds’ in
the mind than penguins and ostriches. Rosch’s theory suggests that there is an
ideal of meaning in our minds – ‘birdiness’ in this case – from which other things
depart. Speakers have a central form of a concept and the things they see and talk
about correspond better or worse with this prototype.
Prototype theory claims that children first learn words that are ‘basic’ because
they reflect aspects of the world that stand out automatically from the rest of what
they see – prototypes. ‘Sparrow’ is a ‘basic-level’ term compared to a ‘superordi-
nate-level’ term like ‘bird’, or a ‘subordinate-level’ term like ‘house sparrow’. The
basic level of vocabulary is easier to use and to learn. On this foundation, children
build higher and lower levels of vocabulary. Some examples of the three levels of
vocabulary are seen in Table 3.2.
Superordinate terms furniture bird fruit

Basic-level terms table, chair sparrow, robin apple, strawberry
Subordinate terms coffee table, field sparrow Golden Delicious, wild
armchair strawberry
Table 3.2 Three levels of vocabulary
L1 children learn basic-level terms like ‘apple’ before they learn the superordi-
nate term ‘fruit’ or the subordinate term ‘Golden Delicious’. They start with the
most basic level as it is easiest for the mind to perceive. Only after this has been
learnt do they go on to words that are more general or more specific. Some of my
own research (Cook, 1982) showed that L2 learners first of all acquire basic terms
such as ‘table’, second, more general terms like ‘furniture’, and finally, more spe-
cific terms like ‘coffee table’. Rosch’s levels are therefore important to L2 learning
as well as to first language acquisition.
This sequence of levels, however, is different from the usual order of presentation
in language teaching in which the teacher introduces a whole group of words simul-
taneously. For example, in Unit 4 of New English File (Oxenden et al., 2004: 48), the
heading ‘clothes’ is followed by the instructions ‘Match the words and pictures’,
with drawings of a jacket, jeans, and so on. According to prototype theory, this is
misguided; the superordinate term ‘clothes’ should come after the students have the
basic-level terms such as ‘jacket’ and ‘jeans’, not before.
The most important early words are basic-level terms. The human mind auto-
matically starts from this concrete level rather than from a more abstract level or
a more specific one. Starting with vocabulary items that can be shown easily in
pictures fits in with the Rosch theory; grouping them prematurely into superordi-
nate categories does not. A drawing can be readily recognized as a chair but is less
easy to see as an armchair or as furniture. Hence prototype theory ties in with the
audio-visual method of language teaching that introduces new vocabulary with a
picture of what it represents, in an appropriate cultural setting. This theory has
particular implications for teaching of vocabulary at the beginning stages.
Are meanings universal?

So far as meaning is concerned, the interesting question that has been raised over
the years is whether speakers of all languages possess the same concepts, despite
variation in the words used to express them, or whether meanings vary from one
language to another as well as the words that convey them. The well-known
example is how people see colours. Languages have rather different colour vocab-
ularies; Greek, Italian and many other languages have two ‘blue’ colours where
English people see only light blue and dark blue; Japanese has names for colours
that to an English eye are either in between two colours or are different shades of
the same colour. Originally research showed that languages could be arranged on
a single scale, as seen in Figure 3.2 (a colour version can be found on the website).
orange
grey
black green purple
white red yellow blue brown pink
Dani/Welsh
Tiv
Navajo/Hununoo
English/Hebrew
Figure 3.2 The universal colour scale, according to Berlin and Kay (1969)
This means that the two languages Dani and Welsh only have two basic colour
words, for black and white; Tiv has three, black white and red; Navajo and Hununoo
have five, adding green and yellow; English and Hebrew have eleven. All the lan-
guages of the world fit into this scale somewhere. Learning another language may
mean dropping some colour distinctions, say, ‘red’ if you are learning Welsh, adding
some colour distinction, say, ‘blue’ if you are a Navajo learning English. Again, it is
not just the words that you are learning in another language but their meaning rela-
tionships; ‘black’ in Welsh means ‘not white’, in English, additionally, ‘not
red/blue/. . .’: the borders may be different. For example, to an English eye the green
in a Japanese traffic light looks blue; an Englishman who had never driven in Japan
stopped at a traffic light and his wife said, ‘Don’t forget to go when the green light
comes on’; he sat without moving off for some time till she said, ‘Why don’t you
go?’ and he replied, ‘There’s a blue light but it hasn’t turned green yet.’
So do people who speak Japanese see the world differently from those who speak
English? Or do they see it in the same way but speak differently? This question is
Strategies for understanding and learning vocabulary 57
called linguistic relativity; is the world seen differently from different points of view?
Since the late 1990s a fair amount of research has shown that differences in thinking
go with differences in language. Most human languages talk about a speaker’s loca-
tion in terms of ‘front/back’ and ‘left/right’; the whiteboard is behind me, the stu-
dents are in front of me, the door is on my left, the window is on my right. Speakers
of Australian Aboriginal languages talk about location as ‘north/south’ and
‘east/west’. Now the whiteboard is in the east, the students in the west, the door on
the north, the window on the south. Does this make a difference to people’s think-
ing? Try blindfolding two speakers of Aboriginal and English and abandoning them
in the middle of a forest; who would you think finds their way out first?
If you know two languages, what happens to your thinking? Will you always
think like speakers of the L1 or will you shift to thinking like speakers of the L2,
or will you think like neither of them? SLA research has been investigating this
issue in controlled experiments in recent years. Greeks who know English separate
the two blues differently from Greeks who do not know English (Athanasopoulos,
2001). Japanese who know English tend to categorise things more as ‘shapes’ in an
English way than as ‘substances’ in a Japanese way (Cook et al., 2006). Hence
learning another language can have more far-reaching effects on the learner than
anybody imagined; you may think in a slightly different way if you know another
language.
Box 3.5 Ways of meaning

● Words have many different kinds of meaning, whether sharing general
components, linked in lexical relations or related to prototypes and levels.
● While some aspects of meaning are universal, there are differences between
languages in how they express concepts of colour, and so on, which may
affect the thinking of L2 users.
3.5 Strategies for understanding and learning

vocabulary
Focusing questions
● If you meet a new word, how do you go about finding out its meaning and
remembering it?
● How do you use a dictionary in your second language? In your first?
Keywords
false friends: words that are more or less the same in two languages but have
different meanings
mnemnotechnics: ways of remembering new information by deliberately
organizing it and linking it to existing information in the mind
Box 3.6 Vocabulary learning task

Here are some German words for you to learn. Spend three minutes on this and
then do the test at the end of the chapter on page 66.
1 2 3 4 5
die Schere das Telefon die Hand das Flugzeug der Mann
6 7 8 9 10
das Fahrrad das der der Bleistift das
Fernsehapparat Schüssel Segelboot
Students are often acutely aware of their ignorance of vocabulary in a way they are
unaware of their ignorance of grammar and phonology. When you want to say
something in a second language, it is the words that you feel you struggle for
rather than the grammar or pronunciation. Hence L2 users have devised strategies
to compensate for words they do not know, discussed in Chapter 6. Here we shall
look at some of the vocabulary strategies students use, with or without their
teacher’s approval. First test yourself on the task in Box 3.6.
Strategies for understanding the meaning of words

One main issue is learning the meaning of new words. Most recent teaching
methods, such as task-based learning or communicative language teaching, have
relied either on the context to make sense of the word or on traditional tech-
niques such as pictures, explanation or translation into the students’ L1.
Conveying the meaning of new words is crucial to language teaching; for exam-
ple, it is the vital stage in Krashen’s natural approach, Dodson’s bilingual method
and the audio-visual method.
Suppose that someone says to you in a restaurant in Italy, ‘Scusi, è occupato
questo posto?’ You think you can work out everything in the sentence apart from
the word ‘posto’ (Excuse me, is this **** occupied?). What do you do?
Guess from the situation or context

The situation is sitting at a restaurant table; the person is a stranger – what could
the sentence be? ‘Are you waiting for somebody?’ ‘Can I borrow the mustard?’
‘Could I borrow this chair?’ ‘Can I sit down here?’ Looking at the probabilities you
decide that the word ‘posto’ must mean ‘seat’ in English. This is the natural
process of getting meaning for unknown words that we use all the time in our first
language: if we encounter a new word in our reading, how often do we bother to
check precisely what it means in a dictionary? Checking back on a novel I have
just started, I discover that pages 1 and 2 had ‘baulks of sheer-sided soil’, ‘a severe
weather advisory’ and ‘a layer of regolith’; none of the three nouns, ‘baulk’, ‘advi-
sory’ and ‘regolith’, are part of my vocabulary and yet I had not noticed this while
reading. I had presumably deduced enough from the context not to interfere with
reading: ‘baulk’ must be a pile of some kind, ‘advisory’ must be an advice-notice
(according to the OED this is North American usage) and ‘regolith’ must be some
geological term for a layer of stone.
Guessing is a much-used strategy in a second language. But of course it can go
wrong. On the one hand, we may come to quite the wrong conclusion: one of my
postgraduate students gave a seminar talk in which she distinguished ‘schema’ the-
ory from ‘schemata’ theory, having deduced these were different words rather than
the singular and plural of the same word. On the other hand, much language is
unpredictable from the situation; in a German supermarket the only remark that
was addressed to me was, ‘Könnten Sie bitte das Preisschildchen für mich lesen da
ich meine Brille zu Hause gelassen habe?’ (Could you read this label to me as I have
left my glasses at home?)
Use a dictionary
The most popular way of getting the meaning of a new word like ‘posto’ is to look it
up in a dictionary, according to Norbert Schmitt’s survey of students (Schmitt, 1997).
The use of dictionaries in language teaching has always been controversial to some
extent. There is inevitably a question of choosing which type of dictionary to use:
● monolingual dictionaries versus translation dictionaries. If you believe that the
word-stores of the two languages must be kept distinct in the mind, you will go for
monolingual L2 dictionaries. If you believe that the words for the two languages
are effectively kept in one joint store, you will prefer translation dictionaries.
● reception dictionaries versus production dictionaries such as the Language
Activator (1993). Production dictionaries permit one to hunt for the precise
word to express something one wants to say. If you decide to talk about your
problems, you look up the concept ‘problem’ and see which of the 12 related
ideas (e.g. ‘ways of saying that a person causes problems’) best expresses what
you want to say; a version of this is found in the thesaurus that forms part of
word-processing programs – mine tells me that other ways of saying ‘diction-
ary’ are ‘lexicon’, ‘word list’ and ‘glossary’, though unlike a production diction-
ary it does not tell me the differences in meaning between them.
● corpus-based dictionaries such as COBUILD versus example-based dictionar-
ies such as the OED. Traditional dictionaries such as the OED depended on col-
lecting a large sample of words from many sources, including other
dictionaries. Recent dictionaries have been based on large-scale collections of
real spoken and written language processed by computer. The OED may give
the precise technical meaning of a word, COBUILD its everyday use. For exam-
ple, according to the OED ‘bronchitis’ is ‘Inflammation of the bronchial
mucous membrane’, according to COBUILD ‘An illness like a very bad cough,
in which your bronchial tubes become sore and infected’. One definition gives
an accurate medical definition; the other suits a layperson’s understanding.
Dictionary use can only be minimal during speech, however important it may be
during reading and writing. At best students can use it as a prop for the occasional
word, say, in a lecture, as many of my overseas students seem to do with their
pocket electronic dictionaries.
Make deductions from the word form

Another way of discovering the meaning of a word is to try to deduce it from its
actual form; 69 per cent of students in Schmitt’s survey found this a useful strategy.
The Italian word ‘posto’ may not be very helpful in this respect, as it provides few
clues to its structure. The English example ‘regolith’ is more useful. I have encoun-
tered other words with the morpheme ‘lith’ before, such as ‘megalith’, which I
understand to be a big stone, and ‘Neolithic’, which I understand to mean ‘stone
age’; hence I guess that ‘lith’ is something to do with stone. ‘rego’ provides no help –
in fact if I had simply related it to the English word ‘rug’ I wouldn’t have been far
out according to the OED, which claims it was indeed a mistaken interpretation of
the Greek for ‘blanket’. Again, it is easy to go wrong in making these deductions;
my interpretation of ‘regolith’ as ‘layer of stone’ gave me sufficient understanding
to read a novel but would hardly impress a geologist. International Express (Taylor,
1996) practises word forms by getting the students to do the reverse operation of
adding prefixes such as ‘un-’ or ‘in-’ to words such as ‘efficient’ and ‘sociable’.
Link to cognates
One more way is to resort to a language that one already knows, popular with 40
per cent of Schmitt’s students. Many languages have words that are similar in
form, particularly if the languages are closely related, English ‘chair’ versus French
‘chaise’ or English ‘day’ versus German ‘Tag’. Students often seem to avoid such
cognates (Lightbown and Libben, 1984), perhaps to keep the two languages sepa-
rate in their minds. Hakan Ringbom (1982) found that Finnish learners of English
in fact preferred words from Swedish rather than from Finnish: ‘I can play pingis’
for ‘table tennis’ or ‘This is a very beautiful stad’ for ‘town’. Given the relation-
ships between many European languages and the amount of word-borrowing that
affects modern languages everywhere, there may well be some links between the
L2 word and something in the second language. With ‘posto’ there may be few
clues; there are some meanings of ‘post’ such as ‘leave your post’ which suggest a
fixed location such as a seat, but most of the meanings are more to do with the
mail or with fence-posts. With other words a reasonable guessing strategy may
nevertheless be to try to relate them to the L1, provided of course there is a rela-
tionship between the two languages – it does not work for English speakers trying
to read street signs in Hungary. In the past, language teachers have often put stu-
dents on their guard against ‘false friends’ – to the neglect of ‘true friends’ whose
resemblance is not accidental, which are utilized in methods such as the new con-
current approach described in Chapter 13.
Strategies for acquiring words

It is one thing to be able to work out the meaning of a word on one occasion; it is
another to remember the word so that it can be used on future occasions. Some of the
strategies that learners use are set out below.
Repetition and rote learning

The commonest approach is perhaps sheer practice: repeat the word again and
again until you know it by heart. Typically this is done by memorizing lists of
words or by testing yourself repeatedly on piles of flashcards, eliminating the ones
you know until none are left. However, much of this work may be in vain. Harry
Bahrick (1984) has shown that the most important thing in learning a word is the
first encounter; he found effects of this eight years later. Practice may not be able
to make up for a disastrous first encounter.
Organizing words in the mind

Much teaching of vocabulary implies that the effective way of learning vocabulary
is to organize the words into groups in our mind. Hence we saw coursebooks using
vocabulary sets even when Rosch’s work suggests this is not the normal way of
learning. Touchstone (McCarthy et al., 2005) tells the students in Lesson 2, ‘Here are
some things students take to class’, and then lists ‘umbrella’, ‘pencil’, and so on –
that is, reversing Rosch’s sequence by starting with a superordinate category.
Organizing may consist of putting related words in a ‘word map’. International
Express (Taylor, 1996) gets students to fill in empty bubbles in a diagram that links
‘Air travel’ to ‘Luggage’, ‘Documents’, and so on. Or it may mean thinking about
aspects of the word form, say word endings such as ‘-er’ or prefixes such as ‘con-’.
Organizing words in groups by common morphology linked to meaning may be a
useful way of remembering them. Tapestry 1 Listening and Speaking (Benz and
Dworak, 2000), for instance, asks students to characterize nouns for professions
both as ‘-or’ (actor), ‘-ist’ (typist), or ‘-ian’ (musician) and then as different types of
career (medical careers, entertainers, public service, and so on). The book does not,
however, point out that ‘driver’ has now made the transition from human being to
machine that many ‘-er’ words take, such as ‘computer’, ‘typewriter’ and ‘reader’.
Linking to existing knowledge

The commonest way of remembering new vocabulary is to exploit the different
memory systems in our minds for linking new information to old. Learning an
entirely new item may be very hard; it will be a single isolated piece of knowledge
that will rapidly fade. The information that ‘posto’ ‘seat’ soon disappears if is not
linked to our experience in one way or another. The ancient Greeks first devised
memory systems to help with delivering speeches. One invention was ‘loci’: store
information you want to remember in a carefully visualized location. You imagine
a palace with many rooms; you enter the palace and turn to the left into the west
wing; you go up the stairs, find a corridor and go into the third room on the left;
you put your piece of information on the second bookcase on the left, second shelf
up, on the left. To retrieve the information you mentally retrace your footsteps to
the same point. Adaptations of the loci theory are still in use today by people who
entertain with feats of memory; it is also supposed to be useful for card players.
Other ways of remembering information link what you are learning to some-
thing you already know through mental imagery. In Tapestry 1 Listening and
Speaking (Benz and Dworak, 2000), students are told, ‘To remember new vocabu-
lary words, think about a picture that reminds you of the word.’ One system is to
link the new vocabulary to a pre-set scheme. First you need to memorize a simple
scheme for storing information; then you need to link the new information to the
scheme you already know. New information is hooked in to old. The version I have
used involves students memorizing a short poem for the numbers from one to
ten: ‘One’s a bun; two’s a shoe; three’s a tree; four’s a door; five’s a hive; six’s
sticks; seven’s heaven; eight’s a gate; nine’s a line; ten’s a hen.’ Then they remem-
ber ten items by making an incongruous mental image connecting each item with
a number on the list; if no. 1 is an elephant, then they have to invent an image of
an elephant eating a bun or an elephant inside the bun. And so on for nine other
items. Things remembered in this way can be quickly recovered from memory,
even out of sequence. Elaborate schemes exist for handling more items at a time.
There are still other ways of making the links, such as the psychology-inspired
‘mnemotechnics’ techniques. In one, students acquire L2 words by associating
them with incongruous images or sounds in the L1. The French ‘hérisson’ (hedge-
hog) is remembered through an image of the English sound-alike ‘hairy son’
(Gruneberg, 1987). The original keyword approach described by Atkinson (1975)
suggests that, to learn the Spanish word ‘pato’ (duck), you might invent the image
of a duck wearing a pot on its head. When you think of the English word ‘duck’,
this brings to mind the pot-wearing duck, which in turn causes the Spanish word
‘pato’ to be produced. One consequence is the fantasy word-store created in the L2
user’s mind, inhabited by hairy sons and eccentric ducks, quite unlike the word-
store of a monolingual native speaker. This complicated chain of associations may
prove difficult to use in actual speech. Indeed, these strategies treat a word as
being paired with a single meaning and thus ignore not only all the depth of
meaning of the word but also all the other aspects outlined earlier. They amount
to a sophisticated form of list learning. It may also depend on the target language
having a reasonable phonological similarity to the first language, as Ernesto
Macaro (2006) points out: the Polish word ‘szalenstwo’ (madness) may have little
recognizable for an English speaker to cling on to.
Box 3.7 Vocabulary strategies

● To understand an unfamiliar L2 word, people make use of a variety of strate-
gies, such as guessing, using dictionaries, deducing meaning from the
word’s form and relating it to cognates.
● To acquire new L2 words, people use strategies such as repetition, organiz-
ing them in the mind, and linking them to existing knowledge.
3.6 Vocabulary and teaching
Focusing questions
● How would you teach a new word such as ‘trombone’ to a student?

● Do you use any ‘local’ words in your first language or in your second that
people from other areas do not understand?
What we have been saying impinges on teaching in at least four main ways.
Demonstrating meaning
One of the central issues of language teaching is how to get the meaning of a new
word across to the student. This depends on what we believe meaning to be and
on the nature of the particular word. Audio-visual teaching thought that you con-
veyed new meaning by providing students with a picture: ‘der Mann’ .
Vocabulary and teaching 63
Traditional language teaching thought you provided it by means of a translation:

‘der Mann’ ‘the man’. Communicative language teaching and task-based learn-
ing provide no techniques for demonstrating meaning at all; the meaning of ‘der
Mann’ is built up out of hearing it in different interactional contexts over time.
All these techniques assume that getting meaning is simply associating a word
with a unique meaning. But a single ‘word’ may have many meanings; we have to
pair ‘man’ with ‘human being’, with ‘a piece in chess’ and with the other 15
meanings found in the OED; the number of pairs between words and meanings in
a language vastly exceeds the number of actual words.
Moreover, if you treat words as discrete coins in this manner, you overlook the
many aspects of meaning they share, such as ‘animate’; and the many relation-
ships they have with other words such as ‘woman’ and ‘boy’; and the other
aspects of meaning discussed above such as collocations like ‘a man-to-man talk’.
The links between ‘der Mann’ and or ‘man’ are only the first stage in getting the
word. My People and Places (Cook, 1980) tried to teach meaning by getting the stu-
dents to use the word actively almost immediately; just after hearing ‘beautiful’
for the first time, the students had to decide whether Paul Newman, Barbra
Streisand and Stan Laurel are beautiful.
Teaching the complexity of words

L2 learning of vocabulary is not just learning a word once and for all, but learning
the range of information that goes with it. It is unlikely that everything about a
word is learnt simultaneously; we might not know its spelling; we might be miss-
ing some of the components of its meaning; we certainly will not know all the
word combinations in which it can occur. The problems associated with going
from the first language to the second are not just the transfer of the actual words,
but also the relationships and overtones they carry in the L1. As an English speaker,
I cannot conceive how ‘postpone’ and ‘reject’ could be the same word in another
language, as they are in Hebrew ‘lidchot’ (Levenston, 1979). Most uses of vocabu-
lary in textbooks imply that words have single meanings: books that have vocabu-
lary lists usually give single-word translations. The German course English for You
(Graf, 1983), for instance, lists one translation for ‘bar’ (Bar) and one for ‘write’
(schreiben), where many might be necessary.
An aspect of vocabulary that has become important in recent years is how the
word fits in to the structure of the sentence. Partly this is the argument structure of
the verb described earlier, which for example, forces the verb ‘faint’ to have a gram-
matical subject ‘Martin fainted’, but never an object ‘Martin fainted John’, and
requires the verb ‘meet’ to have an object ‘He met John’, not ‘He met’. In addition,
some verbs are followed by subordinate clauses, ‘I hoped Mary would go’ rather
than grammatical objects ‘I hoped Mary’. A speaker of English knows not only
what a word means and how it is pronounced, but also how it fits into sentences.
Teaching cannot ignore that the student has to learn not just the meaning and
pronunciation of each word, but how to use it. One simple way of doing this is the
traditional task of getting the students to make up sentences using particular
words. For example, in Just Right (Harmer, 2004), students have to say which
words in a word list, ‘absolutely . . . pirate . . . water tank’, they already know and
then to ‘Write some sentences using them’.
Words are multifaceted; we do not know a word properly until we have learnt its
forms, its different types of meaning and the ways in which it is used in sentences.
Vocabulary teaching has been diminished by being considered the provision of a
list of separate items, each with a specific meaning. Instead it is building up the
richness of vocabulary in the students’ minds.
Box 3.8 Vocabulary and teaching

● Teach the complexity of words.
● Fit in with the students’ strategies.
● Teach basic-level words first.
● Teach lexical relationships.
● Think about the first presentation of the word.
● Teach some words through components of meaning.
● Remember that it is how the word is practised, not how often, that is
important.
● Remember that students transfer L1 meanings as well as the words themselves.
● Put words in their structural context.
Fitting in with students’ strategies

The third major implication is how teaching can fit in with the students’ ways of
learning vocabulary. For example, teachers implicitly draw on many of the strate-
gies we have just outlined when they introduce new vocabulary. Showing a pic-
ture of a train may allow the students to guess what ‘train’ means from the
context. Miming the action of flying may demonstrate the meaning of ‘fly’. The
teacher’s attempts to explain a word through examples or definitions are similar
to providing a human dictionary. Getting the students to sort vocabulary into sets
relies on the strategy for organizing things in their minds.
Whose vocabulary is the learner acquiring?

Finally, as usual there is the issue not of what vocabulary the learner should be
acquiring, but whose vocabulary? If students want to be like native speakers, we have
to define which native speakers. Vocabulary differs from one country to another;
what North Americans call an ‘elevator’ is a ‘lift’ to the rest of the world; Indian
speakers use ‘peon’ to mean an office clerk, where English people mean a kind of
peasant, and ‘flower bed’ where others would say ‘marriage bed’. Vocabulary varies
from region to region within a country; an alleyway is a ‘chare’ in Newcastle, a ‘folly’
in Colchester, and a ‘lane’ in the Isle of Wight; ‘gravy’ seems to be made with milk in
Texas and with meat juice in the rest of the USA. Even if the variation in vocabulary
is not extensive, language teaching still has to consider which native speaker is most
appropriate.
But what if the student’s aim is not to be a native speaker, but an efficient user of
English as a second language – an L2 user? The words they need may be those that
are understood by fellow L2 users, not by native speakers. Much of the Far East seems
to use ‘cider’ for any fizzy drink rather than one made of apple; perhaps it is more use-
ful for the student to acquire the general term rather than the specifically native
usage. Some things we have hitherto considered mistakes may in fact be useful – if
other L2 users all make the same ‘mistake’. For example, I have spent a lifetime query-
ing students who claim, ‘I was very interesting in the class’, by pointing out that this
actually means something different from ‘I was very interested in the class’. Perhaps
I have been wasting my time: if all the L2 users know perfectly well what they mean
by ‘interesting’, what I understand by it is beside the point, unless they want to com-
municate with me and my fellow natives rather than with each other.
Discussion topics
1 Take a lesson or a page from the textbook you are most familiar with: what
new words are taught, and how?
2 What strategies would you now encourage in your students for learning
vocabulary?
3 To what extent can we learn the words of another language without learning
a new way of thinking to go with them?
4 How useful are dictionaries for students?
5 Decide how you would teach a beginners’ class these high-frequency words:
● Nouns: time, people, way, year, government, day, man, world, work, life.
● Verbs: say, know, get, go, see, make, think, take, come, use.
● Adjectives: new, good, old, different, local, small, great, social, important,
national.
Further reading
An interesting book with many exercises for vocabulary teaching is Lewis (1993)
The Lexical Approach. Useful books on vocabulary are: Nation (2001) Learning
Vocabulary in Another Language, Cohen (1990) Language Learning, and Singleton
(1999) Exploring the Second Language Mental Lexicon.
Answers to Box 3.1
}
1 a round object often used as a 䊐
toy is a ball
0–2,000 level
2 something you carry and put 䊐
things in is a bag
}
3 a pipe or channel through which 䊐
things flow is a conduit
up to 10,000
4 to give way to someone is to 䊐
yield
}
5 a person who works without being 䊐
paid is a volunteer
up to 20,000
6 a preparation for preventing 䊐
infectious disease is a vaccine
}
7 a heavy glass with a handle is 䊐
known as a tankard
up to 50,000
8 a type of brain chemical is 䊐
serotonin
}
9 a sailor’s word for a clumsy fellow 䊐
is a lubber
up to 100,000
10 the effects of wind, rain, and so on, 䊐
on objects is weathering
}
11 a heavy wheel used to store power 䊐
is a flywheel
up to 150,000
12 something engraved on stone is 䊐
lapidary
You can now see roughly how many words you know by taking the last level at
which you score both right. A full version of this test is on the website.
Box 3.9 German word test

In German what is the word for?:
1 2 3
4 5 6 scissors
7 telephone 8 key 9 television
10 yacht
How did you try to learn these words? Tick the strategies you used:
1 Linking L2 sounds to sounds of the L1 word.

2 Looking at the meaning of part of the word.
3 Noting the structure of part of the word.
4 Putting the word in a topic group.
5 Visualizing the word in isolation.
6 Linking the word to a situation.
7 Creating a mental image of the word.
8 Associating a physical sensation with the word.
9 Associating the word with a keyword.
Check your answers against page 58.
Acquiring and teaching
pronunciation 4
Focusing questions
Think of a speech sound in your first language:

● How do you think you make it?
● How do you think an L2 student learns it?
● How would you teach it to an L2 student?
Keywords
phonetic alphabet: a way of transcribing the sounds of speech through a care-

fully designed set of symbols, as in the IPA (International Phonetics Alphabet)
phonology and phonetics: phonology is the branch of linguistics that deals
with the sound systems of language, including phonemes and intonation;
phonetics is the branch that deals with the sheer sounds themselves
Language conveys meanings from one person to another through spoken sounds,
written letters or gestures. Speakers know how to pronounce the words, sentences
and utterances of their native language. At one level they can tell the difference in
pronunciation between ‘drain’ and ‘train’, the sound patterns of the language; at
another they know the difference between ‘Fine’, ‘Fine?’ and ‘Fine!’, the intonation
patterns in which the voice rises and falls. The phonologies of languages differ in
terms of which sounds they use, in the ways they structure sounds into syllables,
and in how they use intonation, hard as this may be for many students to appre-
ciate, and difficult as it may be for teachers to teach. It is impossible to imagine a
non-disabled speaker of a language who could not pronounce sentences in it.
Talking about the sounds of language necessitates some way of writing down
the sounds without reference to ordinary written language. For over a century the
solution for researchers and teachers in much of the world has been the
International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), which supplies symbols for all the sounds
that could occur in human languages. The full version is given in many books and
the latest official revision can be downloaded from the International Phonetic
Association; there is also an online version at the University of California, Los
Angeles, that gives demonstrations of how the sounds are pronounced. This then
gives a way of showing the sheer sounds of language, known as phonetics.
68 Acquiring and teaching pronunciation
Any language, however, only makes use of a small selection of these sounds for
its sound system, its phonology. So the version of IPA that is normally encoun-
tered in teaching is that used for transcribing a particular language, for instance
the sounds of English, included somewhere in most coursebooks. A transcript that
records sheer phonetic sounds is independent of language and so uses the full IPA
chart; usually this is put in square brackets, for example [tin]. A transcript of the
significant sounds in the phonological systems of a particular language is usually
given in slant brackets, say, English /tin/.
Box 4.1 instant accent test for English consonants

Carry out the following test. (Note: it only covers the consonants of English as
the vowels would be more complicated to test and have far more variations
from one native speaker to another.) A version of this test that can be printed
out is available on the website.
Find a non-native speaker of English and get them to read the following
words aloud rapidly. Point to words at random rather than in sequence. Score
each selected consonant as; (1) native-like accent; (2) comprehensible but not
fully native; (3) non-native pronunciation. Note any peculiarities on the right.
Do not pay attention to vowels.
allophones
phoneme initial medial final cluster (CC) etc. misc
1. /p/ pin ❒ supper ❒ map ❒ spit ❒
2. /b/ bin ❒ suburb ❒ rub ❒ bleed ❒
3. /t/ tip ❒ bitter ❒ pet ❒ sting ❒
4. /d/ doll ❒ rudder ❒ fed ❒ drain ❒
5. /k/ cash ❒ tucker ❒ luck ❒ create ❒
6. // goat ❒ rugger ❒ mug ❒ glade ❒
7. /tʃ/ chew ❒ Richard ❒ rich ❒
8. /d / joke ❒ lodger ❒ fudge ❒
9. /f/ fast ❒ differ ❒ off ❒ flame ❒
10. /v/ view ❒ river ❒ of ❒
11. /θ/ thigh ❒ rethink ❒ bath ❒ three ❒
12. /ð/ then ❒ rather ❒ bathe ❒
13. /s/ soon ❒ lesson ❒ mess ❒ strain ❒
14. /z/ zoom ❒ razor ❒ was ❒ sizzle ❒
15. /ʃ/ show ❒ usher ❒ fish ❒ shrine ❒
16. / / genre ❒ measure ❒ rouge ❒
17. /h/ who ❒
18. /l/ lip ❒ pillar ❒ hill ❒ plain ❒
19. /r/ read ❒ direct ❒ far (0) ❒ there is ❒
20. /m/ mix ❒ summer ❒ aim ❒ dims ❒
21. /n/ nod ❒ dinner ❒ sin ❒ likes ❒
22. /ŋ/ banger ❒ sang ❒ finger ❒
23. /j/ yes ❒ reunite ❒ student ❒
24. /w/ wet ❒ dissuade ❒ saw it ❒
What does this test tell you about (a) the person’s first language (b) the person’s
first writing system?
Phonemes and second language acquisition 69
4.1 Phonemes and second language acquisition
Focusing questions
● What do you think are the crucial sounds in your first language?
● How do you think you learnt them?
Keywords
phonemes: the sounds of a language that are systematically distinguished from

each other, for example, /s/ from /t/ in ‘same’ and ‘tame’
allophones: different forms of the phoneme in particular contexts, for example,
the aspirate /p/ (with a puff of air) in ‘pill’ versus the unaspirated /p/ (with-
out a puff of air) in ‘lip’
distinctive feature: the minimal difference that may distinguish phonemes,
such as voice and aspiration in ‘din’ and ‘tin’
voice onset time (VOT): the moment when voicing starts during the produc-
tion of a consonant
Each language uses a certain number of sounds called phonemes that distinguish
words and morphemes from one other. The spoken word ‘sin’ is different from the
word ‘tin’ because one has the phoneme /s/, the other the phoneme /t/; ‘sin’ dif-
fers from ‘son’ in that one has the phoneme /i/, the other the phoneme //. And
so on for all the words of the language – ‘bin’, ‘kin’, ‘din’, ‘gin’, ‘soon’, ‘sawn’,
‘seen’, ... Phonemes signal the difference between words and meanings: the spo-
ken distance between ‘I adore you’ and ‘I abhor you’ is a single phoneme, /d/ ver-
sus /b/.
A phoneme is a sound which is conventionally used to distinguish meanings in
a particular language. Any language only uses a small proportion of all the sounds
available as phonemes; English does not have the /x/ phoneme heard in German
words like ‘Buch’, or the click sounds used in South African languages; Japanese
does not have two phonemes for the /l/ in ‘lip’ and the /r/ in ‘rip’; nor does French
recognize a distinction between short /i/ in ‘bin’ and long /i/ in ‘been’. Human
languages have between 11 and 141 phonemes, English being about average with
44 or so (depending on accent).
As well as phonemes, there are allophones – variant pronunciations for a
phoneme in different situations. For instance, in English the phoneme /l/ has
three main allophones. At the beginning of a word such as ‘leaf’, it is a so-called
‘clear’ [l], sounding more like a front high vowel. At the end of a word such as
‘feel’, it can be pronounced as a ‘dark’ [l], sounding lower and more like a back low
vowel. For many British speakers it is nowadays pronounced as /w/, that is, ‘tell’ is
pronounced /tew/. It is not going to affect the meaning if you pronounce ‘leaf’
with the wrong dark /l/ but it will certainly convey a particular foreign accent.
The problem for second language acquisition is that each language has its own
set of phonemes and allophones. Two phonemes in one language may correspond
to two allophones of the same phoneme in another language, or may not exist at
all: the two Polish phonemes that distinguish ‘prosie’ (pig) from ‘prosze’ (please)
sound like allophones of /ʃ/ (ship) to an English ear, while the two English
phonemes /θ/ ‘thigh’ and /ð/ ‘thy’ seem to be allophones of one phoneme to a
Spanish speaker.
When the phonemes of spoken language connect one-to-one to the letters of
alphabetic written language, the writing system is called transparent, as in Finnish
or Italian. The English writing system is far from transparent because there are
many more sounds than letters to go round: 44 phonemes will not go into 26 let-
ters. So pairs of written letters go with single sounds, like ‘th’ for /θ/ in ‘three’ or
‘ea’ for /i/ in ‘bean’; or single letters go with two sounds, like ‘x’ for /ks/ ‘six’; or
letters have multiple pronunciations, like the a in ‘pat’ //, ‘atomic’ /ɘ/, ‘ska’
/a/ and ‘swan’ /ɒ/. And of course letters are used very differently in the spelling
of, say, English, Polish and Arabic.
In the early days of the direct method, such phonetic scripts were often used
directly for language teaching, and they are still common at advanced levels where
people are often taught ‘ear-training’ by transcribing spoken language. Most EFL
coursebooks use a phonetic script as a resource to be consulted from time to time
rather than as the main vehicle for teaching; charts of the phonetic alphabet for
English can be seen pinned up in many classrooms. The elementary coursebook
New Headway Beginners (Soars and Soars, 2002) has a chart of the symbols for
English at the end of the book and uses them in the vocabulary lists, but only a
handful of exercises in the book actually use them. Joanne Kenworthy’s The
Pronunciation of English: A Workbook (2000), intended more for teachers than stu-
dents, uses phonetic symbols to train the listener to locate and discuss phonemes
in authentic English speech.
Over the years the concept of the phoneme has proved useful in organizing mate-
rials for teaching pronunciation, even when it has been largely superseded in much
phonological research. Pronunciation textbooks like Ship or Sheep? (Baker, 1981)
present the student with pairs of words: ‘car’ /ka/ versus ‘cow’ /ka / or ‘bra’ /bra/
versus ‘brow’ /bra /. This technique originated from the ‘minimal pairs’ technique
used by linguists to establish the phonemes of a language from scratch; you present
the native speaker with a series of likely or unlikely pairs of words and ask them
whether they are different. This allows you, in principle, to build up the whole
phoneme inventory – in practice, it is very hard to do, as I discovered when I naively
tried to demonstrate it in a lecture with a native speaker of a language I did not
know (Russian).
In typical pronunciation materials the student learns how to distinguish one
phoneme from another by hearing and repeating sentences with a high concentra-
tion of particular phonemes, such as ‘I’ve found a mouse in the house’ or ‘This is the
cleanest house in town’, or traditional tongue-twisters such as ‘He ran from the
Indies to the Andes in his undies’. Like the teaching of structural grammar, this
activity emphasizes practice rather than communication and sees pronunciation as
a set of habits for producing sounds. The habit of producing the sound /n/ is believed
to be acquired by repeating it over and over again and by being corrected when it is
said wrongly. Learning to pronounce a second language means building up new
pronunciation habits and overcoming the bias of the first language. Only by saying
‘car’ /ka/ and ‘cow’ /ka / many times is the contrast between /a/ and /a / acquired.
In other areas of language teaching, such as grammar, people would scorn making
students simply repeat sentences. Nevertheless it remains a popular technique for
pronunciation teaching.
Phonemes and second language acquisition 71
Box 4.2 Characteristics of speakers of different L1s using

English
German: devoicing of final voiced plosives: /bik/ for /bi/ (big)
Japanese: use of /l/ for /r/: /led/ ⬃ /red/ (red)
Arabic: devoicing final voiced consonants: /spuns/ for /spunz/
Chinese (Mandarin): use of /v/ for /w/: /við/ for /wið/ (with)
Spanish: adding vowels: /esneik/ for /sneik/ (snake)
Italian: vowel shortening: /pliz/ for /pliz/ (please)
Hindi: use of /b/ for /w/: /bi/ for /wi/ (we)
Hungarian: devoicing final consonants: /faif/ for /faiv/ (five)
Fante: velar fricative /h/: /xɘ/ for /hɘ/ (her)
Finnish: vowel raising: /sk/ for /ask/ (ask)
Examples derived from the Speech Accent Archive.
Phoneme learning
Traditionally, much research into the L2 acquisition of phonology has focused on
the phoneme. One classic example is the work of Wilfried Wieden and William
Nemser (1991), who looked at phonemes and features in the acquisition of English
by Austrian schoolchildren. They found that some phonemes improved gradually
over time while others showed no improvement. Beginners, for example, per-
ceived the diphthong /ə / in ‘boat’ only 55 per cent correctly, but managed 100
per cent after eight years; the sound /ə/ at the end of ‘finger’, however, gave stu-
dents as much trouble after eight years as it did at the start. The learners went
through three stages:
1 Presystemic. At this stage learners learn the sounds in individual words but
without any overall pattern, that is, they may learn the /ə / in ‘no’ but not the
/ə / in ‘coat’.
2 Transfer. Now the learners start to treat the second language sounds systemati-
cally as equivalent to the sounds of their first language, that is, they see the sec-
ond language sounds through the lens of the first.
3 Approximative. Finally the learners realize their native sounds are not good
enough and attempt to restructure the L2 sounds in a new system; they realize
that the sounds are not just variants of their native sounds.
This example shows the important role of transfer from one language to
another in acquiring pronunciation. It is not, however, a simple matter of
transferring a single phoneme from the first language to the second, but of
carrying over general properties of the first language. The phonemes of the lan-
guage do not exist as individual items but are part of a whole system of contrasts.
Practising a single phoneme or pair of phonemes may not tackle the underlying
issue. Though some of the learners’ pronunciation rules are related to their
first language, they nevertheless still make up a unique temporary system – an
interlanguage.
Learning below the phoneme level

For many purposes the phoneme cannot give the whole picture of pronunciation.
As well as the allophone, mentioned above, the elements which make up a
phoneme also need to be taken into account. Seemingly different phonemes share
common features which will present a learning problem that stretches across sev-
eral phonemes.
Let us take the example of voice onset time (VOT), which has been extensively
researched in SLA research. One of the differences between pairs of plosive conso-
nants such as /p⬃b/ and /k⬃g/ is the VOT – the interval of time between the con-
sonant and the following vowel. The voicing of the vowel can start more or less at
the same moment as the release of the obstruction by the tongue or the lips; this
will then sound like a voiced /b/ ‘boss’ or // ‘go’. Or voicing can start a few milli-
seconds after the release of the plosive, yielding voiceless /p/ ‘pod’, /k/ ‘cod’. The
difference between voiced and voiceless plosives is not a matter of whether voicing
occurs but when it occurs, that is, of timing relative to the moment of release. The
distinction between voiced and voiceless plosives is a matter of convention rather
than absolute. Hence it varies from one language to another: the Spanish /k⬃g/
contrast is not exactly the same as the English /k⬃g/ because English /k/ has VOT
that starts 80 milliseconds, but Spanish /k/ has VOT of only 29 milliseconds,
almost overlapping with the English //.
An interesting question is whether there are two separate systems to handle the
two languages or one system that covers both. French learners of English, for exam-
ple, pronounce the /t/ sound in French with a longer VOT than monolinguals (Flege,
1987). Spanish/English bilinguals use more or less the same VOT in both English and
Spanish (Williams, 1977). It makes no difference to their perception of stops which
language is used. As Watson (1991: 44) sums up: ‘In both production and perception,
therefore, studies of older children (and adults) suggest that bilinguals behave in
ways that are at once distinct from monolinguals and very similar to them.’ L2 users
are not imitation native speakers but something unique – people who simultane-
ously possess two languages. We should not expect them to be like natives, but like
people who can use another language efficiently in their own right – L2 users with
multi-competence, not imitation native speakers with monolingual competence.
Many theories of phonology see the phoneme as built up of a number of dis-
tinctive features. The English /p⬃b/ contrast is made up of features such as:
● fortis/lenis: /p/ is a fortis consonant, said with extra energy, like /k⬃t/, while /b/ is
a lenis consonant, said with less energy, like /⬃d/.
● voice: /p/ is a voiceless consonant in which the vocal cords do not vibrate, like
/t⬃k/, while /b/ is a voiced consonant during which the vocal cords vibrate,
like /⬃d/.
● aspiration: /p/ is aspirated (i.e. has a long VOT), like /t/, while /b/ is unaspirated,
like /d/.
And other features as well.

These distinctive features do not belong just to these six phonemes, but potentially
to all phonemes; other voiced consonants, for instance, include /l/ ‘let’ and /m/
‘mouth’; other fortis consonants include /k/ and /f/. All the differences between
phonemes can be reduced to about 19 of these distinctive features, though no two lists
seem to agree – aspiration is not usually on the list. Getting the distinctive features
right or wrong can then affect not just one phoneme but many; producing the right
voicing contrast affects /ʃ/ ‘shirt’, /d / ‘job’ and /p/ ‘pie’ and many others. The danger,
Learning syllable structure 73
again, is that in some languages a distinctive feature may be crucial to a phonemic

difference, while in others it may contribute to an allophone; the difference between
English aspirated /p/ ‘pot’ and unaspirated /p/ ‘stop’ is allophonic and depends on
position in the word. In Hindi, however, aspiration is phonemic and /phɘl/ (fruit)
and /pɘl/ (moment) are different words, one with, one without aspiration.
The characteristics of a foreign accent often reside in these distinctive features.
In German, for example, tenseness is important for consonant pairs like /t⬃d/,
not voice; hardly surprisingly, German speakers have problems with all the voiced
and voiceless consonants in English, /t⬃d/, /ð⬃θ/, /s⬃z/, and so on, not just with
individual phonemes or pairs of phonemes. It is often the feature that gives trou-
ble, not the individual phoneme. The Speech Accent Archive at George Mason
University details the typical pronunciations of many accents of English, both
native and non-native.
However useful phonemes may be for organizing teaching, they do not in
themselves have much to do with learning pronunciation. The phoneme is not an
entity in itself but an abstract way of bundling together several aspects of pronun-
ciation. The phonemes of a language are made up of distinctive features. Learning
another language means acquiring not just each phoneme as a whole, but the cru-
cial features. Minimal pairs like ‘din/tin’ are deceptive in that there are often sev-
eral differences between the two members of the pair, each of which may pose a
separate learning problem for the student.
Box 4.3 Phonemes and distinctive features

● Much learning of pronunciation depends on aspects other than the phoneme,
for example, distinctive features.
● L2 learners gradually acquire the L2 way of voicing stop consonants.
● Their first language is affected by their knowledge of the second language,
as well as their second being affected by their first.
4.2 Learning syllable structure
Focusing questions
● How many syllables are there in ‘constitution’? in ‘fire’? in ‘autosegmentalism’?

● How do you think syllables work in your own speech?
Keywords
syllable: a unit of phonology consisting of a structure of phonemes, stresses,

and so on
syllable structure: how consonants (C) and vowels (V) may be combined into
syllables in a particular language; for example, English has CVC syllables
while Japanese has CV
epenthesis: padding out the syllable by adding extra vowels or consonants; for
example, ‘Espain’ for ‘Spain’
In Chapter 2 we saw how elements of language such as morphemes build up into

sentences through phrases and structures. The same is true of phonology:
phonemes are part of the phonological structure of the sentence, not just items
strung together like beads on a necklace. In particular they form part of the struc-
ture of syllables.
One way of analysing syllables is in terms of consonants (C) such as /t/, /s/, /p/,
and so on, and vowels (V) such as /i/ or /ai/. The simplest syllable consists of a vowel
V /ai/ ‘eye’; this structure is found in all languages. In English, all syllables must have
a vowel, with the occasional exception of syllabic /n/ in /btn / (‘button’) and /l/ in
/bɒtl / (‘bottle’).
Another type of syllable combines a single consonant with a vowel, CV as in /tai/
‘tie’. In languages such as Japanese all syllables have this CV structure with few
exceptions, hence the familiar-looking pattern of Japanese words such as
‘Miyazaki’, ‘Toyota’ or ‘Yokahama’.
A third syllable structure allows combinations of CVC as in /tait/ ‘tight’. CVC
languages vary in how many consonants can come at the beginning or end of the
syllable. Chinese allows only one of each, again resulting in familiar-looking
names like ‘Chan’ and ‘Wong’.
One difficulty for the L2 learner comes from how the consonants combine with
each other to make CC – the permissible consonant clusters. English combines /p/
with /l/ in ‘plan’ and with /r/ in ‘pray’ /prei/, but does not combine /p/ with /f/ or
/z/; there are no English words like ‘pfan’ or ‘pzan’. In German, however, /pn/ and
/ps/ are possible combinations, as in ‘Psychologie’ (psychology) and ‘Pneu’ (tyre).
Aliens in Larry Niven science fiction stories can be identified because their names
have non-English clusters – ‘tnuctipun’ /tn/ and ‘ptavvs’ /pt/. English does not
allow ‘tn’ at the beginning of a word and doubles /v/ in the spelling of a handful
of words, such as ‘skivvy’.
The compulsory vowel in the English syllable can be preceded or followed
by one or more consonants. So ‘lie’ /lai/, which has a consonant/vowel (CV)
structure, and ‘sly’ /slai/, which starts with a two-consonant cluster /sl/ (CC), are
both possible, as are ‘eel’ /il/ with VC and ‘eels’ /ilz/ with VCC. Longer clusters
of three or four consonants can also occur, for example, at the end of ‘lengths’
/leŋkθs/ or the beginning of ‘splinter’ /splintə/. The ultimate seems to be the five
final consonants in the /mpfst/ of ‘Thou triumphst!’ The syllable structure of
some languages allows only a single consonant before or after the vowel.
Japanese, for instance, has no consonant clusters and most syllables end in a
vowel, that is, it has a bare CV syllable structure; the English word ‘strike’ starting
with CCC becomes ‘sutoraki’ in Japanese, in conformity with the syllable struc-
ture of the language.
L2 learners often try by one means or another to make English clusters fit their
first languages. Examples are Koreans saying /kəlas/ for ‘class’, and Arabs saying
/bəlstik/ for ‘plastic’. They are inserting extra vowels to make English conform to
Korean or Arabic, a process known as epenthesis. So British Indian children in
Yorkshire pronounce ‘blue’ as /bəlu/ not /blu/, ‘friend’ as /fərend/ not /frend/, and
‘sphere’ as /səfiə/ not /sfiə/, all with epenthetic vowels (Verma et al., 1992).
An alternative strategy is to leave consonants out of words if they are not
allowed in the LI – the process of ‘simplification’. Cantonese speakers, whose L1
syllables have no final consonants, turn English ‘girl’ /əl/ into ‘gir’ /ə/ and
‘Joan’ /d ə n/ into ‘Joa’ /d ə /. Arabic syllables too can be CV but not CCV, that
is, there are no two-consonant clusters. ‘Straw’ /strɔ/ is an impossible syllable in
General ideas about phonology learning 75
Arabic because it starts with a three-consonant cluster /str/ CCC. Indian children
in Yorkshire simplify the /nd/ of ‘thousand’ and the /dz/ of ‘Leeds’ to /d/ (Verma
et al., 1992).
Egyptian-Arabic learners of English often add an epenthetic vowel /ə/ to avoid
two or three-consonant clusters. ‘Children’ /tʃildrən/ becomes ‘childiren’
/tʃildirən/ in their speech because the CC combination /dr/ is not allowed.
‘Translate’ /trnzleit/ comes out as ‘tiransilate’ /tirnzileit/ to avoid the two con-
sonant CC sequences /tr/ and /sl/. Part of their first language system is being trans-
ferred into English.
So the clash between the syllable structures of the first and second languages is
resolved by the expedient of adding vowels or leaving out consonants, a true
interlanguage solution. It is not just the phonemes in the sentence that matter,
but the abstract syllable structure that governs their combination. Indeed, some
phonologists regard the syllable as the main unit in speaking or listening, rather
than the phoneme, one reason being that the sheer number of phonemes per sec-
ond is too many for the brain to process and so some other unit must be involved.
Box 4.4 Syllables

● A crucial aspect of language acquisition is the mastery of syllable structure.
● Learners often try to make their second language syllable structure fit
the structure of their first language, by adding or omitting vowels and
consonants.
4.3 General ideas about phonology learning
Focusing questions
● Do you think your own accent gives away where you come from in your L1?
In your L2?
● How important do you think the first language is in learning L2 pronunciation?
Keywords
transfer: carrying over elements of one language one knows to another,

whether L1 to L2 or L2 to L1 (reverse transfer)
accent versus dialect: an accent is a way of pronouncing a language that is typ-
ical of a particular group, whether regional or social; a dialect is the whole
system characteristic of a particular group, including grammar and vocabu-
lary, and so on, as well as pronunciation
Let us now look at some general issues about the learning of L2 pronunciation.
L1 and transfer
Usually it is very easy to spot the first language of a non-native speaker from their
accent; German speakers of English tend to say ‘zing’ when they mean ‘thing’,
Japanese ‘pray’ when they mean ‘play’. Chapter 10 asks whether this matters: after
all, we can tell instantly whether a native speaker of English comes from Texas,
Glasgow or Sydney, but this does not mean we see their accent as wrong. In the
second language very few people manage to acquire an accent that can pass for
native; at best, L2 users have boasted to me of being mistaken for a native speaker
of some variety other than that of the person they are talking to; for example, a
Swedish speaker of English might be taken to be an American in England. Foreign
accent is all but ineradicable – but then so are many local accents of English.
The components of foreign accent may be at different levels of phonology. The
most salient may be the apparent use of the wrong phoneme. I ordered ‘bière’
(beer) in France and was surprised when the waiter brought me ‘Byrhh’ (a rein-
forced wine). This carries perhaps the greatest toll for the L2 user as it involves
potential misunderstandings. Next comes the level of allophones; saying the
wrong allophone will not interfere with the actual meaning of the word, but may
increase the overall difficulty of comprehension if the listener always has to strug-
gle to work out what phoneme is intended. And it certainly gives rise to character-
istic accents. Consonant clusters may be a difficulty for some speakers; Spanish
does not have an initial /st/ cluster, so Spanish speakers tend to say ‘estation’ for
‘station’. And we have seen that syllables and clusters pose problems for many.
The reason for these pronunciation problems has been called cross-linguistic
transfer: a person who knows two languages transfers some aspect from one lan-
guage to another; in other words, this is language in a Lang5 sense of linguistic
competence. What can be transferred depends, among other things, on the rela-
tionship between the two languages. Fred Eckmann et al. (2003) have drawn up
three possibilities:
1 The first language has neither of the contrasting L2 sounds. Korean, for example,
does not have any phonemes corresponding to English /f⬃v/ as in ‘fail/veil’. A
Korean learning English has to learn two new phonemes from scratch.
2 The second language has one of the L2 sounds. Japanese, for instance, has a /p/
sound corresponding to English /p/ in ‘paid’, but no /f/ phoneme corresponding
to that in ‘fade’. Japanese learners of English have to learn an extra phoneme.
3 The second language has both sounds as allophones of the same phoneme. In Spanish,
plosive /d/ and fricative /ð/ are both allophones of the phoneme /d/. Spanish
learners of English have to learn that what they take for granted as alternative
forms of the same phoneme are in fact different phonemes in English.
Similarly, /l/ and /r/ are allophones of one phoneme in Japanese.
Which of these creates the most problems for learners? Logically it would
seem that missing sounds would create problems: German has two fricatives /ç/
in ‘Tuch’ (towel) and /x/ ‘Mach’ (make), almost totally absent from English,
apart from the isolated ‘foreign’ words ‘loch’ and ‘Bach’ for some people. So
English people should have a problem acquiring these German phonemes; but
this is not the case. By and large, totally new sounds do not create particular prob-
lems. One exception might be click phonemes in some African languages, which
speakers of non-click languages find it hard to master, though young babies are
very good at it.
General ideas about phonology learning 77
The combination that appears the trickiest to deal with is in fact when two allo-
phones of one L1 phoneme appear as two phonemes in the second language, as we
saw with Japanese problems with /l⬃r/. Once you have classed a particular sound as
the same as that in your first language, that is, Japanese /l/ goes with English /l/, you
find it difficult to split its allophones into two phonemes. The more similar the two
phonemes may be in the L1 and the L2, the more deceptive it may be.
The first language phonology affects the acquisition of the second through
transfer because the learner projects qualities of the first language onto the sec-
ond. The same happens in reverse in that people who speak a second language
have a slightly different accent in their first language from monolinguals. The
VOT research has shown subtle influences on L1 timing from the L2; for example,
French people who know English tend to have slightly longer VOTs for /t/ in
French, their first language, compared to monolinguals.
L2 and universal processes of acquisition

As well as transfer, L2 learners make use of universal processes common to all
learners. Some problems are shared by L2 learners because of the similar processes
of language processing and acquisition engraved on their minds.
For example, the simplification of consonant clusters happens almost regardless
of L1. The earlier example of Germans having trouble with English voicing may be
due not to transfer from German, but to a universal preference for ‘devoicing’ of
final consonants. Similarly, the use of CV syllables by many L2 learners could
reflect a universal tendency rather than transfer from specific first languages.
While epenthesis often depends on the structure of the first language, it neverthe-
less appears to be available to all L2 learners.
A number of models have been put forward to explain L2 phonological acquisi-
tion in a second language. The ontogeny phylogeny model of language acquisi-
tion put forward by Roy Major (2002) claims that the early stages of L2 learning
are characterized by interference from the second language. Then the learner
starts to rely on universal processes common to all learners. The L2 elements
themselves increase over time until finally the learner possesses the L2 forms. This
is shown in the stages captured in Figure 4.1.
L1 L2 U
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5
Figure 4.1 The ontogeny phylogeny model (OPM) (Major, 2002)
Major (2002) takes the example of English speakers learning the Spanish trilled
[r]. They start with the English sound, written phonetically as [ɹ] (stage 1). In the
next stages, though the Spanish [r] starts to appear, they also use an uvular trilled
[r] based on their universal processes. Spanish [r] continues to increase until it
reaches 100 per cent, while [ɹ] and [r] decrease until they reach zero in stage 5.
Learning pronunciation then depends on three different components – L1 transfer,
universal processes and L2. The relationship between these varies according to the
learner’s stage.
Box 4.5 Processes in acquiring L2 phonology

● A crucial element in L2 phonology acquisition is transfer from the L1, which
depends partly on the nature of the two phonological systems.
● Nevertheless, phonological acquisition also depends on universal processes
of language acquisition available to the human mind.
4.4 Choosing a model for teaching pronunciation
Focusing questions
● What do you think is a status accent for your L1? Do you speak it?
Keywords
RP (received pronunciation): the usual accent of British English given in books

about English, spoken by a small minority in England
English as lingua franca (ELF): English used as a means of communication
among people with different first languages rather than between natives
The underlying issue with pronunciation is who the students want to sound like –
which model should they strive to emulate, in the Lang3 sense of ‘language’ as an
abstract entity? Usually this is taken to be some type of native speaker, an assump-
tion questioned in Chapter 10. The issue of the target affects pronunciation more
than grammar, spelling or vocabulary, as accent shows far more variation between
native varieties of languages; written language may hardly ever give away the
writer’s dialect.
The usual model for teaching is a status form of the language within a country:
you are supposed to speak French like the inhabitants of Paris, not of Marseilles or
Brittany. Regional accents are not taught, nor are class dialects other than that of
the educated middle class. For English the status accents are non-regional: in the
USA Standard American English (SAE), in the UK received pronunciation (RP), both
of them spread across regions, even if SAE is mostly in the north-east USA, RP
mostly in southern England. Hence L2 students are rarely supposed to sound like
Texans from Dallas, Glaswegians from Glasgow or Scouses from Liverpool. These
status accents are spoken by a small minority of speakers, even if many others shift
their original accents towards them to get on, say, in politics or broadcasting.
The goal for teaching British English has long been RP, which is spoken by a small
minority even in England; my students in Newcastle grumble that they never hear
it outside the classroom. The claimed advantages of RP were that, despite its small
number of speakers located in only one country, it was comprehensible everywhere
and had neutral connotations in terms of class and region. True as this may be, it
does sound like a last-ditch defence of the powerful status form against the rest.
A more realistic British standard nowadays might be Estuary English, popular
Choosing a model for teaching pronunciation 79
among TV presenters and pop stars; the chief characteristics are the glottal stop [ʔ]
for /t/, inserted /r/ in words like ‘sawing’, and the vowel-like /w/ for /l/ as in
/bjuʔifuw/ ‘beautiful’. So the phonemes and intonation of a particular language
that are taught to students should vary according to the choice of regional or status
form. Most native speaker teachers have some problems in consistently using the
appropriate model; I had to modify my pronunciation of ‘often’ as /ɔftən/ by get-
ting rid of the /t/ and changing the vowel to /ɒ/ to get the RP version /ɒfən/ because
my students protested.
An additional problem in choosing a model comes when a language is spoken
in many countries, each of which has its own status form, say, French used offi-
cially in 28 countries, Arabic in 18 or English in 43. Should the target for French be
a francophone African one, a Canadian one or a French one? The English-speak-
ing countries, from Australia to Canada, Scotland to South Africa, each have their
own variety, with its own internal range; outside these countries there are well-
established varieties of English spoken in countries such as Singapore and India,
now mostly recognized as forms of English in their own right, like Singlish and
Hinglish. A global language such as English faces the problem not just of which
local variety within a country to teach, but of which country to take as a model –
if any. The choice of which national model to use can seldom be made without
taking into account the political nature of language, particularly in ex-colonial
countries, a topic developed in Chapter 10.
Overall the student’s target needs to be matched with the roles they will assume
when using the second language. If they want to be baristas in coffee bars, teach
them an appropriate accent (in England Italian might be an advantage); if they are
training to be doctors in London, teach them how London doctors and patients
speak. One problem is native speaker expectation: natives often expect non-
natives to have an approximation to a status accent. Many students in England
have complained to me that they did not want to acquire an RP accent because of
its snobbish middle-class associations. It is up to the teacher to decide whether the
students’ wishes to sound like Michael Caine or Elton John, for example, are in
their best interests.
As we see throughout this book, recently people have been challenging the cen-
trality of the native speaker as a model. In terms of pronunciation, apart from
those living in English-speaking countries, what is the point of making learners of
English understand and use a native standard accent like RP when virtually every-
body they will meet is a fellow non-native speaker? The goal should be an accent
that is maximally comprehensible by non-native speakers, leaving the native
speaker out of the equation except for those who have to deal with them.
Jenny Jenkins (2000, 2002) has been proposing a syllabus for English pronunci-
ation based on what non-native speakers of English as a lingua franca (ELF) need.
In terms of consonants, for example, there is no point belabouring the difference
between /ð/ ‘this’ and /θ/ ‘thistle’ as it rarely causes any misunderstanding (and
affects only a small group of function words in any case). It would also be helpful
if students were taught the ‘rhotic’ /r/ used in SAE (or regional English dialects) in
front of consonants /bɘrd/ and preceding silence /sentɘr/ rather than the non-
rhotic RP, which has no /r/ in these positions /bɘd/ and /sentɘ/. It is also interest-
ing to note what she does not think is important, such as the difference between
clear and dark allophones of /l/ in ‘lip’ and ‘pill’, and the intonation patterns,
both of which teachers have laboured over for generations.
Some of her other points are shown in Box 4.6. It should be noted, however,
that these are primarily derived from the analysis of learner English, that is to say
the language of students, rather than from the language of successful L2 users. If
you take the ELF idea seriously, you need to teach what is important for interna-
tional uses of English, not for talking with native speakers, as we see in Chapter
10, nor just for talking to fellow students in a classroom. For amusement only,
look at my web page Speech Reform, which satirizes spelling reform by suggesting
we could get by in English speech with 11 consonants /p t k s ʃ ð ʃ m n r w/ and
three vowels /i e a/.
Box 4.6 The lingua franca pronunciation core

Elements of English pronunciation that need to be right to avoid problems
between students with different L1s (Jenkins, 2000: 159):
1 all consonants except for /ð⬃θ/ which can be dispensed with.
2 aspiration after voiceless plosives /p⬃t⬃k/ needs to be maintained in ‘spy’,
‘sting’, ‘scorn’, etc.
3 simplification of initial clusters should be avoided e.g. ‘product’ as /pɒdk/.
4 pure vowels should be longer before voiced consonants than before voice-
less consonants in, say, ‘bad/bat’, ‘league/leak’, ‘bard/bart’.
5 the placement of the nuclear tone in the tone-groups is vital; ‘John is here’/
‘John is here’/ ‘John is here’, but not choice of tone.
Box 4.7 Models of pronunciation

● In teaching a native speaker variety, the choice has to be made between
national varieties and between different local and class accents.
● In teaching an international language like English (ELF), the choice is which
forms work best among non-native speakers from different countries.
4.5 Learning and teaching pronunciation

What does this mean for teaching? Most language teachers use ‘integrated pronunci-
ation teaching’, as Joanne Kenworthy (1987) calls it, in which pronunciation is
taught as an incidental to other aspects of language, similar to the focus on form
described in Chapter 2. The Pronunciation Book (Bowen and Marks, 1992), for exam-
ple, describes including pronunciation work within activities primarily devoted to
other ends, such as texts and dialogues. Some teachers correct wrong pronunciations
when they arise on an ad hoc basis. Such incidental correction probably does not do
much good directly if it concentrates on a single phoneme rather than on the role of
the phoneme in the whole system; it may only improve the students’ pronunciation
of a single word said in isolation. It also relies on direct correction being a good way
of teaching, something which has been out of fashion in other areas of language
teaching for generations. Correction may indirectly serve to raise the students’ aware-
ness of pronunciation, but may also succeed in embarrassing all but the most thick-
skinned of students.
One clear implication from SLA research is that the learning of sounds is not
just a matter of mastering the L2 phonemes and their predictable variants. At one
Learning and teaching pronunciation 81
level, it means learning the rules of pronunciation for the language, such as those
for forming syllables; at another level, it is learning precise control over VOT.
While phonemes are indeed important, pronunciation difficulties often have to do
with general effects; in the case of English we have come across a problem with
voicing for German students, syllable structure for Arabic students, VOT for
Spanish students, and so on. Language teaching should pay more attention to such
general features of pronunciation rather than the phoneme.
Learners have their own interlanguage phonologies – temporary rules of their
own. The sounds of the language are not just separate items on a list to be learnt
one at a time, but are related in a complex system. An English /p/ is different from
a /b/ because it is voiced and fortis, different from a /t/ because it involves the lips,
different from a /v/ because it is a stop consonant rather than a fricative, and so on.
Teaching or correcting a single phoneme may not have much effect on the stu-
dents’ pronunciation, or may even have the wrong effect. It is like taking a brick
out of a wall and replacing it with another. Unless the replacement fits exactly, all
the other bricks will move to accommodate it or, at worst, the wall will fall down.
Understanding how to help students’ pronunciation means relating the faults first
to their current interlanguage and only secondly to the target. The differences
between their speech and that of native speakers should not be corrected without
taking into account both the interlanguage and the target system. The Austrian
research suggests that teachers should be aware which sounds are going to improve
gradually and which are never going to improve, so that these can be treated dif-
ferently. It also suggests that pronunciation teaching should relate to the particu-
lar stage the learner is at, emphasizing individual words at the beginning, relating
pronunciation to the first language for intermediates, and treating the sound sys-
tem of the new language in its own right for advanced students.
Let us go through some standard techniques for teaching pronunciation in the
light of what we have been saying.
Use of phonetic script

At advanced levels, students are sometimes helped by looking at phonetic tran-
scripts of spoken language using IPA or by making transcripts of speech them-
selves. As we see throughout this book, it is disputable whether such conscious
awareness of pronunciation ever converts into the unconscious ability to speak,
useful as it may be as an academic activity for future teachers. At the more practi-
cal level, a familiarity with phonetic script enables students to look up the pro-
nunciation of individual words, say, London place names such as ‘Leicester
Square’ /lestə/ or ‘Holborn’ /hə bən/ (even if a booking clerk once said to me dis-
tinctly /hə lbərn/ with an /l/ and an /r/).
Imitation
Repetition of words or phrases has been the mainstay of pronunciation teaching: it
is not only Henry Higgins who says ‘Repeat after me, “The rain in Spain stays
mainly on the plain”’; the elementary coursebook New English File (Oxenden et al.,
2004), for example, asks students to ‘Listen and repeat the words and sounds’ and
‘Copy the rhythm’ – whatever that means. At one level, this is impromptu repe-
tition at the teacher’s command; at another, repetition of dialogues in the language
laboratory sentence by sentence. Of course, repetition may not be helpful without
feedback: you may not know you are getting it wrong unless someone tells you so.
Sheer imitation is not thought to be a productive method of language learning, as
we see throughout this book. It also ignores the fact that phonemes are part of a
system of contrasts in the students’ minds, not discrete items.
Discrimination of sounds
Audio-lingual teaching believed that, if you cannot hear a distinction, you cannot
make it. This led to minimal pair exercises in which the students have to indicate
whether they hear ‘lice’, ‘rice’ or ‘nice’ in the sentence ‘That’s …’. The dangers
include the unreality of such pairs as ‘sink/think’ taken out of any context, the
rarity of some of the words used (I once taught the difference between ‘soul’ and
‘thole’), and the overdependence on the phoneme rather than the distinctive fea-
ture and the syllable, for example. Again, useful if it is treated as building up the
overall pronunciation system in the students’ minds, not as learning the differ-
ence between two phonemes, such as /i/ and /i/.
Consciousness raising
Given the rise of such approaches as FonF discussed in Chapter 2, we can use exer-
cises to make students more aware of pronunciation in general, say, listening to
tapes to discover aspects such as the speaker’s sex, age, education, region, or the
formality of the situation. In other words, rather than concentrating on specific
aspects of speech, the students’ ears are trained to hear things better. For example,
Eric Hawkins (1984) used to get students to listen to noises he made by hitting
objects; they had to invent a transcription system so that they could ‘play back’
the noises he had made. Certainly an awareness of the range of phonological sys-
tems may help the student – the importance of the syllable may be news to them.
Communication
In principle, pronunciation materials could use the actual problems of commu-
nication as a basis for teaching. For instance, both natives and non-natives con-
fuse ‘fifty’ /fifti/ and ‘fifteen’ /fiftin/ in real-world situations of shops, and so
on, presumably because the final /n/ sounds like a nasalized vowel rather than a
consonant.
4.6 Learning and teaching intonation
Focusing questions
● What do you convey to someone else when you say ‘John’ with your voice ris-
ing rather than falling?
● Do you notice when you make a mistake in intonation in the second
language?
Learning and teaching intonation 83
Keywords
intonation: the systematic rise and fall in the pitch of the voice during speech
nuclear tone: significant changes in pitch on one or more syllables
tone language: a language in which words are separated by intonation, for
instance, Chinese
Intonation is the way that the pitch of the voice goes up and down during speech.
Many ways of describing it have been tried. The analysis in Box 4.8 shows a
‘British’ style analysis based on nuclear tones – significant changes in pitch on one
or more syllables, here reduced to seven tones.
Box 4.8 English intonation

y s
e e
High Fall s `yes High Rise y ´yes?
ye s
Low Fall s
`
yes Low Rise ye ´
yes
Fall Rise yes yes. Rise Fall yes yes

–
Level cooee cooee
The problem is that, while people agree that intonation is important, they dis-
agree on its function. Some say that it is used for making grammatical distinc-
tions: ‘He’s `going’ with falling intonation is a statement; ‘He’s ´going?’ with
rising intonation is a question. Indeed, rising intonation is perhaps the most fre-
quent way of making questions in French. But this explanation is only partially
successful as some questions tend not to have rises – wh-questions such as ‘What’s
the `time?’ usually have falls. Others think that intonation is used to convey emo-
tion and attitude: ‘He`llo’ with a high fall sounds welcoming, with a low fall

‘He`llo’ cold, with a fall-rise ‘He llo’ doubtful, and so on.
Intonation also varies between speakers. There is an overall difference between
British and American patterns: apparently British men sound effeminate to
American ears because of our use of a higher pitch range. Younger people around
the world use rising intonation for statements, ‘I like beer’ where older people use
´
a fall ‘I like `beer’. Even within the UK there are differences (Grabe and Post,
2002). People living in Cambridge use 90 per cent falls for declaratives, those in
Belfast 80 per cent rises. People in western areas such as Liverpool cut off the end
of falling tones in short vowels. People in eastern areas such as Newcastle com-
press them, that is, make the fall more rapid.
The languages of the world fall into two groups: intonation languages and tone
languages. Chinese is a ‘tone’ language that separates different words purely by

intonation: ‘´li zi’ (rising tone) means ‘pear’; ‘ li zi’ (fall rise) means ‘plum’, and ‘`li
zi’ (falling) means ‘chestnut’. In tone languages a tone functions like a phoneme
in that it distinguishes words with different meanings. Indeed, this means that
Chinese tones are stored in the left side of the brain along with the vocabulary,
while English intonation is stored in the right side along with other emotional
aspects of thinking. In intonation languages the intonation pattern has a number
of functions; it may distinguish grammatical constructions, as in question ‘´Beer?’
versus statement ‘`Beer’; it may show discourse connections, for example, a new
topic starting high and finishing low; it may hint at the speakers’ attitudes, say,
polite ‘Good`bye’ versus rude ‘Good`bye!’
Adult L2 learners of Chinese have no problem in distinguishing Chinese tones,
though with less confidence than native speakers of Chinese (Leather, 1987).
Adults learning Thai, another tone language, were worse at learning tones than
children (Ioup and Tansomboon, 1987).
L2 learners may have major problems when going from an intonation language
such as English to a tone language such as Chinese, and vice versa. Hence people
have found Chinese speaking English to be comparatively unemotional, simply
because the speakers are unused to conveying emotion though intonation pat-
terns, while in reverse, English learners of Chinese make lexical mistakes because
they are not used to using intonation to distinguish lexical meanings.
With languages of the same type, say, English speakers learning Spanish, another
intonation language, there are few problems with intonation patterns that are sim-
ilar in the first and second languages. The problems come when the characteristics
of the first language are transferred to the second. My hunch is that our interpreta-
tion of intonation patterns by L2 users is responsible for some national stereotypes –
Italians sound excitable and Germans serious to an English ear, because of the
meaning of their first language patterns when transferred to English.
It is also a problem when a pattern has a different meaning in the second lan-
guage. A student once said to me at the end of a class, ‘Good`bye!’; I assumed she
was mortally offended. However, when she said it at the end of every class, I realized
that it was an inappropriate intonation pattern transferred from her first language –
which reveals the great danger of intonation mistakes: the listener does not realize
you have made a straightforward language mistake like choosing a wrong word, but
ascribes to you the attitude you have accidentally conveyed. Intonation mistakes are
often not retrievable, simply because no one realizes that a mistake has been made.
As with VOT, there may be a reverse transfer of intonation back on to the
learner’s first language. Dutch people who speak Greek have slightly different
question intonation from monolinguals (Mennen, 2004), and the German of
German children who speak Turkish is different from those who do not (Queen,
2001). Once again, the first language is affected by the second.
Teaching intonation
Specialized intonation coursebooks, like my own Active Intonation (Cook, 1968),
often present the learner with a graded set of intonation patterns for understand-
ing and for repetition, starting, say, with the difference between rising ‘´Well?’ and
falling ‘`Well’, and building up to more complex patterns through comprehension
activities and imitation exercises. But the teaching techniques mostly stress prac-
tice and repetition; students learn one bit at a time, rather than having systems of
their own; they repeat, they imitate, they practise, all in a very controlled way.
Some teaching techniques for intonation aim to make the student aware of the
nature of intonation rather than to improve specific aspects. Several examples can
be found in Teaching English Pronunciation (Kenworthy, 1987). For instance,
Kenworthy suggests getting two students to talk about holiday photographs
without using any words other than ‘mmm’, ‘ah’ or ‘oh’. This makes them aware
of the crucial role of intonation without necessarily teaching them any specific
English intonation patterns – the objective underlying the communicative inton-
ation exercises in my own textbook Using Intonation (Cook, 1979). Dickerson
(1987) made detailed studies of the usefulness of giving pronunciation rules to L2
learners, concluding that they are indeed helpful.
Other teaching exercises can link specific features of intonation to communica-
tion. For example, the exercise ‘Deaf Mr Jones’ in Using Intonation (Cook, 1979)
provides students with a map of Islington and asks them to play two characters:
Mr Jones, who is deaf, and a stranger. Mr Jones decides which station he is at on
the map and asks the stranger the way. Hence Mr Jones will constantly be produc-
ing intonation patterns that check what the stranger says within a reasonably nat-
ural conversation.
Box 4.9 Learning intonation

● A major L2 learning problem is moving between the two major ways of
using intonation in the world’s languages: tone languages where intonation
shows difference in lexical meaning, and intonation languages where into-
nation shows grammar, attitude, and so on.
● Intonation mistakes can be dangerous because it is not obvious to the par-
ticipants that a mistake has been made.
Box 4.10 Pronunciation and teaching

● Pronunciation teaching should recognize the diversity of levels of pronunci-
ation in a language, including phonemes, allophones, syllables, intonation,
and so on.
● The learning of pronunciation involves aspects of the learner’s first
language, universal learning processes and aspects of the second language.
● Teaching has mostly made use of conventional techniques of phonetic
scripts, imitation, sound discrimination and communication.
● Students can also be made more aware of sound features of language.
Discussion topics
1 How important is a native-like accent to using a second language? Which
native accent?
2 How could teachers best exploit the kinds of stages that students go through
in the acquisition of pronunciation?
3 How much of the difficulty of acquiring L2 phonology is due to the learner’s
first language?
4 Do you accept that English is now different from other languages because it
functions like a lingua franca?
5 What uses can you find in coursebooks for phonetic script? What other uses
can you think of?
Further reading
There are few readily accessible treatments of the areas covered in this chapter.
Kenworthy (1987) Teaching English Pronunciation provides a readable and trust-
worthy account of pronunciation for teachers. Further discussion of phonology
can be found in Cook (1997) Inside Language. Web links include a clickable IPA
chart(http://hctv.humnet.ucla.edu/departments/linguistics/VowelsandConsonan
ts/course/chapter1/chapter1.html) and an IPA chart for English (www.teachin-
genglish.org.uk/download/pron.shtml), as well as the amazing Speech Accent
Archive (http://accent.gmu.edu).
Acquiring and teaching
a new writing system 5
Chapter 1 points out how both SLA research and language teaching have assumed
that writing depends on speech rather than being another mode of language. This
has led to the unique skills of written language being undervalued and to a lack of
attention to the demands that writing places on the student in a second language.
A spelling mistake is as important as a pronunciation mistake; indeed it is more
so, in that bad spelling carries overtones of illiteracy and stupidity which bad pro-
nunciation does not.
Just as pronunciation involves both lower-level skills and higher-order structures,
so writing goes from physical skills involving forming letters, to higher-level skills
such as spelling, to the highest level of discourse skills involved in writing essays, and
so on. The present chapter provides more background information than the other
chapters because of the lack of information about writing systems in most teachers’
backgrounds. More information on the English writing system can be found in Cook
(2004), and on writing systems in general in Cook and Bassetti (2005).
5.1 Writing systems
Focusing questions
● Which words do you have trouble spelling? Why? What do you do to

improve your spelling?
● What spelling mistakes do your students make? Why? What do you do to
improve your students’ spelling?
Keywords
meaning-based writing system: a form of writing in which the written sign

(character) connects directly to the meaning, as in Chinese characters
sound-based writing system: a form of writing in which the written sign con-
nects to the spoken form, whether through syllables (Japanese, Korean) or
consonant phonemes alone (Arabic, Hebrew), or both vowels and conso-
nants (alphabetic languages like Greek, Urdu or English)
correspondence rules: the rules in sound-based writing systems for connecting
sounds to letters, that is, the English phoneme /ei/ to the letter a and vice
versa a to /ei/, //, and so on
88 Acquiring and teaching a new writing system
The big division in the writing systems of the world is between those based on
meaning and those based on sounds, as seen in Figure 5.1. The Chinese character-
based system of writing links a written sign to a meaning; the character means
a person, the sign an elephant; it is not necessary to know how is
pronounced or even to know what the Chinese spoken word actually is in order
to read it. A Chinese-English dictionary does not tell you the spoken form: is
simply given as ‘mouth’. Hence speakers of different dialects of Chinese can com-
municate in writing even when they cannot understand each other’s speech.
Meaning
Meaning-based
(e.g. Chinese)
Sound-based
(e.g. English) Mouth /maθ/
Figure 5.1 Meaning-based and sound-based writing
The other main type of writing system in the world links the written sign to its
spoken form rather than its meaning. The English word table corresponds to
the spoken form /teibl/; the meaning is reached via the spoken form. Knowing the
written form of the word tells you how it is pronounced, but knowing that ‘table’
is pronounced /teibl/ gives you no idea what it means. (Note: when words or let-
ters are cited purely for their orthographic form they are enclosed in angle brack-
ets table, parallel to slant brackets for phonological form /teibl/.)
Though these routes between writing and meaning are distinct in principle, in
practice they are often mixed. Numbers function like a meaning-based system
regardless of the language involved: ‘1, 2, 3…’ have the same meaning in most
languages, so that you do not have to know Greek to know what ‘1’ means on an
airport departure board in Greece. Some keyboard signs familiar from computers
behave in similar ways: they either have spoken forms that virtually nobody uses
in English such as & (ampersand) or ⬃ (tilde), or their spoken forms vary
from place to place or person to person without changing their meaning; # is
called ‘flat’ by some people, ‘the pound sign’ in the USA, ‘hash’ in England and,
supposedly, ‘octothorpe’ in Canada, after a Mr Thorpe who invented it and the
prefix ‘octo’ after its eight points. It is the meaning of these signs that counts, not
how they are pronounced. Even a sound-based writing system like English is full
of written symbols that can only be read aloud if you know the words they corre-
spond to – £, @, $, % … . An interesting example is arithmetic, where everyone
knows what means in ‘2 2 4’, but some people say ‘2 and 2 make 4’,
some ‘2 plus 2 is/are 4’, some ‘2 and 2 equals 4’.
Indeed, both the meaning-based and sound-based writing routes are used by
everybody to some extent, whichever their language. Try the e-deletion test in
Box 5.1 to test this. Frequent English words such as ‘the’ and ‘are’ take the mean-
ing-based route as wholes, rather than being converted to sounds letter by letter;
other words go through the sound-based route. Usually, with tests like this, most
native speakers fail to delete all 50 es, mostly because they do not ‘see’ the
e in ‘the’ (13 examples), only the whole word the. In fact, non-natives are
Writing systems 89
Box 5.1 Exercise: spot the ‘e’s

Here is the opening of Charles Dickens’ The Pickwick Papers (1837). Read
through it quickly and cross out all the letter es.
The first ray of light which illumines the gloom, and converts into a dazzling bril-
liancy that obscurity in which the earlier history of the public career of the
immortal Pickwick would appear to be involved, is derived from the perusal of
the following entry in the Transactions of the Pickwick Club, which the editor of
these papers feels the highest pleasure in laying before his readers, as a proof
of the careful attention, indefatigable assiduity, and nice discrimination, with
which his search among the multifarious documents confided to him has been
conducted.
Now check your copy against page 103 at the end of the chapter.
better at crossing out this e than natives – one of the few cases where non-
native speakers beat natives because they have had less practice.
The sound-based route is nevertheless always available: given new words like
‘Hushidh’, ‘Zdorab’ or ‘Umene’ (characters in a science fiction novel), we can
always have a stab at reading them aloud, despite never having seen them before,
using the sound-based route. Nevertheless, very common words such as ‘the’ or
‘of’, or idiosyncratic words like ‘yacht’ /yɒt/ or ‘colonel’ /kɘnl/ or ‘lieutenant’
/leftenɘnt/ (in British English) have to be remembered as individual word shapes.
English writing is not just sound-based but uses the meaning-based route as well.
Sound-based writing systems have many variations. Some use written signs for
whole syllables; for example, the Japanese hiragana system uses to correspond
to the whole syllable ‘ta’, to ‘na’, and so on (rather like text messages in English
‘Gr8 2 c u’). Other systems use written signs only for spoken consonants, so that
Hebrew gives the consonants ‘d’ and ‘r’ (in a right-to-left direction), and the
reader has to work out whether this corresponds to the word pronounced /diʁ/
(stable) or to /daʁ/ (mother-of-pearl).
Many languages use the alphabetic system in which a written sign stands for a
phoneme in principle, even if there are different alphabets in Urdu, Russian and
Spanish. Languages vary, however, in how straightforwardly they apply the alpha-
betic system. If a language has one-to-one links between letters and sounds, it is
called ‘transparent’, popularly ‘phonetic’. Italian or Finnish, for example, have
highly transparent writing systems. But even in Italian c corresponds to two dif-
ferent sounds depending on which vowel comes next, /k/ in ‘caffè’ or /tʃ/ in
‘cento’. English is much less transparent and has complicated rules for connecting
letters and sounds. The diphthong /ei/ can be spelt in at least twelve ways: ‘lake’,
‘aid’, ‘foyer’, ‘gauge’, ‘stay’, ‘café’, ‘steak’, ‘weigh’, ‘ballet’, ‘matinée’, ‘sundae’ and
‘they’. In reverse, the letter a can be pronounced in at least eleven ways: ‘age’
/eid /, ‘arm’ /am/, ‘about’ /ɘba t/, ‘beat’ /bit/, ‘many’ /meni/, ‘aisle’ /ail/, ‘coat’
/kɘ t/, ‘ball’ /bɔl/, ‘canal’ /kənl/, ‘beauty’ /bjuti/, ‘cauliflower’ /kɒlifla ə/. The
rules for connecting letters to sounds and vice versa are known as correspondence
rules. In a sense, Chinese and Japanese characters are least transparent of all as they
have little connection to their pronunciation, particularly in Japanese.
Even the ways in which people make the marks on the page vary from language to
language. In some countries children are told to form letters by making horizontal
strokes first and vertical strokes second; in others the reverse. The consequences can
be seen in English ‘to’, written by a Japanese , and capital E, written by a
Chinese , in both of which the horizontal strokes have clearly been made before
the vertical. The actual way of holding the writing instrument may be different too.
According to Rosemary Sassoon (1995), a typical brush-hold for Chinese may dam-
age the writer’s wrist if used as a pen-hold for writing English. Language teachers
should be on the alert for such problems when they are teaching students who have
very different scripts in their first language.
The direction that writing takes on the page is also important. Some writing sys-
tems use columns, for instance, traditional Chinese and Japanese writing; others use
lines, say French, Cherokee and Persian. Within those writing systems that use lines,
there is a choice between the right-to-left direction found in Arabic and Urdu, and
the left-to-right direction found in Roman and Devanagari scripts. While this does
not seem to create major problems for L2 learners, students have told me about
Arabic/English bilingual children who try to write Arabic from left-to-right.
Rosemary Sassoon (1995) found a Japanese child who wrote English on alternate
lines from right-to-left and from left-to-right, a system called boustrophedon, now
known only from ancient scripts.
Box 5.2 L1 and L2 writing systems

Students may have problems transferring various aspects of their L1 writing sys-
tem to another language, such as:
● whether it is a sound-based or meaning-based writing system;
● the direction in which writing goes on the page;
● the ways of making letters.
5.2 Spelling
Focusing questions
● Do you think English spelling is a ‘near optimal system’, as Noam Chomsky

calls it?
● Can you remember any spelling rules for English?
Keywords
orthographic regularities: rules that govern how letters behave in English, such
as ck corresponding to /k/ occurring at the ends of syllables ‘back’, c
at the beginning ‘cab’
silent letter: a letter that does not correspond directly to a speech sound but
often has indirect effects, for example, silent e ‘fat’ versus ‘fate’, and silent
u ‘guess’ versus ‘gesture’
Spelling 91
The major problem with English for many students, however, is the correspon-
dence rules that govern how letters are arranged in words, in other words,
spelling. English is far from having a straightforward, transparent system in which
one letter stands for one sound. The letter h, for example, plays an important
role in consonant pairs such as th, sh, gh, ph, ch, wh, without being pro-
nounced as /h/ in any of them. The sound /tʃ/ is usually spelled ch with two
letters at the beginning of words as in ‘chap’, but tch with three letters at the
end as in ‘patch’; indeed the extra letter gives people the impression that there are
more sounds in ‘patch’ than in ‘chap’.
The popular belief is that English spelling is chaotic and unsystematic – ‘the evil
of our irregular orthography’ according to Noah Webster, the dictionary maker –
usually based on the ideal, fully transparent alphabetic system. English is far from
transparent: it additionally involves not only a system of linking whole items to
meanings, as in ‘of’ and ‘yacht’, but also a system of orthographic regularities, such
as wh only occurring initially, as in ‘white’ and ‘when’. Hence it should not be
forgotten that native speakers of English also have problems with spelling, some
the same as L2 users, some different. On my website the spelling test called ‘The
most difficult words’ has been taken by over 100,000 people, yet at the time of
writing only 14 have emailed me to say that they scored 100 per cent (and those
mostly worked for publishers).
The charge of being unsystematic ignores the many rules of English spelling,
only some of which we are aware of. The one spelling rule that any native speaker
claims to know is ‘i before e except after c’, which explains the spelling of ‘receive’.
There are exceptions to this rule, such as plurals ‘currencies’ and when c corre-
sponds to /ʃ/, as in ‘sufficient’. The rule applies at best to ten base forms in the hun-
dred million running words of the British National Corpus, along with their
Box 5.3 Structure word spelling rules

1 The three-letter rule
Structure words have fewer than three letters; content words can be any
length, from three letters upwards (but must not have fewer than three let-
ters):
so:sew/sow to:two/too we:wee oh:owe by:bye/buy no:know
an:Ann I:eye/aye in:inn be:bee or:ore/oar/awe
2 The ‘th’ rule
In structure words, the initial th spelling corresponds to /ð/, ‘this’ and
‘they’; in content words, initial th corresponds to /θ/, as in ‘thesis’ and
‘Thelma’.
the:therapy than:thank thou:thousand this:thistle thy:thigh
though:thought that:thatch those:thong them:thematic
3 The titles rule
In titles of books, films, and so on, content words usually start with capital
letters, structure words with lower case.
The Case of the Stuttering Handbook of Bilingualism
Bishop The Tragedy of King
Strangers on a Train Richard the Second
I Wish I could Shimmy like my Sister Kate
derived forms: ‘receive’, ‘ceiling’, ‘receipt’, ‘perceive’, ‘conceive’, ‘deceive’, ‘con-

ceit’, ‘transceiver’, ‘fluorescein’ and ‘ceilidh’.
Nevertheless, there are rules that do work better for English. One set is the struc-
ture word rules, given in Box 5.3. Teachers are usually aware how structure words
such as ‘of’ and ‘the’ behave in English sentences compared to content words such
as ‘oven’ and ‘drive’; how they are pronounced in specific ways, such as the voiced
/ð/ ‘these’ compared to the unvoiced /θ/ in ‘think’ and ‘thesis’; and how they have
stressed versus weak forms, /θi/ versus /ðɘ/, as mentioned in Chapters 2 and 3,
but they are unaware that they are also spelt in particular ways.
The three-letter rule describes how only structure words can consist of a single
letter – ‘I’ and ‘a’ – or two letters – ‘an’ and ‘no’; content words have three letters
or more. If a content word could be spelt with one or two letters, extra letters have
to be added to make it up to three or more – ‘eye’, ‘Ann’, ‘know’. While this three-
letter rule seems perfectly obvious once it has been explained, most people have
no idea it exists. There are exceptions, of course: ‘go’ and ‘ox’ have two letters but
are content words (even if ‘go’ can act like an auxiliary ‘I am going to see him’);
American ‘ax’ is an exception, British ‘axe’ is not. Nevertheless, the rule is a small
generalization about English spelling that works nearly all the time.
The ‘th’ rule for structure words similarly reflects the fact that the only spoken
English words that start with /ð/ are structure words like ‘these’ and ‘them’; hence
the spelling rule that in structure words alone initial th corresponds to /ð/, all
the rest have /θ/. Again, this fact about the spelling of structure words seems obvi-
ous once it is understood. The exceptions are, on the one hand, a small group of
words in which initial th corresponds to /t/ such as ‘Thai’ and ‘Thames’, on the
other, the unique structure word ‘through’ in which th corresponds to /θ/.
The third rule of spelling that affects structure words is the titles rule. This affects
the use of capital letters in titles of books, songs, and so on, where content words
are given initial capitals but structure words are not, as in Context and Culture in
Language Learning, Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition and
Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development, to take three
books that happen to be lying on my desk. This convention is not always adhered
to and some book lists avoid all capitals in book titles. But if you cannot identify
structure words you will not be able to apply it at all.
Perhaps the most complex set of spelling rules in English are the vowel corre-
spondence rules, from which Box 5.4 gives a small selection. As RP English has 5
vowel letters and about 20 vowel phonemes, considerable ingenuity has been
devoted over the centuries to telling the reader how vowel letters are said. The silent
‘e’ rule gives the sound correspondence of the preceding vowel. If there is a silent
e following a single consonant, the preceding vowel is ‘long’: the letter a will
correspond to /ei/ ‘Dane’, e to /i/ ‘Pete’, i to /ai/ ‘fine’, o to /ɘ / ‘tote’,
u to /ju/ ‘dune’. If there is no e, the vowel is ‘short’: a corresponds to //
‘Dan’, e to /e/ ‘pet’, i to /i/ ‘fin’, o to /ɒ/ ‘tot’, u to // ‘dun’.
The terms ‘short’ and ‘long’ vowels do not have the same meaning here as in
phonetics, since three of the so-called ‘long’ vowels are in fact diphthongs. For
this reason, some people prefer to call the five short vowels ‘checked’, the five
long vowels ‘free’. This rule has become known as the Fairy E rule, after the way
that it is explained to children: ‘Fairy E waves its wand and makes the preceding
vowel say its name’; the long vowel sounds here happen to be the same as the
names for the five vowel letters. People who attack silent e, like the e in
‘fate’ /feit/, as being useless are missing the point: the silent e letter acts as a
Spelling 93
Box 5.4 Vowel correspondence rules

1 Silent ‘e’ rule
A silent e following a single consonant shows that the preceding vowel
letter corresponds to a long vowel; lack of an e shows a short vowel.
long free vowels short checked vowels
‘a’ /ei/ Dane // Dan
‘e’ /i/ Pete /e/ pet
‘i’ /ai/ fine /i/ fin
‘o’ /ɘ / tote /ɒ/ tot
‘u’ /(j)u/ dune // dun
2 Consonant doubling rule
A double consonant shows that the preceding vowel corresponds to a short
vowel rather than a long one.
Single consonant Double consonant
‘a’ /ei/ planing // planning
‘e’ /i/ beta /e/ better
‘i’ /ai/ biter /i/ bitter
‘o’ /ɘ / hoping /ɒ/ hopping
‘u’ /(j)u/ super // supper
marker showing that the preceding a is said /ei/ not //, that is, it is different
from the a in ‘fat’.
The same relationship between long and short vowels underlies the consonant
doubling rule in Box 5.4. A doubled consonant in writing, say tt in ‘bitter’ or
nn in ‘running’, has nothing to do with saying the consonant twice, but shows
that the correspondence of the preceding vowel is short: the pp in ‘supper’
shows that the preceding u corresponds to /i/, the p in ‘super’ that u is
the long /u/. This version of the doubling rule is highly simplified and ignores the
fact that some consonants never double, h, j, or rarely double, v and k
(‘revving’ and ‘trekker’), and that British and North American spelling styles are
slightly different, as we see below. As always, there are exceptions, such as doubled
consonants after long vowels, as in ‘small’ and ‘furry’. What the rules we have dis-
cussed show, however, is that there is a system to English spelling. It may be com-
plicated, but it is probably simpler than the system for speaking English.
SLA research has mostly tackled the problems which arise in acquiring a second
language that has a different overall writing system from one’s first language,
whether going from a meaning-based route to a sound-based one, as in Chinese
students of English, or from a sound-based route using only consonant letters to
one using both vowels and consonants, as in Hebrew students of English, or from
one type of alphabetic script to another, say, Greek to English or English to
German. Chikamatsu (1996) found that English people tended to transfer their L1
sound-based strategies to Japanese as an L2, Chinese people their L2 meaning-
based strategies. In the reverse direction, the Chinese meaning-based system
handicaps reading in English; upper high school students in Taiwan read at a speed
of 88 words per minute, compared to 254 for native speakers (Haynes and Carr,
1990). Students’ difficulties with reading may have more to do with the basic
characteristics of their L1 writing system than with grammar or vocabulary.

Indeed the characteristics of the writing system you learn first may affect you in
other ways; Chinese people, for example, are more visually dominated than
English people, probably due in part to their character-based writing system.
Box 5.5 gives examples of the spelling mistakes made by L2 users of English.
Many of them are similar to those made by native speakers. This tends to show
that the English spelling system itself is to blame rather than the difficulties of
writing in a second language. ‘accommodate’ is often spelt wrong because people
are unsure of the consonant doubling rules and gamble that consonants would
not be doubled twice in the same word – similarly for ‘address’. The vowel corre-
spondence rules cause problems for native speakers as well as non-native users of
English; what does the final spoken /ɘ/ in ‘grammar’ correspond to in writing?
ar, a, ah and er would all be equally plausible if sound correspon-
dences were all that mattered. Research of my own showed that adult L2 user uni-
versity students made about as many spelling errors as 15-year-old English native
children. In one sense this is disappointing in that they are not writing like native
adults. In another way it is encouraging; the students would probably be very
pleased to be told that they spoke English as well as 15-year-old native children.
Box 5.5 Mistakes with English spelling
The words most commonly misspelled by L2 users of English

accommodating, because, beginning, business, career, choice, definite, describe,
develop, different, government, integrate, interest(ing), kindergarten, knowledge,
life, necessary, particular, professional, professor, really, study/student, their/ there,
which, would
Some typical L2 mistakes

address: adres, adress, adresse
because: beause, beaucause, becase, becaus, becouse, becuase, beacause,
begause, becuse, becuas
business: busines, bussines, buisness, bussiness
grammar (etc.): gramma, grammatikal, grammartical, grammer
professional: profesional, professinal, proffessional, proffesional
sincerely: sinarely, sincerelly, sincerley, sincersly
student (etc.): studet, stuienet, studing, studyed, stuent
Just as an L2 user’s accent can betray their first language, so their spelling can
indicate not only the kind of L1 writing system they were taught first, but also the
phonology of their first language. An Arabic student may well leave out vowels
from their spellings, say ‘coubrd’ (cupboard) or ‘recive’ (receive), showing that this
is a feature of the consonantal Arabic writing systems: they may also add vowels
‘punishment’ showing that shm is not a possible consonant sequence in
Arabic. Box 5.6 gives some examples of typical spelling mistakes from different L2
learners. These do indeed reveal something about the learners’ L1 and L1 writing
systems. The French obviously double consonants differently, the Greek clearly
have different letters, the Dutch have double k.
Punctuation 95
Box 5.6 Problems for users of specific L1 writing systems

Arabic: substituted vowels ‘obundant’; additional ‘epenthetic’ vowels ‘punishe-
ment’; phonological mistakes ‘manshed’ (mentioned). Unique: c for
q ‘cuickly’.
Chinese: omission of consonants ‘subjet’; addition of e ‘boyes’.
Dutch: double kk ‘wekk’.
French: wrong double consonants ‘comming ‘; vowel substitution ‘definetely’.
German: omission of a ‘h’ppened’; substitution of i for e ‘injoid’.
Unique: ‘telephon’.
Greek: consonant substitution, d/t ‘Grade Britain’; double unnecessarily
‘sattisfaction’; transposition ‘sceince’. Unique c for g ‘Creek’ (Greek).
Italian: consonant omission ‘wether’ (whether); failure to double ‘biger’.
Japanese: consonant substitution ‘gramatikal’; epenthetic vowels ‘difficulity’;
CV transposition ‘prospretiy’. Unique l and r ‘grobal’.
Korean: consonant omission ‘fators’; lack of doubling ‘poluted’; omitted vowels
‘therefor’.
Spanish: consonant omission ‘wich’; lack of doubling ‘til’; unnecessary doubling
‘exclussive’.
Urdu: vowel omission ‘somtimes’ and final d and t ‘woul’, ‘lef’.
Thanks to Cambridge English, I collected 18,000 spelling mistakes made with

verbs from First Certificate of English (FCE) examination scripts from many lan-
guages. The most common type of mistake was letter doubling (both consonant and
vowel) with 35 per cent ‘speciallize’, followed by letter omission with 19 per cent
‘exlaimed’, using the wrong letter with 18 per cent ‘enjoiing’, and adding an extra
letter with 10 per cent ‘boreing’. Clearly, teaching could take these overall patterns
of spelling mistakes into account. Something more is needed than correction of
individual mistakes as and when they occur.
Box 5.7 Spelling and L2 learning

● The English spelling system has a number of specific rules such as structure
word rules.
● L2 learners of English make spelling mistakes based in part on their L1 writ-
ing system, in part on lack of knowledge of the English spelling rules.
5.3 Punctuation
Focusing questions
● Are you confident about your punctuation?

● What do you think punctuation is for?
While some teachers are aware of spelling and do try to correct individual errors,
the area of punctuation has been virtually ignored. Punctuation consists of the
use of additional marks as well as the letters of the alphabet, such as commas ,
or full stops ., known in American style as periods. Many writing systems have
similar punctuation marks, with slight variations in their form. Quotation marks,
for instance, vary between English “ “, Italian goosefeet « » and Swiss
goosefeet » «. Spanish uses inverted question marks ¿ and exclamation
marks ¡ at the beginning of phrases. Chinese has a hollow full stop ⴰ ,
Catalan a raised one .
The most important English punctuation mark is literally invisible. Compare:
WillyoustillneedmewillyoustillfeedmewhenImsixtyfour?
with:
Will you still need me, will you still feed me, when I’m sixty-four?
Apart from punctuation, the difference is word spaces: modern English writing
separates words with a space, recognized as a character in computer jargon – look
at the word count results provided in Microsoft® Word to see this. Spaces are not
intrinsic to alphabetic writing. In Europe the use of spaces between words only
became widespread in the eighth century AD. Sound-based writing systems do not
necessarily have word spaces, such as Vietnamese, or may use word spaces for dif-
ferent purposes, such as Thai. Character-based writing systems like Chinese and
Japanese do not have word spaces but put spaces between characters, which may
or may not correspond to words. Some have seen the invention of the word as cru-
cial to the ability to read.
Another little considered aspect of punctuation is the actual forms of letters.
Starting a sentence with a capital letter is one familiar use. In English, capitals are
used for proper names, Bill rather than bill, and for certain groups of words
like months January, and for content words in the titles rule seen in Box 5.3
on page 91. In German, capital letters are used for all nouns, a practice occasion-
ally found in seventeenth-century English. Underlining and italics are used for
questions of emphasis and for book titles in academic references. Underlining is
disliked by typographers and rarely found in books because it destroys the descen-
der of the letter below the line in letters like p, g, y and so makes it less legible:
I’m trying to pay the mortgage versus I’m trying to pay the mortgage.
The perpetual debate about punctuation is what it is for. Punctuation is used in
both the sound-based and the meaning-based routes. On the one hand, punctua-
tion has sometimes been seen as a guide to reading aloud. The eighteenth-century
rule for English was that a full stop . meant a full pause, a colon : was half
that, a semicolon ; half that, and a comma , half that, rather like the relation-
ship between musical notes. While the colon and semicolon may now be rare, peo-
ple reading aloud may still use pauses of different lengths for the full stop and the
comma. The sentence final punctuation marks .?! correspond roughly to intona-
tion patterns in reading aloud – ? to rising intonation, . to falling, ! to
extra movement or rise-fall intonation. Within the sentence, commas in lists may
show rising intonation: ‘I bought some apples, some pears, and some bananas’.
On the other hand, punctuation has also been seen as a guide to grammatical
structure. At one level, it separates different constructions, whether sentences
with full stops, or phrases with commas. But it also provides a structure for com-
plex written prose where large sentences can be constructed out of smaller sen-
tences by using colons and semicolons, to yield sentences such as those seen in
Box 5.8, or indeed the Dickens’ sentence in Box 5.1 on page 89. This is a unique
Punctuation 97
feature of written language, vaguely related, perhaps, to discourse intonation in

speech. Without the ability to put together such higher-level sentences, a writer
will come across as lightweight and over-simple.
Box 5.8 Sample punctuation sentence

Add the appropriate punctuation marks and capital letters to this sentence.
(Answer at the end of the chapter on page 103.)
now of old the name of that forest was greenwood the great and its wide halls
and aisles were the haunt of many beasts and of birds of bright song and there
was the realm of king thranduil under the oak and the beech but after many years
when well nigh a third of that age of the world had passed a darkness crept
slowly through the wood from the southward and fear walked there in shadowy
glades fell beasts came hunting and cruel and evil creatures laid there their snares
J.R.R. Tolkien (1977) The Silmarillion
Grammatical unit Punctuation mark
sentence
.!?
clause ,–
phrase ,
word _ (space)
morpheme ,–
Though Peter’s sight improved, the eye-doctor operated.
Figure 5.2 Punctuation and phrase structure in English
Box 5.9 Punctuation

● Punctuation is used both as a guide for reading the sentence aloud and as a
way of showing sentence structure.
● Punctuation includes punctuation marks, use of capitals, word spaces and
other features, all of which can vary between writing systems.
What do students need to learn about second writing

systems?
We can summarize what L2 students need to learn, assuming that they are already
literate in one writing system, that is, that it is not the L2 teacher’s job to cope
with basic literacy problems, which would be a different issue.
The appropriate direction of reading and writing

Arabic students learning English need to acquire the left-to-right direction;
English students learning Arabic that it goes from right to left. If the second lan-
guage uses a different direction, this may be quite a burden on the student.
Making and recognizing the actual letter or character shapes

English people learning Russian need to learn the Cyrillic script; Japanese people
learning German the Roman alphabet. Again, it may be difficult to go from
Chinese characters to the Roman alphabet, from a German script to Arabic letters.
In principle, the number of letters or signs needed will depend on the writing sys-
tem involved, whether the scores needed for alphabetic systems or the tens of
thousands needed for character-based systems.
Using the phonological processing route

Learning a sound-based L2 writing system means primarily learning that t cor-
responds with /t/, and so on. Depending on the writing system, this will be a mat-
ter of syllables, all the phonemes or the consonants alone. Moving from an L1
writing system that prioritizes the meaning route to an L2 writing system that
emphasizes the sound-based route may be a considerable step, as is moving in the
opposite direction.
Using the lexical, morpheme-based processing route

Learning a meaning-based writing system means mostly learning that means
‘person’, and so on. Switching one’s preferred route between L1 writing system and
L2 writing system can be a difficult feat.
Orthographic regularities in less transparent writing systems

Less transparent sound-based writing systems like English are not just straightfor-
ward correspondences between letters and sounds, but make use of complex
spelling rules, which have to be learnt.
Using punctuation marks and other typographic features

Differences in punctuation and typography of the L2 from the L1, whether of
form such as quotation marks or of use such as capitals, have to be learnt.
5.4 The writing system and language teaching
Focusing questions
● How important do you think issues of the writing system are for the teacher?
● Do you think students of English should be taught British or American styles
of spelling?
The writing system and language teaching 99
So what should the language teacher do about teaching the writing system? This vital
and complex area has been virtually ignored by teachers and coursebook writers.
One possibility in English is to exploit the two routes: the lexical route and the
phonological route. Most high-frequency words in English are stored as wholes
and not treated by the correspondence rules. So the best course of action may be
to check whether the students know how to spell the most frequent words and the
most often misspelt words by getting them to memorize and practise the words
they do not know as one-off items – ‘there/their’, and so on. Eliminating mistakes
with a few hundred words would wipe out most of the glaring mistakes in stu-
dents’ work. For instance, the verbs that FCE students made most mistakes with
were forms of ‘choose’, ‘study’, ‘travel’, ‘develop’, ‘begin’ and ‘plan’. This could
simply be dealt with on a one-off basis, or it could be related to the rules for con-
sonant doubling, not changing y to i, and so on. Certainly students have to
learn many idiosyncratic words as wholes, whether high-frequency words such as
‘of’ /ɒv/ and ‘there’ /ðεɘ/, or lower-frequency oddities such as ‘sandwich’
/smwid / or place names ‘Edinburgh’ /edimbrɘ/. Again, there is little that stu-
dents can do other than memorize these words individually; there is no point in
trying to relate them to spelling rules.
Many student mistakes relate to their L1 writing system. Arabic speakers reveal the
syllable structure of Arabic, not just in their pronunciation, but also in their use of
written vowels as in ‘punishement’. The Greek tendency to substitute one consonant
for another, as in d for t in ‘Grade Britain’, is due to the phonology of Greek.
Japanese difficulties with spoken /l/ and /r/ extend to spelling, as in ‘grobal’ (global)
and ‘brack’ (black). Inevitably, teachers need to pay attention to L1-specific spelling
problems, caused by the phonological system and the spelling of the students’ first
languages, directly, by explaining to students the link between spelling and their L1
phonology and writing system; and indirectly, by practising their typical errors.
Other mistakes reflect the complexity of the rules of English spelling for natives
and non-natives alike. Indeed, one piece of research found that English children
learning German made fewer spelling mistakes in German than in English
(Downing, 1973). Both natives and L2 learners have particular problems with con-
sonant doubling. l is wrongly doubled by both groups, as in ‘controll’, ‘allready’,
‘carefull’ and ‘propell’, the first two being from L2 learners, the second two from
natives; l is also left out of doubled l as in ‘filed’ for ‘filled’ (L2 user) and
‘modeled’ (native speaker). Vowels are substituted for other vowels, for example, in
word endings with ‘-an’ or ‘-en’ such as ‘frequantly’, ‘relevent’, ‘appearence’ and
‘importent’, with ‘-el’ or ‘-al’ as in ‘hostal’ and ‘leval’, and with ‘-ate’ or ‘-ite’ as in
‘definately’ and ‘definetely’. Again, in general, the choice amounts to explaining
rules directly – safe if the teacher has a grasp of the descriptive rules of spelling
beyond the school tradition – or to carrying out specific practice with spelling rules.
The discussion of pronunciation in Chapter 4 raises the issue of which accent to
use as a model. For English, the choice in spelling comes down to British style or
North American style. Box 5.10 tests which style people use; a fuller version is
online (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/TestsFrame.htm). Mostly the dif-
ferences of American English style from British style come down to Noah Webster’s
decision to emphasize USA identity when he chose spellings for the first edition of
his dictionary in 1828. The main differences are:
● -er versus -re: American ‘center’, ‘theater’, ‘fiber’ versus British ‘centre’,
‘theatre’, ‘fibre’
● -or versus -our: American ‘labor’, ‘color’, ‘neighbor’ versus British

‘labour’, ‘colour’, ‘neighbour’
● -ize versus -ise: American ‘realize’, ‘recognize’, ‘organize’ versus British
‘realise’, ‘recognise’, ‘organise’
Box 5.10 American or British style of spelling?
American British
1 color ❒ ❒
2 theatre ❒ ❒
3 catalyze ❒ ❒
4 labor ❒ ❒
5 travelling ❒ ❒
6 moustache ❒ ❒
7 dialogue ❒ ❒
8 molt ❒ ❒
9 sulphur ❒ ❒
10 vigour ❒ ❒
11 skeptic ❒ ❒
12 catalog ❒
American: 1, 3, 4, 8, 11, 12
British: 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10
In many cases, British style has two spellings for a word, often with different
meanings – ‘meter/metre’, ‘kerb/curb’ – where American style has one. There is
also variation between the conventions adopted by particular publishers, say over
-ise⬃-ize in words such as ‘socialise’.
The American/British divide in spelling affects most countries in the world that
use English. For example, Australia uses both British ‘labour’ and American ‘labor’
in different contexts; Canada laid down the spelling ‘colour’ by Order-in-Council
in 1890. Yet the number of words that differ between the two styles is a handful
compared to the totality of the language. The choice of which style to teach usu-
ally comes down to overall attitudes towards British and American culture within
a particular educational setting. And any computer spell-checker will soon alert
you if you are not conforming to a particular spelling style.
Spelling is hardly ever covered systematically in language teaching, vital as it may
be to the students’ needs. The extent of the help in the beginners’ book Changes
(Richards, 1998) is practising names for letters, and occasional advice such as ‘Listen
and practice. Notice the spelling’. Little specific teaching of the writing system
appears in main coursebooks. New English File (Oxenden et al., 2004), however, does
have a useful chart of correspondences between ‘Sounds and spelling’. A supple-
mentary book for an EFL context, called Making Sense of Spelling and Pronunciation
(Digby and Myers, 1993), is concerned with the links between sounds and letters to
the exclusion of other aspects of spelling. A typical section first explains ‘th’ (‘At the
beginning of a word th is usually pronounced /θ/ (e.g. thing …) …’, then practises
it through labelling and distinguishing /ð/ and /θ/ in pictures (‘thumb’, ‘tooth’, etc.),
and matching words with definitions (‘thorough’, ‘athletics’, etc.). In terms of the
The writing system and language teaching 101
Box 5.11 Spell it Right/Write/Rite/Wright

Word Test 1
1 He is a very (a) careful driver.
(b) carefull
2 She (a) payed the bill.
(b) paid
...
Remember the right spelling

1 careful
[one l in words that end in ful, two ls in the word ‘full’ itself.]
One careful man is worth two full of care.
2 paid
[a small group of irregular verbs in ay have aid in the past tense]
He paid the fine out of his pay.
…
Which past tense in each pair is spelt right?

paid ❒ payed ❒
staid ❒ stayed ❒
prayed ❒ praid ❒
layed ❒ laid ❒
Reason: a small group of verbs have irregular past forms with aid in written
English; ‘paid’, ‘said’, ‘laid’. Be careful about these verbs; English people often
make mistakes with ‘paid’.
Answers: paid, stayed, prayed, laid
distinctions made in Chapter 2, this is FormS, that is to say, deliberate teaching of

spelling forms, rather than FonF (focus on form), where such discussion arises out of
other activities. Some books for native speakers, such as Test Your Spelling (Parker,
1994) and Handling Spelling (Davis, 1985), go slightly beyond this and liven up what
can be a boring topic with cartoons and quizzes. But none incorporate the basic
insights about the sound and visual routes in spelling, about mistakes specific to
particular first languages and about the actual rules of spelling. None, for example,
mentions the most obvious rule of English, the three-letter rule.
A few years ago I attempted some teaching materials called Spell It Right
(Write/Rite/Wright), which tried to provide a systematic approach to spelling but
only reached a pilot stage. A sample is shown in Box 5.11 and can be found on the
website. Exercises consisted of word tests to see what mistakes the students made.
Each wrong answer led them to a set of advice about how to avoid this mistake,
and to sets of exercises that practised the particular point.
The official syllabuses for teaching language nowadays do tend to make some
gesture towards teaching the writing system. The Malaysian Year 1 syllabus (Pusat
Perkembangan Kurikulum, 2003), for instance, specifies mastering ‘the mechanics
Box 5.12 Adult ESOL Core Curriculum: Spelling (extract)

An adult will be expected to:
ENTRY LEVEL 1 ENTRY LEVEL 2 ENTRY LEVEL 3
spell correctly some spell correctly the spell correctly common
personal key words majority of personal words and relevant
and familiar words details and familiar key words for work
common words and special interest
write the letters of produce legible proofread and correct
the alphabet, using text for grammar writing
upper case and spelling
produce legible
text and lower case
Box 5.13 Writing systems and teaching

Teachers need to teach:
● the type of writing system, direction, letter formation, and so on, to
students whose first writing system is different;
● the rules and orthographic regularities of spelling;
● the punctuation and capitalization rules;
● individual spellings of frequent words and of frequently misspelt words.
of writing so that they form their letters well’, and learning ‘individual letter
sounds of the alphabet’. However, useful as the names of the letters are for all
sorts of language tasks, they are highly misleading as a guide to their correspon-
dences in speech, as the vowel correspondence rules on page 92 show. Indeed,
some of the letter names vary from place to place. z is /zi/ in American, but
not Canadian, style and /zed/ in British style. The name for the letter h is
becoming /heitʃ/ rather than /eitʃ/; children on a television game called Hard Spell
were penalized for spelling words wrong but allowed to get away with saying
/heitʃ/, previously considered an uneducated variant. Sticking to letters, the
Common European Framework (2008) goes so far as to mention the need to rec-
ognize the difference between ‘printed and cursive forms in both upper and lower
case’, that is, a, a, A and A.
While in general these syllabuses make a start, they reflect common sense more
than ideas about how people use and acquire writing systems. Box 5.12 gives the
parts that concern spelling that I could find in The Adult ESOL Core Curriculum (DfES,
1999). The word ‘correctly’ appears in each level, the students being expected to go
from correct spelling of ‘personal key words’ at level 1, to ‘familiar common words’
at level 2, to ‘relevant key words’ at level 3; that is, the curriculum is dominated by
the meaning-based one-word-at-a-time route, with no use of spelling rules. The
other strand is an emphasis on legibility and proofreading. But that is all that is said
about a major component of English – not a curriculum that pays any attention to
the massive work done on the English writing system in the past few years.
Discussion topics
1 How much attention should writing system topics receive in language
teaching?
2 To what extent are people’s problems with English spelling because of English
or because of their first language?
3 Are spelling problems in English worse or better than those in another lan-
guage you know?
4 How much do you care about proper spelling rather than proper pronuncia-
tion?
5 How should examinations and tests accommodate mistakes with the writing
system?
6 Do you prefer a British or American style of spelling? Why?
Further reading
The background on writing systems can be found in books like Coulmas (1996)
The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Writing Systems; an overview of English is in Cook
(2004) The English Writing System, on which the current chapter draws, particu-
larly for punctuation. There is a separate set of pages on the writing system on my
website (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/index.htm). The details of
English spelling can be found in Carney (1994) A Survey of English Spelling, and
Venezky (1999) The American Way of Spelling. L2 writing systems are described in
Cook and Bassetti (2005) Second Language Writing Systems.
Answer to Box 5.1

The Pickwick Papers, extract without the ‘e’s (see page 89)
ThX first ray of light which illuminXs thX gloom, and convXrts into a daz-
zling brilliancy that obscurity in which thX XarliXr history of thX public
carXXr of thX immortal Pickwick would appXar to bX involvXd, is dXrivXd
from thX pXrusal of thX following Xntry in thX Transactions of thX
Pickwick Club, which thX Xditor of thXsX papXrs fXXls thX highXst
plXasurX in laying bXforX his rXadXrs, as a proof of thX carXful attXntion,
indXfatigablX assiduity, and nicX discrimination, with which his sXarch
among thX multifarious documXnts confidXd to him has bXXn conductXd.
Total: 50 es, 13 thes
Answer to Box 5.8

Sample punctuation sentence (see page 97)
Now of old the name of that forest was Greenwood the Great, and its wide
halls and aisles were the haunt of many beasts and of birds of bright song;
and there was the realm of King Thranduil under the oak and the beech.
But, after many years, when well nigh a third of that age of the world had
passed, a darkness crept slowly through the wood from the southward, and
fear walked there in shadowy glades; fell beasts came hunting, and cruel and
evil creatures laid there their snares.
J.R.R. Tolkien (1977) The Silmarillion
Strategies for
communicating and
learning
6
Most of the time teachers think they know best: they make the students carry out
various activities; they select the language they are going to hear or read; they
prescribe the language they should produce, all hopefully in their best interests.
But as human beings students have minds of their own; ultimately they decide
how they are going to tackle the tasks of the classroom and the aims of their learn-
ing. Sometimes their choices are visible to us – they put electronic dictionaries on
their desks – sometimes they are invisible decisions in their privacy of their own
heads – they work out translations in their minds. This independence of the
learner from the teacher has been recognized by the tradition of strategies
research, which tries to discover the choices that students are making and to rec-
ognize them in language teaching.
Of course, there are extreme methodological problems with this, as Ernesto
Macaro (2006) has shown. Measuring the invisible contents of the mind has always
been difficult. One way is to ask people what they think they are doing – ‘how do
you try to remember new vocabulary?’ The answer, however, may not accurately
reflect what you actually do, since so much of our language behaviour is subcon-
scious and not available to our conscious minds. Imagine asking a 5-year-old, for
example, ‘How do you learn new words?’ The answer would be meaningless and
bear no connection to how the child is really learning vocabulary. Yet the child
probably has a bigger vocabulary than most L2 students. Introspection is a poten-
tially suspect source of evidence.
Another way of investigating strategies is to look for outward signs of behaviour:
does a student sit at the back of the class or are they always the first to ask a ques-
tion? The problem with this observational evidence is interpretation; we have to
connect what the student appears to be doing with some process in their minds –
an extremely difficult feat scientifically: is a silent student someone who is bored,
deep in concentration or naturally shy? And we have to observe their behaviour in
a consistent way so that someone else would make the same deduction from it. Of
course, we could ask students what is going through their minds, but then we are
back to introspection.
A third way is to get the students to carry out a specific task and to see what
language they produce: ‘Describe this picture to someone over the phone.’
While this should yield clear linguistic evidence, the technique is limited to strate-
gies visible from language production; many powerful strategies may have
no obvious linguistic consequences. Furthermore, it is open to the objection
that it is essentially the technique of the psychological laboratory; do the results
tell us anything about the real learning or use situations that the students
encounter?
106 Strategies for communicating and learning
These doubts should be borne in mind when looking at strategies research and
may well be insoluble: exploring the private world of people’s minds is a problem
for any research. Nevertheless, potentially, strategies research leads to interesting
results for language teaching, as we shall see. This chapter looks at strategies for
communication and for learning; vocabulary and listening strategies are dealt
with in the relevant chapters.
6.1 Communication strategies
Focusing question
● How would you explain to someone the type of nut you need to repair
your car? Would your strategy be different in your first or second
language?
● Should students have to talk about things for which they do not know the
words or should they always have the vocabulary available to them?
Keywords
communication strategies can be:

● mutual attempts to solve L2 communication problems by participants (Tarone,
1980)
● individual solutions to psychological problems of L2 processing (Faerch and
Kasper, 1984)
● ways of filling vocabulary gaps in the first or second language (Poulisse, 1990)
L2 learners are attempting to communicate through a language that is not their

own. L2 learning differs from L1 learning because mental and social development
go hand in hand with language development in the L1 child’s life. Hence, unlike
L1 children, L2 learners are always wanting to express things for which they do
not have the means in the second language; they know there are things they can-
not say, while L1 children do not. First we look at three different approaches to
communication strategies. The detailed lists of strategies used by these approaches
are summarized in Box 6.3 on page 112, which can be referred to during this
section.
Communication strategies as social interaction

Elaine Tarone (1980) emphasizes social aspects of communication. Both partici-
pants in a conversation are trying to overcome their lack of shared meaning. She
sees three overall types of strategy: communication, production and learning, the
first of which we will consider here. When things go wrong, both participants try
to devise a communication strategy to get out of the difficulty.
Communication strategies 107
One type of strategy is to paraphrase what you want to say. Typical strategies are:
● Approximation. Someone who is groping for a word falls back on a strategy of

using a word that means approximately the same, say ‘animal’ for ‘horse’,
because the listener will be able to deduce what is intended from the context.
● Word coinage. Another form of paraphrase is to make up a word to substitute for
the unknown word – ‘airball’ for ‘balloon’.
● Circumlocution. L2 learners talk their way round the word – ‘when you make a
container’ for ‘pottery’.
All these strategies rely on the speaker trying to solve the difficulty through the
second language.
A second overall type of communication strategy is to fall back on the first lan-
guage, known as transfer. Examples are:
● Translation from the L1. A German-speaking student says ‘Make the door shut’
rather than ‘Shut the door’.
● Language switch. ‘That’s a nice tirtil’ (caterpillar). This is distinct from
codeswitching because the listener does not know the L1.
● Appeal for assistance. ‘What is this?’
● Mime what you need. My daughter succeeded in getting some candles in a shop
in France by singing ‘Happy Birthday’ in English and miming blowing out
candles.
A third overall type of strategy is avoidance: do not talk about things you know
are difficult to express in the second language, whether whole topics or individual
words.
Ellen Bialystok (1990) compared the effectiveness of some of these strategies
and found that listeners understand word coinage more than approximation, cir-
cumlocution or language switch, though in terms of sheer frequency word
coinage was very rare, the commonest strategy being circumlocution.
These types of strategy are particularly important to the teacher who is aiming
to teach some form of social interaction to the students. If they are to succeed in
conversing with other people through the second language, they need to practise
the skill of conducting conversations in which they are not capable of saying
everything they want to. This contrasts with some older language teaching tech-
niques which tried to ensure that the students never found themselves doing
what they had not been taught. The ability to repair the conversation when things
go wrong is vital to using the second language. Maximally the suggestion would be
that the teacher specifically teaches the strategies rather than letting them emerge
out of the students’ own attempts. In this case there would be specific exercises on
approximation or word coinage, say, before the students had to put them together
in a real conversation.
Communication strategies as psychological problem solving

The approach of Faerch and Kasper (1984) concentrates on the psychological
dimension of what is going on in the L2 speaker’s mind. L2 learners want to express
something through the second language; they make a plan for how to do it, but
they encounter a hitch. To get round this psychological difficulty, they resort to
communication strategies. Faerch and Kasper divide these into two main groups:
achievement (trying to solve the problem) and avoidance (trying to avoid it).
Achievement strategies
These subdivide into cooperative strategies, such as appealing to the other person
for help, which are mostly similar to Tarone’s list, and non-cooperative strategies,
where the learner tries to solve the problems without recourse to others. One form
of non-cooperation is to fall back on the first language when in trouble by:
● Codeswitching. The speaker skips language – ‘Do you want to have some ah
Zinsen?’ (the German word for ‘interest’).
● Foreignerization. A Dane literally translating the Danish word for vegetables into
English as ‘green things’.
These strategies seem likely to occur when the listener knows both languages, as
in many situations where codeswitching takes place.
Another overall grouping is interlanguage strategies, based on the learner’s
evolving L2 system rather than on the L1. Among these, Faerch and Kasper
include:
● Substitution. Speakers substitute one word for another, say ‘if’ for ‘whether’ if
they cannot remember whether ‘whether’ has an ‘h’.
● Generalization. L2 speakers use a more general word rather than a more partic-
ular one, such as ‘animal’ for ‘rabbit’, that is, shifting up from the basic level of
vocabulary described in Chapter 3 to the superordinate.
● Description. Speakers cannot remember the word for ‘kettle’ and so describe it as
‘the thing to cook water in’.
● Exemplification. Speakers give an example rather than the general term, such as
‘cars’ for ‘transport’, that is, shift down a level.
● Word coining. That is, making up a word when a speaker does not know it, such
as inventing an imaginary French word ‘heurot’ for ‘watch’.
● Restructuring. The speaker has another attempt at the same sentence, as in a
learner struggling to find the rare English word ‘sibling’: ‘I have two – er – one
sister and one brother’.
Avoidance strategies
These Faerch and Kasper divide into:
● Formal avoidance. The speaker avoids a particular linguistic form, whether in

pronunciation, in morphemes or in syntax.
● Functional avoidance. The speaker avoids different types of function.
Again, this approach, in general, reminds the teacher of the processes going on in
the students’ minds when they are trying to speak in a new language. Practice
with communication techniques, such as information gap games, forces the stu-
dents to use these types of communication strategy, whether they want to or not,
provided that they have to say things that are just beyond their current level of
functioning in the second language.
Box 6.1 Test of communication strategies
A B
C D
Figure 6.1 Describe either (i) A or B or (ii) C or D in writing, so that other people could
distinguish it from the other member of the pair (without, of course, being told ‘left’ or
‘right’). Then check against the types of strategies on page 112. Some examples of stu-
dents’ responses are given at the end of the chapter on page 120.
Compensatory strategies
To some extent, Tarone’s social communicative strategies and Faerch and Kasper’s
psychological strategies are complementary ways of coping with the problems of
communicating in a second language. But as we have seen, they end up as rather
long and confusing lists. Eric Kellerman and his colleagues (1987) feel that these
approaches can be considerably simplified. The common factor to all communica-
tion strategies is that the L2 learner has to deal with not knowing a word in a sec-
ond language; it is lack of vocabulary that is crucial. The strategies exist to plug gaps
in the learners’ vocabulary by allowing them to refer to things for which they do not
know the L2 words; a better name, then, is compensatory strategies – L2 learners
are always having to compensate for the limited vocabulary at their disposal.
Nanda Poulisse (1990) set up an experiment in which Dutch learners of English
had to carry out tasks such as retelling stories and describing geometrical shapes.
She ended up with a new division of strategies into two main types, called archis-
trategies, each with two subdivisions, according to the way that they coped with
words they did not know.
Conceptual archistrategy
This involved solving the problem by thinking of the meaning of the word and
attempting to convey it in another way:
● Analytic strategy. Here the learner tries to break up the meaning of the word into
parts, and then to convey the parts separately: so a student searching for the
word ‘parrot’ says ‘talk uh bird’, taking the two parts ‘bird that talks’.
● Holistic strategy. Here the learner thinks of the meaning of the word as a whole
and tries to use a word that is the closest approximation; for example, seeking
for the word ‘desk’, a student produces ‘table’, which captures all the salient
features of ‘desk’ apart from the fact that it is specifically for writing at.
Linguistic archistrategy
Here the students fall back on the language resources inside their head, such as:
● Morphological creativity. One possibility is to make up a word using proper end-

ings and hope that it works; for instance, trying to describe the act of ‘ironing’,
the student came up with the word ‘ironise’.
● L1 transfer. The students also have a first language on tap. It is possible for them
to transfer a word from the first to the second language, hoping that it is going
to exist in the new language. Thus a Dutch student trying to say ‘waist’ says
‘middle’ – the Dutch word is in fact ‘middel’.
This approach led to an interesting conclusion. The linguistic transfer strategy

requires knowledge of another language and hence is unique to L2 learning.
However, the conceptual strategies are the same as those used in native speech
when speakers cannot remember the word they want to use. Describing to a
mechanic which parts of my car needed repairing, I said, ‘There’s oil dripping
from that sort of junction in the pipe behind the engine’ – an analytic strategy.
This not only allowed me to communicate without knowing the correct words; it
also means I never need to learn them – I still do not know what this part of the
car is called and never will. Such strategies occur more frequently in the speech of
L2 learners only because they know fewer words than native speakers. The strate-
gies are used by native speakers in the same way as L2 learners when they too do
not know the words, as any conversation overheard in a shop selling do-it-your-
self tools will confirm. Kellerman and his colleagues believe that these compensa-
tory strategies are a part of the speaker’s communicative competence that can be
used in either language when needed, rather than something peculiar to L2 learn-
ing (Kellerman et al., 1990). Poulisse indeed showed that people had preferences
for the same type of strategy when they were faced with finding a word they did
not know in both the first and the second language; the only difference is that this
situation arises far more frequently in a second language!
So it is not clear that compensatory strategies need to be taught. L2 learners
resort to these strategies in the situation outside the classroom when they do not
know words. This does not mean that it may not be beneficial for students to have
their attention drawn to them so that they are reminded that these strategies can
indeed be used in a second language; Zoltan Dornyei (1995), however, has
demonstrated that Hungarian students who were taught communication strate-
gies improved in their ability to define words, compared to control groups. In a
sense, such strategies form part of the normal repertoire of the students’ commu-
nicative competence. In any teaching activity that encourages the learners to
speak outside their normal vocabulary range, they are bound to occur. An exercise
in Keep Talking (Klippel, 1984) suggests that the students describe their everyday
problems, such as losing their keys and not being able to remember names, and
other students suggest ways of solving them. If the students do not know the word
for ‘key’, for example, they might ask the teacher (a cooperative strategy) or look
it up in a dictionary (a non-cooperative strategy), or they might attempt an analyt-
ical archistrategy: ‘the thing you open doors with’.
To give some idea of what students actually do, look at the transcript of a con-
versation in Box 6.2. Are the strategies we have described actually being used, and
how important are they to the students’ interaction?
Box 6.2 Transcript of students doing an information gap

exercise
M is a stranger asking the way round Oxford; W is the local providing help from
a map.
1 W: I want to go er I am en smallest street called Merton Street and I want

to visit the Rege Readerculf er ca Camera.
2 M: You are in?
3 W: Yes please.
4 M: Merton College, you said?
5 W: Yeah called Merton Street.
6 M: Merton Street.
7 W: Yes please.
8 M: And you are going to?
9 W: To visit the Redcliff Camera.
10 M: The?
11 W: Camera yeah.
12 M: Can you spell it?
13 W: R A D C L I Double F E Camera.
14 M: Radcliffe yes, Radcliffe camera, it’s number 4. And you are?
15 W: In um a small street called Merton Street.
16 M: Called Merton.
17 W: Yeah Merton Street.
18 M: You are here. Merton Street.
19 W: Yes.
20 M: Yes. And er Radcliffe camera is I can’t say (Long pause). Sorry. You must
to ask another people.
21 W: It doesn’t matter.
22 M: ‘Cos I don’t know.
With the exception of dictionary use, most of the communication strategies

that have been listed can be safely ignored by the teacher. They are there if the
students need them, but they need not form the teaching point of an exercise.
One danger with teaching activities that make the students communicate sponta-
neously is that sheer lack of vocabulary forces the students back onto these strate-
gies, as we see in the transcript in Box 6.2. Hence the teacher should keep the
likely vocabulary load of non-teacher-controlled activities within certain limits,
ensuring that students already know enough of the vocabulary not to be forced
back onto compensatory strategies for too much of the time. Alternatively, the
teachers can treat them as ways of discovering and teaching the vocabulary the
students lack. There is further discussion of the teaching of strategies in general in
the next section.
Box 6.3 Different approaches to L2 communication

strategies
Socially motivated strategies for solving mutual lack of understanding (Tarone,
1980):
● paraphrase (approximation, word coinage, circumlocution)
● falling back on L1 translation, language switch, appeal for assistance, mime
● avoidance
Psychologically motivated strategies for solving the individual’s L2 problems of

expression (Faerch and Kasper, 1984):
1 Achievement strategies:
● cooperative strategies (similar to list above)
● non-cooperative strategies
● codeswitching
● foreignerization
● interlanguage strategies (substitution, generalization, description, exem-
plification, word coining, restructuring)

2 Avoidance strategies:
● formal (phonological, morphological, grammatical)
● functional (actional, propositional, modal)
Compensatory strategies to make up for a lack of vocabulary (Poulisse, 1990).

Archistrategies:
● conceptual analytic (breaks down the meaning of the word)
● conceptual holistic (tries for a word that is closest overall in meaning)
● linguistic morphological creativity (makes up a new word by adding an
appropriate ending)
● linguistic transfer (uses a word from the first language instead)
Box 6.4 Communication strategies and language teaching

● Communication strategies are a natural part of conversational interaction
that people fall back on when they have difficulty in getting things
across.
● Students mostly fall back on the first language strategies, so teaching
can heighten students’ awareness of which of their natural strategies are
useful in a second language.
Learning strategies 113
6.2 Learning strategies: how do learners vary in their

approaches to L2 learning?
Focusing question
When you are learning another language, what special means do you use for:
● pronunciation?
● getting meanings from contexts?
● making oral presentations?
● using the language socially outside the classroom?
Keywords
learning strategy: a choice that the learner makes while learning or using
the second language that affects learning: ‘steps taken by the learner to
make language learning more successful, self-directed and enjoyable’
(Oxford, 1990)
good language learner strategies: the strategies employed by people known
to be good at L2 learning
metacognitive strategies: involve planning and directing learning at a general
level
cognitive strategies: involve specific conscious ways of tackling learning
social strategies: involve interacting with other people
The choices made by the student for using the language (communication strate-
gies) can logically be separated from the choices that the student makes about
learning the language (learning strategies). This section looks at the learning strate-
gies used by L2 learners. As with communication strategies, there is considerable
difficulty in investigating these invisible strategies: on the one hand, introspec-
tively, for the same reasons that the students may not be consciously aware of
them or able to verbalize them adequately; on the other hand, objectively, as it is
unclear what the visible effects on their behaviour might be. This means there is lit-
tle consensus among researchers about the definition of learning strategies; a use-
ful version is ‘steps taken by the learner to make language learning more successful,
self-directed and enjoyable’ (Oxford, 1990). A list of learning strategies is given on
page 115.
Good language learner strategies

People who are good at languages might tackle L2 learning in different ways
from those who are less good, or they might behave in the same way but
more efficiently. One interesting theme is the good language learner (GLL) strate-
gies. Naiman et al. (1978/1995) tried to see what people who were known to be
good at learning languages had in common. They found six broad strategies
shared by GLLs.
GLL strategy 1: find a learning style that suits you

Good language learners become aware of the type of L2 learning that suits them
best. Though they conform to the teaching situation to start with, they soon find
ways of adapting or modifying it to suit themselves. Thus some GLLs supplement
audio-lingual or communicative language teaching by reading grammar books at
home, if that is their preference. Others seek out communicative encounters to
help them compensate for a classroom with an academic emphasis.
GLL strategy 2: involve yourself in the language

learning process
GLLs do not passively accept what is presented to them, but go out to meet it. They
participate more in the classroom, whether visibly or not. They take the initiative
and devise situations and language learning techniques for themselves. Some listen
to the news in the second language on the radio; others go to see L2 films.
GLL strategy 3: develop an awareness of language both as

system and as communication
GLLs are conscious not only that language is a complex system of rules, but also
that it is used for a purpose; they combine grammatical and pragmatic compe-
tence. In other words, GLLs do not treat language solely as communication or as
academic knowledge, but as both. While many learn lists of vocabulary con-
sciously, many also seek out opportunities to take part in conversations in the sec-
ond language – one Canadian even driving a lorry for the L2 opportunities it
yielded.
GLL strategy 4: pay constant attention to expanding your

language knowledge
GLLs are not content with their knowledge of a second language, but are always
trying to improve it. They make guesses about things they do not know; they
check whether they are right or wrong by comparing their speech with the new
language they hear; and they ask native speakers to correct them. Some are con-
tinually on the lookout for clues to the second language.
GLL strategy 5: develop the second language as

a separate system
GLLs try to develop their knowledge of the second language in its own right, and
eventually to think in it. They do not relate everything to their first language, but
make the second language a separate system. One common strategy is to engage
in silent monologues to practise the second language. I have sometimes told stu-
dents to give running commentaries in the second language to themselves about
the passing scene, for example, as they travel on a bus.
GLL strategy 6: take into account the demands that L2 learning

imposes
GLLs realize that L2 learning can be very demanding. It seems as if you are taking
on a new personality in the second language, and one which you do not particu-
larly care for. It is painful to expose yourself in the L2 classroom by making fool-
ish mistakes. The GLL perseveres in spite of these emotional handicaps. ‘You’ve
got to be able to laugh at your mistakes,’ said one.
Osamu Takeuchi (2003) took a different approach to finding out the strategies of
good learners by analysing books in which 160 Japanese speakers described how
they had successfully learnt another language. To Japanese it is particularly impor-
tant to immerse themselves in the new language, ‘pushing’ themselves into the
new language as often and as hard as possible.
Some qualifications need to be made to this line of research. First of all, it only
describes what GLLs are aware of; this is what they say they do, rather than what
they actually do – introspective evidence. The magic ingredient in their L2 learn-
ing may be something they are unaware of, and hence cannot emerge from inter-
views or autobiographies. Second, the strategies are similar to what teachers
already supposed to be the case, that is, it states the obvious. This is partly a limi-
tation of the original research. Most of the GLLs studied were highly educated
people themselves working in education, probably rather similar to the readers of
this book. The strategies are familiar because we are looking at ourselves in a mir-
ror. As with aptitude, there may be an alternative set of strategies employed in nat-
ural settings by people who are non-academic GLLs. Third, as Steve McDonough
(1995) points out, the GLL strategies are not so much strategies in the sense of a
deliberate approach to solve problems, as ‘wholesome attitudes’ that good learn-
ers have towards language learning. Macaro (2006) reinforces this by pointing out
that it is still unresolved whether GLLs have better strategies than weaker students
or are better at using the same strategies.
Types of learning strategies

Extensive research that goes deeper into learning strategies has been carried out
by O’Malley and Chamot (1990) within an overall model of L2 learning based on
cognitive psychology. They have defined three main types of strategy used by L2
students:
1 Metacognitive strategies involve planning and thinking about learning, such as

planning one’s learning, monitoring one’s own speech or writing, and evaluat-
ing how well one has done.
2 Cognitive strategies involve conscious ways of tackling learning, such as note-
taking, resourcing (using dictionaries and other resources) and elaboration
(relating new information to old).
3 Social strategies mean learning by interacting with others, such as working with
fellow students or asking the teacher’s help.
They found that cognitive strategies accounted for the majority of those
reported by ESL students, namely 53 per cent, the most important being repetition
(14.8 per cent), note-taking (14.1 per cent) and questions for clarification (12.8 per
cent) (O’Malley et al., 1985). Metacognitive strategies accounted for 30 per cent,
the most important being self-management – as one student put it, ‘I sit in the front
of the class so I can see the teacher’s face clearly’ – and advance preparation – ‘You
review before you go into class’. Social strategies made up the remaining 17 per
cent, consisting about equally of cooperative efforts to work with other students
and of questions to check understanding. The type of strategy varies according to
the task the students are engaged in (O’Malley and Chamot, 1990). A vocabulary
task calls forth the metacognitive strategies of self-monitoring and self-evaluation,
and the cognitive strategies of resourcing and elaboration. A listening task leads to
the metacognitive strategies of selective attention and problem identification, as
well as self-monitoring, and to the cognitive strategies of note-taking, inferencing
and summarizing, as well as elaboration. The use of strategies also varied accord-
ing to level: intermediate students used slightly fewer strategies in total, but pro-
portionately more metacognitive strategies.
The most influential research on learning strategies is that carried out by
Rebecca Oxford. In 1990, she published a method for finding out the strategies
used by learners called the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). SILL
turned into a benchmark for strategies research for many years, was used in many
circumstances around the world, and still forms the basis for many an MA thesis.
SILL asks the student to rate 50 statements such as: ‘I think of relationships
between what I already know and new things I learn in English’ on a scale going
from (1) ‘Never true of me’, to (5) ‘Always true of me’. It includes between 6 and
18 items for six broad classes of strategies, divided into ‘Direct’ and ‘Indirect’.
Direct
1 Memory strategies, that is, remembering more effectively, say by visualizing the
spelling of a new word in your mind.
2 Cognitive strategies, that is, using all your mental processes, for instance by look-
ing for patterns in the new language.
3 Compensation strategies, that is, compensating for missing knowledge, for exam-
ple by trying to anticipate what the other person is going to say next.
Indirect
1 Metacognitive strategies, that is, organizing and evaluating your knowledge, for
example, by preparing in advance what is going to come up in the next class.
2 Affective strategies, that is, managing your emotions, say, by trying to relax
when speaking.
3 Social strategies, that is, learning with others, for instance, by asking the other
person to slow down.
Oxford originally used SILL mostly as an aid to teachers in evaluating what their
students were actually doing, and in developing teaching methods. Since then,
SILL has been used to study students in a variety of situations in different parts of
the world. The research has been assessed by Ernesto Macaro (2006); his summary
is displayed in Box 6.5. This makes it apparent that we have to exercise caution in
applying strategies research: it can show some benefits, but there is great variation
between learners in the strategies they use and in the extent to which teaching
them is of benefit.
Box 6.5 Claims from learning strategy research

(Macaro, 2006)
1 Strategy use appears to correlate with various aspects of language learning
success.
2 There are group differences and individual differences in learner strategy
use.
3 The methodology for eliciting learner strategy use, although imperfect, is at
an acceptable level of validity and reliability.
4 Despite some setbacks … and some reservations … learner strategy instruc-
tion (or ‘training’) appears to be successful if it is carried out over lengthy
periods of time and if it includes a focus on metacognition.
Box 6.6 Language learning strategies

The good language learner (GLL) strategies (Naiman et al., 1978/1995):
1 Find a learning style that suits you.
2 Involve yourself in the language learning process.
3 Develop an awareness of language both as system and as communication.
4 Pay constant attention to expanding your language.
5 Develop the second language as a separate system.
6 Take into account the demands that L2 learning imposes.
Learning strategies (O’Malley and Chamot, 1990):

1 Metacognitive strategies: planning learning, monitoring your own speech,
self-evaluation, etc.
2 Cognitive strategies: note-taking, resourcing, elaboration, etc.
3 Social strategies: working with fellow students or asking the teacher’s help.
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) (Oxford, 1990):

1 Remembering more effectively.
2 Using all your mental processes.
3 Compensating for missing knowledge.
4 Organizing and evaluating your knowledge.
5 Managing your emotions.
6 Learning with others.
Learning strategies and language teaching

How can teachers make use of learning strategies? The chief moral is that the stu-
dents often know best. It is the learners’ involvement, the learners’ strategies and
the learners’ ability to go their own ways that count, regardless of what the
teacher is trying to do. Poor students are those who depend most on the teacher
and are least able to fend for themselves. The students must be encouraged to
develop independence inside and outside the classroom. Partly this can be
achieved through ‘learner training’: equipping the students with the means to
guide themselves by explaining strategies to them. The idea of learner training
leads on to autonomous, self-directed learning, in which the students take on
responsibility for their own learning. They choose their goals; they control the
teaching methods and materials; they assess how well they are doing themselves.
This is dealt with further in Chapter 13.
It may simply not have occurred to students that they have a choice of strategies
for conducting their learning. Teaching can open up their options. My intermedi-
ate course Meeting People (Cook, 1982) asked students to discuss four GLL strategies.
The intention was to make them aware of different possibilities, rather than specif-
ically to train them in any strategy. A more thorough approach is seen in Learning
to Learn English (Ellis and Sinclair, 1989), which aims ‘to enable learners of English
to discover the learning strategies that suit them best’. One set of activities practises
metacognitive strategies. The opening questionnaire, for instance, asks the stu-
dents: ‘Do you hate making mistakes?’ ‘Do you like to learn new grammar rules,
words, etc. by heart?’ and so on. The results divide the students into ‘analytic’,
‘relaxed’ and ‘a mixture’. A second set of activities practises cognitive as well as
metacognitive strategies. Teaching speaking, for instance, starts with reflection
(‘How do you feel about speaking English?’), knowledge about language (‘What do
you know about speaking English?’), and self-evaluation (‘How well are you
doing?’). As a guide for teachers, Language Learning Strategies (Oxford, 1990) pro-
vides a wealth of activities to heighten the learners’ awareness of strategies and
their ability to use them; for example: ‘The old lady ahead of you in the bus is chas-
tising a young man in your new language; listen to their conversation to find out
exactly what she’s saying to him.’
Strategy training assumes that conscious attention to learning strategies is ben-
eficial and that the strategies are teachable. While the idea that GLLs need to
‘think’ in the second language may strike the students as a revelation, this does
not mean they can put it into practice. Indeed, they may find it impossible or dis-
turbing to try to think in the second language, and so feel guilty that they are not
living up to the image of the GLL. For example, the GLLs studied in Canadian aca-
demia clearly had above-average intelligence; less intelligent learners may not be
able to use the same GLL strategies. Many strategies cannot be changed by the
teacher or the learner, however good their intentions. Bialystok (1990) argues in
favour of training that helps the students to be aware of strategies in general,
rather than teaching specific strategies.
O’Malley and Chamot (1990) provide some encouragement for strategy train-
ing. They taught EFL students to listen to lectures using their three types of strat-
egy. One group was trained in cognitive strategies such as note-taking, and social
strategies such as giving practice reports to fellow students. A second group was
trained, in addition, in metacognitive strategies, for example, paying conscious
attention to discourse markers such as ‘first’, ‘second’, and so on. A third group
was not taught any strategies. The metacognitive group improved most for speak-
ing, and did better on some, but not all, listening tasks. The cognitive group was
better than the control group. Given that this experiment only lasted for eight
50-minute lessons spread over eight days, this seems as dramatic an improvement
as could reasonably be expected. Training students to use particular learning
strategies indeed improves their language performance. But as O’Malley and
Chamot (1990) found, teachers may need to be convinced that strategy training is
important, and may themselves need to be trained in how to teach strategies.
However, to dampen excessive enthusiasm, it should be pointed out that there is
still some doubt about how useful strategies really are: Oxford et al. (1990) found
that Asian students of English used fewer ‘good’ strategies than Hispanics, but
improved their English more!
Most of the learning strategies mentioned suit any academic subject. It is indeed
a good idea to prepare yourself for the class, to sit near the teacher and to take
notes, whether you are studying physics, cookery or French. Those who believe in
the uniqueness of language, however, feel language learning is handled by the
mind in ways that are different from other areas. Some consciously accessible
learning strategies that treat language as a thing of its own may be highly useful
for L2 learning, say, the social strategies. But metacognitive or cognitive strategies
treat language like any other part of the human mind. Hence they may benefit
students with academic leanings who want to treat language as a subject, but may
not help those who want to use it for its normal functions in society, that is
unless, of course, such knowledge translates into the practical ability to use the
language – one of the controversies discussed in Chapter 12.
A coursebook that relies on the SILL approach is Tapestry 1 Listening and Speaking
(Benz and Dworak, 2000). Some are language learning strategies – ‘Practice speak-
ing English with classmates as often as possible’. Some are called ‘Academic power
strategies’ – ‘Learn how to address your teachers’. As the level of the course is
claimed to be ‘high beginning’, there is a discrepancy between the level of the lan-
guage the students are supposed to be learning, namely greetings and polite forms
of address, and the level of language they are using for discussing it. This is a prob-
lem with any teaching that involves explicit discussion of strategies, unless it can
take place in the students’ first language. The other problem is the extent to which
the presentation of strategies in a class situation puts students in the position of
practising strategies that are inappropriate for their particular learning style and
which they would never choose voluntarily. Chapter 4 of Tapestry, for example,
emphasizes ‘graphic organisers’, that is to say associations of ideas in doodled net-
works, popular in the UK through the work of Tony Buzan books such as Use Your
Head (1995). Useful as these may be for some students, those who do not think
graphically and do not consciously store information through such mental net-
works are going to waste their time. Group teaching of strategies is inevitably in
conflict with the individual’s right to choose the best strategies for them.
Box 6.7 Learning strategies and language teaching

● Exploit the GLL strategies that are useful to the students.
● Develop the students’ independence from the teacher with learner training
or directed learning.
● Make students aware of the range of strategies they can adopt.
● Provide specific training in particular strategies.
● Remember the similarities and differences between learning a second lan-
guage and learning other school subjects.
Discussion topics
1 Choose a type of learning strategy and decide how you would teach it.
2 How important is the idea of strategies to language teaching?
3 How do you think it is possible to test whether students have learnt effective
communication and learning strategies?
4 What differences are there between strategies used by beginners and
advanced learners?
5 How might strategies teaching best be incorporated into textbooks?
6 Are compensatory strategies the same or different from learning strategies?
7 How can we combine the students’ right to choose strategies with the
teacher’s duty to direct their learning?
Further reading
One perspective on communication strategies can be found in Bialystok (1990)
Communication Strategies. The Nijmegen communication strategies are best
described in Poulisse (1990) The Use of Compensatory Strategies by Dutch Learners of
English. A useful collection is Kasper and Kellerman (1997) Communication
Strategies: Psycholinguistic and Sociolinguistic Perspectives. The starting point for learn-
ing strategies is Oxford (1990) Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher
Should Know. The leading current work is reflected in Macaro (2003) Teaching and
Learning a Second Language: A Guide to Recent Research.
Answers to Box 6.1

Student responses to the shapes in the test of communication strategies in Box 6.1 (see
page 109).
● Looks like arrow

● Left-hand to show letter c
● 7 angles, rectangular top left and bottom right some parts eliminated; looks like
an ox
● Kidney shape
● Looks like a seal without eyes
● 7 lines
● Nine angles; bottom looks like a foot.
Listening and reading
processes 7
7.1 Meaning and reading
Focusing question
● What do you think are the typical elements involved in going to a restaurant?
● What do you think are the main aims of an academic essay?
Keywords
schema (pl. schemas or schemata): the background knowledge on which the

interpretation of a text depends
script: ‘a predetermined stereotyped sequence of actions that defines a well-
known situation’ (Schank and Abelson, 1977)
Reading, like speaking, occurs in a context rather than in isolation. The meaning
of a text is not found just in the sentences themselves, but is derived from the pre-
vious knowledge stored in the reader’s mind and the processes through which the
reader tackles it. ‘We do not find meaning lying in things nor do we put it into
things, but between us and things it can happen’ (Buber, 1947).
I look out of my window and see an empty road, as anybody else would do sitting
in the same position. However, to me the emptiness means my wife has gone out,
since the family car is not there; to my son it means the bus for school has not yet
arrived; to my daughter it means the postman is late. The same scene is interpreted
in different ways according to our background information and predilections.
Schema theory
A famous experiment by Bransford and Johnson (1982) asked people to read texts
such as the following:
The procedure is actually quite simple. First you arrange things into different
groups depending on their makeup. Of course, one pile may be sufficient
depending on how much there is to do. If you have to go somewhere else due
122 Listening and reading processes
to lack of facilities that is the next step, otherwise you are pretty well set. It is
important not to overdo any particular endeavour. That is, it is better to do
too few things at once than too many.
To make sense of this text, a particular piece of information is required: the passage
is about washing clothes. A person who does not have this information does not
get much out of the text. Once the topic is known, the passage is straightforward
and the comprehension level is much higher. The sentences themselves do not
change when we know the topic, but the interpretation they have in our minds
does. The background knowledge into which a text fits, sometimes called the
schema, plays a large role in how it is read.
L2 readers also need to know what the passage is about. Adams (1983) gave
American students of French the same texts as Bransford and Johnson, and tested
whether they were better or worse at learning new vocabulary when they were told
what the passage was about. Her results showed first that they were better at learn-
ing vocabulary in the first language, and second that knowing what the passage
was about helped them equally in both languages. Hence this kind of background
knowledge is relevant to both L1 and L2 processing. Patricia Carrell (1984) tested
L2 learners of English with the same texts to see not only whether the presence or
absence of context made a difference to how much they could understand, but also
the importance of whether the text had precise words like ‘clothes’ and ‘washing
machine’, or vague words like ‘things’ and ‘facilities’. Both advanced learners and
natives once again found lack of context affected their comprehension. However,
intermediate L2 learners also found the use of vague words was a hindrance, even
if, as we saw in the last chapter, such words are often of high frequency. The provi-
sion of context varied in importance according to the stage of L2 learning. At the
early stages of L2 learning, linguistic aspects of the words are as important to
understanding as context. One interesting side effect of Carrell’s research was that,
while native speakers had a fair idea of how difficult the passages were for them to
understand, non-natives did not! However, later research by Roller and Matombo
(1992) did not get the same results: speakers of Shona actually remembered more
of the Bransford and Johnson texts in English than in their first language.
‘Scripts’ and discourse

A crucial element in the understanding of discourse was given the name of ‘script’
by Roger Schank in the 1970s (Schank and Abelson, 1977). The concept of the
script came out of attempts to build computer programs that would understand
human languages. The problem was that the computer did not know obvious
things that human beings take for granted. Suppose a text reads, ‘Bill had some
hamburgers in a restaurant.’ Straightforward as this sentence seems, our under-
standing of it relies on several unconscious assumptions about restaurants. What
did Bill do with the hamburgers? He ate them, because that is what you go to
restaurants for. Did he cook the hamburgers? Of course he did not. Did he fetch
them himself? Probably not. Did Bill pay for them? Of course he did. In our minds
there is a script for restaurants that specifies that they are places where they pro-
vide you with food that you pay for. None of this information needs to be given
in the text as our minds supply it automatically. Only if the actual event does not
conform with our background knowledge for restaurants will it be mentioned – if
it is self-service, if they have run out of food, or if Bill sneaks out without paying
Meaning and reading 123
his bill. The mind supplies such information automatically from the background
script in its memory. A script, then, according to Schank and Abelson (1977), is ‘a
predetermined, stereotyped sequence of actions that defines a well-known situa-
tion’. While in recent years Schank has developed his ideas beyond this, the script
has remained an influential view of how memory is organized.
Some scripts are virtually the same for speakers of different languages; others dif-
fer from one country to another. The script for eating out may require all restau-
rants to have waitress service, or to be takeaway, or to have cash desks by the exit,
or other variations. I remember once arguing that US hotels are not proper hotels
because they have large entrance lobbies rather than cosy lounge areas; my British
script for hotels implies lounges. Wherever there are such differences between two
scripts, the L2 learners will be at a loss. In an American novel, the hero visits
London and asks his friend at a pub ‘Have you settled up at the bar?’ – an unthink-
able concept in virtually all English pubs since each round is paid for at the time.
L2 learners unwittingly have different expectations and they have an unpleasant
shock when something turns out differently. A self-service restaurant that calls for
payment in advance by naming the dishes you want can be a trial for visitors to
Italy. Or indeed the script may be totally absent; I have no script for a Finnish
sauna. Many of the stereotyped problems of foreign travel that people recount
show conflicts between scripts – eating snakes, loos for mixed sexes, tipping taxi
drivers, asking if food tastes good, are all absent from the scripts in particular cul-
tures. An example can be found in the script for doctor/patient interaction
(Ranney, 1993): English-speaking patients expect to ask questions of the doctor,
Hmong patients do not; English speakers prefer to talk to the doctor informally,
Hmong speakers prefer to show respect. Similarly, Australian doctors are reported
to be unsympathetic towards ethnic minority women who scream in childbirth,
having different cultural scripts about the expression of pain.
An important aspect of discourse is how the background information contributed
by the script relates to the purposes of conversation. Say someone is attempting to
book a plane ticket in a travel agent’s. The participants have their own ideas of what
they expect to get out of the conversation; the travel agent needs to know what
information he needs to find out and how to ask the customer to supply it. There is
an expected framework of information necessary for the task of booking a ticket to
be accomplished. The customer has to supply bits of information to fit this frame-
work. Both participants are combining background knowledge of what goes on in a
travel agent’s with the specific goal of booking a ticket – almost a definition of task-
based teaching!
Scripts and schema theory in teaching

Patricia Carrell (1983) produced a set of recommendations for language teachers,
based on her own research and that of others. She points to the importance of
vocabulary, revealed in her experiments with tests outlined earlier. The L2 learner
needs to be supplied with the vocabulary that the native takes for granted. Carrell
also sees teaching as building up the learner’s background knowledge. Thus she
stresses pre-reading activities that build up background knowledge, partly through
providing learners with appropriate vocabulary through activities such as word asso-
ciation practice. The techniques she suggests develop processing strategies for the
text, such as flow-charting or diagramming activities. Materials should not only be
interesting, but also conceptually complete; a longer passage or an in-depth set of
passages on a single topic is better than short unconnected passages.
Perhaps none of these ideas will be completely new to the practising teacher.
Reading materials have after all been stressing content and background for some
time. Pre-reading exercises are now standard. Com-municatively oriented reading
tasks meet many of her requirements. In the textbook True to Life (Collie and Slater,
1995), for example, pairs of students prepare for a reading passage on reflexology
by looking at diagrams of feet and by formulating questions about its history and
practice; they read the text and check whether they were asking the right ques-
tions; they discuss their views about it and then report them to the group. All the
desirable ingredients seem to be there, even if the balance and overall sequence are
slightly different.
The benefit for the teacher is an increased awareness of the difficulties that L2
learners face with texts. These are not just a product of the processing of the text
itself, but of the background information that natives automatically read into it. L2
learners have ‘cognitive deficits’ with reading that are not caused so much by lack of
language ability as by difficulties with processing information in a second language.
At advanced levels, L2 learners still cannot get as much out of a text as in their first
language, even if on paper they know all the grammar and vocabulary. Cambridge
University students tested by John Long and Edith Harding-Esch (1977), for exam-
ple, not only remembered less information from political speeches in French than
in English, but also added more false information. Furthermore, advanced L2 learn-
ers still read their second language much more slowly than they read their first
(Favreau and Segalowitz, 1982), particularly when they are changing from one over-
all writing system to another, as we saw in Chapter 5 (Haynes and Carr, 1990). The
problem with reading is not just the language, but the whole process of getting
meaning from texts.
The importance of background information through scripts and similar mental
structures is much wider than the area of reading. The processing of written texts is
distinctive in that the reader has to depend only on his or her own script. In speak-
ing, someone else is usually there to help or hinder by interacting with the speaker
in one way or another. As with pronunciation, reading involves important low-level
processes as well as high-level comprehension. The discussion here has not been
about the teaching of reading itself, that is, literacy, but about teaching L2 students
to read in a new language, which is a rather different issue. The literacy skills them-
selves become important either when the L2 learners cannot read in their own
language or when the writing system of their first language is very different, as dis-
A particular problem for L2 students occurs in the use of academic language.
Never mind the language problems, think of the schemas. Ruqaiya Hasan (1996)
pointed out that the crucial problem for the non-native student studying in an
English setting is what counts as knowledge: one culture may prize the views of
well-known authorities; another the views of the individual student. So the schema
for an essay may be a collection of quotations strung together in a fairly arbitrary
order; or it may be a personal argument built up from existing sources. The main
problem for the non-native speaker of English studying in England who has previ-
ously studied in other academic systems is the nature of the essay, not the gram-
matical structures, vocabulary, and so on. In my own experience this is true of
students coming from Greece, Iran and Hong Kong, to take a random sample.
An interesting approach to teaching schemas comes from the field of cross-cul-
tural psychology, which has developed a technique called cross-cultural training
(Cushner and Brislin, 1996). This presents the students with a key intercultural
problem, for which they are given alternative solutions; they decide which of
Listening processes 125
them is most likely and check this against interpretations supplied by native
speakers. For example, one case study features an American student in Germany
who is worried by her apparent rejection by German students; the most likely rea-
son is her lack of interest in politics. Another example is a foreign student in the
USA who cannot get women to go out with him; the correct explanation is that
he should ask them out via their women friends rather than directly, a surprising
custom to a non-American. This approach is a variety of focus on form in which
the students’ attention is directed to the specific cultural nature of the situation
rather than its grammar or functions.
Box 7.1 Reading and memory processes

● Knowledge of conventional situations (scripts) is important to L2 use.
● Background knowledge (schemata) is important to L2 learners.
● Use of ‘vague words’ hinders lower-level learners.
7.2 Listening processes
Focusing questions
● When you listen to something in a second language, do you try to work out
the meaning of every word or are you content with the gist?
● Do you believe listening comes before or after speaking in the sequence of
teaching the language skills?
Keywords
parsing: the process through which the mind works out the grammatical struc-
ture and meaning of the sentence
top-down versus bottom-up: starting from the sentence as a whole and work-
ing down to its smallest parts, versus starting from the smallest parts and
working up
decoding versus codebreaking: processing language to get the ‘message’, ver-
sus processing language to get the ‘rules’
Guides to the teaching of listening appear almost every year; some textbooks are
aimed specifically at listening, others include listening components. Yet listening
does not even figure as a topic in most introductions to SLA research. This section
looks first at the process of listening itself and then develops the use of listening
as a vehicle for learning – the most discussed aspect in recent years.
Elements of listening
Most introductions to the comprehension of speech stress three elements: access
to vocabulary, parsing and memory processes.
Access to words
At one level, in order to comprehend a sentence you have to work out what the
words mean. The mind has to relate the words that are heard to the information that
is stored about them in the mind, as described in Chapter 3. For example, a native
speaker can answer the question, ‘Is the word “blint” English?’ almost instanta-
neously, somehow working through many thousands of words in a few moments.
Such feats show the human mind is extraordinarily efficient at organizing the stor-
age of words and their interconnections. The context automatically makes particular
meanings of words available to us. To a person reading a research article, the word
‘table’ means a layout of figures. To someone reading about antiques, it means a piece
of furniture. To someone reading a surveyor’s report, it means the depth at which
water appears in the ground, and so on. Somehow the context limits the amount of
mental space that has to be searched to get the right meaning.
Take the sentence, ‘The dog was hit by a bus.’ As people listen to it, they are
retrieving information about the words. They know that ‘the’ is an article used
with certain meanings, here probably indicating the dog is already relevant to the
conversation or known to the listener. Next, ‘dog’ summons up the meanings of
‘dog’ important to this context, its relationships to other words such as ‘bark’, and
the probable other words that contrast with it or come in the same context, such
as ‘cat’. The word ‘hit’ connects in our mental word-store with the verb ‘hit’, with
its range of meanings and its irregular past form, and to expectations that it is
going to be followed by a noun phrase object, here made more complicated by
being in the passive voice. In addition there are links between the L1 vocabulary
and the L2 vocabulary, as seen in Chapter 3.
Parsing
Parsing refers to how the mind works out the grammatical structure and meaning of
the sentences it hears, that is to say, the term is only loosely connected to its mean-
ing in traditional grammar. Take a sentence such as ‘The man ate breakfast.’ To
understand the sentence fully means being able to tell who is carrying out the
action and what is affected by the action, and to realize that ‘ate breakfast’ goes
together as a phrase, while ‘man ate’ does not. Even if our minds are not consciously
aware of the grammatical technicalities, they are automatically working out the
structure of the sentence. Grammar is not just in the back of our minds, but is active
all the time we are listening.
Ideas of parsing in psychology and computational models rely on the phrase
structure idea described in Chapter 2, but tackle it in two opposite directions, either
bottom-up or top-down. Let us start with the sentence, ‘The man ate breakfast.’
Sentence
Noun Phrase Verb Phrase
Article Noun Verb Noun Phrase
The man ate breakfast

Figure 7.1 Phrase structure tree of ‘The man ate breakfast’
Bottom-up parsing involves building up the sentence in our minds bit by bit,
putting the sounds into words, the words into phrases, the phrases into a whole
sentence, that is to say, working from the bottom to the top of the tree. So ‘the’ is
put with ‘man’ to get a noun phrase ‘the man’; ‘ate’ goes with ‘breakfast’ to get a
verb phrase ‘ate breakfast’; and the noun phrase ‘the man’ and the verb phrase ‘ate
breakfast’ go together to yield the structure of the whole sentence.
Box 7.2 Bottom-up parsing

Step 1: the man ➞ (the man) article noun noun phrase
Step 2: ate breakfast ➞ verb noun verb phrase
(ate breakfast)
Step 3: (the man) (ate breakfast) noun phrase verb phrase
➞ (the man ate breakfast) sentence
‘Top-down’ parsing, on the other hand, means breaking down the whole sentence
into smaller and smaller bits, that is, going from the top of the tree to the bottom, as
represented in Box 7.3. Given ‘The man ate breakfast’, the top-down process tries to
find the whole structure of an SVO sentence. It first tries to find a noun phrase, which
in turn means trying to find, first, an article ‘the’, and then a noun, ‘man’. If it suc-
ceeds, the next step is to find a verb phrase, which means trying to find a verb ‘ate’
and a noun phrase ‘breakfast’. If the quest to find a noun phrase and a verb phrase
succeeds, it has parsed the whole sentence, complete with its structure. The list in the
figure is in fact a mirror of a computer program to parse sentences in a computer lan-
guage like Prolog. The schema theories mentioned earlier are top-down in that they
see how the sentence fits in with whole patterns in the mind.
Box 7.3 Top-down parsing

➞? sentence The man ate breakfast
[means: is there a noun phrase plus a verb phrase?]
➞? a noun phrase ➞? an article the ✓

➞? a noun man ✓
➞✓a noun phrase (the man)
[means: yes, there is a noun phrase consisting of article noun (the man)]
➞? a verb phrase ➞? a verb ate ✓
➞? a noun phrase ➞? an article ✗
➞? a noun
breakfast ✓
➞✓ a noun phrase (breakfast)
➞ ✓ a verb phrase (ate breakfast)
[means: yes, there is a verb phrase verb noun phrase (ate breakfast)]
➞✓ a sentence
[means: yes, there is a sentence because there is a noun phrase plus a verb
phrase (the man)(ate breakfast)]
In principle, the mind could parse the sentence in either direction, bottom-up or
top-down. In practice, listeners use both types of process. Features such as the into-
nation pattern allow them to fit words and phrases within an overall structure, a
top-down process. Particular words such as articles indicate the start of a phrase
and allow them to build it up word by word, a bottom-up process. The top-
down/bottom-up dichotomy, then, is only true in ideal terms. Some parsing
experts talk in terms of left-corner parsing, that is to say, starting with the lowest
word in the left corner of the tree, then going up to the first branching node and
down to the next word, up the next node, then down again, rather like a yoyo.
J. Michael O’Malley and his colleagues (1985) found that effective L2 learners used
both top-down strategies listening for intonation or phrases and bottom-up strate-
gies listening for words, while ineffective listeners concentrated on the bottom-up
process. When parsing failed, they fell back on a range of other strategies, the least
effective being translation.
Memory processes and cognition

Listening relies on much the same memory processes discussed in Section 7.1.
All comprehension depends on the storing and processing of information by
the mind. Call (1985), for instance, found that sheer memory for digits was
less important to comprehension than memory for sentences. The extent of the
memory restriction in a second language depends on how close the task is to lan-
guage. Hence getting the students to perform tasks that are not concerned with
language may have less influence on their learning than language-related tasks.
For example, comprehension activities using maps and diagrams may improve
the learners’ problem-solving abilities with maps and diagrams, but may be less
successful at improving those aspects of the learners’ mental processes that
depend on language.
A further point that applies to listening as much as to reading is that vital aspects
of the process are contributed by the listener. At the lowest level, the actual ‘p’
sounds of speech have to be worked out by the mind. While the sounds in ‘pit’,
‘spit’ and ‘top’ differ in terms of VOT, as seen in Chapter 4, the English person nev-
ertheless hears a /p/ in each of them, that is, recognizes a phoneme; the listener’s
ear somehow imposes the idea of a /p/ on the sound waves it hears. The meaning
of words such as ‘bus’ and ‘breakfast’ is not present in the sentence itself, but is
retrieved from the listener’s mental dictionary to match the sequence of sounds
that is heard. The sentence also has to be actively parsed by the listener to discover
the phrases and constructions involved. As with reading, the listener’s knowledge
of the context of situation and background knowledge of the culture and society
are crucial to listening comprehension. I once asked British students to fill in a
chart showing what listening they were doing at different times of day; I was sur-
prised when the 9.30 a.m. slot was left blank by most of them, the explanation
they gave me being that none of them was actually awake at that hour except
when they had a lecture.
The scripts and schemas discussed in relation to reading are equally involved in
listening. Our mental pictures of restaurants and stations come into play as soon as
the appropriate situation is invoked. Any sentence listeners hear is matched against
their mental scripts and schemas. If the models of speaker and listener differ too
much, they have problems in comprehending each other. O’Malley et al. (1989)
found that effective listeners helped themselves by drawing on their knowledge of
the world, or on their personal experiences, or by asking questions of themselves.
The teaching of listening

How does this view of listening compare with that in teaching guides such as Mary
Underwood’s Teaching Listening (1989)? She recognizes three stages of teaching:
● pre-listening, where the students activate their vocabulary and their background
knowledge;
● while-listening, where ‘they develop the skill of eliciting messages’;
● post-listening, which consists of extensions and developments of the listening
task.
Some of the elements are similar. It is rightly considered important to get the stu-
dents’ background scripts working and the appropriate vocabulary active in their
minds. What seems overlooked is parsing. Listeners do need to know the structure
of the sentence in some way. Teaching has mostly ignored the process of syntac-
tic parsing, perhaps because of its unwelcome overtones of grammar. But, as with
reading, some attempt could be made to train both top-down and bottom-up
parsing skills.
One development has been task-based teaching of listening. The students carry out
a task in which they have to listen for information in a short piece of discourse and
then have to fill in a diagram, check a route on a map or correct mistakes in a text.
The COBUILD English Course 1 (Willis and Willis, 1988), for example, asks the stu-
dents to listen to tapes of people speaking spontaneously and to work out informa-
tion from them. Lesson 9 has a recording of Chris telling Philip how to get to his
house in Birmingham. The students listen for factual information, such as which
buses could be taken; they make a rough map of the route, and they check its accu-
racy against an A–Z map of Birmingham.
One teaching motivation is the practical necessity of checking that comprehen-
sion is taking place. Unfortunately, in normal language use, there is rarely any visi-
ble feedback when someone has comprehended something. A visible sign of
comprehension is useful to the teacher to see if the student has understood. This
check can range from a straightforward question to an action based on what has
happened. If you shout ‘Fire’ and nobody moves, you assume they have not under-
stood. Much teaching of listening comprehension has made the student show some
sign of having comprehended, whether through answering questions, carrying out
tasks, or in some other way.
In task-based listening activities, information is being transferred for a commu-
nicative purpose. Task-based listening stresses the transfer of information rather
than the social side of language teaching. In the COBUILD example, the student is
practising something that resembles real-world communication. The information
that is being transferred in such activities, however, is usually about trivial topics
or is irrelevant to the students’ lives. The factual information the students learn in
the COBUILD exercise is how to get around in Birmingham, somewhere only a few
of them are ever likely to go. Often such exercises deal with imaginary towns, or
even treasure islands. Task-based exercises often neglect the educational value of
the content that can be used in language teaching, as discussed in Chapter 13,
although much psychological research shows that, the more important the infor-
mation is to the listener, the more likely it is to be retained. Box 7.4 gives an exam-
ple of a teaching exercise that solves this problem by choosing a topic of
‘manufacturing systems’ appropriate to ESP students, and making the students
employ an integrated range of skills and strategies to achieve the point of the task.
Box 7.4 A strategy and task-based exercise for ESP

(Flowerdew and Miller, 2005)
1 Teacher introduces topic of ‘manufacturing systems’ and gets students to
discuss it.
2 Teacher plays video; students listen for general ideas.
3 Teacher plays video again; students listen for specific stages in the system.
4 Students work in small groups to establish particular points.
5 Students fill in a skeleton handout.
6 Students practise giving oral summaries of the video in pairs.
Many listening techniques do not so much teach listening as decorate the lis-
tening process with a few frills. They suggest that conscious attention to informa-
tion will improve all the other aspects of listening – hardly justified by the
research described here. If word access, parsing and memory processes are
improved by these activities, this is an accidental by-product. Perhaps listening
cannot be trained directly and the best the teacher can do is devise amusing activ-
ities during which the natural listening processes can be automatically activated.
Another approach to listening, pioneered by Mary Underwood in the 1970s,
relies on authentic tapes of people talking. After some introductory focusing activ-
ities, students were played the tape and then did follow-on comprehension activ-
ities. For instance, in The Listening File (Harmer and Ellsworth, 1989), a unit on
‘The Historic MP, Diane Abbott’ first makes the students think about the House of
Commons and the problems that an MP might face. Then they listen to the tape
and check whether their initial guesses were right; they listen again and answer a
series of detailed factual questions; they go on to follow-up activities in discussion
and writing – literally a textbook example of Mary Underwood’s three phases.
In my own English Topics (1975), I used recordings of English people carrying
out the same tasks or having the same kinds of conversation as the students. For
example, a unit on ‘Buying a House’ had an authentic recording of someone
describing how complicated they had found the whole process. Students listened
to it as often as they liked and then their comprehension was checked by asking
them to agree or disagree with statements such as ‘He paid for the house immedi-
ately’. This led to discussion points and a transcript of the speech that the stu-
dents could look at. The checking element was then kept as minimal as possible
so that it did not add difficulties to the actual comprehension. Students were
using top-down listening as the starting point for their own discussion and opin-
ions. The transcript was available not only for the students’ benefit, but also for
the teacher’s.
Clearly, authentic speech tries to encourage top-down listening by getting the
students to visualize an overall context for the speech before they hear it; neverthe-
less, they are also doing some bottom-up processing on their second listening in
that they have to deal with specific pieces of information. One snag is that such
teaching edges towards testing memory rather than listening itself; if the students
have to remember the content for any period longer than a handful of seconds,
they are being tested on what they can remember, not on what they actually
understood. While this may be a very valuable skill, it is not characteristic of ordi-
nary listening. I once tried out the teaching materials I was using for the
Cambridge First Certificate with native speakers and found that they did less well
than my students. The explanation was that I had trained the students in the spe-
cific task of storing information from the text; the natives were untrained.
A further incidental problem comes back to the power struggle in con-
versational discourse. An interview is a very specific type of speech; the inter-
viewer is allowed to play the leader and to ask all the questions, but must remain
neutral; the interviewee has to respond to whatever happens. I remember once
seeing the film star Danny Kaye being interviewed on television after he had
arrived at a London airport; he asked the interviewer why she had come to the air-
port and about her life and opinions. The effect was hilarious because it broke the
usual conventions of the interview. While all of us are passively familiar with
interviews from the media, we are seldom called on to take part in them ourselves.
Listening materials should not stress interviews too much as they are a rather
untypical and unequal encounter, as described in Chapter 9. It would be better to
use examples of genuine monologues, whether lectures or stand-up comedians, or
real-life two-person encounters in more everyday settings – the supermarket, the
library, and so on. And it is vital to give the students situations involving success-
ful L2 users, so that they can see models to aim at that are not just monolingual
native speakers.
Listening-based methods of teaching

So far listening has been taken as a process of decoding speech – working out the
‘message’ from the sentence you hear, just as a spy decodes a secret message by
using a code he or she already knows. However, recent discussions of teaching
methodology have focused on listening as a way of learning rather than as a way
of processing language. Logically, L2 learners cannot learn a language if they
never hear it; the sounds, the words, the structures, have to come from some-
where. This process can be called codebreaking – listening means working out the
language code from the ‘message’, just as a cryptographer works out an unknown
code from an intercepted message. Decoding speech has the aim of discovering
the message using processes that are already known. Codebreaking speech has the
aim of discovering the processes themselves from a message.
One of the first to interpret listening as codebreaking was James Asher’s total
physical response method (TPR) (Asher, 1986), which claimed that listening to
commands and carrying them out was an effective way of learning a second lan-
guage. A specimen TPR exercise consists of the teacher getting the students to
respond to the following (Seely and Romijn, 1995):
1 You get a present from a friend.

2 Look it over.
3 Feel it.
4 Shake it and listen to it …
… and so on. The students follow the directions given by the teacher. This can
now be done through an interactive CD-ROM called Live Action English (Romijn
and Seely, 2000).
TPR came out of psychological theories of language learning and was based on
extensive research. Its unique twist on listening is the emphasis on learning
through physical actions. As Asher puts it, ‘In a sense, language is orchestrated to
a choreography of the human body.’ TPR gradually leads in to student production
of language. According to Seely and Romijn (1995), TPR relies on four main
exercises:
1 single unrelated commands such as ‘Grapple with your opponent’;

2 action series like the one above;
3 natural action dialogues based on a short script;
4 action role-playing without a script, that is, a freer version of (3).
These lead in to a technique called TPR storytelling, in which students retell famil-
iar stories through the second language. TPR is discussed further in Chapter 13.
During the 1980s there was much talk of listening-based methods, summed up
under the slogan of ‘Listening First’ (Cook, 1986). Postovsky (1974) had described
how students who were taught Russian by methods that emphasize listening were
better than students taught in a conventional way. According to Gary and Gary
(1981a; 1981b), the benefits of concentrating on listening are that students do not
feel so embarrassed if they do not have to speak; the memory load is less if they
listen without speaking; and classroom equipment such as tape recorders can be
used more effectively for listening than for speaking. Classroom research has con-
firmed that there are distinct advantages to listening-based methods, as shown in
the collection by Winitz (1981). A major schism in communicative teaching is
between those who require students to practise communication by both listening
and speaking, and those who prefer students to listen for information without
speaking.
Krashen brought several disparate listening-based methods together through
the notion of ‘comprehensible input’. He claims that ‘acquisition can take
place only when people understand messages in the target language’ (Krashen
and Terrell, 1983). Listening is motivated by the need to get messages out of
what is heard. L2 learners acquire a new language by hearing it in contexts
where the meaning is made plain to them. Ideally, the speech they hear has
enough ‘old’ language that the student already knows and makes enough sense in
the context for the ‘new’ language to be understood and absorbed. How the
teacher gets the message across is not particularly important. Pointing to one’s
nose and saying ‘This is my nose’, working out ‘nose’ from the context in ‘There’s
a spot on your nose’, looking at a photo of a face and labelling it with ‘nose’,
‘eyes’, and so on, are all satisfactory provided that the student discovers the mes-
sage in the sentence. Steve McDonough (1995) neatly summarizes the process as
‘the accretion of knowledge from instances of incomprehension embedded in the
comprehensible’.
Stephen Krashen claims that all teaching methods that work utilize the same
‘fundamental pedagogical principle’ of providing comprehensible input: ‘if x is
shown to be “good” for acquiring a second language, x helps to provide CI [com-
prehensible input], either directly or indirectly’ (Krashen, 1981b).
Krashen’s codebreaking approach to listening became a strong influence on lan-
guage teachers. It is saying, essentially, that L2 acquisition depends on listening:
decoding is codebreaking. It did not, however, oddly enough, lead to a generation
of published listening-based main coursebooks in the teaching of English, though
some examples exist for teaching other languages in the Two Worlds series by
Tracey Terrell and others (Terrell et al., 1993), and in ‘More English Now!’, an
appendix to the Gary and Gary (1981b) materials discussed in Chapter 13.
But Krashen’s theory does not say what the processes of decoding are and how
they relate to codebreaking. The statement that teaching should be meaningful
does not in itself get us very far. Most teachers have always tried to make their les-
sons convey messages, whatever method they may be using, even the conversa-
tional interaction drills mentioned in Chapter 2. Comprehensible input is too
simplistic and too all-embracing a notion to produce anything but general guide-
lines on what a teacher should do. It pays little heed to the actual processes of lis-
tening or learning, but promises that everything will be all right if the teacher
maximizes comprehensible input. As advice, this is too vague; the teacher can do
anything, provided the students have to make sense of the language that is
addressed to them – at least anything but make the students produce language,
thus eliminating most of the ‘British’ communicative methods.
Box 7.5 L2 learning and listening processes

● L2 listening is an active process involving background schemas, and so on.
● Both top-down and bottom-up parsing are involved.
● Ineffective L2 students rely too much on bottom-up parsing.
Box 7.6 Listening, reading and teaching

● Build up students’ background knowledge.
● Vocabulary should be emphasized in the teaching of texts.
● Allow for students’ inherent loss of efficiency in processing the L2.
● Help students to appreciate different cultural schemas.
Teaching involves getting students both to decode messages and to codebreak

the language system from what is heard.
Discussion topics
1 How important do you now feel memory is for the student?
2 Do conventional teaching techniques strain students’ memory? If so, what
can we do about it?
3 What mental scripts pose a particular problem for L2 learners? Are these
covered satisfactorily in the classroom?
4 How can one go about supplying the background information students
would need for a particular text?
5 Do you agree from your own experience that codebreaking and decoding are
separate processes, or do you feel, like Krashen, that they are essentially the
same process?
6 Do you approve or disapprove of students codeswitching between their first
and their second language in the classroom?
Further reading
For the areas of short-term memory processes, reading and listening, readers
can go to the original sources referred to in the chapter, as no book-length
SLA research treatments exist that cover the areas adequately. Intercultural
training is provided in Cushner and Brislin (1996) Intercultural Interactions:
A Practical Guide.
Individual differences
in L2 users and L2
learners
8
Mostly this book concentrates on the factors that L2 learners have in common.
Teachers usually have to deal with students in groups rather than as individuals;
it is what all the class do that is important. However, at the end of the lesson, the
group turns into 25 individuals who go off to use the second language for their
own needs and in their own ways. Particular features of the learner’s personality
or mind encourage or inhibit L2 learning. The concern of the present chapter is
with how L2 learners vary as individuals, mostly dealing with language in a Lang5
sense of knowledge in the mind.
This is clearly one difference between first and second language learning. Apart
from a handful of children with specific language impairment (SLI), everybody
manages to learn to speak their first language, more or less by definition – human
language is whatever human beings learn to speak. However, we are all aware of
vast differences in how well people can speak a second language. On the one hand
you have the Czech-born financier Robert Maxwell, who was able to pass for
English, on the other you have Henry Kissinger, forever sounding German. Every
teacher knows that some students will learn a second language effortlessly, others
will struggle for ever. Some of the explanation for this undoubtedly lies in the diff-
erent situations; children learn their L1 naturally in the intimate situations of
their family; school learners learn an L2 formally in the public situation of the
classroom.
However, there still seems to be an element that can only be attributed to
the individual; some people can, others cannot. Whatever the teaching method
used, some students will prosper, some will not, often despite their best intent-
ions. This chapter will look at some of the ways in which individuals differ that
have been linked to how well they learn a second language in the classroom.
Some have already been seen in Chapter 6: individuals choose for themselves
how to process or learn language. It should be noted that much of this research
is applied psychology rather than applied linguistics, making use of concepts
and measures from psychology rather than from disciplines to do with language.
This sometimes means it treats language teaching as if it were the teaching of
any other subject on the curriculum, rather than concentrating on its unique
nature.
136 Individual differences in L2 users and L2 learners
8.1 Motivation for L2 learning
Focusing questions
● Why did you learn a second language? Have you succeeded?

● Evaluate these statements:
Studying a foreign language is important to my students because they will be able
to participate more freely in the activities of other cultural groups.
strongly slightly neither agree slightly strongly
agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Studying a foreign language can be important for my students because it will some
day be useful in getting a good job.
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Keywords
integrative motivation: learning the language in order to take part in the cul-
ture of its people
instrumental motivation: learning the language for a career goal or other prac-
tical reason
One reason for some L2 learners doing better than others is undoubtedly because
they are better motivated. The child learning a first language does not have good
or bad motivation in any meaningful sense. Language is one means through
which all children fulfil their everyday needs, however diverse these may be. One
might as well ask what the motivation is for walking or for being a human being.
In these terms, the second language is superfluous for many classroom learners,
who can already communicate with people and use language for thinking. Their
mental and social life has been formed through their first language.
The usual meaning of motivation for the teacher is probably the interest that
something generates in the students. A particular exercise, a particular topic, a par-
ticular song, may interest the students in the class, to the teacher’s delight.
Obvious enjoyment by the students is not necessarily a sign that learning is taking
place – people probably enjoy eating ice cream more than carrots, but which has
the better long-term effects? ‘What interests the students is not necessarily in the
students’ interests’ (Peters, 1973). Motivation in this sense is a short-term affair,
from moment to moment in the class. Vital as it is to the classroom, SLA research
has as yet paid little attention to it, as Crookes and Schmidt (1991) point out.
So why do people learn languages? A survey of schools in six countries of the
European Union (Bonnet, 2002) found that 94 per cent of children thought that
Motivation for L2 learning 137
learning English was an advantage for ‘communication abroad’, 86 per cent for
‘facilitation of computer work’ and ‘comprehension of music texts’, down to 64 per
cent ‘sounds better in English’, and 51 per cent ‘no expression in national lan-
guage’. The inclusion of musical lyrics is interesting, showing the continuing influ-
ence of pop music sung in English.
Another survey shows the nine most popular reasons across the EU for learning
a new language (EuroBarometer, 2006), shown in Figure 8.1; a UK report came up
with 700 reasons for studying modern languages (Gallagher-Brett, n.d.). Clearly
the reasons why people learn new languages are far wider than for their personal
careers.
To use on holidays abroad
To use for work including travelling
For personal satisfaction
To be able to work in another country
To get a better job in your own country
To be able to understand people from

other cultures
To meet people from other countries
To know a language that is widely

spoken around the world
To be able to study in another country
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Figure 8.1 Reasons for learning a new language held by Europeans 2005 (Eurobarometer 243)
Motivation in L2 learning, however, has mostly been used to refer to long-term

stable attitudes in the students’ minds, in particular integrative and instrumental
motivation, introduced by Robert Gardner and Wallace Lambert in a series of
books and papers (Gardner and Lambert, 1972; Gardner, 1985, 2007). A discussion
of the socio-educational model within which these two factors are crucial is pro-
vided in Chapter 12. The integrative motivation reflects whether the student ident-
ifies with the target culture and people in some sense, or rejects them. The
statement in the Focusing questions at the beginning of this section, ‘Studying a
foreign language is important to my students because they will be able to partici-
pate more freely in the activities of other cultural groups’, was taken from one used
by Gardner for testing integrativeness in the AMTB (Attitudes and Motivation Test
Battery), which can be found in full online; a short version is also on the website.
The more that a student admires the target culture – reads its literature, visits it on
holiday, looks for opportunities to practise the language, and so on – the more suc-
cessful they will be in the L2 classroom.
Instrumental motivation means learning the language for an ulterior motive
unrelated to its use by native speakers – to pass an examination, to get a certain
kind of job, and so on; the statement in the Focusing questions, ‘Studying a for-
eign language can be important for my students because it will some day be use-
ful in getting a good job’ also comes from Gardner’s test battery. I learnt Latin at
school because a classical language was at the time an entry requirement for uni-
versity, and for no other reason.
Some people want to learn a second language with an integrative motivation
such as ‘I would like to live in the country where it is spoken’, or with an instru-
mental one such as ‘For my future career’, or indeed with both, or with other
motivations entirely. The relative importance of these varies from one part of the
world to another. In Montreal, learners of French tend to be integratively moti-
vated, in the Philippines learners of English tend to be instrumentally motivated
(Gardner, 1985).
I have been using the Gardner questionnaire with L2 learners in different coun-
tries, as seen on the website. English schoolchildren learning French, for example,
score 77 per cent for integrative motivation and 70 per cent for instrumental; adult
English students score 87 per cent for integrative motivation and 66 per cent for
instrumental. Whether the country is Belgium, Poland, Singapore or Taiwan, the
integrative motive comes out as more important than the instrumental.
Surprisingly, the highest scores for integrative motivation are Taiwan with 88 per
cent; the lowest Belgium with 74 per cent. In other words, people want to learn a
language for getting on with people more than they do for job opportunities.
Coleman (1996) too found that students did better with integrative motivation than
with instrumental.
The distinction between integrative and instrumental motivation has been used
as a point of reference by many researchers. Zoltan Dornyei (1990) argues that it is
biased towards the Canadian situation where there is a particular balance between
the two official languages, English and French. He therefore tested the motivation
of learners of English in the European situation of Hungary. He found that an
instrumental motivation concerned with future careers was indeed very powerful.
Though an integrative motivation was also relevant, it was not, as in Canada,
related to actual contact with native groups, but to general attitudes and stereo-
types; it became more important as the learners advanced in the language, as was
the case in England. In addition, he identified two factors relating to classroom
learning. One was the need for achievement – trying to improve yourself in gen-
eral, more specifically to pass an examination; the other, attributions about past
failures – whatever else the learners blame their failures on.
Motivation and teaching

Students will find it difficult to learn a second language in the classroom if they have
neither instrumental nor integrative motivation, as is probably often the case in
school language teaching, or if they feel negatively about bilingualism or are too
attached to monolingualism. Schoolchildren have no particular contact with the
foreign culture and no particular interest in it, nor do their job prospects depend on
it; their attitudes to L2 users may depend more on the stereotypes from their
Motivation for L2 learning 139
cultural situations than on any real contact. Only 36 per cent of pupils in England
thought learning French would be useful to them, according to the Assessment of
Performance Unit (1986). Teachers of French in England try to compensate for this
lack by stressing the career benefits that knowledge of a second language may bring,
or by building up interest in the foreign culture through exchanges with French
schools or bringing croissants to class, that is, by cultivating both types of motivat-
ion in their students.
Otherwise teachers may have to go along with the students’ motivation, or at
least be sufficiently aware of the students’ motivation so that any problems can be
smoothed over. Coursebooks reflect the writer’s assessment of the students’ moti-
vation. The coursebook Touchstone (McCarthy et al., 2005) reflects a world of
young people, some overseas students, meeting in the park or living with their
parents, babysitting for their friends, interested in TV and films, celebrities and
the Internet. This will be valuable to students interested in this lifestyle and an
alienating experience for those who prefer something else. The Beginner’s Choice
(Mohamed and Acklam, 1992) features the lives of multi-ethnic students in
England with cosmopolitan interests and worldwide contacts for house exchanges
and holidays. While this may be motivating for multilingual adult classes in the
UK, it is less relevant for single language groups of children in other countries.
In my own coursebook series English for Life, the location of the first book People
and Places (Cook, 1980), is a non-specific fictional English-speaking town called
Banford, with a range of old-age pensioners, children, teachers and businessmen.
The second book, Meeting People (1982), used English in specific locations in differ-
ent parts of the world, such as Hong Kong, London and New York. The third book,
Living with People (1983), took the specific location of Oxford in England and used
the actual supermarkets, hospitals, radio stations, and so on, as background, includ-
ing interviews with people who worked in them. The aim was that students at the
beginners’ level would be motivated by a non-specific English for use anywhere; at
the next stage they wanted to use English anywhere in the world; at the advanced
stage they might envisage living in an English-speaking country. Coursebooks differ
according to whether they prefer integrative or instrumental motivation from the
outset, reflecting educational priorities in particular countries, as seen in Chapter 7.
An integrative motivation for English may not be admissible in Israel or mainland
China, for example.
In a teacher’s ideal world, students would enter the classrooms admiring the tar-
get culture and language, wanting to get something out of the L2 learning for them-
selves, eager to experience the benefits of bilingualism and thirsting for knowledge.
In practice, teachers have to be aware of the reservations and preconceptions of
their students. What they think of the teacher, the course and L2 users in general
heavily affects their success. These are the factors that teachers can influence, rather
than the learners’ more deep-seated motivations.
Motivation also goes in both directions. High motivation is one factor that causes
successful learning; in reverse, successful learning causes high motivation. The
process of creating successful learning which can spur high motivation may be
under the teacher’s control, if not the original motivation. The choice of teaching
materials and the information content of the lesson, for example, should correspond
to the motivations of the students. As Lambert (1990) puts it while talking about
minority group children, ‘The best way I can see to release the potential [of bilin-
gualism] is to transform their subtractive experiences with bilingualism and bicult-
uralism into additive ones.’
Box 8.1 Motivation and L2 learning

● Both integrative and instrumental motivations may lead to success, but lack
of either causes problems.
● Motivation in this sense has great inertia.
● Short-term motivation towards the day-to-day activities in the classroom
and general motivations for classroom learning are also important.
8.2 Attitudes
Focusing questions
● What do you think are people’s typical reactions to foreigners? To bilinguals?

To monolinguals?
● Mark how much you agree with these statements:
It is important to be able to speak two languages.

❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
I will always feel more myself in my first language than in my second.

❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Keywords
additive bilingualism: L2 learning that adds to the learner’s capabilities in

some way
subtractive bilingualism: L2 learning that takes away from the learner’s
capabilities
acculturation: the ways in which L2 users adapt to life with two languages
The roots of the motivations discussed in the last section are deep within the stu-
dents’ minds and their cultural backgrounds. One issue is how the student’s own
cultural background relates to the background projected by the L2 culture. Lambert
(1981, 1990) makes an important distinction between ‘additive’ and ‘subtractive’
bilingualism. In additive bilingualism, the learners feel they are adding something
new to their skills and experience by learning a new language, without taking any-
thing away from what they already know. In subtractive bilingualism, on the other
Attitudes 141
hand, they feel that the learning of a new language threatens what they have
already gained for themselves. Successful L2 learning takes place in additive situa-
tions; learners who see the second language as diminishing themselves will not
succeed. This relates directly to many immigrant or multi-ethnic situations; a
group that feels in danger of losing its identity by learning a second language does
not learn the second language well. Chilean refugees I taught in the 1970s often
lamented their lack of progress in English. However much they consciously wanted
to learn English, I felt that they saw it subconsciously as committing themselves to
permanent exile and thus to subtracting from their identity as Chileans. It is not
motivation for learning as such which is important to teaching, but motivation for
learning a particular second language. Monolingual UK children in a survey con-
ducted by the Linguistic Minorities Project (1983) showed a preference in order of
popularity for learning German, Italian, Spanish and French. Young people in the
European Community as a whole, however, had the order of preference English,
Spanish, German, French and Italian (Commission of the European Communities,
1987).
A useful model of attitudes that has been developed over many years is accultur-
ation theory (Berry, 1998). This sees the overall attitudes towards a second culture as
coming from the interaction between two distinct questions:
1 Is it considered to be of value to maintain cultural identity and

characteristics?
In my experience as a teacher in London, Hungarian students of English
tended to merge with the rest of the population; they did not maintain their
separate cultural identities. Polish students, on the other hand, stayed within
their local community, which had Polish newspapers, theatres, churches and a
Saturday school; they were clearly maintaining their cultural differences. What
the Poles valued, the Hungarians did not.
2 Is it considered to be of value to maintain relationships with other groups?
Again from my own experience, some students keep to themselves, others mix
freely. Greek students in England, for example, usually seem to mix with other
Greeks; one of the Essex university bars is informally known as the Greek bar.
Japanese students, on the other hand, seem to mix much more with other peo-
ple, and I am often surprised that two Japanese students in the same university
class do not know each other.
According to the acculturation model, both questions could be answered ‘yes’

or ‘no’, though of course these would be questions of degree rather than absolute
differences. The different combinations of ‘yes’ and ‘no’ yield four main patterns
of acculturation, as shown in Figure 8.2: integration (Q1 ‘yes’, Q2 ‘no’), assimila-
tion (Q1 ‘no’, Q2 ‘yes’), separation (Q1 ‘yes’, Q2 ‘yes’) and marginalization (Q1
‘no’, Q2 ‘no’).
There are then four possible patterns of acculturation. Marginalization is the least
rewarding version, corresponding loosely to Lambert’s subtractive bilingualism.
Assimilation results in the eventual dying out of the first language – the so-called
melting-pot model once used in the USA. Separation results in friction-prone situ-
ations like Canada or Belgium, where the languages are spoken in physically sepa-
rate regions. Integration is a multilingual state where the languages exist alongside
each other in harmony.
Question 1
Is it considered to be of value to maintain

cultural identity and characteristics?
‘YES’ ‘NO’
Question 2
‘YES’ INTEGRATION ASSIMILATION

Is it considered to be
of value to maintain
relationships with
‘NO’
other groups?
SEPARATION MARGINALIZATION
Figure 8.2 The acculturation model
This model is mainly used for groups that have active contact within the same
country. My examples come from the use of English in England, not of English in
Japan. When there are no actual contacts between the two groups, the model is
less relevant, particularly for classroom learners who have no contact with the L2
culture except through their teacher, and whose experience of the L2 culture is
through the media or through the stereotypes in their own culture.
A crucial aspect of attitudes is what the students think about people who are L2
users or monolinguals. I asked adults and children in different countries to rate
how much they agreed with statements such as ‘It is important to be able to speak
two languages’. As we see in Figure 8.3, most groups have fairly positive attitudes
towards speaking two languages, but the British adults, who were university stu-
dents, are clearly more positive.
Strongly Strongly
disagree agree
Polish children
Belgian children
British adults
British children
0 1 2 3 4 5
Figure 8.3 Responses to ‘It is important to be able to speak two languages’
The same groups were asked about monolingualism. Their answers to the ques-
tion ‘I will always feel more myself in my first language than in my second’ are
shown in Figure 8.4.
The British children feel less comfortable in the second language than the oth-
ers; they feel more threatened by the new language.
Attitudes 143
Strongly Strongly
disagree agree
Polish children
Belgian children
British adults
British children
0 1 2 3 4 5
Figure 8.4 Responses to ‘I will always feel more myself in my first language than in another
language’
Strongly Strongly
disagree agree
Polish children
Belgian children
British adults
British children
0 1 2 3 4 5
Figure 8.5 Responses to ‘People who go to live in a new country should give up their own
language’
In this case, rather few of the people feel that learning a second language means
forfeiting the first language, a topic developed in the context of language teaching
goals in Chapter 11.
Attitudes and language teaching

One crucial point coming out of this is how teaching reinforces unfavourable images
of L2 users. Virtually all the L2 users represented in coursebooks, for example, are
either students who are in the process of learning the second language or ignorant
foreigners using tourist services. Students never see successful L2 users in action and
so have no role model to emulate other than the native speaker, which they will very
rarely match. The famous people whose photos proliferate in coursebooks tend to be
people who are not known as anything other than monolinguals, such as George
Clooney, Catherine Zeta Jones and J.K. Rowling, though a few sportspeople who give
interviews in English are sometimes mentioned, such as Martina Hingis (Changes,
Richards, 1998). Successful L2 users such as Gandhi, Einstein, Picasso, Marie Curie
and Samuel Beckett, all taken from François Grosjean’s list of bilinguals (1982: 285),
are never mentioned. It cannot do the students any harm to show them that the
world is full of successful L2 users; indeed, as de Swaan (2001) argues, they are neces-
sary for its functioning. We see later that the goals of language teaching include
changing people’s attitudes towards other cultures and using second languages effec-
tively. These are hardly advanced by showing students either students like them-
selves or people who are unable to use more than one language.
8.3 Aptitude: are some people better at learning a

second language than others?
Focusing questions
● Why do you think some people are good at learning other languages?
● Do you think the same people learn a language well in the classroom as learn
it well in a natural setting, or do these demand different qualities?
Keywords
aptitude: this usually means the ability to learn the second language in an aca-
demic classroom
Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT): testing phonemic coding, grammat-
ical sensitivity, inductive language learning ability, rote learning
memory-based learners: these rely on their memory rather than grammatical
sensitivity
analytic learners: these rely on grammatical sensitivity rather than memory
even learners: these rely on both grammatical sensitivity and memory
Everybody knows people who have a knack for learning second languages and
others who are rather poor at it. Some immigrants who have been in a country
for twenty years are very fluent. Others from the same background and living
in the same circumstances for the same amount of time speak the language
rather poorly. Given that their ages, motivations, and so on, are the same, why are
there such differences? As always, the popular view has to be qualified to some
extent. Descriptions of societies where each individual uses several languages
daily, such as central Africa or Pakistan, seldom mention people who cannot cope
with the demands of a multilingual existence, other than those with academic
study problems. Differences in L2 learning ability are apparently only felt in soci-
eties where L2 learning is treated as a problem rather than accepted as an every-
day fact of life.
So far, the broad term ‘knack’ for learning languages has been used. The more
usual term, however, is ‘aptitude’; some people have more aptitude for learning sec-
ond languages than others. Aptitude has almost invariably been applied to students
in classrooms. It does not refer to the knack that some people have for learning in
real-life situations, but to the ability to learn from teaching. In the 1950s and 1960s,
considerable effort went into establishing what successful students had in common.
The Modern Languages Aptitude Test (MLAT) requires the student to carry out L2
learning on a small scale. It incorporates four main factors that predict a student’s
success in the classroom (Carroll, 1981). These are:
● Phonemic coding ability: how well the student can use phonetic script to distin-
guish phonemes in the language.
Aptitude: are some people better at learning a second language than others? 145
● Grammatical sensitivity: whether the student can pick out grammatical func-
tions in the sentence.
● Inductive language learning ability: whether the student can generalize patterns
from one sentence to another.
● Rote learning: whether the student can remember vocabulary lists of foreign
words paired with translations.
Such tests are not neutral about what happens in a classroom, nor about the
goals of language teaching. They assume that learning words by heart is an impor-
tant part of L2 learning ability, that the spoken language is crucial, and that gram-
mar consists of structural patterns. In short, MLAT predicts how well a student
will do in a course that is predominantly audio-lingual in methodology rather
than in a course taught by other methods. Wesche (1981) divided Canadian stu-
dents according to MLAT and other tests into those who were best suited to an
‘analytical’ approach and those who were best suited to an ‘audio-visual’
approach. Half she put in the right type of class, half in the wrong (whether this
is acceptable behaviour by a teacher is another question). The students in the
right class ‘achieved superior scores’. It is not just aptitude in general that counts,
but the right kind of aptitude for the particular learning situation. Predictions
about success need to take into account the kind of classroom that is involved,
rather than being biased towards one kind or assuming there is a single factor of
aptitude which applies regardless of situation.
Krashen (1981a) suggests aptitude is important for ‘formal’ situations such as
classrooms, and attitude is important for ‘informal’ real-world situations. While
aptitude tests are indeed more or less purpose-designed for classroom learners, this
still leaves open the existence of a general knack for learning languages in street
settings. Horwitz (1987) anticipated that a test of cognitive level would go with
communicative competence, and a test of aptitude with linguistic competence.
She found, however, a strong link between the two tests.
Peter Skehan (1986, 1998) developed a slightly different set of factors out of
MLAT, namely:
1 Phonemic coding ability. This allows the learner to process input more readily
and thus to get to more complex areas of processing more easily – supposing
that phonemes are in fact relevant to processing, a possibility that was queried
in Chapter 2.
2 Language analytic ability. This allows the learner to work out the ‘rules’ of the
language and build up the core processes for handling language.
3 Memory. This permits the learner to store and retrieve aspects of language rapidly.
These three factors reflect progressively deeper processing of language and hence
may change according to the learner’s stage. While true in an overall sense, they
relate loosely to the ideas of processing and memory seen in Chapter 7. It is unclear,
for example, which model of memory might fit this scheme and how analytic ability
relates to parsing.
The lack of this ‘knack’ is sometimes related to other problems that L2 learners
have. Richard Sparks and his colleagues (1989) have observed students whose gen-
eral problems with language have gone unnoticed until they did badly on a foreign
language course. They lacked a linguistic coding ability in their first language as
well as their second, particularly phonological, and, like dyslexia, apparently unre-
lated to their intelligence.
Recent work reviewed by Peter Robinson (2005) has tended to split aptitude into
separate components, that is, whether people are better at specific aspects of learn-
ing rather than overall learning. A particular sensitivity to language may help with
FonF activities, for instance. Second language learning in formal conditions may
depend in particular on superior cognitive processing ability. Obviously this sees
no relationship between second language acquisition in a classroom and first lan-
guage acquisition, since none of these attributes matters to the native child.
Aptitude and teaching

The problem for language teachers is what to do once the students have been
tested for academic language learning aptitude. There are at least four possibilities:
1 Select students who are likely to succeed in the classroom and bar those who are
likely to fail. This would, however, be unthinkable in most settings with open
access to education.
2 Stream students into different classes for levels of aptitude, say high-flyers, average
and below-average. The Graded Objectives Movement in England, for instance,
set the same overall goals for all students at each stage, but allowed them dif-
ferent periods of time for getting there (Harding et al., 1981).
3 Provide different teaching for different types of aptitude with different teaching
methods and final examinations. This might lead to varied exercises within
the class, say, for those with and without phonemic coding ability, to parallel
classes, or to self-directed learning. In most educational establishments this
would be a luxury in terms of staffing and accommodation, however
desirable.
4 Excuse students with low aptitude from compulsory foreign language requirements. In
some educational systems the students may be required to pass a foreign lan-
guage which is unrelated to the rest of their course, as I had to take French and
Latin to order to read English at university. An extremely low aptitude for L2
learning may be grounds for exemption from this requirement if their other
work passes.
The overall lesson is to see students in particular contexts. The student whose
performance is dismal in one class may be gifted in another. Any class teaching is
a compromise to suit the greatest number of students. Only in individualized or
self-directed learning perhaps can this be overcome.
Box 8.2 Aptitude for L2 learning

● Most aptitude tests predict success in L2 academic classrooms.
● Aptitude breaks down into different factors, such as phonemic coding
ability and memory.
Age: are young L2 learners better than old learners? 147
8.4 Age: are young L2 learners better than old

learners?
Focusing questions
● What do you think is the best age for learning a new language? Why?
● How would your teaching of, say, the present tense, differ according to
whether you were teaching children or adults?
Keywords
critical period hypothesis: the claim that human beings are only capable of
learning language between the age of 2 years and the early teens
immersion teaching: teaching the whole curriculum through the second
language, best known from experiments in Canada
Undoubtedly, children are popularly believed to be better at learning second lan-

guages than adults. People always know one friend or acquaintance who started
learning English as an adult and never managed to learn it properly, and another
who learnt it as a child and is indistinguishable from a native. Linguists as well as
the general public often share this point of view. Chomsky (1959) has talked of the
immigrant child learning a language quickly, while ‘the subtleties that become sec-
ond nature to the child may elude his parents despite high motivation and contin-
ued practice’. My new postgraduate overseas students prove this annually. They
start the year by worrying whether their children will ever cope with English, and
they end it by complaining how much better the children speak than themselves.
This belief in the superiority of young learners was enshrined in the critical period
hypothesis: the claim that human beings are only capable of learning their first lan-
guage between the age of two years and the early teens (Lenneberg, 1967). A variety
of explanations have been put forward for the apparent decline in adults: physical
factors such as the loss of ‘plasticity’ in the brain and ‘lateralization’ of the brain;
social factors such as the different situations and relationships that children
encounter compared to adults; and cognitive explanations such as the interference
with natural language learning by the adult’s more abstract mode of thinking (Cook,
1986). It has often been concluded that teachers should take advantage of this ease
of learning by teaching a second language as early as possible, hence such attempts
to teach a foreign language in the primary school as the brief-lived primary school
French programme in England. Indeed, the 1990s saw a growth in the UK in ‘bilin-
gual’ playgroups, teaching French to English-speaking children under the age of 5.
Evidence for the effects of age on L2 learning

Evidence in favour of the superiority of young children, however, has proved sur-
prisingly hard to find. Much research, on the contrary, shows that age is a positive
advantage. English-speaking adults and children who had gone to live in Holland
were compared using a variety of tests (Snow and Hoefnagel-Höhle, 1977). At the
end of three months, the older learners were better at all aspects of Dutch except
pronunciation. After a year this advantage had faded and the older learners were
better only at vocabulary. Studies in Scandinavia showed that Swedish children
improved at learning English throughout the school years, and that Finnish-speak-
ing children under 11 learning Swedish in Sweden were worse than those over 11
(Eckstrand, 1978). Although the total physical response method of teaching, with
its emphasis on physical action, appears more suitable to children, when it was
used for teaching Russian to adults and children the older students were consis-
tently better (Asher and Price, 1967).
Even with the immersion techniques used in Canada in which English-speaking
children are taught the curriculum substantially through French, late immersion
pupils were better than early immersion students at marking number agreement
on verbs, and at using ‘clitic’ pronouns (‘le’, ‘me’, etc.) in object verb construc-
tions (Harley, 1986). To sum up, if children and adults are compared who are
learning a second language in exactly the same way, whether as immigrants to
Holland, or by the same method in the classroom, adults are better. The apparent
superiority of adults in such controlled research may mean that the typical situa-
tions in which children find themselves are better suited to L2 learning than those
adults encounter. Age itself is not so important as the different interactions that
learners of different ages have with the situation and with other people.
However, there are many who would disagree and find age a burden for L2 learn-
ing. These chiefly base themselves on work by Johnson and Newport (1989), who
tested Chinese and Korean learners living in the USA and found that the earlier
they had arrived there, the better they were at detecting ungrammatical use of
grammatical morphemes such as ‘the’ and plural ‘-s’, and other properties of
English such as wh-questions and word order; indeed, those who arrived under the
age of 7 were no different from natives. DeKeyser and Larson-Hall (2005) found a
negative correlation with age in ten research studies into age of acquisition and
grammaticality judgements, that is, older learners tend to do worse.
Usually children are thought to be better at pronunciation in particular. The
claim is that an authentic accent cannot be acquired if the second language is
learnt after a particular age, say the early teens. For instance, the best age for Cuban
immigrants to come to the USA so far as pronunciation is concerned is under 6, the
worst over 13 (Asher and Garcia, 1969). Ramsey and Wright (1974) found younger
immigrants to Canada had less foreign accent than older ones. But the evidence
mostly is not clear-cut. Indeed, Ramsey and Wright’s evidence has been challenged
by Cummins (1981). Other research shows that when the teaching situation is the
same, older children are better than younger children even at pronunciation. An
experiment with the learning of Dutch by English children and adults found imi-
tation was more successful with older learners (Snow and Hoefnagel-Höhle, 1977).
Neufeld (1978) trained adults with a pronunciation technique that moved them
gradually from listening to speaking. After 18 hours of teaching, 9 out of 20 stu-
dents convinced listeners they were native speakers of Japanese, 8 out of 20 that
they were native Chinese speakers.
It has become common to distinguish short-term benefits of youth from long-
term disadvantages of age. David Singleton (1989) sums up his authoritative
review of age with the statement:
The one interpretation of the evidence which does not appear to run into contradic-
tory data is that in naturalistic situations those whose exposure to a second
language begins in childhood in general eventually surpass those whose exposure
Age: are young L2 learners better than old learners? 149
begins in adulthood, even though the latter usually show some initial advantage
over the former.
Adults start more quickly and then slow down. Though children start more slowly,
they finish up at a higher level. My own view is that much of the research is still
open to other interpretations (Cook, 1986). The studies that show long-term disad-
vantages mostly use different methodologies and different types of learners from
those conducted into short-term learning. In particular, the long-term research has,
by coincidence, mostly used immigrants, particularly to the USA, but the short-term
research has used learners in educational systems elsewhere. Hence factors such as
immigration cannot at present be disentangled from age. Age in itself is no explana-
tion if we cannot explain which aspect of maturation causes the difference, whether
physical, social, cognitive or linguistic.
Age and language teaching

How should a language teacher take the student’s age into account? One question
is when L2 teaching should start. This also involves how long the learners are
going to be studying. If they are intending to spend many years learning the sec-
ond language, they might as well start as children rather than as adults since they
will probably end up better speakers. If they are going to learn the second lan-
guage for a few years and then drop it, like the majority of learners perhaps, there
is an advantage for adults, who would reach a higher standard during the same
period. But, as Bernard Spolsky (1989a) points out, ‘Educational systems usually
arrive first at a decision of optimal learning age on political or economic grounds
and then seek justification for their decision.’ When to teach children a second
language is seldom decided by language teachers or L2 learning experts.
A related question is whether the use of teaching methods should vary according
to the age of the students. At particular ages students prefer particular methods.
Teenagers may dislike any technique that exposes them in public; role play and sim-
ulation are in conflict with their adolescent anxieties. Adults can feel they are not
learning properly in play-like situations and prefer a conventional, formal style of
teaching. Adults learn better than children from the ‘childish’ activities of total phys-
ical response (Asher and Garcia, 1969) – if you can get them to join in! Age is by no
means crucial to L2 learning itself. Spolsky (1989a) describes three conditions for L2
learning related to age:
1 ‘Formal’ classroom learning requires ‘skills of abstraction and analysis’. That is to

say, if the teaching method entails sophisticated understanding and reasoning
by the student, as for instance a traditional grammar-translation method, then
it is better for the student to be older.
2 The child is more open to L2 learning in informal situations. Hence children are eas-
ier to teach through an informal approach.
3 The natural L2 situation may favour children. The teaching of adults requires the cre-
ation of language situations in the classroom that in some ways compensate for
this lack. An important characteristic of language spoken to small children is that
it is concerned with the ‘here and now’, rather than with the absent objects or the
abstract topics that are talked about in adult conversation – adults do not talk about
the weather much to a 2-year-old! That is to say, ordinary speech spoken by adults
to adults is too sophisticated for L2 learning. Restricting the language spoken to the
beginning L2 learner to make it reflect the here and now could be of benefit. This
is reminiscent of the audio-visual and situational teaching methods, which stress
the provision of concrete visual information through physical objects or pictures in
the early stages of L2 learning. But it may go against the idea that the content of
teaching should be relevant and should not be trivial.
Most adaptation to the age of the learner in textbooks probably concerns the
presentation of material and topics. Take New Headway (Soars and Soars, 2002):
the first lesson starts with photographs of opposite sex pairs of smiling people
aged between about 18 and 25, dressed in shirts, and looking lively (riding bicy-
cles, drinking Coke), all in colourfully glossy photographs; the topics in the book
include holidays and the Internet – what age would you say this was aimed at?
The opening lesson of Hotline (Hutchinson, 1992) has a photo-strip story of two
young men going along a street, one in a suit, the other with trainers and a pur-
ple backpack; topics include soap operas such as Neighbours and demos against
roadworks – what age is this for? The answers from the blurb are ‘adult and young
adult’ and ‘teenagers’ respectively. But, as always with published materials, they
have to aim at an ‘average’ student; many teenagers may scorn soap operas, many
adults have no interest in discussing holidays.
Box 8.3 Age in L2 learning

● To be older leads to better learning in the short term, other things being equal.
● Some research still favours child superiority at pronunciation, but not reliably.
● Children get to a higher level of proficiency in the long term than those
who start L2 learning while older, perhaps because adults slow down.
8.5 Are other personality traits important to

L2 learning?
Focusing questions
● Do you tend to straighten pictures if they are crooked?

● What type of personality do you think is the mark of a successful student?
Keywords
cognitive style: a person’s typical ways of thinking, seen as a continuum

between field-dependent (FD) cognitive style, in which thinking relates to
context, and field-independent (FI) style, in which it is independent of
context
extrovert and introvert: people’s personalities vary between those who relate
to objects outside themselves (extroverts) and those who relate to the
contents of their own minds (introverts)
Are other personality traits important to L2 learning? 151
Though there has been research into how other variations between L2 learners
contribute to their final success, it has produced a mass of conflicting answers.
Mostly, isolated areas have been looked at rather than the learner as a whole.
Much of the research is based on the non-uniqueness view of language, and so
assumes that L2 learning varies in the same way as other types of learning, say
learning to drive or to type. One piece of research shows that something is bene-
ficial; a second piece of research following up the same issue shows it is harmful.
Presumably this conflict demonstrates the complexity of the learning process and
the varieties of situation in which L2 learning occurs. But this is slender consola-
tion to teachers, who want a straight answer.
Cognitive style
The term ‘cognitive style’ refers to a technical psychological distinction between
typical ways of thinking. Imagine standing in a room that is slowly leaning to one
side without the people inside it knowing. Some people attempt to stand upright,
others lean so that they are parallel to the walls. Those who lean have a field-
dependent (FD) cognitive style; that is, their thinking relates to their surround-
ings. Those who stand upright have a field-independent (FI) style; they think
independently of their surroundings. The usual test for cognitive style is less dra-
matic, relying on distinguishing shapes in pictures and is thus called the embed-
ded figures test. Those who can pick out shapes despite confusing backgrounds are
field-independent, those who cannot are field-dependent. My own informal
check is whether a person adjusts pictures that are hanging crookedly or does not.
These are tendencies rather than absolutes; any individual is somewhere on the
continuum between the poles of FI and FD.
A difference in cognitive style might well make a difference to success in L2 learn-
ing – another aspect of aptitude. Most researchers have found that a tendency
towards FI (field independence) helps the student with conventional classroom
learning (Alptekin and Atakan, 1990). This seems obvious in a sense, in that formal
education in the West successively pushes students up the rungs of a ladder of
abstraction, away from the concrete (Donaldson, 1978). Hansen and Stansfield
(1981) used three tests with L2 learners: those that measured the ability to commu-
nicate, those that measured linguistic knowledge, and those that measured both
together. FI learners had slight advantages for communicative tasks, greater advan-
tages for academic tasks, and the greatest advantages for the combined tasks.
However, Bacon (1987) later found no differences between FD and FI students in
terms of how much they spoke and how well they spoke. This illustrates again the
interaction between student and teaching method; not all methods suit all students.
Cognitive style varies to some extent from one culture to another. There are vari-
ations between learners on different islands in the Pacific and between different
sexes, though field independence tends to go with good scores on a cloze test
(Hansen, 1984). Indeed, there are massive cross-cultural differences in these meas-
ures. To take Chinese as an example, first of all there is a general cultural difference
between East and West as to the importance of foreground versus background,
which affects the issue; second, the embedded figures test does not work, since peo-
ple who are users of character-based scripts find it much easier to see embedded fig-
ures, and other tests have to be used (Nisbett, 2003).
There is no general reason why FI people in general should be better or worse at
cognitive functioning than those who are FD. FI and FD are simply two styles of
thinking. A challenge has been posed to the use of FI/FD in second language
acquisition by Roger Griffiths and Ronald Sheen (1992), who argue that the con-
cept has not been sufficiently well defined in the research and is no longer of
much interest within the discipline of psychology, from which it came.
Personality differences
Perhaps an outgoing, sociable person learns a second language better than a
reserved, shy person. Again, the connection is not usually so straightforward.
Some researchers have investigated the familiar division between extrovert and
introvert personalities. In Jungian psychology the distinction applies to two ten-
dencies in the way that people interact with the world. Some people relate to
objects outside them, some to the interior world. Rossier (1975) found a link
between extroversion and oral fluency. Dewaele and Furnham (1999) found that
more complex tasks were easier for extrovert learners. There would seem to be a
fairly obvious connection to language teaching methods. The introverts might be
expected to prefer academic teaching that emphasises individual learning and
language knowledge; the extroverts audio-lingual or communicative teaching
that emphasizes group participation and social know-how.
Other individual variation

What else? Many other variations in the individual’s mental make-up have been
checked against L2 success.
Intelligence
Intelligence has some connection with school performance. There are links between
intelligence and aptitude in classrooms, as might be expected (Genesee, 1976).
Sex differences
Sex differences have also been investigated. The UK Assessment of Performance Unit
(1986) found English girls were better at French than English boys in all skills except
speaking. In my experience of talking with teachers it is true in every country that
second languages are more popular school subjects among girls. About 70 per cent
of undergraduates studying modern languages in the UK are women (Coleman,
1996). Using SILL, Green and Oxford (1995) found that women overall used more
learning strategies than men, particularly social strategies such as ‘Ask other person
to slow down or repeat’, and meaning strategies such as ‘Review English lessons
often’. Coleman (1996) found that women students were more embarrassed by their
mistakes.
Level of first language

Level of first language is also relevant. Some studies support the commonly held
teacher’s view that children who are more advanced in their first language are bet-
ter at their second language (Skehan, 1989).
Empathy
Those students who are able to empathize with the feelings of others are better at
learning L2 pronunciation, though this depends to some extent on the language the
students are acquiring (Guiora et al., 1972).
Of course, all teachers have their own pet beliefs about factors that are crucial to
L2 learning. One of my own suspicions is that the time of year when the student
was born makes a difference, due in England, not to astrological sign, but to the
extra schooling children get if they are born at certain times. But my own checks
with the university computer cannot seem to prove a link between choosing a lan-
guage degree and being born in a particular month.
Many of the factors in this chapter cannot be affected by the teacher. Age can-
not be changed, nor can aptitude, intelligence and most areas of personality. As
teachers cannot change them, they have to live with them. In other words, teach-
ing has to recognize the differences between students. At a gross level this means
catering for the factors that a class has in common, say, age and type of motiva-
tion. At a finer level the teacher has to cater for the differences between individu-
als in the class, by providing opportunities for each of them to benefit in their
own way: the same teaching can be taken in different ways by different students.
To some teachers this is not sufficient; nothing will do but complete individual-
ization so that each student has his or her own unique course. For class teaching,
the aspects in which students are different have to be balanced against those that
they share. Much L2 learning is common ground, whatever the individual differ-
ences between learners may be.
Box 8.4 Individual differences and language teaching

● The variety and nature of motivations need to be recognized.
● Teachers should work with, not against, student motivation in materials and
content.
● Important attitudes in L2 learners include maintaining cultural identity,
maintaining relationships with other groups, beliefs about bilingualism,
beliefs about monolingualism.
● Students without aptitude can be excluded (if allowable on other grounds).
● Different teaching can be provided for learners with different types of apti-
tude, even streaming into fast and slow streams.
● Age issues affect when and how to teach the second language.
Discussion topics
1 Suggest three ways in which you would increase (a) positive short-term
motivation and (b) integrative motivation in your students.
2 Is it really possible to change the students’ underlying motivation, as opposed
to simply increasing it?
3 What should be done with students who have a low aptitude for L2
learning?
4 What do you think is the best age to learn a foreign language?
5 Name two teaching techniques that would work best with adults, two with
children.
6 How can one cater for different personality types in the same classroom?
7 If girls really are better at L2 learning than boys, what could the reason be?
Further reading
Main sources for this chapter are Skehan (1989) Individual Differences in Second-lan-
guage Learning; Gardner (1985) Social Psychology and Second Language Learning; and
Singleton (1989) Language Acquisition: The Age Factor. Coverage from a psycholo-
gist’s point of view can be found in Dornyei’s (2001) Teaching and Researching
Motivation and (2005) The Psychology of the Language Learner.
Classroom interaction
and Conversation Analysis 9
9.1 Language and interaction inside the classroom
Focusing questions
● Do people learn a second language best inside or outside a classroom?

● Do you think of the classroom as a real situation of its own or as something
artificial?
● How much of the class time does the teacher speak? How much should they
speak?
Keywords
leader and follower: in some types of conversation one person has the right to
lead the conversation while the others follow his or her lead
teacher talk: the speech supplied by the teacher rather than the students
initiation: the opening move by the teacher
response: the student response to the teacher’s opening move
feedback: teacher evaluation of the student response
authentic speech: ‘an authentic text is a text that was created to fulfil some
social purpose in the language community in which it was produced’ (Little
et al., 1988)
L2 learning inside and outside classrooms

Is L2 learning the same inside the classroom as outside? One extreme point of view
sees the L2 classroom as a world of its own. Teachers and books slip into the habit
of referring to the world outside the classroom as the ‘real world’ – New Cutting Edge
(Cunningham et al., 2005) has a section in each unit called ‘Real life’ – denying that
the classroom is a part of the real world for its participants. What the students are
doing in a classroom may be quite different from the ‘natural’ ways of learning lan-
guage they would experience in an uncontrolled situation. Thus some teaching
exploits deliberately ‘unnatural’ L2 learning. Focus on form (FonF), for instance, is
exploiting the other faculties the mind has available for L2 learning, rather than
156 Classroom interaction and Conversation Analysis
making use of the ‘natural’ processes of the language faculty specifically dedicated
to language learning. At the opposite extreme is the view that all L2 learning, or
indeed all language learning of the first or second language, is the same. The class-
room, at best, exploits this natural learning, and at worst puts barriers in its way.
What happens in class has to be as ‘natural’ as possible, dodging the question of
the bitter disputes over exactly what natural language learning might be.
What evidence is there one way or the other? Some areas of grammar have been
investigated in classrooms as well as in the world outside. Learners appear to go
through the same sequence of acquisition in both situations, for example, German
children learning English at school compared with those learning outside (Felix,
1981). Three children learning English as a second language in London over a
period of time started by producing ‘no’ by itself as a separate sentence ‘Red, no’
(Ellis, 1986). They said sentences with external negation, ‘No play baseball’ before
those with internal negation ‘I’m no drawing chair.’ This happened slowly over the
period of a year, only one child producing a single sentence with internal negation
‘This man can’t read.’ The children were passing through the standard stages in the
acquisition of negation despite the fact that they were actually being taught nega-
tion. So students in classrooms learn some aspects of second languages in much the
same way as learners who never go near them.
The language of classrooms in general

Let us start with the language interaction common to all classrooms. In most face-
to-face conversation people interact with each other and adapt what they are say-
ing to the listener’s reactions. Some situations, however, give one participant a
more directive role than the others; one person can be the ‘leader’ who takes the
initiative, the others are ‘followers’ who respond to it. For example, an interviewer
has the right to guide the conversation and to ask questions that would be out of
place in other situations. ‘How old are you?’ addressed to an adult is unthinkable
except in an interview. In the classroom this overall ‘leader’ role falls to the teacher.
The exchange of turns between listeners and speakers is under the teacher’s overall
guidance, overtly or covertly. So, not surprisingly, about 70 per cent of the utter-
ances in most classrooms come from the teacher.
In first language acquisition, adults assume the basic right to direct the conversa-
tion when talking to children; ‘How old are you?’ is a frequent question from adults
to children. The same assumption is often true when talking to foreign adults.
The difference between the classroom and other leader-directed conversations
lies in the way that the conversation is directed. Let us take a short classroom
exchange from Sinclair and Coulthard (1975):
Teacher: Can you tell me why you eat all that food? Yes.
Pupil: To keep you strong.
Teacher: To keep you strong. Yes. To keep you strong. Why do you want to
be strong? . . .
This exchange has three main moves:
1 Initiation. The teacher takes the initiative by requiring something of the stu-
dent, say through a question such as, ‘Can you tell me why you eat all that
food?’ The move starts off the exchange; the teacher acts as leader.
Language and interaction inside the classroom 157
2 Response. Next the student does whatever is required, here answering the ques-
tion by saying, ‘To keep you strong’. So the move responds to the teacher’s ini-
tiation; the student acts as follower.
3 Feedback. The teacher does not go straight on to the next initiation but
announces whether the student is right or wrong, ‘To keep you strong. Yes.’
The teacher evaluates the student’s behaviour and comments on it in a way
that would be impossible outside the classroom.
This three-move structure of initiation, response and feedback – or IRF as it is

known – is very frequent in teaching; indeed some people see it as an important
way in which parents speak to their children. Even in lectures, teachers sometimes
attempt feedback moves with comments such as, ‘That was a good question.’
Some language teaching styles rely heavily on this classroom structure. IRF was,
after all, the format of the classic language laboratory drill. Other styles of teach-
ing, such as the communicative, may discourage it because it is restricted to class-
room language rather than being generally applicable. Nor is IRF the only
characteristic of such exchanges. One common feature, illustrated by the ‘Yes’ in
‘Can you tell me why you eat all that food? Yes’, is that the teacher selects and
approves who is to speak next, a feature common to all leader/follower situations,
ranging from the chairperson at a committee meeting to congressional commit-
tees of investigation.
Language in the language teaching classroom

Are language teaching classrooms different from other classrooms? Craig Chaudron
(1988) cited figures from various sources which show that teacher talk takes up
77 per cent of the time in bilingual classrooms in Canada, 69 per cent in immer-
sion classes, and 61 per cent in foreign language classrooms. Werner Hullen
(1989) found that 75 per cent of the utterances in German classrooms came from
the teacher. A massive amount of the language of the classroom is provided by
the teacher.
The L2 teaching classroom is unique, however, in that language is involved in
two distinct ways. First of all, the organization and control of the classroom take
place through language; second, language is the actual subject matter that is being
taught; if the teacher asks ‘How old are you?’ in the second language, the student
does not know whether it is a genuine question or a display question practising a
question structure. A school subject like physics does not turn the academic sub-
ject back on itself. Physics is not taught through physics in the same way that lan-
guage is taught through language.
This twofold involvement of language creates a particular problem for L2 teach-
ing. The students and teachers are interacting through language in the classroom,
using the strategies and moves that form part of their normal classroom behaviour.
But at the same time the L2 strategies and moves are the behaviour the learner is
aiming at, the objectives of the teaching. The teacher has to be able to manage the
class through one type of language, at the same time as getting the student to
acquire another type. There is a duality about much language teaching which is
absent from other school subjects, because language has to fulfil its normal class-
room role as well as making up the content of the class; it functions on two levels.
N.S. Prabhu (1987) suggests dealing with this problem by treating the classroom
solely as a classroom: ‘learners’ responses arose from their role as learners, not from
assumed roles in simulated situations or from their individual lives outside the
classroom’: the real language of the classroom is classroom language.
The teacher’s language is particularly important to language teaching. Teachers
of physics adapt their speech to suit the level of comprehension of their pupils,
but this is only indirectly connected to their subject matter. The students are not
literally learning the physics teacher’s language. Teachers of languages who adapt
their speech directly affect the subject matter: language itself. Like most teachers,
I have felt while teaching that I was adapting the grammatical structures and the
vocabulary I used to the students’ level.
But is this subjective feeling right? Do teachers really adapt their speech to the
level of the learner or do they simply believe they do so? What is more, do such
changes actually benefit the students? Observation of teachers confirms there
is indeed adaptation of several kinds. Steven Gaies (1979) recorded student-
teachers teaching EFL in the classroom. At each of four levels, from beginners to
advanced, their speech increased in syntactic complexity. Even at the advanced
level it was still less complicated than their speech to their fellow students. Craig
Chaudron (1983) compared a teacher lecturing on the same topic to native and
non-native speakers. He found considerable simplification and rephrasing in
vocabulary: ‘clinging’ became ‘holding on tightly’, and ‘ironic’ became ‘funny’.
He felt that the teacher’s compulsion to express complex content simply often led
to ‘ambiguous over-simplification on the one hand and confusingly redundant
over-elaboration on the other’. Hullen (1989) found the feedback move was
prominent with about 30 per cent of teacher’s remarks consisting of ‘right’, ‘ah’,
‘okay’, and so on.
What does this high proportion of teacher talk mean for L2 teaching? Several
teaching methods have tried to maximize the amount of speaking by the student.
The audio-lingual method fitted in with the language laboratory precisely because
it increased each student’s share of speaking time. Task-based teaching methods
support pair work and group work partly because they give each student the
chance to talk as much as possible. Other methods do not share the opinion that
teacher talk should be minimized. Conventional academic teaching emphasises
factual information coming from the teacher. Listening-based teaching sees most
value in the students extracting information from what they hear rather than in
speaking themselves. One argument for less speech by the students is that the sen-
tences the students hear will at least be correct examples of the target language, not
samples of the interlanguages of their fellow students.
Authentic and non-authentic language

A further distinction is between authentic and non-authentic language. Here is
the opening dialogue from New English File (Oxenden et al., 2004):
A: Hi. I’m Tom. What’s your name?

B: Anna.
A: Sorry?
B: Anna!
This is non-authentic language specially constructed for its teaching potential.

People in real-life conversations do not speak in full grammatical sentences and
Language and interaction inside the classroom 159
do not keep to a clear sequence of turns. Nor do they tend to go up to complete

strangers and introduce themselves, except in certain socially sanctioned situations
(speed-dating?).
Instead they speak like these two people, recorded while talking about ghosts
for my coursebook English Topics (Cook, 1975):
Mrs Bagg: Oh, how extraordinary.

Jenny Drew: So…‘cos quite a quite a lot of things like that.
Mrs Bagg: I mean were they frightened? ‘Cos I think if I actually…
Jenny Drew: No.
Mrs Bagg: …saw a ghost because I don’t believe in them really, I would be
frightened, you know to think that I was completely wrong.
This is an example of authentic language, defined by David Little et al. (1988) as

language ‘created to fulfil some social purpose in the language community in
which it was produced’. Until recently, teaching provided the students with spe-
cially adapted language, not only simplified in terms of syntax and confined in
vocabulary, but also tidied up in terms of discourse structure. The belief was that
such non-authentic language was vital to L2 learning.
With the advent of methods that looked at the communicative situations the
students were going to encounter, it seemed clear that the students were handi-
capped by never hearing authentic speech in all its richness and diversity. Hence
exercises and courses have proliferated that turn away from specially constructed
classroom language to pieces of language that have really been used by native
speakers, whether tapes of conversations, advertisements from magazines, train
timetables, or a thousand and one other sources. In most countries it is possible to
use authentic texts based on local circumstances taken from local English-lan-
guage newspapers, such as the Jerusalem Post or the Buenos Aires Herald, often
available from the Internet these days, for example the Athens News, the Straits
Times (Singapore) or Granma (Havana).
Two justifications for the use of authentic text in communicative teaching are
put forward by Little et al. (1988):
● Motivation and interest. Students will be better motivated by texts that have
served a real communicative purpose.
● Acquisition-promoting content. Authentic texts provide a rich source of natu-
ral language for the learner to acquire language from.
Additional reasons are:
● Filling in language gaps. Designers of coursebooks and syllabuses may miss

some of the aspects of language used in real-life situations; we often do not
know what people actually say in railway stations or offices. This lack can be
filled most easily by giving students the appropriate real-life language taken
from situations appropriate to their needs.
● Showing L2 users in action. While it may be hard for the teacher or course-
book writer to imitate L2 users, authentic L2-use texts can do this readily, for
example, the English-speaking newspapers mentioned above.
The fact that the language is authentic does not in itself make it more difficult
than specially written language. Difficulty depends partly on the amount of
material that is used. A BBC Russian course recorded people on the streets of
Moscow saying ‘Zdravstvujte’ (Hello) to the cameraman – totally authentic, but
no problem for the students. The recording or text does not have to consist of
many words to be authentic: ‘EXIT’, ‘This door is alarmed’, ‘Ladies’, to take three
authentic written signs. Difficulty also depends on the task that is used with the
material. You can play a recording of two philosophers discussing the nature of
the universe to beginners so long as all you ask them to do is identify which is a
man, which a woman, or who is angry, who is calm, or indeed who said ‘well’
most often.
It is up to the teacher whether authentic language should be used in the class-
room or whether non-authentic language reflects a legitimate way into the lan-
guage. In other words, the choice is between decoding and codebreaking: are the
processes of learning similar to those of use, so that authentic language is needed,
or are they different, so that appropriate non-authentic language is helpful? Other
factors involved in this decision will be the goals of the students and other con-
straints of the teaching situation. And of course, the classroom is a classroom;
authentic language, by definition, is not normal classroom language and is being
used for purposes quite other than those of its original speakers, however well
intentioned the teacher.
One problem is that many teachers still think of an L2 class as language
practice above all else, not related to ‘real’ communication – mock communica-
tion disguising language teaching points or tasks. If the student’s answer leads
away from the language point that is being pursued, it is ignored, however
promising the discussion might seem. Seldom does genuine communication take
place in which the students and teacher develop a communicative exchange
leading away from the language teaching point. Yet one of the early claims of
the direct method pioneers was that genuine interchange of ideas was possible in
the classroom. Lambert Sauveur boasted that he could give a beginners’ class on
any topic; when challenged to give a class on God, he succeeded brilliantly
(Howatt, 2004). The IRF exchange, particularly the teacher’s evaluation move, is
a constant reminder to the students that they are engaged in language practice,
not use.
Box 9.1 Language in classroom L2 learning

● Teacher talk makes up around 70 per cent of classroom language.
● Language teaching classrooms are different from other classrooms because
language is not just the medium but also the content.
● Authentic speech may motivate and help communicative goals, if decoding
equates with codebreaking.
● Non-authentic speech may be specially tailored to students’ learning needs
if codebreaking is different from decoding.
● Teaching styles of interaction using IRF may interfere with ordinary commu-
nicative interaction.
Language input and language learning 161
9.2 Language input and language learning
Focusing questions
● How and why should language be simplified for use in the classroom?
● In what ways do you adapt your speech to children? To foreigners?
● When you were at school, did you think of your teachers as wise superior
beings or as helpful equals?
Keywords
baby talk, motherese, foreigner talk: forms of language specially designed for
listeners without full competence in a language
postfigurative: a culture in which people learn from older, wiser guardians of
knowledge
cofigurative: a culture in which people learn from their equals
prefigurative: a culture in which people learn from their juniors
The language of the language teaching classroom is distinctive because its purpose
is to enable language learning to take place. All languages have special varieties for
talking to speakers who are believed not to speak very well. For example, ‘baby
talk’, or ‘motherese’, is used when talking to babies. These varieties have similar
characteristics in many languages: exaggerated changes of pitch, louder volume,
‘simpler’ grammar, special words such as those for ‘dog’: ‘bow-wow’ (English),
‘wan wan’ (Japanese) and ‘hawhaw’ (Moroccan Arabic).
Barbara Freed (1980) found that ‘foreigner talk’ addressed to non-native speak-
ers also had simple grammar and a high proportion of questions with ‘unmoved’
question words, for example ‘You will return to your country when?’ rather than
‘When will you return to your country?’ But the functions of language in for-
eigner talk were more directed at the exchange of information than at controlling
the person’s behaviour, as in baby talk. Most teachers rarely fall totally into this
style of speech. Nevertheless, experienced teachers use a distinct type of speech
and gesture when speaking to foreigners.
The fact that baby talk exists, however, does not prove that it has any effect
on learning. In other words, baby talk and foreigner talk varieties of language
reflect what people believe less proficient speakers need – but their beliefs may be
wrong. Many child language researchers feel that acquiring the first language does
not depend on some special aspect of the language that the child hears. The
effects of baby talk on children’s first language development have so far been
impossible to prove. It may well be that its characteristics are beneficial, but this
is chiefly a matter of belief, given the many children who acquire the first lan-
guage despite far from optimal conditions. Some further aspects of input in lan-
guage learning are discussed in relation to the Universal Grammar (UG) model in
Chapter 12.
Teaching and language input

L2 learning differs from L1 learning in that the majority of students fall by the
wayside before they get to a high level. An important element in L2 success
appears to be how learners are treated: the teaching method they encounter, the
language they hear and the environment in which they are learning. The purpose
of language teaching in one sense is to provide optimal samples of language for
the learner to profit from – the best ‘input’ to the process of language learning.
Everything the teacher does provides the learners with opportunities for encoun-
tering the language.
At this point, communicative and task-based methods of teaching mostly part
company with the listening-based methods. The communicative methods have
emphasized the learners’ dual roles as listeners and as speakers. A typical exercise
requires students to take both roles in a conversation and not only to understand
the information they are listening to, but also to try to express it themselves. They
are receiving input both from the teacher and from their peers in the class. The
listening-based methods, however, confine the student to the role of listener. In a
technique such as total physical response, the students listen and carry out com-
mands, but they do not have to speak. Hence the input they receive is totally con-
trolled by the teacher. An example from Krashen and Terrell’s The Natural Approach
(1983) consists of getting the students to choose between pictures according to the
teacher’s description: ‘There are two men in this picture. They are young. They are
boxing.’ This approach was encapsulated in Krashen’s slogan, ‘Maximize compre-
hensible input’ (Krashen, 1981b).
Proponents of communicative teaching methods have often felt that it is bene-
ficial for students to listen to authentic language consisting of judiciously chosen
samples of unexpurgated native speech, as we have seen. Authentic speech evi-
dently needs to be made comprehensible in one way or another if it is to be use-
ful. Its lack of any concession to the learner needs to be compensated for in some
way, for example, with explanations or visuals.
Implications for teaching

One overall moral is that there is no such thing as the classroom, as classrooms
vary in so many ways. Some students have been hypnotized, some have studied
in their sleep, some have seen Lego blocks built into sentences, some have had
the world of meaning reduced to a set of coloured sticks, some have sat in groups
and bared their souls, others have sat in language laboratories repeating after the
tape. The classroom is a variable, not a constant. Teachers can shape it to suit
their students and their aims, within the limits set by their school or educational
system. Nor should we forget that instruction does not only take place in class-
rooms. The self-motivated autonomous student can learn as efficiently as any
taught in a class.
What advice can be given about input in the classroom?
● Be aware of the two levels at which language enters into the classroom. Overusing
the ‘leader’ pattern of IRF teacher talk undermines a communicative classroom
by destroying the usual give-and-take typical outside the classroom.
● Be aware of the different sources of input. Language may come first from the
teacher, second from the textbook or teaching materials, and third from the
Language input and language learning 163
other students, not to mention sources outside the classroom. All these provide
different types of language: the teacher the genuine language of the classroom,
the textbook purpose-designed non-authentic language or authentic language
taken out of its usual context, the other students’ interlanguage full of non-
native-like forms but at the same time genuine communicative interaction.
● The input that the students are getting is far more than just the sentences they
encounter. The whole context provides language; this includes the patterns of
interaction between teacher and class, and between students in the class, down
to the actual gestures used. Many teachers ostensibly encourage spontaneous
natural interaction from the students, but they still betray that they are teach-
ers controlling a class with every gesture they make.
● Students learn what they are taught. This truism has often been applied to lan-
guage classrooms: in general, students taught by listening methods turn out to
be better at listening; students taught through reading are better at reading.
The major source of language available to many learners is what they
encounter in the classroom. This biases their knowledge in particular ways. A
teacher I observed was insisting that the students used the present continuous;
hardly surprisingly his students were later saying things like, ‘I’m catching the
bus every morning.’ The teacher’s responsibility is to make certain that the lan-
guage input which is provided is sufficient for the student to gain the appropri-
ate type of language knowledge and that it does not distort it in crucial ways.
While in many respects L2 learners follow their own developmental sequences,
and so on, their classroom input affects their language in broad terms.
Much of what we have seen so far implies that language itself is the most impor-
tant ingredient in the classroom, the core of the syllabus, the basis for the teaching
technique, and the underlying skeleton of the class, whether considered as conversa-
tional interaction, authentic or non-authentic, simplified grammatical structures, or
whatever. This has been challenged by those who see the classroom as a unique situ-
ation with its own rationale. Prabhu (1987), for example, talked of how the class-
room consisted of particular processes and activities; his celebrated work in Bangalore
organized language teaching around the activities that could be done in the class-
room: interpreting information in tables, working out distances, and so on. Michael
Long and Graham Crookes (1993) describe teaching arranged around pedagogic tasks
‘which provide a vehicle for the presentation of appropriate language samples to
learners’. A task has an objective and has to be based on tasks that the students need
in their lives. Language is far from the crucial factor in the language teaching class-
room; the students will suffer if all the teacher’s attention goes on organizing lan-
guage content and interaction. The task-based learning approach is described further
in Chapter 13.
Culture and the classroom

Two links with other areas must be made. One concerns the individual in the class-
room, the other the classroom as part of the society. The individual’s attitudes to the
classroom form an important component in L2 learning. The student’s attitudes
towards the learning situation, as measured by feelings about the classroom teacher
and level of anxiety about the classroom, contribute to the student’s motivation.
This is also discussed in Chapter 8. But there may also be a sharp opposition
between different types of teacher. Adrian Holliday (1994) describes the difference
between the social context of the expatriate EFL teacher and the non-native teacher
who lives in that country. These can have very different interpretations of the same
classroom, the one based on the West-dominated ‘professionalism’ of the EFL tradi-
tion, the other on the local educational system. Holliday tells of an encounter in
Egypt between Beatrice, an expatriate lecturer, and Dr Anwar, a local member of an
EFL project. To the expatriate it was a discussion among equals about their experi-
ences in the language laboratory; to Dr Anwar it was a waste of his expert time.
Teachers may then inhabit different cultures of their own, as well as the differences
between the cultures of the student and the target language. Differences between
native and non-native teachers are discussed in Chapter 10.
So far as the society is concerned, the expectations of the students and teachers
about the classroom depend on their culture. Margaret Mead (1970) makes a useful
division between postfigurative societies in which people learn from wise elders,
cofigurative societies in which they learn from their equals, and prefigurative
societies in which they learn from their juniors. Many cultures view education as
postfigurative. The classroom to them is a place in which the wise teacher imparts
knowledge to the students. Hence they naturally favour teaching methods that
transfer knowledge explicitly from the teacher to the student, such as academic
teaching methods. Other cultures see education cofiguratively. The teacher designs
opportunities for the students to learn from each other. Hence they prefer teaching
methods that encourage group work, pair work and task-based learning. Mead feels
that modern technological societies are often prefigurative, as witnessed by the
ease with which teenagers master computers compared to their parents. There is
not, to my knowledge, a language teaching parallel to the prefigurative type, unless
in certain ‘alternative’ methods in which the teacher is subordinated to the stu-
dents’ whims.
So certain teaching methods will be dangerous to handle in particular societies.
Whatever the merits of the communicative method, its attempts to promote non-
teacher-controlled activities in China were at first perceived as insults to the
Confucian ethos of the classroom, which emphasized the benefits of learning
texts by heart (Sampson, 1984). In Mead’s terms, a cofigurative method was being
used in a postfigurative classroom. A teaching method has to suit the beliefs of the
society about what activities are proper for classrooms. It is not usually part of the
language teacher’s brief to decide on the overall concept of the classroom in a
society. The different links between L2 learning and societies are followed up in
Chapter 10.
Box 9.2 Classroom input and language teaching

● Everything the teacher does provides the learner with opportunities for
encountering the language.
● Be aware of the two levels at which language enters into the classroom.
● Be aware of the different sources of input.
● The input that the students are getting is far more than just the sentences
they encounter.
● Students learn what they are taught (in some sense).
● What works in the classroom in one cultural milieu may not work in another.
Describing conversation 165
9.3 Describing conversation
Focusing questions
● Think of a way of starting a conversation. When would you use it? How
would you teach it?
● What do you do if you realize someone has not understood what you
have said?
● How do you respond when someone pays you a compliment?
Keyword
Conversation Analysis: the discipline that studies conversational interaction by

close analysis of transcripts (Note: this is often abbreviated to CA; in the older
SLA literature, however, CA stands for Contrastive Analysis, mentioned in
Chapter 1)
adjacency pair: a pair of conversational turns such as question and answer
repair: the way that the speaker or listener gets the interaction back on course
when something goes wrong
When people talk to each other, they are constructing a conversation by making
particular moves and by responding to the moves of others. For 50 years people
have been trying to describe how this works.
The first interest in SLA research came through the work of Evelyn Hatch and
her associates, who called her approach ‘discourse analysis’ (Hatch, 1978). The
starting point was how L2 users interact with native speakers. The opening move
in a conversation is to get someone’s attention:
A: Hi.
Next the participants need to establish what they are talking about – topic
nomination:
A: Did you see the news in the paper?
At last they can say something about the topic:
A: There’s been a bridge disaster.
In a second language we may need to establish the topic more firmly. The listener has
to make certain they have grasped what is being talked about – topic identification:
B: There’s been a what?
To which the other person may respond with topic clarification:
A: An accident with a bridge that collapsed.
Often we need repairs to keep the conversation going:
B: A fridge that collapsed?
A: No, a bridge.
Conversation is driven by the attempt to get meanings across to someone else; it

comes out of the topic we want to talk about.
My beginners’ coursebook, People and Places (Cook, 1980), was based partly on
the ideas of Hatch (1978), using conversational categories such as initiating topic
(‘You know Edna?’), checking (‘What?’), repeating (‘Edna?’), stating facts (‘Edna is an
old-age-pensioner’) and confirming (‘Yes, that’s right’). These were incorporated
into a teaching exercise called a conversational exchange. First students get
some sample exchanges, with alternative forms for each move:
identifying: A: My name’s Mickey Mouse.

checking: B: What?
confirming: A: Mickey Mouse.
acknowledging: B: Oh I see, Mickey Mouse.
Then they have to invent exchanges with other celebrity names taken from pic-
tures; finally they supply names of their own to put into the exchange. While this
teaching exercise reflected conversational interaction, it was highly controlled;
the students were not negotiating for meaning so much as learning the patterns
and moves for negotiating for meaning. A similar type of exercise is used in
Touchstone (McCarthy et al., 2005); students match questions and answers in a
dialogue, ‘Complete the conversations’ in fill-in sentences and then practise cor-
rect responses to ‘Thank you’ and ‘I’m sorry’.
This view of conversation relates to the speech act theory derived from philoso-
phy or linguistics, which assigns functions to utterances: ‘Open the door’ is mak-
ing a command; ‘Why is the door open?’ is making a question, and so on. This is
closer to Lang4, the social side of language. Such functions of speech formed the
basis for the communicative teaching approach, seen in the functional/notional
syllabus advocated by David Wilkins (1972). Its influence can be seen in almost
any coursebook to this day. Just Right (Harmer, 2004), for instance, teaches func-
tions such as ‘making promises’, ‘paying compliments’ and ‘giving opinions’.
The difficulty with teaching functions has often been the disconnection from
the structure of conversation involved in teaching one function at a time; how do
you practise paying compliments without knowing when to pay a compliment or
how to reply to it? Hatch’s conversational structure provided one way of connect-
ing functions to conversational moves. Hence People and Places taught compli-
menting as part of a three-move interaction:
stating: Simon: This is my new jacket.

exclaiming: Helen: What a smart jacket!
complimenting: Helen: It suits you.
Students had to continue in this vein by commenting on the other things that
Simon and Helen were wearing in their pictures and then describing the clothes
of other students.
Paul Seedhouse (2004) points out how this type of approach differs from the
discipline of Conversation Analysis (CA) that it superficially resembles. CA does
not try to establish categories and units in a fixed structure; instead it looks at a
slice of conversational interaction and tries to work out what is going on from the
point of view of the participants; ‘For those trying to understand a bit of talk, the
key question about any of its aspects is – why that now?’ (Schegloff et al., 2002).
Describing conversation 167
The most obvious feature of interaction is that people take turns to speak. One
exchange of turns is the adjacency pair:
A: What’s the time?

B: Five o’clock.
The move by the first speaker is followed by a related move by the second speaker,
chosen out of a limited range of acceptable options. Sometimes, as in question
and answer, the second speaker has little choice; after compliments, there may be
a less conventional range of responses; after stating opinion:
‘I love Picasso’s blue period.’
there may be an obvious agreeing/disagreeing move:
‘I can’t stand it.’
or a more nebulous range of options. While the second speaker may indeed decide to
say nothing at all, this is a highly marked option: deliberately failing to respond
to ‘Good morning’ would be the height of rudeness, in CA amounting to a refusal to
accept social solidarity.
The two parts of the adjacency pair, however, do not necessarily follow each
other:
A: What’s the time?

B: Why do you want to know?
A: So I can put this letter in the post.
B: Five o’clock. You’re too late.
The speakers keep an ongoing idea of the adjacency pair in their minds even when
they are diverting onto side issues. In an early experiment (Cook, 1981), I tried to
see the extent to which the concept of the adjacency pair was established in L2
users’ minds by getting them to supply first or second moves, finding that the
adjacency pair indeed had psychological reality for them.
Central to the idea of interaction is what happens when it goes wrong – the
organization of repair. According to Emanuel Schegloff et al. (2002), this is not the
same as the failure to communicate covered by the communication strategies
described in Chapter 6, but is an interruption, after which interaction is restored.
Usually a distinction is made between self-initiated repair by the same person:
A: Where’s the saucepan? Sorry, the frying pan.
and other-initiated repair by the other speaker:
A: Where’s the saucepan?

B: Where’s the what?
A: The saucepan.
B: Oh, it’s on the bottom shelf.
For the classroom this occurs at two levels; one is the repair of the classroom inter-
action itself, where the teacher or students have to make clear what is going on,
which may well be in the first language; the other is at the level of the interaction
sequence of the language learning activity, which will normally be in the second
language. Schegloff et al. (2002) point out that repair is the essence of the L2
classroom interaction and that much depends on how people understand and
produce self-repair in a second language.
While CA has often been concerned with interaction in constrained institutional
settings, this is seen as related to wider settings rather than unique. The language
teaching classroom has its own characteristic forms of turn-taking, adjacency pair,
repair, and so on. Paul Seedhouse (2004) shows how turn-taking depends on the task
involved, particularly crucial in task-based learning. The problem with applying
CA to language teaching, however, is that its aim is to describe conversational
interaction as it happens, rather like a Lang3 sense of language as a set of external
sentences. But it does not say how the participants acquire the ability to interact
and so help with how to teach it. It may be possible to deduce how the learner is
proceeding and what the teacher should do, but this depends largely on other
learning theories and approaches, such as the interaction hypothesis dealt with in
Chapter 12, not on Conversation Analysis itself. A CA analysis can tell us whether
a repair occurred and whether it was successful, but it cannot in itself say whether
anything was learnt.
Box 9.3 Classroom interaction, Conversation Analysis and

language teaching
1 In Hatch’s discourse analysis the moves of a conversation revolve around a
topic, for example:
● topic nomination;
● topic identification;
● topic clarification.
2 Conversation Analysis makes use of concepts such as:

● the adjacency pair where two conversational moves are linked;
● repair – how the participants deal with things that go wrong, whether
self-initiated repair or other-initiated repair.

Teaching can use these ideas at two levels:
● the pedagogical exchanges of the classroom;
● the target conversational exchanges that the students are aiming at outside
the classroom.
Discussion topics
1 To what extent can and should the classroom duplicate the language of the
world outside?
2 Should teachers feel guilty if they talk for most of the time in a lesson? Or
would students be disappointed if they did not do so?
3 What kinds of authentic speech can you envisage using in a specific
classroom? How would you use them?
4 Should you simplify your speech while teaching or not?
5 How would you see your teaching in terms of prefigurative, cofigurative and
postfigurative?
Further reading 169
6 Do students need to be taught how to make or request repairs?

7 Is the adjacency pair really crucial to language teaching, or is it just saying
that people take turns to speak, just as tennis players hit the ball alternately?
Further reading
Two books that give a wealth of information on the language teaching classroom
are: Chaudron (1988) Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and
Learning, and Ellis (1990) Instructed Second Language Acquisition. The use of authentic
texts in teaching is described in Little et al. (1988) Authentic Texts in Foreign
Language Teaching: Theory and Practice. A useful book on the role of the first lan-
guage in the classroom is Macaro (1997) Target Language, Collaborative Learning
and Autonomy; an account of dual language programmes can be found in
Montague (1997) ‘Critical components for dual language programs’ in Bilingual
Research Journal 21: 4. A clear introduction to Conversation Analysis can be found
in Seedhouse (2004) The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom.
The L2 user and the
native speaker 10
This chapter brings together themes about the relationship between people
who know more than one language and monolingual native speakers. Are L2
users and monolingual native speakers different types of people? If so, what
should be the proper goals of students of second languages and how does this
affect how they should be taught? These issues have been debated with great pas-
sion. The views here broadly come from within the multi-competence perspective
outlined in Chapters 1 and 12. This chapter concentrates on the L2 user as an
individual, Chapter 11 on L2 users as part of communities, though there are
inevitable overlaps.
Box 10.1 Questions for L2 users

1 Do you use:
● the two languages in different situations or in the same situation?
● the two languages to different people or the same people?
● the L1 at the same time as the L2 (e.g. by translating)?
● codeswitching during the course of a conversation?
2 Do you feel using two languages has:

● social advantages or disadvantages?
● mental advantages or disadvantages?
3 Are you jealous of native speakers?

4 Do you feel you are losing your first language?
10.1 The L2 user versus the native speaker in language

teaching
Focusing questions
● Should L2 learners aim to speak like native speakers?

● What kind of role do non-native speakers have in the coursebook you are
most familiar with? Powerful successful people? Or ignorant tourists and near-
beginner students?
The L2 user versus the native speaker in language teaching 171
Keywords
native speaker: ‘a person who has spoken a certain language since early child-
hood’ (McArthur, 1992)
L2 user: a person who uses more than one language, at whatever level
A central issue in SLA research and language teaching is the concept of the native
speaker. But what is a native speaker? One of the first uses of the term is by
Leonard Bloomfield: ‘The first language a human being learns to speak is his native
language; he is a native speaker of this language’ (Bloomfield, 1933: 43). Being a
native speaker in this sense is a straightforward matter of an individual’s history;
the first language you encounter as a baby is your native language. A typical mod-
ern definition is ‘a person who has spoken a certain language since early child-
hood’ (McArthur, 1992). You can no more change the historical fact of which
language you spoke first than you can change the mother who brought you up.
Any later-learnt language cannot be a native language by definition; your second
language will never be your native language regardless of how long or how well
you speak it.
A second way of defining native speakers is to list the components that make
them up. David Stern (1983) lists characteristics such as a subconscious knowl-
edge of rules and creativity of language use: native speakers know the language
without being able to verbalize their knowledge; they can produce new sentences
they have not heard before. L2 learners may be able to acquire some of these com-
ponents of the native speaker state. L2 users also know many aspects of the second
language subconsciously rather than consciously; L2 users are capable of saying new
things in a second language, for example the ‘surrealistic aphorisms’ of French-
speaking Marcel Duchamps such as ‘My niece is cold because my knees are cold’
(Sanquillet and Peterson, 1978: 111) – not to mention the writings of Nabokov or
Conrad. The question is whether it is feasible or desirable for the L2 user to match
these components of the native speaker.
A third approach to defining native speaker brings in language identity: your
speech shows who you are. In English, a word or two notoriously gives away many
aspects of our identity. According to George Bernard Shaw, ‘It is impossible for an
Englishman to open his mouth without making some other Englishman hate or
despise him.’ Our speech shows the groups that we belong to, as we see in Chapter 4,
whether in terms of age (‘wireless’ rather than ‘radio’), gender (men prefer to pro-
nounce ‘-ing’ endings such as ‘running’ as /in/, women as /iŋ/) (Adamson and
Regan, 1991), or religion (the pronunciation of the church service ‘mass’ as /mas/
or /ms/ is one giveaway of religious background in England, as is the abbreviation
of ‘William’ to ‘Bill’ or ‘Liam’ in Northern Ireland). An English linguist once
observed: ‘it is part of the meaning of an American to sound like one’ (Firth, 1951).
We may be proud or ashamed of belonging to a particular group; politicians in
England try to shed signs of their origins by adopting RP as best they can; British
pop and folk singers take on American-like vowels. Being a native speaker shows
identification with a group of speakers, membership of a language community.
In social terms, people have as much right to join the group of native speakers
and to adopt a new identity as they have to change identity in any other way. But
the native speaker group is only one of the groups that a speaker belongs to, and
172 The L2 user and the native speaker
not of overriding importance; how important is it to be a native speaker of a lan-

guage compared to being a believer in a religion, a parent, or a supporter of
Newcastle United?
The definitions of native speaker then are not helpful for language teachers. In
the sense of first language in life, it is impossible for students to become native
speakers of a second language. The components definition raises the issue of
whether students should be trained to be like native speakers; it therefore limits
their components to those that monolingual native speakers possess rather than
the additional skills of L2 users, such as translation. In terms of identity, it raises
the question of which group we wish the students to belong to – the community of
native speakers of which they can never be full members or the communities of
L2 users? According to Ben Rampton (1990), language loyalty can be a matter
either of inheritance (language is something you inherit, you claim and you
bequeath) or of affiliation (a language is something you belong to), both of them
continually negotiated.
Should the native speaker be the target of

language teaching?
Most language teachers, and indeed most students, accept that their goal is to
become as similar to the native speaker as possible. One problem is the question
of which native speaker. A language comes in many varieties, according to coun-
try, region, class, sex, profession and other factors; this, then, is to do with the
Lang2 abstract entity meaning of ‘language’. Some varieties are a matter of accent,
some of social and regional dialect. The student’s target needs to relate to the roles
that they will assume when using the second language. Some British students I
knew in London were going for job experience in Switzerland; my colleagues
accordingly taught them Swiss German. When they used this on the shop floor,
their fellow workers found it highly entertaining: foreigners are expected to speak
High German, not Swiss German. I was an L2 user of Swiss German as a child and
can still comprehend it reasonably, provided the person speaking does not see me
as a foreigner and switch to High German.
The problems of which variety to teach is more pressing for a language that is
used globally, such as English. England itself contains a variety of class and
regional accents, even if vocabulary varies little; the English-speaking countries
from Australia to Canada, Scotland to South Africa, each have their own variety,
with its own internal range; outside these countries there are well-established vari-
eties of English spoken in countries such as Singapore and India. Which of these
native speakers should the students adopt as a role model? The claimed advantages
of RP were that, despite its small number of speakers based in a single country, it
was comprehensible everywhere and had neutral connotations in terms of class
and region. True as this may be, it does sound like the classic last-ditch defence of
the powerful status form against the rest. A more realistic native accent nowadays
might be Estuary English, encountered in Chapter 4.
Though much of this variation may be a matter of accent, reading an American
novel soon shows the different conventions, whether in vocabulary (the piece of
furniture called a ‘credenza’ is known as a ‘dresser’ in England), spelling (the same
hesitation noise in speech is spelled ‘uh’ in American English and ‘er’ in British
English, because of the ‘missing’ rs in RP) or grammar (‘I have got’ versus ‘I have
The L2 user versus the native speaker in language teaching 173
gotten’). So far as language teaching is concerned, there is no single ideal native

speaker for all students to imitate; the choice of model has to take all sorts of vari-
ation into account.
However, if L2 users are not the same as monolinguals, as we have been arguing all
along, whether in the languages they know or in the rest of their minds, it is inappro-
priate to base language teaching on the native speaker model, since it may, on the
one hand, frustrate the students who soon appreciate that they will never be the
same as native speakers, and on the other constrain them to the activities of mono-
linguals rather than the richness of multilingual use. If we want students to become
efficient L2 users, not imitation native speakers, the situations modelled in course-
books should include examples of successful L2 users on which the students can
model themselves. The Japanese syllabus puts forward a goal of ‘Japanese with
English Abilities’, not imitation native speaker (MEXT, 2003). Similarly, the Israeli
curriculum ‘does not take on the goal of producing near-native speakers of English,
but rather speakers of Hebrew, Arabic or other languages, who can function comfort-
ably in English whenever it is appropriate’ (English – Curriculum for all Grades, 2002).
Successful L2 use is almost totally absent from textbooks. In some courses, stu-
dents have to compare different cultures. In Move (Bowler et al., 2007), students
discuss, ‘Do men or women usually do these jobs in your country?’, linked to car-
toons of a chef, a ballet dancer, a soldier, and so on; in Hotline (Hutchinson, 1992)
students give ‘useful expressions’ in their own languages. Most coursebooks use
England as a backcloth, but they seldom present multilingual English people,
even if multiculturalism is sometimes mentioned, as in the discussion of Asian
marriages in The Beginners’ Choice (Mohamed and Acklam, 1992). By the end of a
language course, students will never have heard L2 users talking to native speak-
ers, let alone to other L2 users, important as this may be to their goals. When
they have finished Changes (Richards, 1998), a course with the subtitle ‘English
International Communication’, the only examples of L2 users, except for ‘stu-
dent’ figures, the students will have met are brief first-person biographies of peo-
ple in Taiwan, Madrid and Paris.
Even the celebrities in coursebooks are invariably monolingual rather than bilin-
gual. The characters that are supposedly L2 users fall into two main categories:
tourists and visitors, who ignorantly ask the way, desperately buy things or try to
fathom strange travel systems, and students who chat to each other about their
lives and interests. Both groups use perfectly adequate English for their activities;
nothing distinguishes them from the native speakers portrayed in the pages except
that their names are Birgit, Klaus or Philippe (Changes). Neither group are effective
role models of L2 users. New English File (Oxenden et al., 2004) features inter alia
celebrities such as the novelist J.K. Rowling and the model Naomi Campbell, and
gives short life histories of people who live in Japan and Rio: it is not thought
worth mentioning whether any of them use second languages successfully.
Nor is it only English. Coursebooks for teaching other languages, such as French
Libre Echange (Courtillon and de Salins, 1995) or Italian Ci Siamo (Guarnuccio and
Guarnuccio, 1997), present L2 users similarly. L2 users have an unflatteringly
powerless status, rather than the extra influence that successful L2 users can
wield. The students never see an L2 user in action who knows what they are
doing. While the roles of students or of visitors are useful and relevant, they are
hardly an adequate reflection of what L2 use can provide. Looking at most EFL
and modern language coursebooks, you get the distinct impression that all of
them are written by monolinguals who have no idea of the lives lived by L2 users.
Box 10.2 The native speaker

● Many definitions of native speaker exist, based on birth, knowledge and use.
● Since languages have many different types of native speaker, if teaching takes
the native speaker as the target it still has to decide which native speaker.
● Under the usual definition of ‘a person who has spoken a certain language
since early childhood’, it is not possible for a second language learner to
become a native speaker, and this is not a possible measure of L2 success.
10.2 Codeswitching by second language users
Focusing questions
● When have you heard one person using two languages in the course of the
same conversation or the same sentence?
● Is it polite to codeswitch?
● Should students ever switch languages in mid-sentence?
Keywords
codeswitching: going from one language to the other in mid-speech when

both speakers know the same two languages
bilingual/monolingual modes: in bilingual mode, the L2 user uses two lan-
guages; in monolingual mode, a single language, whether their first or second
The danger of concentrating on the native speaker is that the specific characteristics
of L2 users are ignored. L2 users can do things that monolingual native speakers
cannot. We are limiting the students’ horizons if we only teach them what native
speakers can do. An example is a process peculiar to using a second language,
namely codeswitching from one language to another. To illustrate codeswitching,
here are some sentences recorded by Zubaidah Hakim in a staffroom where
Malaysian teachers of English were talking to each other:
● ‘Suami saya dulu slim and trim tapi sekarang plump like drum’ (Before my hus-
band was slim and trim but now he is plump like a drum).
● ‘Jadi I tanya, how can you say that when… geram betul I’ (So I asked how can
you say that when… I was so mad).
● ‘Hero you tak datang hari ni’ (Your hero did not come today).
One moment there is a phrase or word in English, the next a phrase or word in
Bahasa Malaysia. Sometimes the switch between languages occurs between
sentences rather than within them. It is often hard to say which is the main lan-
guage of such a conversation, or indeed of an individual sentence.
Codeswitching by second language users 175
Box 10.3 Examples of codeswitching between languages

● Spanish/English: ‘Todos los mexicanos were riled up.’ (All the Mexicans were
riled up.)
● Dutch/English: ‘Ik heb een kop of tea, tea or something.’ (I had a cup of tea
or something.)
● Tok Pisin/English: ‘Lapun man ia cam na tok, “oh yu poor pussiket”.’ (The
old man came and said, ‘you poor pussycat’.)
● Japanese/English: ‘She wa took her a month to come home yo.’
● Greek/English: ‘Simera piga sto shopping centre gia na psaksw ena birthday
present gia thn Maria.’ (Today I went to the shopping centre because
I wanted to buy a birthday present for Maria.)
● English/German/Italian: ‘Pinker is of the opinion that the man is singled out
as, singled out as, was?, as ein Mann, der reden kann, singled out as una
specie, as a species which can. . .’
● English/Italian/French:
‘London Bridge is falling down
Poi s’ascose nel foco che gli affina
O swallow swallow
Le Prince d’Aquitaine á la tour aboli’
(T.S. Eliot, The Waste Land, V)
Codeswitching is found wherever bilingual speakers talk to each other. According

to François Grosjean (1989), bilinguals have two modes for using language. In bilin-
gual mode they speak either one language or the other; in monolingual mode they
use two languages simultaneously, by codeswitching from one to the other during
the course of speech. Bilingual codeswitching is neither unusual nor abnormal; it is
an ordinary fact of life in many multilingual societies. Codeswitching is a unique
feat of using two languages at once, which no monolingual can ever achieve, except
to the limited extent that people can switch between dialects of their first language.
Box 10.3 gives some examples of codeswitching drawn from diverse sources, which
also demonstrates its utter respectability by occurring in perhaps the most cele-
brated twentieth-century poem in English, The Waste Land.
The interesting questions about codeswitching are why and when it happens. A
common reason for switching is to report what someone has said, as when a girl
who is telling a story switches from Tok Pisin (spoken in Papua New Guinea) to
English to report what the man said: ‘Lapun man ia cam na tok, “oh yu poor pus-
siket”’ (The old man came and said, ‘you poor pussycat’). In one sense, whenever
a book cites sentences in other languages, or whenever T.S. Eliot uses quotations
from other languages, it is codeswitching.
A second reason for switching is to use markers from one language to highlight
something in another. The Japanese/English ‘She wa took her a month to come
home yo’ uses ‘wa’ to indicate what is being talked about, its function in Japanese.
Another reason is the feeling that some topics are more appropriate to one lan-
guage than another. Mexican Americans, for example, prefer to talk about money
in English rather than in Spanish – ‘La consulta era (the visit cost) eight dollars.’
One of my Malaysian students told me that she could express romantic feelings in
English but not in Bahasa Malaysia, supported by Indians I have met who prefer
Box 10.4 Reasons for codeswitching

1 Reporting someone else’s speech.
2 Interjecting.
3 Highlighting particular information.
4 Switching to a topic more suitable for one language.
5 Changing the speaker’s role.
6 Qualifying the topic.
7 Singling out one person to direct speech at.
8 Ignorance of a form in one language.
English for such emotions – English as the language of romance is a bit surprising
to an Englishman!
Sometimes the reason for codeswitching is that the choice of language shows
the speaker’s social role. A Kenyan man who was serving his own sister in a shop
started in their Luiyia dialect and then switched to Swahili for the rest of the
conversation, to signal that he was treating her as an ordinary customer. Often
bilinguals use fillers and tags from one language in another, as in the Spanish/
English exchange, ‘Well I’m glad to meet you’, ‘Andale pues and do come again’
(OK swell...).
The common factor underlying these examples is that the speaker assumes that
the listener is fluent in the two languages. Otherwise such sentences would not be
a bilingual codeswitching mode of language use but would be either interlanguage
communication strategies or attempts at one-upmanship, similar to the use by
some English speakers of Latin expressions such as ‘ab initio learners of Spanish’
(Spanish beginners). Monolinguals think that the reason is primarily ignorance;
you switch when you do not know the word, that is, it is a communication strat-
egy of the type mentioned in Chapter 6; yet this motivation seems rare in the
descriptions of codeswitching. Box 10.4 lists some reasons people codeswitch,
including most of those mentioned here.
When does codeswitching occur in terms of language structure? According to
one set of calculations, about 84 per cent of switches within the sentence are iso-
lated words, say the English/Malaysian ‘Ana free hari ini’ (Ana is free today),
where English is switched to only for the item ‘free’. About 10 per cent are
phrases, as in the Russian/French ‘Imela une femme de chambre’ (She had a
chambermaid). The remaining 6 per cent are switches for whole clauses, as in the
German/English ‘Papa, wenn du das Licht ausmachst, then I’ll be so lonely’
(Daddy, if you put out the light, I’ll be so lonely). But this still does not show
when switches are possible from one language to another; switching is very far
from random in linguistic terms.
The theory of codeswitching developed by Shona Poplack (1980) claims that
there are two main restrictions on where switching can occur:
● The ‘free morpheme constraint’: the speaker may not switch language
between a word and its endings unless the word is pronounced as if it were in
the language of the ending. Thus an English/Spanish switch ‘runeando’ is
impossible because ‘run’ is distinctively English in sound. But ‘flipeando’ is
possible because ‘flip’ is potentially a word in Spanish.
● The ‘equivalence constraint’: the switch can come at a point in the sentence
where it does not violate the grammar of either language. So there are unlikely
to be any French/English switches such as ‘a car americaine’ or ‘une American
voiture’, as they would be wrong in both languages. It is possible, however, to
have the French/English switch ‘J’ai acheté an American car’ (I bought an
American car), because both English and French share the structure in which
the object follows the verb.
The approach to codeswitching that has been most influential recently is the matrix
language frame (MLF) model developed by Carol Myers-Scotton (2005). She
claims that in codeswitching the matrix language provides the frame, and the
embedded language provides material to fill out the frame, rather like putting the
flesh onto the skeleton. So in ‘Simera piga sto shopping centre gia na psaksw ena
birthday present gia thn Maria’, the matrix language is Greek, which provides the
grammatical structure, and the embedded language is English, which provides
two noun phrases. The role for the matrix language is to provide the grammatical
structures and the ‘system’ morphemes, that is, grammatical morphemes that
form the basis of the sentence. The role of the embedded language is to provide
content morphemes to fit into the framework already supplied. For example, the
Russian/English sentence ‘On dolgo laia-l na dog-ov’ (He barked at dogs for a long
time) shows matrix Russian grammatical morphemes and structure, but an embed-
ded English content word ‘dog’ (Schmid et al., 2004).
The later version of this model (Myers-Scotton and Jake, 2000) is known as the
4M model as it divides all morphemes into four types:
● content morphemes which have thematic roles, typically nouns such as

‘book’ and verbs such as ‘read’;
● early system morphemes which have some content meaning, such as articles
‘the/a’, ‘(chew) up’;
● late bridge system morphemes which make necessary connections between
grammatical parts but contribute no meaning, say ‘the Wife of Bath’, or posses-
sive ‘’s’ ‘John’s friend’;
● late outsider system morphemes which have connections extending beyond
the basic lexical unit, such as agreement ‘s’; ‘Tomorrow never comes’.
(Note: ‘early’ and ‘late’ apply to the processes of language production, not to the
stages of language acquisition.)
According to the 4M model, content and, to a large extent, early system mor-
phemes go with the embedded language in depending on meaning. The late bridge
and outsider system morphemes go with the matrix language as they provide the
grammatical framework within which the content and early system morphemes
can be placed.
Codeswitching and language teaching

What does codeswitching have to do with language teaching? The profile of the pro-
ficient L2 user includes the codeswitching mode of language. It is not something that
is peculiar or unusual. If the bilingual knows that the listener shares the same two
languages, codeswitching is likely to take place for all the reasons given above. For
many students, the ability to go from one language to another is highly desirable;
there is little advantage in being multi-competent if you are restricted by the
demands of a single language in monolingual mode.
A simple point to make to students is that codeswitching between two people
who both know the same two languages is normal. There is a half-feeling that peo-
ple who switch are doing something wrong, either demonstrating their poor
knowledge of the L2 or deliberate rudeness to other people present who may not
be able to join in, as we see in Figure 10.1. This seems particularly true of children
in England. This feeling is not helped by the pressure against codeswitching in
many classrooms, as we see in the next section. Occasionally codeswitching may
indeed be used for concealment from a third party. However, this may be to pre-
serve the niceties of polite conversation: Philip, a 7-year-old French/English
speaker, switches to French to his mother in front of an English guest to request
to go to the loo: ‘Maman, j’ai envie de faire pipi’ (Mummy, I need to have a wee).
Too long has codeswitching been seen as something reprehensible (young chil-
dren who use switching are doing something terrible – they cannot keep their lan-
guages separate!), rather than something completely natural and indeed highly
skilled, as Fred Genesee (2002) points out. Codeswitching is a normal ability of L2
users in everyday situations and can be utilised even by children as young as 2.
100
80
60
40
20
0
English children Belgian children Polish children English adults
Figure 10.1 Percentage of people who consider codeswitching rude
The Institute of Linguists’ examinations in Languages for International

Communication (discontinued in 2004) (Institute of Linguists, 2008) assessed
whether candidates can mediate between two languages. At beginners’ level this
may be reading an L2 travel brochure or listening to L2 answerphone messages
to get information that can be used in the first language. At advanced stages
it might be researching a topic through reading and conducting interviews in
order to write a report. To take an Italian example, students are told they are
working for an English charity that needs a report on immigration. They are
given a dossier in advance of newspaper articles on the topic in Italian. On the
day of the test they are given a task-brief, listing points that they should cover;
they then have to interview someone in Italian for 15 minutes to establish the
information; finally they have two hours to write up a professional report in
English based on the dossiers and the interview. In this international use of a sec-
ond language, the L2 learner is not becoming an imitation native speaker, but is
someone who can stand between the two languages, using both when appropri-
ate. While this is not in itself codeswitching, it involves the same element of
having two languages readily available rather than functioning exclusively in one
or the other.
But codeswitching proper can also be exploited as part of actual teaching
methodology. For example, the New Crown English course in Japan uses some
codeswitching in dialogues (Morizumi, 2002). When the teacher knows the lan-
guage of the students, whether or not the teacher is a native speaker, the class-
room itself often becomes a codeswitching situation. The lesson starts in the first
language, or the control of the class takes place through the first language, or it
slips in in other ways. In a sense, codeswitching is natural in the classroom if the
teacher and students share the same languages: the classroom is an L2 user situa-
tion with two or more languages always present, and it is a pretence that it is a
monolingual L2 situation; at best, one of the two languages is invisible. Use of the
L1 in the classroom is developed in the next section.
Rodolpho Jacobson has developed the new concurrent approach (Jacobson and
Faltis, 1990), which gets teachers to balance the use of the two languages within a
single lesson. The teacher is allowed to switch languages at certain key points. In a
class where English is being taught to Spanish-speaking children, the teacher can
switch to Spanish when concepts are important, when the students are getting dis-
tracted, or when a student should be praised or told off. The teacher may also switch
to English when revising a lesson that has already been given in Spanish. The
codeswitching is highly controlled in this method.
Box 10.5 Codeswitching exercise

Look at the list of reasons for codeswitching in Box 10.4 (page 176) and then say
which applies to each of the following examples of codeswitching, taken from a
variety of sources.
1 English-Swedish: Peaken var inte bra på spotmarknaden. (The peak was not
good on the spot market.)
2 English-Spanish: But I wanted to fight her con los puños, you know. (But I
wanted to fight her with my fists, you know.)
3 French-English: Tu dévisses le bouchon... comme ça... et tu squirt. (You
unscrew the cap... like this... and you squirt.)
4 English-Spanish: No van a bring it up in the meeting. (They’re not going to
bring it up in the meeting.)
5 French/Swedish: Mother: Tu reprendras un peu de ca? (Would you like some
more?) Emily to her mother in Swedish: ‘Jag tror inte att hon tycker om
det.’ (I don’t think she likes it.)
6 Russian-French: Imela une femme de chambre. (She had a chambermaid.)
7 Greek/English: ‘´Hμουν βιβλιοθήκη και ήθελα να πάρω copycard και λέ ω
“five pound phonecard please”.’ (I was at the library and I wanted to buy a
copycard and I say ‘five pound phonecard please’.)
8 Hindi-English: ‘Maine bahut bardas kiya hai but now it’s getting too much.’
(I have withstood a lot but now it’s getting too much.)
9 English-Spanish: So you todavía haven’t decided lo que vas a hacer next
week. (So you still haven’t decided what you’re going to do next week.)
Box 10.6 L2 learning and codeswitching

1 Codeswitching is the use of two languages within the same conversation,
often when the speaker is:
● reporting what someone has said;
● highlighting something;
● discussing certain topics;
● emphasizing a particular social role.
2 Codeswitching consists of 84 per cent single word switches, 10 per cent

phrases, 6 per cent clauses.
10.3 Using the first language in the classroom
Focusing questions
● When did you last use/encounter the L1 in the L2 classroom?

● Do you think it was a good idea or a bad one?
● When do you think the first language could be used profitably in the class-
room? How?
Keywords
compound and coordinate bilinguals: compound bilinguals are those who link
the two languages in their minds, coordinate bilinguals are those who keep
them apart
reciprocal language teaching: a teaching method in which pairs of students
alternately teach each other their languages
bilingual method: a teaching method that uses the student’s first language to
establish the meanings of the second language
Though the teaching methods popular in the twentieth century differed in many
ways, they nearly all tried to avoid relying on the students’ first language in the
classroom. The only exceptions were the grammar-translation academic style of
teaching, discussed in Chapter 13, which still survives despite the bad press it has
always received, and the short-lived reading method in USA in the 1930s. But
everything else, from the direct method to the audio-lingual method, to task-
based learning, has insisted that the less the first language is used in the class-
room, the better the teaching.
In the early days, the first language was explicitly rejected, a legacy of the lan-
guage teaching revolutions of the late nineteenth century. Later the first language
was seldom mentioned as a tool for the classroom, apart from occasional advice
about how to avoid it, for example in task-based learning for beginners: ‘Don’t ban
mother-tongue use but encourage attempts to use the target language’ (Willis,
Using the first language in the classroom 181
1996: 130). In the 1990s, the UK National Curriculum emphasized this in such dicta
as: ‘The natural use of the target language for virtually all communication is a sure
sign of a good modern language course’ (DES, 1990: 58). According to Franklin
(1990), 90 per cent of teachers think it is important to teach in the target language.
Arguments for avoiding the first language

While avoidance of the first language is taken for granted by almost all teachers,
and is implicit in most books for teachers, the reasons are rarely stated. One is that
the teacher’s language can be the prime model for true communicative use of the
second language. Coming into a classroom of non-English-speaking students and
saying ‘Good morning’ seems like a real use of language for communicative pur-
poses. Explaining grammar in English – ‘When you want to talk about something
that is still relevant to the present moment use the present perfect’ – provides gen-
uine information for the student through the second language. Telling the stu-
dents, ‘Turn your chairs round so that you are in groups of four’ gives them real
instructions to carry out. Hearing this through the first language would deprive the
students of genuine experience of interaction through the second language. The
use of the second language for everyday classroom communication sets a tone for
the class that influences much that happens.
Yet using the second language throughout the lesson may make the class seem
less real. Instead of the actual situation of a group of people trying to get to grips
with a second language, there is a pretend monolingual situation. The first lan-
guage has become an invisible and scorned element in the classroom. The stu-
dents are acting like imitation native speakers of the second language, rather than
true L2 users.
The practical justification for avoiding the first language in many English lan-
guage teaching situations is that the students speak several first languages and it
would be impossible for the teacher to take account of all of them. Hence hardly any
British-produced EFL coursebooks use the first language at all. EFL materials pro-
duced in particular countries, such as Japan or Greece, where most students speak a
common first language, are not restricted in this way. In the EFL context, many
expatriate language teachers often do not speak the first language of the students, so
the L2 is unavoidable. But this is more an argument about desirable qualities for
teachers than about the type of teaching students should receive; an L2 teacher who
cannot use a second language may not be the best role model for the students.
The practical reasons for avoiding the first language in a multilingual class do
not justify its avoidance in classes with a single first language. It is hard to find
explicit reasons being given for avoiding the first language in these circumstances.
The implicit reasons seem to be twofold:
● It does not happen in first language acquisition. Children acquiring their first lan-
guage do not have another language to fall back on, by definition, except in
the case of early simultaneous bilingualism. So L2 learners would ideally
acquire the second language in the same way as children, without reference to
another language.
● The two languages should be kept separate in the mind. To develop a second lan-
guage properly means learning to use it independently of the first language and
eventually to ‘think’ in it. Anything which keeps the two languages apart is
therefore beneficial to L2 learning.
Neither of these arguments has any particular justification from SLA research.
There are indeed many parallels between first and second language acquisition,
since both learning processes take place in the same human mind. Yet the many
obvious differences in terms of age and situation can affect these processes. The
presence of another language in the mind of the L2 learner is an unalterable dif-
ference from first language acquisition: there is no way in which the two processes
can be equated. If the first language is to be avoided in teaching, this ban must be
based on other reasons than the way in which children learn their first language.
The argument assumes that the first and the second languages are in different
parts of the mind. An early distinction in SLA research made by Uriel Weinreich
(1953) contrasted compound bilinguals, who link the two languages in their
minds, with coordinate bilinguals, who keep them apart. Thus the policy of
avoiding the first language assumes that the only valid form of L2 learning is coor-
dinate bilingualism. Even within Weinreich’s ideas, this would exclude the com-
pound bilinguals. But mostly the distinction between compound and coordinate
bilinguals has been watered down because of evidence that the two languages are
very far from separate. However distinct the two languages are in theory, in prac-
tice they are interwoven in terms of phonology, vocabulary, syntax and sentence
processing, as seen in several chapters of this book.
Ernesto Macaro (1997) observed a number of modern language teachers at work
in classrooms in England to see when they used the first language. He found five
factors that most commonly led to L1 use:
1 Using the first language for giving instructions about activities. As mentioned
above, the teacher has to balance the gains and losses of using the first or the
second language. Some teachers resort to the first language after they have tried
in vain to get the activity going in the second language.
2 Translating and checking comprehension. Teachers felt the L1 ‘speeded things up’.
3 Individual comments to students, made while the teacher is going round the class,
say, during pair work.
4 Giving feedback to pupils. Students are often told whether they are right or wrong
in their own language. Presumably the teacher feels that this makes it more ‘real’.
5 Using the first language to maintain discipline. Saying ‘Shut up or you will get a
detention’ in the first language shows that it is a serious threat, rather than
practising imperative and conditional constructions. One class reported that
their teacher slipped into the first language ‘if it’s something really bad!’
In terms of frequency, Carole Franklin (1990) found that over 80 per cent of
teachers used the first language for explaining grammar and for discussing objec-
tives; over 50 per cent for tests, correcting written work and teaching background;
under 16 per cent for organizing the classroom and activities and for chatting
informally.
SLA research provides no reason why any of these activities is not a perfectly
rational use of the first language in the classroom. If twenty-first-century teaching
is to continue to accept the ban on the first language imposed by the late nine-
teenth century, it will have to look elsewhere for its rationale. As Swain and
Lapkin (2000) put it: ‘To insist that no use be made of the L1 in carrying out tasks
that are both linguistically and cognitively complex is to deny the use of an
important cognitive tool.’
Using the first language in the classroom 183
Teaching that uses the first language

A few minority methods during the twentieth century, other than the shunned
grammar-translation method, indeed tried to systematise the use of the first lan-
guage in the classroom. One possibility that has been tried can be called alternating
language methods. These depend on the presence of native speakers of two lan-
guages in the classroom, so that in some way the students learn each other’s lan-
guages. In reciprocal language teaching students switch language at
predetermined points (Hawkins, 1987; Cook, 1989). The method pairs students who
want to learn each other’s languages and makes them alternate between the two
languages, thus exchanging the roles of teacher and student. My own experience of
this was on a summer course that paired French teachers of English with English
teachers of French, and alternated between England and France each year. One day
all the activities would take place in French, the next day everything would be in
English, and so on throughout the course. In my own case it was so effective that at
the end of three weeks I was conversing with a French inspector general – a supreme
authority figure for French teachers – without realizing that I was using French.
However, while the method worked for me in France, when the course took place in
England the following year, it seemed unnatural to use French exclusively.
Other variations on alternating language approaches are the key school two-
way model, in which classes of mixed English and Spanish speakers learn the cur-
riculum through English in the morning and Spanish in the afternoon (Rhodes
et al., 1997), the alternate days approach, which teaches the standard curriculum
subjects to children with native Pilipino using English and Pilipino on alternate
days (Tucker et al., 1971), and dual language programmes, in which a balance is
struck between two languages in the school curriculum, ranging from say 90 per
cent in the minority language versus 10 per cent in the majority languages in the
preschool year, to 70 per cent versus 30 per cent in second grade (Montague,
1997). These alternating methods are distinct from the bilingual ‘immersion’
French teaching programmes developed in English-speaking Canada, which do
not have mixed groups of native and non-native students.
Box 10.7 The Bilingual Method, C.J. Dodson, 1967

Step 1. Imitation. Pupils learn to speak basic L2 sentences by imitating the
teacher; listen to the teacher give L1 meaning
Step 2. Interpretation. The teacher says L1 equivalent of L2 sentence; the pupil
replies with L2 sentence, the teacher repeats L1
Step 3. Substitution and extension. Same technique as (1) and (2) but varying the
vocabulary within existing patterns
Step 4. Independent speaking of sentences
Step 5. Reverse interpretation (optional)
Step 6. Consolidation of question patterns
More relevant to most language teaching situations are methods that actively
create links between the first and the second language; some of these are discussed
further in Chapter 13. The New Concurrent Method, for example, allows systematic
codeswitching under the teacher’s control. Community language learning (CLL)
is an interesting variant which uses translation as a means of allowing genuine L2
use; the second language is learnt in continual conjunction with the first. The most
developed is perhaps the Bilingual Method used in Wales, outlined in Box 10.7.
Here, the teacher reads an L2 sentence and gives its meaning in the first language,
called ‘interpreting’ rather than ‘translating’, after which the students repeat in
chorus and individually (Dodson, 1967). The teacher tests the students’ under-
standing by saying the L1 sentence and pointing to a picture, though the students
have to answer in the second language. The two languages are tied together in the
students’ minds through the meaning.
Some of the ways that teachers have found the first language useful in the class-
room (always provided that they know the first language of the students) are:
● Explaining grammar to the students. The FonF approach, curiously, has not dis-
cussed which language should be used for explaining grammar; Catherine
Doughty’s influential article on ‘the cognitive underpinning of focus on form’
(Doughty, 2001) does not once mention that a choice exists. If a French begin-
ners’ course such as Panorama (Girardet and Cridlig, 1996) includes in Lesson 2
‘La conjugaison pronominale’, ‘Construction avec l’infinitif’ and ‘Les adjectifs
possessifs et demonstratifs’, what else are the students supposed to do but use
the first language, say via translation? The elementary course New English File
(Oxenden et al., 2004) includes in its first unit the terms ‘pronouns’, ‘possessive
adjectives’, ‘plurals’ and ‘prepositions’. Without translation, this is going to
make little sense, particularly when the grammar of the student’s own culture
differs from the English school tradition, as is the case with Japanese students,
who do not have a concept of grammatical plural.
● Explaining tasks and exercises to the students. If the task is crucial, then whichever
language is used, the important thing is to get the students carrying out the
task successfully as soon as possible. Atlas 1 (Nunan, 1995), for example, in
Unit 3 has a task chain ‘talking about occupations’, involving the steps ‘1
Listen and circle the occupations you hear… 2 Listen again and check [冑] the
questions you hear…’ If the students can understand these instructions in the
second language, they probably do not need the exercise. The teacher may find
it highly convenient to fall back on the first language for explaining tasks.
● Students using the first language within classroom activities. Teachers are often told
to discourage students from using their first language in pair and group activi-
ties: ‘If they are talking in small groups it can be quite difficult to get some
classes – particularly the less disciplined or motivated ones – to keep to the tar-
get language’ (Ur, 1996: 121). Yet codeswitching is a normal part of bilingual
life in the world outside the classroom; it is the natural recourse of L2 users
when they are with people who share the same languages; stopping codeswitch-
ing in the classroom, which is what a ban on the L1 actually amounts to, is
denying a central feature of many L2 situations. The students should not be
made uncomfortable with a normal part of L2 use. Those working within the
sociocultural framework discussed in Chapter 12 have stressed how learning is
a collaborative dialogue (Anton and DiCamilla, 1998); the first language can
provide part of the scaffolding that goes with this dialogue.
Many other uses of the first language arise naturally in the classroom – keeping
discipline, using bilingual dictionaries, administering tests, and many others. If
there is no principled reason for avoiding the first language other than allowing
the students to hear as much second language as possible, it may be more effective
to resort to the first language in the classroom when needed.
Are native speakers better language teachers? 185
Box 10.8 Ways of using the L1 in the classroom

1 Teacher conveying meaning:
● teacher using L1 for conveying meaning of words or sentences;
● teacher using L1 for explaining grammar.
2 Teacher organizing the class:

● teacher using L1 for managing the classroom;
● teacher using L1 for giving instructions for teaching activities;
● L1 used for testing.
3 Students using L1 within classroom:

● students using L1 as part of main learning activity;
● students using L1 incidentally within classroom activities.
10.4 Are native speakers better language teachers?
Focusing questions
● Would you prefer to be taught by a native speaker teacher or a non-native

speaker teacher? Why?
● What are the strengths of native speaker teachers? The weaknesses?
● What are the strengths of non-native speaker teachers? The weaknesses?
A divisive issue in many parts of the world is whether it is better for the teacher to
be a native speaker or a non-native speaker. The job ads given in Box 10.9 show
the emphasis that EFL recruiters place on native speakers. In many universities
Box 10.9 Online ads for EFL teachers

In London
‘Qualified, native speaking English teachers’ (a centre in Northfields)
‘Please do not apply if you don’t have Native English Speaker Competency’
(University of East London)
‘The candidate should be a native speaker’ (the Shakespeare College ‘near
Liverpool Street’)
Outside England
China: ‘Are you a native English speaker or “near native”. . .?’ (University of
Southampton ad)
Korea: ‘Must be native speaker and UK, Ire, USA, Can, NZ, Aus, SA citizen’
(English Teacher Direct)
Ecuador: ‘Wall Street Institute Ambato is looking for Native Speakers (no
experience needed)’
And it is not just TEFL jobs. An ad on a North London pub wall asks
for: ‘Assistant Manager. . . English first language’.
around the world, non-native language teachers find it harder to get permanent
or full-time positions and are paid less than native speaker teachers. In UK
universities it is usual for language teaching to be carried out by native speaker
teachers, often on a teaching rather than an academic grade.
Why then are native speakers so desirable? One justification often put forward
is that the students themselves demand native speakers. In a survey I conducted
in several countries, children in England gave native speaker teachers a 55 per
cent preference, in Belgium 33 per cent; 60 per cent of adults in England preferred
natives, and in Taiwan 51 per cent. Outside England the preference for native
speakers is not overwhelming.
Box 10.10 shows some of the features that Hungarian students valued in native
speaker and non-native speaker teachers, researched by Benke and Medgyes
(2005). The non-native speaker teacher is seen as an efficient teacher, preparing
you for exams, correcting your mistakes and knowing how good you are, but
dependent on the coursebook. The native speaker teacher is concerned about
spoken language, more friendly and has more flexible and interactive classes.
Box 10.10 Top-rated features of teachers by Hungarian

students (Benke and Medgyes, 2005)
The non-native speaker teacher:
● assigns lots of homework;
● prepares conscientiously;
● corrects errors consistently;
● prepares learners well for exam;
● assesses my language knowledge realistically;
● relies heavily on the coursebook.
The native speaker teacher:

● focuses primarily on speaking skills;
● is happy to improvise;
● provides extensive information about the culture;
● is interested in learners’ opinions;
● applies group work regularly in class.
The most obvious reason for preferring native speakers is the model of language
that the native can present. Here is a person who has reached the apparent target
that the students are striving after – what could be better? The native speaker can
model the language the students are aiming at and can provide an instant author-
itative answer to any language question. Their prime advantage is indeed the obvi-
ous one that they speak the language as a first language. Ivor Timmis (2002) found
that, given a choice between sounding like a native speaker or having the ‘accent
of my country’, 67 per cent of students preferred to speak like a native speaker.
Do all native speakers present an equally desirable model? A native speaker of
British is presumed to speak RP; yet this accent is used by a small minority of people
in the UK (as we see in Chapter 4), let alone in the world at large. Is a Welsh accent
equally acceptable? A London accent? Both are native accents, but do not have the
Are native speakers better language teachers? 187
same status as RP outside their own localities. A Finnish professor I knew reckoned
he was the only RP speaker in his university department, despite all his colleagues
being native speakers of English. A Middle East university who hired a native
speaker teacher were disconcerted when a British speaker of Geordie turned up. And
yet he is as much a native speaker of English as I am, or as most of the inhabitants
of the UK are.
But as we see throughout this book, gone are the days when the goal of learning a
second language was just to sound like a native. Many students need to communicate
with other non-native speakers, not with natives, sometimes in different ways from
natives. Native speaker speech is only one of the possible models for the L2 student.
Students who want to become successful L2 users may want to base themselves on the
speech of successful L2 users, not on monolingual native speakers.
Being a native speaker does not automatically make you a good teacher. In many
instances the expat native speaker is less trained than the local non-native teacher,
or has been trained in an educational system with different values and goals; the
local non-native speaker teacher knows the local circumstances and culture. Native
speakers are not necessarily aware of the properties of their own language and are
highly unlikely to be able to talk about its grammar coherently; one of the 16-year-
olds in Benke and Medgyes’ study (2005: 207) says: ‘They are sometimes not very
accurate and they can’t spell – especially Americans.’ Given equal training and
local knowledge, the native speaker’s advantage is their proficiency at their native
language, no more, no less.
Crucially, the native speaker teacher does not belong to the group that the stu-
dents are trying to join – L2 users. They have not gone through the same stages as
their students and often do not know what it means to learn a second language
themselves; their command of the students’ own language often betrays their
own failings as learners – I was told of a German class in London where much of
the time was taken up by the students teaching English to the teacher – perhaps a
not uncommon example of reciprocal language teaching. A non-native teacher is
necessarily a model of a person who commands two languages and is able to com-
municate through both; a native speaker teacher is unlikely to know two lan-
guages, even if there are exceptions.
Peter Medgyes (1992) highlights the drawbacks of native speakers, who:
● are not models of L2 users;

● cannot talk about L2 learning strategies from their own experience;
● are often not explicitly aware of the features of the language as much as non-
native speakers are;
● cannot anticipate learning problems;
● cannot empathize with their students’ learning experience;
● are not able to exploit the learners’ first language in the classroom.
In addition, students may feel that native speaker teachers have achieved a perfec-
tion that is out of their reach; as Claire Kramsch (1998: 9) puts it, ‘non-native
teachers and students alike are intimidated by the native-speaker norm’. Students
may prefer the more achievable model of the fallible non-native speaker teacher.
From my experience, native speakers were overwhelmingly preferred by lan-
guage schools in London for teaching English, as the job ads imply. It may, how-
ever, no longer be legal in England to discriminate against non-native speakers.
In 2000 the Eurotunnel Consortium had to pay compensation to a French national

married to an Englishman whose dismissal on grounds of not speaking English
was ruled ‘an act of unlawful discrimination on the grounds of her race.’ The
chairman of the employment tribunal said that the job description asking for a
native English accent was comparable to having a ‘whites-only policy’.
So non-native speaker teachers provide:
● A model of a proficient L2 user in action. The students witness someone who is

using the second language effectively (one reason for using the L2 in the class-
room); they can see that it is possible to operate in a language that is not one’s
own. The native speaker teacher, on the other hand, is a model of something
alien which the students can never be in the second language – a user of a first
language.
● A model of a person who has successfully learnt a second language. The non-native
teacher has acquired another language in the same way as the student, show-
ing that it can be done. They have shared the student’s own experience at some
time in their lives. The native speaker teacher has followed a completely differ-
ent route and has not had the students’ experiences and problems at first hand.
● More appropriate training and background. The native speaker is an outsider and
does not necessarily share the culture of the classroom and the values of the
educational system in the same way. Many expat EFL teachers are not fully
trained, and indeed would not have the qualifications to teach in UK second-
ary schools.
● Possible lesser fluency, and so on, in the second language. Of course, the preceding
summary of non-native assets assumes that the non-native speaker teacher can
speak fluently and communicate within the classroom, which may be far from
true in many classrooms around the world. This is not due to their non-native
status, but to inadequate training or ineffective selection for their jobs; they are
inefficient L2 users, not poor native speakers.
We can see then that the choice between native and non-native teachers is
not a simple matter, but is confounded with language knowledge, teacher
training and many other factors. Indeed, if the sole asset of the native speaker
is their command of the native language spoken in their home country, this
has a short shelf life; after six months or so, English teachers in Spain are start-
ing to use English influenced by the Spanish teaching situation (Porte, 2003).
A compromise is to combine the good points of both native and non-native
teachers. Most famously this is through the assistant language teachers on the
Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) programme, in which native speaker teachers
with comparatively little experience are teamed with experienced Japanese teach-
ers in the classroom. Typically, the JET assistant is used both as a source of authen-
tic native language and cultural information, and as a foreigner to whom Japanese
culture can be explained. The Japanese teacher takes responsibility for the overall
direction and control of the class through their experience and local knowledge.
More information can be found at the website for MEXT, the Japanese Ministry of
Education (www.mext.go.jp/english/).
Alternatively, the presentation of native speaker speech can be through the
materials and media. Tapes can use native speaker actors; television programmes,
films or tapes can present authentic speech, and so on. The teacher does not have
International languages: English as Lingua Franca (ELF) 189
to be the sole source of input in the classroom. Indeed, successful non-native

teachers may produce students who speak the language better than they do in
native speaker terms, provided that the sole model has not been the teacher’s own
speech. But of course, the appropriate goal may not be native speaker language in
the first place.
Box 10.11 Pros and cons of native and non-native

speaker teachers
Expat native speaker teachers Non-native speaker teachers

provide a model of native speaker use provide a model of L2 user use
may be fluent in their L1 may not be so fluent in their L2
know the L1 culture from the inside know the L1 culture from the outside
may become less native over time may not change or may improve
over time
provide a model of someone who provide a model of someone who has
has learnt the L2 as an L1 learnt the language as an L2
may not have knowledge of the know the local educational system
local educational system
may or may not have appropriate have appropriate teacher training
teacher training and qualifications and qualifications
10.5 International languages: English as lingua

franca (ELF)
Focusing questions
● Why do people in your country or another country you know use a second
language?
● Is English a peculiar language or is it typical of many other second languages?
● Do you think a language can escape the culture or control of its native speakers?
Keywords
hypercentral language: a language that is used globally for international pur-

poses, as opposed to languages that are used more locally
English as lingua franca (ELF, sometimes LFE): the name for the kind of English
that is used globally by non-native speakers for many kinds of international
purposes
This section deals with the situation of languages that are used outside the coun-
try or area where they originated. Chapter 11 describes the varieties of language in
relationship to language teaching. Here we concentrate on English as an interna-
tional language, rather than say, French or Chinese.
According to Abram de Swaan (2001), languages form a hierarchy (represented
in Figure 10.2):
● Peripheral languages are used within a given territory by native speakers to

each other, such as Welsh spoken in some regions of Wales, or Japanese spoken
in the whole of Japan.
● Central languages are used within a single territory by people who are both
native speakers and non-native speakers, for purposes of education and govern-
ment, say, English in India used by native speakers of many languages.
● Supercentral languages are used across several parts of the world by natives
and non-natives, with specialized function, say, Arabic or Latin for religious
ceremonies. Often their spread reflects previous colonial empires, French,
Spanish, and so on.
● Hypercentral languages are used chiefly by non-native speakers across the
globe for a variety of purposes. At the moment only one hypercentral language
exists, namely English.
To de Swaan (2001), languages exist in ‘constellations’. India, for example, has

Hindi and English as two supercentral languages, plus 18 central languages, such
as Gujarati and Sindhi, nearly all of which have official status within a state; the
remaining 780-odd languages are peripheral.
Society as a whole depends on the interlocking of these languages and so is
based on multilinguals who can plug the gaps between one level and another,
whether within one territory or internationally. According to de Swaan (2001),
the learning of second languages usually goes up the hierarchy rather than down:
people learn a language that is the next level up. Speakers of a peripheral language
The hypercentral
(1 language) English
language
(12 languages) Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German,

The supercentral
Hindi, Japanese, Malay, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish,
languages
Swahili
The central
(about 100 languages)
languages
The peripheral
(all the rest; 98% of the world’s languages)
languages
Figure 10.2 The hierarchy of languages (de Swaan, 2001)

International languages: English as Lingua Franca (ELF) 191
have to learn a central language to function in their own society, such as speakers
of Catalan learning Spanish in Spain. Speakers of a central language need to learn a
supercentral language to function within their region, say speakers of Persian learn-
ing Arabic. Speakers of a supercentral language need the hypercentral language to
function globally; anybody but a native speaker of English needs to learn English
(and even they may need to learn ELF).
The main reason why people learn a local language (to adopt a slightly more
neutral term than de Swaan’s ‘peripheral’) like Finnish as a second language may
be to meet Finnish people and take part in life in Finland; the emphasis is on
native speakers in their native habitat. The reason for learning a central language
is to interact with the rest of the population in multilingual societies: speakers of
Ladin need Italian to go to Italian universities outside the South Tyrol. Some of the
time users of central languages are dealing with native speakers, some of the time
with fellow non-native users with different L1s, within the same country or geo-
graphical region. The reasons for acquiring supercentral languages depend on the
uses of languages, such as Hebrew for the Jewish faith and Arabic for Islam; the
native speaker is of marginal relevance; the location may be anywhere where the
language is used in this way, say synagogues or mosques across the globe. The rea-
sons for acquiring the hypercentral language are the global demands of work; inter-
national business becomes difficult without English and the native speaker is only
one of the types of people that need to be communicated with.
The reasons why languages have got to these particular levels are complex and
controversial. Some see the dark side of the dominance of English, regarding it as
a way of retaining an empire through deliberate political actions (Phillipson,
1992), and inevitably leading to the death of local languages. Others see the use of
English as an assertion of local rights to deal with the rest of the world in their
own way rather than as domination (Canagarajah, 2005).
Some of these issues are considered in Chapter 11 in the context of the goals of lan-
guage teaching. This section concentrates on English, which is unique in that it can
be used for any of these levels, from monolingual local to global hypercentral; the
closest previous analogues were Latin and Chinese in the empires of Rome and China
respectively. Some languages have become global in extremely limited uses, like
Japanese for karate. Others have seen their vocabulary adapted to international use –
try asking for the Starbucks coffee called ‘venti’ in a coffee bar in Italy – it actually
means ‘twenty’, rather than ‘large’. But English has extended its scope way outside
the previous boundaries of the British Empire to a considerable range of functions.
English, then, may be acquired for any or all of the above reasons. Other lan-
guages are limited to those appropriate to their position on the hierarchy. The
demand for Finnish as an international language is probably small, though it may
have some central role for the Finnish-speaking minority in Sweden. Various terms
have been proposed for this peculiar status of English, whether ‘international
English’, ‘global English’ or ‘world English’. Recent discussion has preferred the
term ‘English as lingua franca’ (ELF) – English as a means of communication
between native speakers of other languages. In this context, ‘lingua franca’ does
not have its historic negative meaning of a mixed language, but means a commu-
nication language used by speakers of other languages.
Throughout this chapter, the question that has been posed repeatedly is the sta-
tus of the native speaker. At one time, native speakers were unquestionably the
only true speakers of the language; non-native speakers could only aspire to
become like them. The grammars, dictionaries and pronunciation depended on
one form or another of native English. Social interaction was assumed to take place
between native speakers and non-native speakers.
Nowadays much use of English takes place between fellow non-native speakers;
74 per cent of English in tourism does not involve a native speaker (Graddol,
2006). Many jobs like professional footballers, merchant seamen, call centre work-
ers or airplane pilots require L2 user-to-L2 user interaction. Sometimes indeed the
native speaker may find it difficult to join in. L2 users of ELF need primarily to be
able to talk to each other rather than to native speakers.
Yet the Chinese person talking to the Brazilian in English, or the German
speaker talking to the Arabic speaker in English, do need to share some common
form of English or they will not understand each other. While most arguments for
the native speaker version of the language are based on ownership and linguistic
power, native speaker language at least provides a common standard of reference,
so that the Chinese and the Brazilian are sharing the same English. Native speaker
English has been extensively studied and described for a hundred years, so a great
amount is known about it; we know the sort of grammatical patterns and vocab-
ulary that native speakers use.
But suppose that the English used by non-natives is the target. Compared to the
wealth of information on native language, comparatively little is known about
non-native English by L2 users; mostly it has been investigated in terms of devia-
tions from native speech rather than in its own right. Chapter 4 discusses Jenny
Jenkins’ (2002) proposals for an ELF pronunciation syllabus based on students’
difficulties with each other’s speech, for instance, not bothering with teaching
/ð⬃θ/, but paying particular attention to where the sentence stress occurs. While
this severs the link to the native speaker, the phonology is based on students
learning language in classrooms rather than on L2 users using language in the
world outside education; what students accept or reject may not be the same as
what experienced L2 users might feel.
Currently, considerable research is taking place into the characteristics of ELF,
for example in the VOICE research at the University of Vienna, based on a variety
of L2 users. From this comes the list in Box 10.12, compiled by Barbara Seidlhofer
(2004). Characteristics of ELF are different usage of articles from native English,
Box 10.12 Features of ELF grammar (based on

Seidlhofer, 2004)
● Dropping’ the third person ‘-s’.
● Confusing the relative pronouns ‘who’ and ‘which’.
● Omitting definite ‘a/an’ and indefinite ‘the’ articles where they are obliga-
tory in native speech, and inserting them where they do not occur in native
speech.
● Failing to use ‘correct’ forms in tag questions; for example, using ‘isn’t it?’
or ‘no?’ instead of ‘shouldn’t they?’
● Inserting redundant prepositions, as in ‘We have to study about. . .’
● Overusing certain verbs of high semantic generality, such as ‘do’, ‘have’,
‘make’, ‘put’, ‘take’.
● Replacing infinitive ‘to’ constructions with that-clauses, as in ‘I want that. . .’
● Being over-explicit (e.g. ‘black colour’ rather than just ‘black’).
Further reading 193
invariable forms of tag questions such as ‘isn’t it?’ and ‘are you?’, and so on. Many
of these have been regarded as persistent mistakes by teachers; how often have I
added or deleted ‘the’ and ‘a’ from students’ work? If, however, this variation sim-
ply reflects characteristics of the variety of English that the students are modelling
and does not hinder their communication, there is no need to try to change it
towards the native form; my urge to correct it is based on my own native speaker
usage, not on the ELF variety suitable for the students. If the argument is that
these forms are non-native, it is always possible to retort ‘Which native?’ The
invariable tag ‘innit?’, the omission of third person ‘-s’, and the common spoken
overuse of ‘do’ or ‘got’ are all found in colloquial British English, only not from
the type of native speaker that has been considered appropriate for students.
If L2 users can understand each other despite these differences from native
speaker English, there is little point in making them conform to native speech for
its own sake. It has often been reported to me that the problem at international
meetings where English is used is not so much the L2 users understanding each
other as the L2 users understanding the native speakers, who make no conces-
sions to the ELF that is being used. Indeed, it has sometimes been suggested that
native speakers themselves should be taught these ELF forms.
Box 10.13 ELF (English as lingua franca)

● The status of English is now peculiar in that it has become a lingua franca
hypercentral language largely spoken between non-native speakers.
● A main motive for many learners is to be able to speak with fellow L2 users,
not native speakers.
● The target for learners in grammatical and phonological terms will need to be
based on successful ELF English, not native speaker English or student English.
Discussion topics
1 Devise a classroom communicative activity depending on use of both
languages (other than translation).
2 What do you now believe about the status of the native speaker in language
teaching?
3 How would you define a successful L2 learner?
4 When should codeswitching not occur in the classroom?
5 How much L1 is the maximum for the L2 classroom? 0 per cent? 10 per
cent? 20 per cent? 50 per cent? More?
6 Will the public’s demand for native speakers to teach them the second
language ever change?
Further reading
The key texts in this area are: Myers-Scotton (2005) in Handbook of Bilingualism;
Macaro (1997) Target Language, Collaborative Learning and Autonomy; de Swaan
(2001) Words of the World: The Global Language System; and Llurda (2005) Non-
native Teachers.
The goals of language
teaching 11
This chapter looks at language as the possession of a group and at the L2 user as a
member of a specific group. It describes some of the roles that second languages play
in people’s lives and sees how they can be translated into goals of language teach-
ing. It raises the fundamental questions of why we are teaching a second language
and of what students want to be and what groups they want to belong to, things
which teachers often neglect to think about in their absorbing teaching lives.
To some people, acquiring a second language is a difficult feat; to others, it is
ordinary and unexceptionable. Take the real-life history of a boy in Tanzania who
spoke Kihaya at home; he needed Kiswahili in elementary school and English in
secondary school; he trained to be a priest, for which he needed Latin, but he also
learnt French out of curiosity at the same time. Then he went as a priest to Uganda
and Kenya, where he needed Rukiga and Kikamba, and he is now in Illinois, where
he needs Spanish to communicate with his parishioners. To most monolingual
English speakers, this seems a mind-boggling life story. It is extraordinary to us that
someone can use more than one language in their everyday life.
Or take a country like Cameroon, which has 2 official languages, 4 lingua fran-
cas and 285 native languages (Koenig et al., 1983); most people use four or five lan-
guages in the course of a day. Probably more people in the world are like the typical
Cameroonian than the typical Englishman. Harding and Riley (1986) point out
that ‘there are 3000–5000 languages in the world but only about 150 countries to
fit them all into’. Even in Europe, 56 per cent of the citizens of the EU know at least
one foreign language (EuroBarometer, 2006). Knowing a second language is a nor-
mal part of human existence; it may well be unusual to know only one.
A starting point is to look at what a language is. Conventionally, one meaning of
‘language’ is political in the Lang2 sense of Chapter 1, ‘an abstract entity’: a language
belongs to a nation, whether German, French, English or Chinese. An aphorism
attributed to Ulrich Weinreich is that a language is a dialect with an army and a
navy. This definition in terms of a nation works when the everyday use of a lan-
guage effectively stops at the borders of a country, say Japanese in Japan or Korean
in Korea. In these cases, the native speakers of the language are born and live within
the country. They are local languages spoken within the same area, whether a coun-
try or a section of a country. They usually have a single standard form based on a
particular region or social class, regardless of dialects: standard Japanese derives
from Tokyo, standard Korean from Seoul. The logical target of teaching for those
local languages may indeed be the language and culture of the native speaker.
Languages, however, may have native speakers spread across neighbouring coun-
tries, not just confined to a single country – supercentral languages in de Swaan’s
terms, like Swahili, Arabic and Chinese. Some languages do not even have nation
homes in that they spread across several countries without being recognized in any
The different roles of second languages in people’s lives 195
of them, say, Romany in many countries of Europe, or Kurdish spread across several
frontiers. Other languages spoken within the boundaries of one country may not be
the official language of the state, such as Basque and Catalan in Spain or Scottish
Gaelic in Scotland. Often this may be a major plank in arguments for political inde-
pendence, as is the case of Catalonia in Spain. Languages, then, may have very dif-
ferent statuses, as seen in Chapter 10.
11.1 The different roles of second languages

in people’s lives
Focusing questions
● In the area where you live, how many languages are spoken? Officially or
actually?
● How many languages do you know? How many do you use in a day?
● Would you, as a parent, bring up children to speak two languages or not?
Why?
Keywords
elite bilingualism: either the decision by parents to bring up children through

two languages, or societies in which members of a ruling group speak a sec-
ond language
official language: language(s) recognized by a country for official purposes
multilingualism: countries or situations where more than one language is used
for everyday purposes
linguistic imperialism: the means by which a ‘centre’ country dominates ‘periph-
ery’ countries by making them use its language
This section needs to start by defusing the myth that bilingualism in itself has a
bad effect on children, typified by Thompson (1952): ‘There can be no doubt that
the child reared in a bilingual environment is handicapped in his language
growth.’ This view is still around in some forms; the advice in a pamphlet for par-
ents of children with Down’s syndrome, I Can Talk (Streets, 1976, reprinted 1991)
is: ‘Bilingual families: for any child this is confusing – one language should be the
main one to avoid confusion.’
However, since the 1960s, research has pointed unequivocally to the advan-
tages of bilingualism: children who know a second language are better at separat-
ing semantic from phonetic aspects of words, at classifying objects, and at coming
up with creative ideas – far from confused. They also have sharper awareness of
language, as we see below; a brief list of bilingual writers, such as Vladimir
Nabokov, André Brink and Joseph Conrad, soon confirms this. As for confusion,
Einstein used more than one language (and was also a late speaker as a child).
196 The goals of language teaching
According to Ellen Bialystok and her colleagues (2004), bilinguals are less likely to
develop Alzheimer’s disease in old age. Diaz (1985) typifies the modern view:
‘growing up with two languages is, indeed, an asset to children’s intellectual
development’. Much of the earlier belief in the deficiencies of the bilingual turned
out to be a flaw in the research design of not separating bilingualism out from the
poverty and isolation of immigrant groups.
Bilingualism by choice
Some people speak two languages because their parents decided to bring them up
bilingually in the home. This so-called ‘elite’ bilingualism is not forced on the par-
ents by society or by the educational system, but is their free choice. Often one of
the languages involved is the central language of the country, the other a local
language spoken by one parent as a native. Sometimes both parents speak a
minority local language themselves, but feel the majority central language should
also be used at home. However, George Saunders (1982) describes how he and his
wife decided to bring up their children in German in Australia, though neither of
them was a native speaker. Others have three languages in the family; Philip
Riley’s children spoke English and Swedish at home and French at school
(Harding and Riley, 1986).
This parental choice also extends in some countries to educating their children
through a second language, for example in International Schools across the world,
in the ‘European Schools’ movement (Baetens Beardsmore, 1993), the French
Lycée in London or indeed in the English public schools that now educate large
numbers of children from non-English-speaking countries (for the benefit of the
non-Brit, a public school in the UK is an expensive private school, not part of the
state system). Choosing this type of bilingual education usually depends on hav-
ing money or on being an expatriate; it is mostly a preserve of the middle classes.
While a second language is often considered a ‘problem’ in the education of
lower-status people, it is seen as a mark of distinction in those of higher status. A
Chinese child in a state school in England is seen as having a language problem,
not helped by being ‘mainstreamed’ with all the other children; a Chinese child
in a public school has been recruited by the school from, say, Hong Kong, and
their bilingualism is seen as an asset, to be helped with special English classes.
So bilingualism by choice mostly takes place outside the main educational con-
texts of L2 teaching, and varies according to the parents’ wishes; accounts of these
will be found in the self-help manuals written for parents by Arnberg (1987) and
by Harding and Riley (1986). A useful source is the Bilingual Families mailing list
(www.nethelp.no/cindy/biling-fam.html).
Second languages for religious use

Some people use a second language because of their religion. For centuries after its
decline as an international language, Latin functioned as a religious language of
the Catholic Church. Muslims read the Koran in Arabic, regardless of whether they
live in an Arabic-speaking country like Saudi Arabia or in a multilingual country
like Malaysia. Jews outside Israel continue to learn Hebrew so that they can pray in
it and study the Bible and other sacred texts. In parts of India, Christianity is iden-
tified with English, in Ethiopia with Aramaic. Though the language of religious
observances is specialized, it is nonetheless a form of L2 use for supercentral
languages. As this type of L2 learning is distinct from most classroom situations, it

will not be discussed further here, but it should not be overlooked, since for mil-
lions of people it is the most profound use of a second language imaginable.
Official languages and L2 learning

According to Laponce (1987), 32 countries recognize more than one language for
official purposes. Switzerland has four languages (German, French, Italian,
Romansh) and uses Latin on its stamps (‘Helvetia’). The Singapore government
uses English, Mandarin, Malay and Tamil.
But the fact that a country has several official languages does not mean that any
individual person speaks more than one; the communities may be entirely sepa-
rate. Mackey (1967) claims that ‘there are fewer bilingual people in the bilingual
countries than there are in the so-called unilingual countries’. Few Canadians, for
instance, use both English and French in daily life. Instead, the French and English
speakers live predominantly in different parts of Canada, as do the German, French
and Italian speakers in Switzerland, and the French and Flemish speakers in
Belgium. It is necessary in many of these countries to teach speakers of one official
language to use another official language; Afrikaans-speaking civil servants in
South Africa need English; their English-speaking counterparts in Canada need
French.
This does not necessarily mean that each official language is equally favoured;
few Swiss would bother to learn Romansh as a second language. Nor does it mean
that the official language learnt is the version actually used in the country; in
Switzerland, French-speaking children learn High German, not the Swiss German
mostly spoken in the German-speaking areas, so they can, in a sense, speak with
Germans better than they can with their compatriots.
Sometimes a language can become an official language with at first few, if any,
native speakers. Hebrew was revived by a popular movement in Israel long before
being adopted by the new state. The teaching of Hebrew in Israel did not just edu-
cate one group in the language of another, but created a group of people who
spoke a second language that would become the first language of their children.
In some countries an official language is selected that has, at least to start with, a
small proportion of native speakers, for example, Swahili in Tanzania, where only
10 per cent of the population are native speakers. Another pattern is found in the
Congo, where French is the official language but there are four ‘national lan-
guages’, Kiswahili, Ciluba, Lingala and Kikongo, which are used as lingua francas
among speakers of different mother tongues. To take a final example, in Pakistan
four languages are spoken in different provinces: Pashto, Punjabi, Balochi and
Sindi. Urdu is used all over the country, as is Arabic for religious purposes. In addi-
tion, English is an official language.
Multilingualism and L2 learning

Regardless of whether they have more than one official language, most countries
contain large numbers of people who use other languages. According to the
Eurydice network (Eurydice, 2005), in Europe, ‘8 per cent of pupils aged 15 say
that at home they speak a language other than the language of instruction.’ While
England uses one language for official purposes, a survey of London found that 32
per cent of children spoke languages other than English at home and that 300
different languages were spoken (Baker and Eversley, 2000). Some countries nev-
ertheless consist almost entirely of speakers of a single language: 121 million of
the 127 million inhabitants of Japan speak Japanese (Gordon, 2005). Others con-
ceal a variety of languages under one official language. Of the 60 million people
in France, 1.5 million speak Alemannisch, 1.2 million Arabic, 0.5 million Breton,
0.5 million Kabyle, and so on (Gordon, 2005). In Vancouver, where 46 per cent of
the population are immigrants, undoubtedly more bilinguals speak Chinese
alongside English than French, and in Toronto 4.9 per cent of the inhabitants
speak French at home (Gardner, 2007), despite English and French being the offi-
cial languages of Canada. In the year 2000, 47 million US residents over the age of
4 spoke a language other than English at home, that is, one in five of the popula-
tion (US Census Bureau, 2003); this trend has led to a worry about the continuing
status and importance of English.
Mobility also plays a part in multilingualism. Some countries, for one reason or
other, include static populations of speakers of different languages, sometimes
called ‘internal colonies’. The UK has had speakers of Welsh, Gaelic and English
for many centuries. According to Ethnologue (Gordon, 2005), 24 languages are
spoken in South Africa, 415 in India and 102 in Vietnam. In many cases this
multiplicity of languages reflects the arbitrary borders imposed on various coun-
tries in modern times. Much was the historical result of conquest or movement of
people; the empires of Islam and France led to Algeria having speakers of French,
Arabic and Berber; the legacy of the British Empire and trade led to Malaysia hav-
ing speakers of Bahasa Malaysia, Chinese, Indian languages and various indige-
nous languages, amounting to 140 in total. Recent changes in such groups have
sometimes consisted of people going back to their homeland; ethnic Germans
returning to Germany, Turkish-speaking Bulgarians returning to Turkey, and so
on. A balance between the languages in one country has often been arrived at,
though not necessarily with the consent or approval of the speakers of the minor-
ity languages: children were at some time forbidden to speak Basque in Spain,
Navajo in the USA or Kurdish in Turkey; Koreans in Japanese-occupied territories
had to adopt Japanese names; the Turkish minority in Bulgaria had to use
Bulgarian names. Indeed, deaf children in England (the use of sign language by the
deaf being a form of multilingualism that is often forgotten) have often been
made to sit on their hands in class to prevent them using sign language.
The past few decades seem to have accelerated movements of people from one
country to another, as refugees, such as the Vietnamese, as immigrants, such as
Algerians in France, or as migrants looking for work, such as Moroccans in
Germany or Poles in England and Ireland. This has created a vast new multilingual-
ism. New York is said to be the biggest Gujarati-speaking city outside the Indian
subcontinent, Melbourne the largest Maltese-speaking city in the world. An Indian
student born in Uganda said to me that the first Indian city she had lived in was
the London suburb of Southall. A wealth of languages are spoken in every
European town today, regardless of the official language of the country; Turkish is
spoken in London or in Berlin or in Amsterdam; Arabic can be heard from Paris to
Brussels to Berlin; in the west London suburb of Ealing 20 per cent of children
speak Punjabi, 10 per cent Hindi/Urdu and 6 per cent Gujarati (Baker and Eversley,
2000). In some cases, these people are temporary birds of passage, intending to
return to their country once the political or economic situation changes – Polish
taxi drivers in most English cities, for example. In most cases, they are permanent
citizens of the country, with the same rights as any other citizen, like Finnish-
speaking citizens of Sweden or Bengali-speaking citizens of England.
In many cases, such multilingualism is bound to be short-lived. Paulston (1986)

describes how immigrants to the USA from Greece and Italy become native speak-
ers of English over three or four generations. In her view, such a shift from minor-
ity to majority language is prevented only when there are strong boundaries
around the group, whether social or geographical (Gaelic in the Hebrides), or self-
imposed (the Amish in the USA, who speak Pennsylvania Dutch), or when there
is a clear separation in social use of the two languages (‘diglossia’), as in Standard
Arabic versus local versions of Arabic in North Africa. Having one’s own ethnic
culture as a minority group means speaking the language of that culture, usually
different from the majority language, but not necessarily so – as in the use of
English by many Scottish nationalists. Language, then, is often part of ethnicity,
and hence associated with political movements for the rights of particular groups.
Indeed, this extends to the rise of heritage languages in some minority groups,
which may not currently be spoken by any of the members; the Confucius
Institutes that are springing up around the world for the teaching of Chinese have
found that one important group of students consists of Chinese speakers of other
dialects wishing to learn Mandarin.
Joshua Fishman (1991) has described this intergenerational shift as a Graded
Intergenerational Disruption Scale (GIDS), which has eight stages. At the first stage,
a language is used for some ‘higher-level’ government and mass media, for exam-
ple, but does not have ‘political independence’; an example might be Swiss
German. At the second stage, the language is used in the ‘lower’ levels of govern-
ment and media, but not ‘in the higher spheres of either’. And so on until stage 7,
when the users of the language are old and ‘beyond child-bearing age’, but still talk
to each other, such as some speakers of old Italian dialects in Toronto. And it ends
with stage 8, when the only language users left are socially isolated and need to
transmit their language to people who can teach it to a new generation, like speak-
ers of some Aboriginal languages in Australia or speakers of Cornish in Cornwall.
Internationalism and second languages

For many students, the second language has no real role within their own society;
English is not learnt in China because of its usefulness inside China. Instead, the
second language is taught in the educational system because of the benefits it
brings from outside the home country. Any language may be taught with the aim
of promoting relationships with other countries that use it.
So a particular country, or indeed a particular individual, may decide to learn a
second language for a purpose outside their own society, whether to do business
with other countries, to gain access to a scientific literature or to a cultural her-
itage, or to be able to work in other countries. In Israel, English is seen as ‘the cus-
tomary language for international communication and for overcoming barriers to
the flow of information, goods and people across national boundaries’ (English –
Curriculum for all Grades, 2002). Such use of an international language does not
necessarily entail any acceptance of the values of the society from which it origi-
nates. Steve Biko justified English as the language of the Black People’s Convention
in South Africa because it acted as a lingua franca and it was ‘analytical’ (Biko,
1978). Anti-English graffiti in Belfast were written in English, not Irish. The
speaker’s attitudes to the target culture are marginal to such uses.
Sometimes, as a legacy of colonialism, the original speakers of an international
language feel that they have the right to say what it should be or how it should be
taught. We can complement the advertisements for native speaker English teach-
ers in Chapter 10 with the examples of the Alliance Française in London claiming
French ‘taught by French nationals’; the Eurolingua Institute, ‘lessons are given by
experienced and fully qualified mother tongue teachers’; and Language Trainers,
‘All our German teachers are native speakers (from Germany, Austria or
Switzerland)’. While the aims of the UK schools syllabus for French refer to
‘French-speaking countries’; this is automatically taken to be France, as a student
from the Ivory Coast bitterly pointed out to me.
Setting aside political or commercial motivations, the responsibility for interna-
tional languages has passed out of the hands of the original owners. Furthermore,
the right to say how something should be taught is even less a right of the native
speaker than the right to say how something should be said. An Englishman or an
American has no more intrinsic right to tell an Egyptian how to teach English
than does a Japanese; the only one who can decide what is right for Egypt is the
Egyptian: as a spokesman said in China, ‘For China we need a Chinese method.’
Whether an idea or an approach to language teaching is useful does not depend
on which country it comes from. Its merits have to be accepted or rejected by the
experts on the situation – the teachers and students who live and work there.
As we have seen in this section, language is not politically neutral. Deciding
which language should be used in a particular country or which other language
should be taught affects the economic and cultural life not only of the country
itself, but also of the country from which the language comes. Take the example
of English. On the one hand, in Singapore the decision to make English its ‘first’
language must have played a significant part in its economic success. On the other
hand, the UK itself can try to keep economic links with many parts of the world
by promoting English. This is without taking into account the vast sums of money
involved in the language teaching operation itself, whether in the sales of British
books or the students coming to UK schools and universities.
Robert Phillipson (1992) calls this ‘linguistic imperialism’ and sees it as a special
case of Galtung’s (1980) concept of ‘a dominant Centre (the powerful western
countries) and a dominated Periphery (the under-developed countries)’. The cen-
tre can exert this domination in part by forcing the periphery to use its languages.
So English as a centre language is used for business purposes of trading between
periphery countries and the centre. However, this use has been so successful that
English escaped the hands of its originators and allowed periphery countries to do
business with each other rather than with the UK itself.
In addition, educational systems in the periphery emphasize English and indeed
have instruction through English, particularly at university; the University of
Gaza, for example, uses English as the means of instruction for all subjects, as do
universities in Egypt, the Netherlands and Botswana. Above all, English is a
requirement for scientific writing and reading: few scientists can make a proper
contribution to their field without having access to English, either in person or
through translation of one kind or another: 86 per cent of research papers in biol-
ogy are written in English, and 97 per cent of those on cross-cultural psychology.
While the teaching of scientific English may be of vital importance to the individ-
ual learners, the pressure to use English for science is a form of linguistic imperi-
alism. Publication in scientific journals depends on getting over an additional
obstacle that native speakers do not have to face; journals that come from the cen-
tre are not going to value independent views from people outside this area. Even
in the SLA research area, this is apparent; it is dominated by literature in English
and biased towards accounts of acquisition of English in highly developed
Language and groups of speakers 201
countries; an international conference on cross-cultural psychology only used

English, despite the fact that many participants did not speak it well. Academics
who live in centre countries naturally feel they cannot compromise academic
standards – but it is the standards of the centre that are continually perpetuated,
not the potentially infinite richness of scientific exploration possible through dif-
ferent cultures and approaches.
Indeed, the influence of the centre is not just on the choice of language that
other countries need to learn, but on the very means of teaching them. French
audio-visualism was exported to francophone Africa, British communicative
teaching to most parts of the globe. Adrian Holliday (1994) points to the perma-
nent guilt feelings of the local teacher who is never able to apply the centre-
approved methods to their own satisfaction, basically because they were not
designed specifically for the needs of any local situation.
Recently, however, the concept of linguistic imperialism has been criticized on
various grounds (Canagarajah, 2005). One is that in many cases English is not so
much imposed from outside as requested by the locals themselves, as a way of
communicating with the world at large, not just with the centre of an empire – a
network with many connections rather than a spider’s web leading only to the
centre. The other reason is that fears of English replacing other languages seem to
have been exaggerated; for instance, in India the shift is not towards English, but
towards local regional languages (Bhatt, 2005). Of course, this may be the unique
situation of English as the hypercentral language, as seen in Chapter 10, and not
necessarily true of supercentral and central languages.
11.2 Language and groups of speakers
Focusing questions
● Do you belong to a community with a single language or a community that

uses more than one? Which is preferable?
● Of all the groups to which you belong – family, religion, nation, and so on –
how important is the group of L1 speakers? Of L2 users?
● What modern jobs necessarily require the use of a second language?
Let us now turn to the groups of L2 users that people may belong to, that is, mem-
bership of a community in the Lang4 sense of language. While language is often
seen as a shared core value of the community (Smolicz and Secombe, 2003), it is
not always a necessary requirement; Jewish communities, for instance, have his-
torically spoken diverse languages across the world, such as Yiddish (Myhill,
2003). Nor are the members of the community necessarily fluent in its language,
as with Scottish Gaelic (Dorian, 1981). People may be part of a community with-
out speaking its language – how many Irish Americans speak Irish?
As well as monolingual communities, there are many communities where it is
necessary to use more than one language. India, for example, has a ‘three-language
formula’ 3 1: everyone has to know not only Hindi and English, but also the
local language of a particular state. If the local state language is Hindi or English,
they only need two languages (3 1); if neither Hindi nor English is the state
language and they speak another language, they need four languages (3 1) (Laitin,
2000). It is taken for granted that the community itself is multilingual, the lan-
guages involved varying by individual and by state. The ongoing discussion of ELF
recognizes at least one widespread L2 user community, crossing national bound-
aries and becoming detached from the native speaker, as Latin once separated
from Italy.
Groups of language users

Both SLA research and language teaching need to be clear about the differences
between language user groups rather than treating all users and learners as the same.
Box 11.1 lists some of these groups. Illustrations come primarily from London.
Box 11.1 Language user groups

1 People speaking their native language.
2 People using an L2 within the majority community.
3 People historically from a particular community (re-)acquiring its language
as L2.
4 People speaking an L2 as short-term visitors to another country or to short-
term visitors to their country.
5 People using an L2 with spouses or friends.
6 People using an L2 internationally for specific functions.
7 Students and teachers acquiring or conveying an education through an L2.
8 Pupils and teachers learning or teaching L2 in school.
People speaking their native language

Some people use their native language exclusively. So monolingual Londoners
speak English with each other and potentially with anybody else who speaks
English in the world; in London they make up the sea, so to speak. But native
speakers may also be an island in a sea; deaf people in London use British Sign
Language in the midst of the hearing. And, of course, many native speakers of one
language are L2 users of another language rather than monolinguals.
People speaking a second language within a majority

community
Some residents use a second language to communicate with the majority language
group, say, resident Bengalis in Tower Hamlets using English as a central language
for their everyday contacts with other citizens of London. Often this group is per-
manent and may pre-date the existence of the majority community, such
as Aboriginals in Australia. They are using the second language for practical pur-
poses – the classic ‘second language’ situation – while having a first language for
other social and cultural purposes. In addition, many people living in multilin-
gual communities use the second language as a central language with speakers of
minority language groups other than their own, essentially as a local lingua
franca. The Bengali L1 shop owner in Tower Hamlets uses English for speaking
with Arabic L1 customers, both equally English in nationality, true of most of the
Language and groups of speakers 203
L1 speakers of the 300 languages of London (Baker and Eversley, 2000). Sometimes
the L2 lingua franca crosses national borders. Swahili has 770,000 native speakers,
but 30 million lingua franca speakers spread across several African countries
(Gordon, 2005).
People historically from a particular community (re-)acquiring

its language as L2
The descendants of a particular cultural or ethnic group may want to learn its lan-
guage, for instance, to talk to their grandparents who were first-generation incom-
ers. Language maintenance classes take place in London ranging from Polish to
Greek. Some people are trying to find their roots through language. Others are
returning to their country of historical origin and need to reacquire the language,
or sometimes to acquire it for the first time. One example is Puerto Ricans return-
ing from the USA to Puerto Rico (Clachar, 1997), rejoining a community of L1
speakers as L2 users. Another group are the children of expats going back to the
country their family originally came from, say, Japanese children returning to
Japan (Kanno, 2000); these need to acquire the language of the homeland for
practical purposes as well as cultural identity, many finding it an extremely diffi-
cult task.
People speaking an L2 either as short-term visitors to another

country or to short-term visitors to their country
Some people are short-term visitors to another country, say, tourists. English for
tourism is no longer a matter of English-speaking tourists going to non-English-
speaking countries, or non-English-speaking tourists going to English-speaking
countries, as we have seen. Some tourists may nevertheless try to learn the lan-
guage of a country before visiting it – English people learning French to go to
France, Japanese learning Spanish to visit Spain. English for tourism is a theme in
most EFL coursebooks, Spanish for tourism a key attraction for evening classes in
England. Other short-term visitors to another country include: athletes going to
the Olympic Games, businessmen attending conferences, policemen investigat-
ing crimes, pilgrims, retirees visiting their villas in Spain – the list is endless.
Again, some may want to use the central language of the country, some a lan-
guage that will get them by, such as Latin or Klingon at conferences of their devo-
tees. The reverse is people using an L2 with visitors to their country, whether the
visitor’s L1 as with Japanese people in Tokyo using English with English-speaking
L1 visitors, or the visitor’s L2 as with Japanese using English with L1 German-
speaking visitors.
People using an L2 with spouses, siblings or friends

L2 users may speak their second language within a small social group. People have
often joked that the best way of learning a language is to marry someone who
speaks it; such married bilingual couples feel they are quite capable of passing for
native speakers (Piller, 2002). Parents can choose to use a language with their chil-
dren that they will not encounter outside the home. Indeed, unrelated pairs of
people can decide to use a second language: Henry VIII wrote love letters to Anne
Boleyn and Catherine of Aragon in French (Vatican City, n.d.), the language of
courtly love.
People using an L2 internationally for specific functions

English as lingua franca (ELF) belongs to a variety of groups of speakers. One
is made up of academics, using the language for academic journals and confer-
ences everywhere. Other groups use specially designed varieties of English, like
SeaSpeak for mariners (Weeks et al., 1988) or ASD Simplified Technical English, a
carefully restricted English for technical writing (ASD, 2007). And of course,
international business uses English regardless of L1, say, Danish businessmen
talking to Indians or Syrians on the phone (Firth, 1996). People who speak ELF
belong to communities that cross frontiers, united by a common interest. In one
view, English no longer counts as learning another language; it is an addition to
the three Rs (reading, writing and arithmetic), necessary for primary school chil-
dren everywhere (Graddol, 2006). But supercentral languages also have special-
ized transnational uses, for instance, Japanese in martial arts or Arabic for
Muslims.
Students and teachers acquiring or conveying an

education through an L2
Another group of L2 users are gaining an education through a second language, as
we saw earlier. On the one hand, they may be another L2 minority island in an L1
sea; in the Netherlands, universities use English alongside Dutch. In reverse, stu-
dents go to another country to get their higher education, Zaireans to Paris,
Greeks to England. In other words, a second language is the vehicle for education,
more or less regardless of its native speakers (except in so far as they can profit by
teaching ‘their’ language). Within this general framework comes the elite bilin-
gualism of children educated in multilingual schools.
Pupils and teachers learning or teaching L2 in school

Finally, children are taught a second language as part of the school curriculum –
the classic ‘foreign’ language situation, whether French in England or Spanish in
Japan. The children do not themselves form a community of users – perhaps the
only group we can really call ‘learners’ rather than users. Often the goal is to get
through the hurdles set by the examination system – language as a school subject,
taught and assessed like other subjects. Members of this group are unique in not
having an L2 identity of their own; their use is not an end in itself so much as the
route to getting somewhere else.
Doubtless many other groups could be added, for example, interpreters,
whether professionals or children helping their parents, a widespread use in
minority groups. Some use the second language to native speakers, some to other
non-native speakers. The goal of becoming a native speaker or even understand-
ing a native speaker is beside the point; the aim is to become an efficient L2 user.
Separating community from the monolingual native speaker leads to new group-
ings of speakers. Moreover an individual may have multiple memberships in these
groups: a professional footballer coming to London needs not just the visitor
language to cope with living there, but also the specialized ELF of football for
interacting with the rest of the team (Kellerman et al., 2005) – 60 per cent of
league footballers in England at the time of writing (2008) are non-native speak-
ers of English.
The goals of language teaching 205
Box 11.2 Language and groups

● Language users are members of many possible groups, ranging from the
family to the nation.
● Many groups are genuinely multilingual rather than monolingual.
● It is crucial to see L2 users as belonging to many groups and as being part
of a new group of L2 users, rather than as supplicants to join native speaker
groups.
11.3 The goals of language teaching
Focusing questions
● Do you think people who go to live in another country should either learn the
majority language and forget their own or adopt the majority language for
some everyday purposes, or try to keep both the majority language and their
L1 going?
● What goals do you or your students have for their second language outside
their own country? Careers? Education? Access to information? Travel?
Keywords
assimilationist teaching: teaching that expects people to give up their native

languages and to become speakers of the majority central language of the
country
transitional L2 teaching: teaching that allows people to function in a central
language, without necessarily losing or devaluing the first language
language maintenance and bilingual language teaching: teaching to main-
tain or extend the minority local language within its own group
submersion teaching: extreme sink-or-swim form of assimilationist teaching in
which minority language children are put in majority language classes
What does this diversity of functions and group memberships mean for L2 learn-
ing and teaching? We can make a broad division between central goals which fos-
ter the second language within the country, international goals which foster it for
use outside the country and individual goals which aim at developing the potential
of the individual learner.
Central goals of teaching

The central goals of language teaching are those that serve the needs of the
society within itself, particularly the need for different groups to interact with
each other. They can be seen as having three broad divisions, drawing on the
distinctions made in Bilingualism or Not (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1981): assimilationist,

transitional and language maintenance. All these are concerned with the position
of minority language children relative to the majority language, that is to say,
with speakers of a local language learning the central language for use in the wider
community.
Assimilationist language teaching

Assimilationist teaching accepts that society has the right to expect people to give
up their native languages and to become speakers of the central language; they are
to be assimilated into the rest of the country. One example has been the five-
month courses teaching Hebrew to new immigrants to Israel. Here the motivation
was to unify people coming from many parts of the world within a single cultural
heritage, though this is now changing into vocationally more relevant teaching.
UK governments constantly threaten to make residence depend on the ability
to speak English. An extreme form of assimilationist teaching is so-called ‘submer-
sion’ teaching – the ‘sink-or-swim’ method of ‘mainstreaming’ minority language
children into a central language classroom and forbidding them to use their own
language.
Transitional language teaching

The aim of transitional L2 teaching is to allow people to function in the central
language of the country, without necessarily losing or devaluing their first lan-
guage. While resembling assimilationist teaching, the motivation is different. To
use Wallace Lambert’s terms (Lambert, 1990), assimilationist teaching is ‘subtrac-
tive’ in that the learners feel their first language is being taken away from them;
transitional teaching is ‘additive’ in that it adds the ability to function in the
majority language without displacing the first language. With transitional lan-
guage teaching, the minority language speaker still keeps the right to function in
his or her own language, except when communicating with the majority group.
The educational system is one aspect of this. In some countries education takes
place almost exclusively through the central official language: English in England,
French in France. Hence those who do not speak the language of the school need
help in acquiring it. In other countries, special classes enable children to acquire
the majority language for the classroom. The Bilingual Education Act in the USA,
for example, required the child to have English teaching as an aid in the transition
to the ordinary classroom. François Grosjean (1982) says of such classes: ‘For a few
years at least the children can be in a transitory haven before being “swallowed
up” by the regular system.’ Ironically, such schemes disappeared in the UK follow-
ing the Calderdale report finding that separate provision contravenes laws against
racial discrimination (Commission for Racial Equality, 1986), thus imposing an
assimilationist model on education in England that has lasted ever since. Indeed,
this mainstreaming of the immigrant child with some language support is now
widespread across Europe, for example, in Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Cyprus,
Austria, Portugal and Poland (Eurydice, 2005).
Employment is another aspect. Schemes are set up to help the worker who does
not know the language of the workplace; new adult immigrants to Sweden, for
example, must be offered the opportunity to study Swedish by their local munic-
ipality within three months. Sometimes the needs of the new adult immigrant are
taken care of by special initial programmes. The aim of such transitional teaching
is not to suppress the first language in the minority language speakers, but to
enable them to use the central language sufficiently for their own educational or
employment needs. They still keep the values of their first language for all func-
tions except those directly involving speakers of the majority language.
Language maintenance and bilingual language teaching

The aim of language maintenance or ‘heritage’ teaching is to teach minority lan-
guages to speakers of that language. Many ethnic groups want to keep their own lan-
guage alive in their children. One possibility is the bilingualism by choice of
bringing up children with two languages in the home. Many groups also collectively
organize language maintenance classes outside the official educational system; in
London, classes for children can be found taking place in Chinese, Polish, Greek and
other languages, after normal school hours or at weekends. Mandarin Chinese is
now being learnt by 30 million adults around the world (Graddol, 2006).
The mainstream educational equivalent is educating minority children through
their first language. At one extreme is the notion that children should be taught
solely through the minority language – Bantustans in South Africa or Turkish
migrants’ children in Bavaria – resulting in the minority speakers becoming a seg-
regated enclave. More common, perhaps, is the notion that children have the
right to have access to their first language through the educational system.
In Sweden, for example, there are playgroups run in minority languages for pre-
school children and summer camps for older children (Arnberg, 1987). Denmark
has 24 German kindergartens and 18 German schools in its German-speaking areas
(European Commission, 2006). The position of Maori in New Zealand has been
revitalized in part through the provision of ‘language nests’ – preschool play-
groups in which Maori is used (Spolsky, 1989b).
The assumption of maintenance classes is that minority language speakers have
the right to continue with their own language and heritage, regardless of the offi-
cial central language of the country. To quote Tove Skutnabb-Kangas (1981),
‘Bilingualism is no longer seen as a passing phase, but rather as something good
and permanent, something to be striven for.’ Transitional language teaching is
neutral about the value of the minority language; bilingual teaching actively
encourages a multilingual society. In England, the terms historically evolved from
‘English for immigrants’ to ‘multicultural education’ to ‘bilingual teaching’ to
‘English as an additional language’. Changes in slogans, of course, do not necessar-
ily reflect changes in practice.
One form that this emphasis on bilingualism takes is the propagation of other
official languages through the school system. In Indonesia, 10 per cent of children
speak Bahasa Indonesia as a first language, but 75 per cent learn it at school
(Laponce, 1987). Canada has been famous for the experiment of ‘immersion’
schools, where English-speaking children are educated through the medium of
French. Whatever the hotly debated merits or demerits of immersion, it resembles
elite bilingualism. Wallace Lambert (1990) opposes its use with minority children,
as ‘it fuels the subtractive process and places the minority child into another form
of psycholinguistic limbo’.
International goals of teaching

Let us now turn to international goals for language teaching which extend beyond
the society itself, that is, the territory of supercentral languages such as Chinese and
the hypercentral language English, discussed in Chapter 10. The students are
assumed to be native speakers of the central language, possibly quite wrongly, say
when a person is teaching French in London to the typical multilingual class.
There are many types of international goals. Some illustrations will be taken from
English syllabuses for Japan (MEXT, 2003) and Malaysia (Pusat Perkembangan
Kurikulum, 2003), and the UK National Curriculum for modern languages
(DES, 1990).
Careers that require a second language

Without taking into account the situation facing immigrants practising their orig-
inal profession in another country, such as Hungarian doctors practising in
England, there are many careers in which knowledge of another language is
important. For certain professions a particular language is necessary – for example,
English for air traffic controllers or seamen. The Angol Nyelv Alapfoken English
textbook in Hungary (Edina and Ivanne, 1987) has a plot-line about travel agents
and tourist guides, one kind of career that uses international languages. An impor-
tant function of language teaching is indeed to train people for the international
business world. Degrees in Japanese are popular among London University stu-
dents because they lead to jobs in the City of London, as it is apparently easier to
teach a Japanese graduate finance than a finance graduate Japanese. Nations will
always need individuals who are capable of bridging the gap between two coun-
tries for economic or political purposes, or indeed for the purposes of war, as in
the American crash programme in foreign languages in World War Two which led
to the audio-lingual method. This type of goal is not about turning the student
into an imitation native speaker, but into an L2 user. It preserves the first language
alongside the second so that the student can mediate between them – preparing an
L1 report on a meeting held in the second language, for example.
Higher education
Higher education through another language may either be in a country that uses
it or sited in particular countries where it is not used, as we saw earlier. Of the
4,249 postgraduates at Newcastle University in 2006–2007, 1,518 were from out-
side the EU (38 per cent). The importance for the student is not the second lan-
guage itself, but the knowledge and qualifications that are gained through the
second language. Again, the first language is an important part of the situation.
Access to research and information

The Malaysian schools syllabus encourages students to ‘Read and understand sim-
ple factual texts for main ideas, supporting details’. At a different level is the need
for English to support various careers that are not primarily based on language –
for scientists, doctors or journalists. To keep up to date or to be well informed, it
may be necessary to use English.
Travel
The motivation behind many students’ L2 learning is to travel abroad, that is, to
belong to the group of visitors. At one level, this is the leisure activity of tourism: two
weeks on a beach in Cuba does not require much Spanish. One of the four themes
set for the UK GCSE examinations in French is: ‘Travelling from the UK to target-
language country/community’ (AQA, 2007). A goal for my own beginners’ course
People and Places (Cook, 1980) was international travel through English; hence it
emphasized talking to strangers about everyday travel functions such as getting
money and food or finding the right check-in. The goal of travel is included under
international goals here as it involves contact with other countries, though in
a sense it is an individual goal belonging in the next section. Sometimes special-
ized training has been provided, say, English for tourism workers in Vietnam
and Cuba.
Individual goals of language teaching

Some goals are not related to the society itself or its external relations, but to the
students’ motivations and attitudes examined in Chapter 8. Several individual
goals can be recognized.
Understanding foreign cultures

The Japanese syllabus ‘aims at instilling a broader perspective and an understand-
ing of different cultures, fostering attitudes of respect for such ideas, and the abil-
ity to live with people of different cultures’. The UK National Curriculum wants
pupils to ‘be taught about different countries and cultures by communicating
with native speakers’, and by ‘considering the experiences and perspectives of
people in these countries and communities’. Regardless of the actual language
that is being learnt, it is often held to be beneficial for the students to understand
a foreign culture for its own sake.
Understanding language itself

An educated person should know something of how language itself works as part
of the human mind and of society. One of the four main goals of the UK National
Curriculum (DES, 1990) is ‘Acquiring knowledge and understanding of the target
language’. This can be gained through foreign language study or through language
awareness training.
Cognitive training
The virtue of learning a classical language such as Latin was held to be that it trained
the brain. The logical and reasoning powers of the mind were enhanced through a
second language. This is supported by research which shows that children who
speak two languages are more flexible at problem solving (Ben Zeev, 1977), and are
better able to distinguish form from meaning (Ianco-Worrall, 1972). Ellen Bialystok
(1990), for example, asked children to say which was the biggest word in such pairs
as ‘hippopotamus’ and ‘skunk’; bilinguals were better able to keep the word size dis-
tinct from the object size and to answer the question correctly. After one hour a
week of Italian for five months, English-speaking ‘bilingual’ children were learning
to read better than their peers (Yelland et al., 1993). One spin-off from learning any
language is indeed the beneficial effects of L2 learning on using the first language. If
children are deficient at listening for information, the skills involved can be devel-
oped through L2 teaching.
General educational values

Just as sport is held to train children how to work in a team and to promote lead-
ership qualities, so L2 teaching can inculcate moral values. The Malaysian English
syllabus (Pusat Perkembangan Kurikulum, 2003) demands that ‘Teachers should
also use materials that emphasize the principles of good citizenship, moral values,
and the Malaysian way of life.’
From another angle, many people support ‘autonomous’ language learning, where
the learners take on the responsibility for themselves because this is in tune with
democracy, discussed in Chapter 13. As Leslie Dickinson (1987) puts it: ‘A demo-
cratic society protects its democratic ideals through an educational process leading
to independent individuals able to think for themselves.’ A general value that is
often cited is the insight that L2 learning provides into the L1 and its culture, or, in
the words of the UK National Curriculum, helping the pupils by ‘considering their
own culture and comparing it with the cultures of the countries and communities
where the target language is spoken’.
Learning L2 as an academic subject

Language can also be learnt simply as another subject on the curriculum, another
examination to be passed. Japanese teachers are not alone in complaining that
they are in thrall to the examination system and cannot teach the English the stu-
dents really need.
The very learning of a second language can be an important mark of education,
another form of elite bilingualism. French had this kind of status in Western
Europe, German in Eastern Europe – southern Poland and Hungary are two places
where I have occasionally found German more useful than English. Skuttnab-
Kangas (1981) paraphrases Fishman’s account of bilingualism in the USA as
follows:
If you have learnt French at university, preferably in France and even better at the
Sorbonne, then bilingualism is something very positive. But if you have learnt
French from your old grandmother in Maine then bilingualism is something rather
to be ashamed of.
L2 learning as social change

The goals seen so far in a sense accept the world as it is rather than trying to change
it; the student as an individual is expected to conform to their society. But educa-
tion and L2 teaching can also be seen as a vehicle of social change. According to
Paolo Freire (1972), the way out of the perpetual conflict between oppressor and
oppressed is through problem-posing dialogues between teachers and students
which make both more aware of the important issues in their lives and their solu-
tions. Language teaching on a Freireian model accepts that ‘authentic education is
not carried out by A for B or by A about B but rather by A with B mediated by the
world, giving rise to views or opinions about it’. Language teaching can go beyond
accepting the values of the existing world to making it better (Wallerstein, 1983).
While the Freireian approach is included here under individual goals because of its
liberating effect on the individual, it may well deserve a category all of its own of
goals for changing society: language teaching as political action.
Much of what has been said here about the goals of language teaching seems
quite obvious. Yet it is surprising how rarely it is mentioned. Most discussions of
language teaching take it for granted that everyone knows why they are teaching
the second language. ‘LP [language pedagogy] is concerned with the ability to
use language in communicative situations’ (Ellis, 1996: 74). But the reasons for
language teaching in a particular situation depend on factors that cannot be
summed up adequately just as ‘communication’, or as ‘foreign’ versus ‘second’
language teaching. Even if teachers themselves are powerless to change such rea-
sons, an understanding of the varying roles for language teaching in different
societies and for different individuals is an important aid to teaching. A well-bal-
anced set of language teaching goals is seen in the English curriculum for Israel
(English – Curriculum for all Grades, 2002), summarized in Box 11.3.
Box 11.3 English Curriculum for Israel, 2002 (part of

preamble)
The goal of this new curriculum is to set standards for four domains of English
language learning: social interaction; access to information; presentation; and
appreciation of literature and culture, and language. According to this curricu-
lum by the end of twelfth grade, pupils should be able to:
● interact effectively in a variety of situations;
● obtain and make use of information from a variety of sources and media;
● present information in an organised manner;
● appreciate literature and other cultures and the nature of language.
Teachers should be clear in their minds that they are usually teaching people
how to use two languages, not how to use one in isolation. The person who can
speak two languages has the ability to communicate in two ways. The aim is not
to produce L2 speakers who can only use the language when speaking to members
of their own group. Myhill (1990), for instance, points out that English materials
for Aboriginals in Australia, such as Tracks (Northern Territory, 1979), reflect their
own lifestyle rather than that of the English-speaking community: what is the
point in them speaking to each other in English? Nor should the aim be to pro-
duce imitation native speakers, except perhaps for trainee spies. Rather the goal
should be people who can stand between two viewpoints and between two cul-
tures, a multi-competent speaker who can do more than any monolingual. Much
language teaching has unsuccessfully tried to duplicate the skills of the native
speaker in the non-native speaker, as we argue in Chapter 10; the functions of lan-
guage or the rules of grammar known by the native speaker are taught to the stu-
dents. The point should be, instead, to equip people to use two languages without
losing their own identity. The model for language teaching should be the fluent
L2 user – ‘Japanese with English Abilities’ – not the native speaker. This is called
by Michael Byram (1990) ‘intercultural communicative competence’. It enables
language teaching to have goals that students can see as relevant and achievable,
rather than the distant vision of unattainable native speaker competence. One of
the significant steps in this direction is the use by the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages (2008) of ‘can-do’ statements (what I can do),
rather than a measure of ‘can’t-do’ based on native speakers.
Box 11.4 The goals of teaching language

1 Central goals foster a second language within a society.
● Assimilationist language teaching: minority speakers learn the majority
central language and relinquish their first language.

● Transitional language teaching: minority speakers learn to function in the
majority central language for some purposes, without giving up the first
language.
● Language maintenance and bilingual language teaching: minority speakers
learn to function in both languages.

2 International goals foster a second language for use outside the society.
● Careers that require a second language.
● Higher education.
● Access to research and information.
● Travel.
3 Individual goals develop qualities in the learner rather than language

per se.
● Understanding of foreign cultures.
● Understanding language itself.
● Cognitive training.
● General educational values.
● Learning the second language as an academic subject.
● L2 learning as social change.
Discussion topics
1 Why are we teaching second languages? Whose decision should it be and
which languages should be involved?
2 Are there really bilingual communities, or are there two communities who
speak each other’s language?
3 Is multilingualism such a new thing, or have a few countries simply
been projecting their comparative lack of languages onto the rest of the
world?
4 To what extent is second language teaching necessarily political in one
way or another?
5 What should be the goals of language teaching in a country where the
second language has no obvious use?
6 Does the peculiar position of English as a hypercentral language have
anything to say for the teaching of other languages?
7 Have you achieved your goals in second language learning?
Further reading 213
Further reading
Apart from specific references in the text, this chapter draws on ideas and exam-
ples chiefly from: Grosjean (1982) Life with Two Languages; Skutnabb-Kangas
(1981) Bilingualism or Not: The Education of Minorities; Phillipson (1992) Linguistic
Imperialism; Canagarajah (2005) Reclaiming the Local in Language Policy and
Practice; and Brutt-Griffler (2002) World English: A Study of its Development.
General models of
L2 learning 12
This chapter applies some general ideas from SLA research to language teaching,
complemented by Chapter 13 which goes in the reverse direction. It deals with
some of the general models and approaches that researchers have devised to
explain how people learn second languages, rather than with individual pieces of
research or different areas of language.
12.1 Universal Grammar
Focusing questions
● What kind of language input do you think learners need in order to acquire
grammar naturally?
● How much importance do you place on (a) correction by parents in L1 acqui-
sition? (b) correction by teachers in L2 learning?
Keywords
Universal Grammar (UG): ‘the system of principles, conditions, and rules that
are elements or properties of all human languages … the essence of human
language’ (Chomsky, 1976: 29)
principles of language: abstract principles that permit or prohibit certain struc-
tures from occurring in all human languages
parameters of language: systematic ways in which human languages vary,
usually expressed as a choice between two options
pro-drop parameter: a parameter which, set one way, permits a pro-drop lan-
guage not to have pronoun subjects in the sentence, and set the other, forces
a non-pro-drop language to have explicit subjects
Minimalist Program: this is Chomsky’s current working model that attempts to
simplify the syntax to the minimum necessary for the human computational
system to connect sounds and meanings
Universal grammar 215
The Universal Grammar (UG) model, in the version first proposed by Chomsky in
the 1980s, bases its general claims about learning on the principles and parame-
ters grammar described in Chapter 2. What we have in our minds is a mental
grammar of a language consisting of universal principles of language, such as the
locality principle which shows why a sentence like ‘Is Sam is the cat that black?’
is impossible in all languages, and of parameters on which languages vary, such as
the pro-drop parameter that explains why ‘Shuo’ (speaks) is a possible sentence in
Chinese, but ‘Speaks’ is not possible in English. Principles account for all the
things that languages have in common; parameters account for their differences.
The Universal Grammar model claims that these principles and parameters are
built in to the human mind. Children do not need to learn the locality principle
because their minds automatically impose it on any language they meet, whether
it is English, Chinese or Arabic. However, they do need to learn that English sen-
tences have subjects (non-pro-drop), while Chinese and Arabic sentences do not
(pro-drop). It is the parameter settings that have to be learnt – to have a subject or
not to have a subject. All the learner needs in order to set the values for parame-
ters are a few samples of the language. Hearing ‘There are some books on the
table’, a learner discovers that English has the non-pro-drop setting because
‘dummy’ subjects such as ‘there’ and ‘it’ do not occur in pro-drop languages.
To acquire the first language, the child applies the principles to the input that is
encountered and adopts the right value for each parameter according to the input.
Learning in the UG model is a matter of getting language input by hook or by
crook; the faculty of language needs input to work on; it is the evidence on which
the learners base their knowledge of language. This evidence can be either positive
or negative. Positive evidence consists of actual sentences that learners hear, such as
‘The Brighton train leaves London at five’. The grammatical information in the
sentence allows them to construct a grammar that fits the word order ‘facts’ of
English that subjects come before verbs (‘ … train leaves … ’), verbs before objects
(‘ … leaves London)’, and prepositions before nouns (‘ … at five’), by setting the
parameters in a particular way. The positive evidence in a few sentences is suffi-
cient to show them the rules of English.
Negative evidence has two types. Because children never hear English sentences
without subjects, such as ‘Leaves’, they deduce that English sentences must have
subjects – the same evidence of absence as that advanced for curved bananas in
the song ‘I have never seen a straight banana’. The other type of negative evidence
is correction: ‘No, you mustn’t say, “You was here”; you must say, “You were
here”.’ Someone tells the learners that what they are doing is wrong.
Many linguists are convinced that all a child needs to learn the first language is
positive evidence in the shape of actual sentences of the language; negative evi-
dence could only help in marginal instances as it is not uniformly available.
Second language learning may be different. The bulk of the evidence indeed comes
from sentences the learner hears – positive evidence from linguistic input. But L2
learners also have a first language available to them. Negative evidence can be used
to work out what does not occur in the second language, but might be expected to
if the L2 grammar were like the L1 grammar. Spanish students listening to English
will eventually notice that English lacks the subjectless sentences they are used to.
The grounds for the expectation is not just guessing, but the knowledge of the first
language the learners have in their minds, in other words a form of transfer.
Negative evidence by correction is also different in L2 learning. In the first lan-
guage, it is not so much that it is ineffective as that it occurs rarely; parents rarely
216 General models of L2 learning
correct their children’s speech, and when they do it is usually for meaning rather
than for grammar. In the second language classroom, correction of students’ gram-
matical errors can, and often does, occur with high frequency. The L2 learner thus
has an additional source of evidence not available to the L1 learner. Furthermore,
the L2 learner often has grammatical explanations available as another source of
evidence. This reflects a type of evidence that is absent from first language acquisi-
tion, at least up to the school years. Finally, the input to the L2 learner could be
made more learnable by highlighting various aspects of it – input enhancement as
Mike Sharwood-Smith (1993) calls it. James Morgan (1986) has talked about ‘brack-
eted input’, that is to say, sentences that make clear the phrase structure of the lan-
guage by pausing or intonation. L2 teaching could try many ways of highlighting
input, again an opportunity unique to L2 learning.
The UG model and language teaching

Much UG research has regarded the point of SLA research as being to contribute
to linguistic theory rather than the other way round. Hence it is not really con-
cerned with what teachers might make of UG.
Overall, UG theory suggests teachers should concentrate on those aspects of
syntax that will not be acquired automatically by the students (Cook, 2001); there
is no point teaching things which will be acquired by the students regardless of
what the teacher does. As the Universal Grammar in the student’s mind is so pow-
erful, there is comparatively little for the teacher to do so far as the aspects of lan-
guage it covers are concerned. Few mistakes occur with the word order parameters
covered by the theory; I have never heard a student making mistakes like ‘I live
London in’ for instance, that is, treating English as a language with postpositions
rather than prepositions.
Instead, teaching can concentrate on providing data which the students can use
to set the values of the parameters. Thinking of the language of the classroom as a
source of input for parameter setting may be a helpful slant for language teachers.
So in the case of the pro-drop parameter, UG theory suggests that teachers provide
language input which allows the students to find out whether the setting should be
pro-drop or non-pro-drop. Quite advanced L2 learners still differ from native speak-
ers when the first and the second language have different settings for the pro-drop
parameter. Thus the teacher’s awareness of parameter resetting can be helpful.
Similarly, syllabuses for language teaching that use grammar need to accommodate
such basic syntactic ideas, if only to indicate to teachers which areas they can avoid
teaching.
Let us take Changes (Richards, 1998) as an example. The input for setting the
value for the pro-drop parameter is partly the absence of subjectless sentences,
which is shared by all EFL coursebooks as well as Changes, and partly the presence
of subjects such as ‘it’ and ‘there’. Unit 5 introduces ‘it’ in time sentences such as
‘It’s five o’clock in the morning’. Unit 7 has ‘There are three bedrooms’. Unit 8
introduces ‘weather’ ‘it’, as in ‘It rains from January to March’ and ‘It’ll cloud over
tomorrow’, together with other uses, as in ‘It’s spring. It’s raining’. Everything
necessary to set the parameter is introduced within the first weeks of the course.
It is hard to imagine language teaching not reflecting these two aspects of the pro-
drop parameter, just as it is hard for any small sample of speech not to use all the
phonemes of English. Almost any language input should provide the information
on which the parameter setting depends in a short space of time.
Universal grammar 217
Many SLA researchers feel that the UG model is the most powerful account of
L2 learning. Its attraction is that it links L2 learning to current linguistic ideas
about language and language learning. It has brought to light a number of appar-
ently simple phenomena like the pro-drop parameter that are relevant to L2 learn-
ing. Yet it would be wrong to draw conclusions from UG theory for anything
other than the central area that is its proper domain, the core aspects of syntax.
The UG model tackles the most profound areas of L2 acquisition, which are cen-
tral to language and to the human mind. But there is rather little to say about
them for language teaching. The UG principles are not learnt; the parameter set-
tings probably need little attention. Any view of the whole L2 learning system has
to take on board more than UG. Classroom L2 teaching too must include many
aspects of language that UG does not cover.
Nevertheless, the UG model firmly reminds us that learners have minds and that
the form which language knowledge takes in the human mind is crucial.
Furthermore, because the type of syntactic description it uses tries to account for
the syntax of all languages, it automatically allows for comparison between lan-
guages. Pro-drop is easy to explain to students and something like 90 per cent of
the languages in the world are pro-drop; telling students of English about the pro-
drop parameter can provide a short cut for teachers and students. The useful book
Learner English (Swan and Smith, 2001) provides examples of mistakes from stu-
dents with first languages ranging from Italian to Chinese to Thai that linguists
would attribute to the pro-drop parameter.
The basis of the UG model is being revised within a theory known as the
Minimalist Program (Chomsky, 1995). All language learning is now reduced to the
learning of the properties of vocabulary. Take the arguments for verbs described in
Chapter 3. Knowing the word ‘give’ means knowing that it usually has three argu-
ments – an animate subject and two objects: ‘Mary [animate subject] gave a book
[direct object] to John [indirect object]’, that is to say, you cannot say, ‘The rock gave
him a present’ with a non-animate subject ‘the rock’, or ‘The man gave a thousand
pounds’ without an indirect object saying whom it was given to. The grammar is seen
as universal; the differences between languages come down to how words behave in
sentences. Even the acquisition of grammatical morphemes such as past tense ‘-ed’ is
considered a matter of acquiring the phrases within which these morphemes can
function and the parameter settings that go with them. Hence grammatical mor-
phemes are, so to speak, attached to words before they are fitted into the sentence.
A technical account of these developments can be seen in Cook and Newson
(2007). The version just presented can be called Minimalism Phase I; the later
phases have reduced the apparatus of the grammar to an even barer minimum.
Structure is no longer seen as a complex phrase structure, but as built up by an
operation called Merge which combines two items into one; all the complexity of
the phrase structure tree comes from this simple operation, starting from the
properties of the lexical entry such as its arguments, but dispensing with phrases
such as noun phrase and verb phrase. Chomsky has also been developing an idea
about the perfection of language; the goal is to establish whether language is a
perfect instrument for connecting sounds and meanings in the human mind.
The implications for SLA research of the Minimalist Program are as yet little
known, except for the anchoring to vocabulary. So the main conclusion of mini-
malism for language teaching is, oddly enough, not about grammar, but about
vocabulary; words should be taught, not as tokens with isolated meanings, but as
items that play a part in the sentence by dictating the structures and words they
may go with in the sentence.
Box 12.1 The Universal Grammar model of L2 learning

Key themes
● Language is the knowledge in individual minds.
● UG shapes and restricts the languages that are learnt through principles
and parameters.
● Language learning is setting values for parameters and acquiring properties
of lexical items, but not acquiring principles.
Teaching
● No need to teach ‘principles’.
● Design optimum input for triggering parameters.
● Emphasize the teaching of vocabulary items with specifications of how they
can occur in grammatical structures.
12.2 Processing models
Focusing questions
● What is the subject of the sentence ‘The old man likes bananas’? How do you
know?
● How important is it for students to recognize the subject of the sentence?
● Does practice make perfect in second language learning? Is it the same for all
aspects of language?
Keywords
Competition Model: this claims that languages have to choose which aspect of
language to emphasize in the processing of speech, whether intonation,
vocabulary, word order or inflections
declarative/procedural memory: the memory for individual items of informa-
tion (declarative memory) is different from the memory processes for handling
that information (procedural memory)
connectionism: a theory which claims that all mental processing depends on
developing and using the connections in the mind
agreement: the grammatical system in which two elements in the sentence
show they go together by having appropriate word inflections, and so on, for
example singular verb and singular subject in the English present tense
word order: a major element in conveying grammatical meaning in some, but
not all languages, is word order; one variation between languages is the order
of subject, verb and object: SVO (English), VSO (Arabic), SOV (Japanese), and
so on
Processing models 219
case: a major grammatical system in many languages in which words show their
grammatical function (subject, object, etc.) by different forms; in English,
surface case only affects pronouns (‘I’, ‘me’, ‘my’, etc.), but case is still invisi-
bly important
animacy: whether a noun is animate or inanimate; not particularly important in
English, but vital to Japanese, Italian, and so on
The Competition Model

At the opposite pole from Universal Grammar come models which see language
in terms of dynamic processing and communication rather than as static knowl-
edge. These are concerned with how people use language, rather than with sheer
knowledge in the mind. One model of this type is the Competition Model devel-
oped by Brian MacWhinney and his associates (Bates and MacWhinney, 1981;
MacWhinney, 1987, 2005). This derives from psychological theories of language
in which L2 learning forms only a minor component.
Whatever the speaker wants to communicate has to be achieved through four
aspects of language: word order, vocabulary, word forms (morphology) and into-
nation. As the speaker can only cope with a limited number of things at the same
time, a language has to strike a balance between these four. The more a language
uses intonation, the less it can rely on word order; the more emphasis on word
forms, the less on word order; and so on. The different aspects of language ‘com-
pete’ with each other for the same space in the mind. The results of this competi-
tion favour one or other of these aspects in different languages. A language such
as Chinese, which has complicated intonation, has no grammatical inflections:
intonation has won. English, with complicated word order, puts little emphasis
on inflections: word order has won. Latin, with a complicated inflection system
for nouns, has little use for word order, and so on.
The competition model has mostly been tested by experiments in which people
have to find the subject of the sentence. While all languages probably have sub-
jects, they differ in how they signal which part of the sentence the subject is. Take
the English sentence ‘He likes to drink Laphroaig.’ What are the clues that give
away which bit is the subject?
Word order
In many languages the subject occurs in a definite position in the sentence: ‘he’
comes before ‘likes’ in ‘He likes to drink Laphroaig’ and is therefore the subject. In
English the subject is usually the noun phrase that comes before the verb; hence
English is a subject verb object (SVO) language. Arabic and Berber are VSO lan-
guages, so the subject usually comes after the verb. In languages such as Baure and
Tzeltal the subject comes after the object (VOS). Though they differ as to whether
the subject comes at the beginning, the middle or the end, in all these languages
word order is a good guide as to which noun phrase is the subject. The competition
for space is being won by word order.
Agreement
The subject often agrees with the verb in number: both ‘he’ and ‘likes’ are singular
in ‘He likes to drink Laphroaig’, as are ‘il’ and ‘aime’ in the French ‘Il aime Paris’
(He loves Paris). In some languages the agreement of number is the most impor-
tant clue to the subject; in English it affects only the third person present tense
verb forms in ‘-s’ (‘He loves’ versus ‘They love’).
Case
English uses the subject case ‘he’ to show the subject ‘He likes Laphroaig’, rather
than ‘Him likes Laphroaig’ with the object case ‘him’. In some languages the case
of the noun is the most important clue to the subject, ‘Ich liebe Bier’ (I love beer)
rather than ‘Mich liebe Bier’ in German. In English, case is not relevant except for
the forms of the personal pronouns, ‘he/him’, and so on.
Animacy
In languages like Japanese the subject of the sentence is usually animate, that is to
say, it refers to someone or something that is alive. The sentence ‘The typhoon
broke the window’ is impossible in Japanese because typhoons are not alive, so
‘typhoon’ cannot be the subject. In English, whether the subject refers to some-
thing alive or not is rarely a clue to the subject. It is possible to say both ‘Peter
broke the window’ and ‘The window broke’. The competition is won in some lan-
guages by animacy.
So at least four clues potentially signal the subject of the sentence: word order,
case, agreement between words, and animacy. The different clues to the subject are
not equally important in each language. Rather the competition between them has
been resolved in different ways in English, German, Japanese and Spanish.
Children learning their first language are therefore discovering which clues are
important for that language and learning to pay less attention to the others. Each
of the four competing clues has a ‘weighting’ that affects how each sentence is
processed. Experiments have shown that speakers of English depend chiefly on
word order; speakers of Dutch depend on agreement (Kilborn and Cooreman, 1987;
McDonald, 1987); Japanese and Italian depend most on animacy (Harrington,
1987; Bates and MacWhinney, 1981). Learning how to process a second language
means adjusting the weightings for each of the clues. L2 learners of English trans-
fer the weightings from their first language. Thus Japanese and Italian learners
select the subject because it is animate, and Dutch learners because it agrees with
the verb. While their processes are not weighted so heavily as in their first lan-
guages, even at advanced stages they are still different. On the surface there need
not be any sign of this in their normal language use. After all, they will still choose
the subject correctly most of the time, whichever aspect they are relying on.
Nevertheless, their actual speech processing uses different weightings. Currently,
some research is showing how the second language affects the processing of the
first language (Cook et al., 2007) with four languages – Korean, Arabic, Japanese
and Chinese (two scripts); Japanese people who know English interpret the sub-
ject differently in Japanese sentences from those who do not, not only in terms of
animacy, but also, oddly enough, in terms of preference for plural subjects rather
than singular subjects.
Processing models and cognitivism

The Competition Model deals with some of the performance processes discussed
in Chapter 7. The model is related to the behaviourist tradition which claims that
Processing models 221
language learning comes from outside – from input from others and from interac-
tion and correction – rather than from inside the mind. An early version was
Bloomfield’s idea that language learning is a matter of associating words with things
(Bloomfield, 1933). The child who imitates an adult saying ‘doll’ is favourably
reinforced by adults whenever a doll is seen, and unfavourably reinforced when a
doll is absent. The most sophisticated behaviourist account was provided by B.F.
Skinner (1957) in the book Verbal Behavior, which was savagely reviewed by
Chomsky (1959). Language to Skinner was learnt though ‘verbal operants’ that are
controlled by the situation, which includes the social context, the individual’s
past history and the complex stimuli in the actual situation. One type of operant
is the mand, which is the equivalent to a command (command) and is rein-
forced by someone carrying it out; another is the tact, which is equivalent to a
declarative (contact), and which is reinforced by social approval, and so on. The
child builds up the complex use of language by interacting with people in a situ-
ation for a purpose – rather similar to the rationale of task-based learning.
Other contemporary psychological theories of language learning are also affili-
ated to behaviourism. John Anderson (1993) has proposed a ‘cognitive behav-
iourist’ model called ACTR, which sees learning as building up response strengths
through a twofold division into declarative memory (individual pieces of infor-
mation) and procedural memory (procedures for doing things). As declarative
facts get better known, they are gradually incorporated into procedures, and sev-
eral procedures are combined into one, thus cutting down on the amount of
memory involved. SLA research has often found this distinction convenient; for
example, it underlies the work of O’Malley and Chamot (1990) with learning
strategies described in Chapter 5. Using a related approach, DeKeyser (1997)
demonstrated that the learning of a second language (here an artificial language)
conformed to the ideas of improvement with practice in classical psychology in
terms of response time and number of errors.
Rumelhart and McClelland (1986) and others have been developing the similar
theory of ‘connectionism’, which sees learning as establishing the strengths
between the vast numbers of connections in the mind. It claims that language
processing does not take place in a step-by-step fashion, but that many things are
being processed simultaneously. The methodology of connectionism research con-
sists of simulated learning by the computer; language data are fed into the com-
puter’s network of connections to see whether it will ‘learn’ the syntactic
regularities. The L2 use of connectionism then depends on the computer being
able to learn the first language before looking at the second. Blackwell and
Broeder (1992) made the computer learn either Arabic or Turkish pronouns based
on their frequency in language input to learners; then they added the second of the
two languages. They found that the computer indeed duplicated the order of acqui-
sition found in a naturalistic study of four L2 learners. Connectionism may be an
important area for future L2 research, but is thinly researched at present.
The main L2 model in this tradition is the information-processing model
(McLaughlin et al., 1983). In this, learning starts from controlled processes, which
gradually become automatic over time. When you first start to drive a car, you con-
trol the process of driving consciously – turning the wheel, using the accelerator,
and so on. Soon driving becomes automatic, and for much of the time you have
no awareness of the controls you are using. To quote McLaughlin (1987): ‘Thus
controlled processing can be said to lay down the “stepping stones” for automatic
processing as the learner moves to more and more difficult levels.’ This is not nec-
essarily the same as being conscious of language rules. A learner who starts by
communicating hesitantly, and gradually becomes more fluent, is just as much

going from controlled to automatic processes as one who starts from grammatical
rules and then tries to use them in ordinary speech.
Clearly, some of the research discussed in other chapters supports this model, for
instance the increasing quickness of reaction time as learners make the language
more automatic (DeKeyser, 1997). However, the evidence for the information-pro-
cessing model is mostly based on ideas taken from general psychological theory or
on experiments with vocabulary, rather than on L2 learning itself. It requires a con-
tinuum from ‘higher’ to ‘lower’ skills. Students who do not progress in the second
language are not making the lower-level skills sufficiently automatic. Thus children
learning to read a second language may be held back by lacking the low-level skill
of predicting what words come next. The information-processing model resembles
the other processing models in assuming that language learning is the same as the
learning of other skills such as car driving. All of them claim language is learnt by
the same general principles of learning as everything else – the opposite assump-
tions to UG.
The main teaching application of these approaches is the emphasis on practice as
the key to L2 learning. Practice builds up the weightings, response strengths, and so
on, that determine how language is processed and stored. The UG model sets mini-
mal store by practice; in principle, a parameter can be set by a single sentence for
ever more. Processing models, however, see language as the gradual development of
preferred ways of doing things. Much language teaching has insisted on the value of
incremental practice, whether it is the audio-lingual structure drill or the commu-
nicative information gap game, described in Chapter 13. The processing models
remind us that language is behaviour and skill as well as mental knowledge. Some
skills are learnt by doing them over and over again. These ideas are support for the
long-held teaching views about the value of practice – and more practice.
Box 12.2 Processing models

Key themes
● Language is processing at different levels.
● Learning involves practising to build up the proper weightings,
connections, and so on.
Teaching
● Uses exercises to build up appropriate strengths of response in students.
● The classroom should maximize practice by students.
12.3 The socio-educational model
Focusing questions
● How crucial to success are the attitudes that the students bring to the
classroom?
● What stereotype do you think your students have of the target culture?
The socio-educational model 223
Keyword
integrativeness: how the learner relates to the target culture in various ways
Many would say that all the models described so far neglect the most important part
of language – its social aspect, Lang4. There are two versions of this. One is that L2
learning usually takes place in a social situation where people interact with each
other, whether in the classroom or outside. The second version is that L2 learning
takes place within a society and has a function within that society. This covers the
local and international goals of language teaching discussed in Chapter 11.
A complex view of L2 learning called the socio-educational model has been put
forward by Robert Gardner (1985, 2007) to explain how individual factors and gen-
eral features of society interact in L2 learning. Each of these factors is measured pre-
cisely through the research instrument he has developed called the AMTB
(Attitudes and Motivation Test Battery), part of which was presented in Chapter 8.
He has always seen the two main ingredients in the learners’ success as motiva-
tion and ability. Motivation consists of two chief factors: attitudes to the learning sit-
uation, that is, to the teacher and the course, and integrativeness, which is a complex
of factors about how the learner regards the culture reflected in the second lan-
guage. Put together with other factors, these elements yield the model seen in
Figure 12.1, which shows the process that leads to a successful or unsuccessful lan-
guage learning outcome.
Ability
Formal Linguistic
contexts outcomes
Educational
setting
Informal Non-linguistic
Motivation
contexts outcomes
Cultural
context
Figure 12.1 Robert Gardner’s socio-educational model (Gardner, 2007)
But where do attitudes and integrativeness come from? The answer, according to
Gardner, is the educational setting and cultural context within which the students
are placed. A society sets a particular store by L2 learning; it has stereotyped views
of foreigners and of certain nationalities, and it sees the classroom in a particular
way. Hence one way of predicting if students will be successful at L2 learning is to
look not at the attitudes of the students themselves, but at those of their parents or
indeed of society at large. The crucial factors are how the learner regards the speak-
ers of a second language, as seen in Chapter 8, and how highly he or she values L2
learning in the classroom.
The model also incorporates ability, how good the student is, which primarily
affects learning in formal situations rather than in informal situations outside the
classroom. These main factors do not lead to L2 success in themselves, except

through people’s reactions to the actual teaching context, whether formal or infor-
mal. The model depicts a process in time, during which the students’ background
setting affects their motivation, and then their motivation and ability affect their
learning situation and so produce a successful or unsuccessful outcome.
The socio-educational model chiefly applies to language teaching for local
goals, where the students have definite views on the L2 group whose language
they are learning through everyday contact with them within the society, say the
position of Chinese learners of English in Vancouver. Students who are learning
for international goals may not have such definite opinions. For example, English
teaching in Cuba involves little contact with English-speaking groups except
tourists.
The implications for teaching mirror the discussion in Chapter 11 of the roles of
language teaching in society. The total situation in which the students are located
plays a crucial part in their learning. If the goals of teaching are incompatible with
their perceptions of the world and the social milieu in which they are placed,
teaching has little point. Teachers either have to fit their teaching to the roles of
language teaching for that person or that society, or they have to attempt to reform
the social preconceptions of their students, difficult as this may be in the teeth of
all the pressures that have been exerted on the students by the social milieu for all
their lives. If they do not, the students will not succeed. This model also reminds
the teacher of the nature of the L2 using situation. The goal of teaching is to
enable a non-native speaker to use the language effectively, not to enable him or
her to pass as native, as discussed in Chapter 11.
Box 12.3 The socio-educational model

Key themes
Success in classroom second language acquisition depends on the two main fac-
tors, integrativeness and attitudes to the learning situation, in a complex inter-
action with other factors, such as the student’s ability and the type of learning
context.
Teaching
For some students the emphasis should be on integrativeness; for others, with
say ELF goals, it should be on instrumental motivation. Changing long-standing
motivations in the students is difficult.
12.4 The interaction approach
Focusing questions
● What do you do when you do not understand what someone else has just
said?
● What do you do when you think you have made a mistake in speaking?
The interaction approach 225
Keywords
interaction hypothesis: successful second language acquisition depends cru-

cially on conversational interaction with others
negotiation for meaning: solving mutual difficulties in conversation by means
of various conversational moves
recasts: rephrasing incorrect student utterances
The interaction approach to SLA research has evolved for 30 years, primarily in
the USA; it sees talking to other people as the key to acquiring a language. Three
of its loosely connected tenets are explored below.
Language is acquired through interaction

In the 1960s, considerable research looked at how parents interact with children
in the first language, with largely inconclusive results. Direct correction, in
which the child’s sentence is corrected by the parent, occurs very rarely; in one
famous study by Christine Howe (1981), only 1 of 1,711 utterances by mothers
involved correction. Ursula Bellugi and Roger Brown (1964) did find a process of
‘imitation with expansion’, in which the parent feeds back the child’s sentence in
an altered form:
Child: Baby highchair
Mother: Baby is in the highchair
Others, however, such as Nelson et al. (1973), did not find any beneficial effects
on learning from such exchanges; see Cook and Newson (2007) for a further dis-
cussion. Nevertheless some psychologists, like Jerome Bruner (1983), have insisted
that structured interaction is the driving force in first language acquisition.
What is the role of interaction in the learning of second languages? In 1981
Mike Long suggested that it is not what the learner hears but how they are inter-
acted with that matters (Long, 1981). In its full form this became known as the
interaction hypothesis (Long, 1996): essentially, that second language acquisition
depends on profiting from conversation which makes concessions to the learner
through processes of topic clarification and repair.
Learning through interaction involves negotiation

of meaning.
The central concept in the interaction approach is ‘negotiation of meaning’ – ‘the
process in which, in an effort to communicate, learners and competent speakers
provide and interpret signals of their own and their interlocutor’s perceived com-
prehension’ (Long, 1996: 418). In other words, useful interaction involves keeping
the conversation rolling by continuously resolving any difficulties in comprehen-
sion. Some of the different possibilities are: ‘repetitions, confirmations, reformula-
tions, comprehension checks, clarification requests etc’ (Long, 1996: 418).
Rather like communication strategies, negotiation for meaning is keeping the
channel of communication open – the equivalent of saying, ‘Are you still there?’
when the other person on the phone seems to fall silent. Almost invariably, these
interactional moves have been discussed in terms of conversation between native
and non-native speakers: comprehensibility has been weighted towards the native
speaker rather than to successful L2 users. An exception is research by Garcia
Mayo (2007), who found that L2 students talking to each other managed to suc-
cessfully negotiate meaning in a variety of ways, that is, ‘scaffolding’ each other’s
use of language.
Teaching involves not only these ordinary conversational moves, but also those
specific to the teaching situation in which the aim is learning. One is direct cor-
rection. Teachers have perhaps always corrected and always will. In my experi-
ence, students usually complain when their teachers do not correct, rather than
when they correct them too much.
Box 12.4 Types of feedback by teachers to students

(Lyster and Ranta, 1997)
● explicit corrections directly showing correct form
● recasts reformulating the sentence without the error
● clarification requests checking potential misunderstanding
● metalinguistic feedback commenting on wellformedness
● elicitation to get the correct form by pausing, asking questions or making
them rephrase
● repetition by repeating the students’ sentence, usually with a particular
intonation
Box 12.4 shows a well-known list of types of correction devised by Roy Lyster
and Leila Ranta (1997). In explicit corrections the teacher directly provides the
correct form:
He goed to the movies.
No, he went to the movies.
In recasts the teacher rephrases the student’s mistake:
He went to the movies, did he?
In clarification requests the teacher tries to clear up possible misunderstandings:
You mean he went to the movies?
Elicitations are when the teacher tries to get the student to make a second
attempt:
Eh? What do you mean?
Repetitions involve the teacher repeating but highlighting the mistake:
He goed to the cinema?
While all these could occur in non-classroom conversation, they are more focused
on the language mistake than the meaning, and doubtless occur with a much higher
frequency in teaching than would be acceptable in ordinary conversation.
The interaction approach 227
The idea of recasts has proved popular among researchers. An example from a
European Science Foundation (ESF) transcript is:
A: I think one man er very happy only.
B: You think he was a very happy man?
B has recast A’s utterance in a way that does not bring the conversation to a halt, as
other types of correction would do, but reformulates the L2 user’s utterance in a
more acceptable way. The full definition by Lyster and Ranta (1997: 46) is: ‘Recasts
involve the teacher’s reformulation of all or part of a student’s utterance minus the
error’. One issue is whether the student takes this as a simple aid to the conversation
(decoding) or as an aid to learning, singling out something they should be paying
attention to (codebreaking). According to Younghee Sheen (2004), 60 per cent of
feedback in a variety of language teaching contexts involved recasts. Long (1996)
sees this ambiguity as their very usefulness: the student is not sidetracked from the
meaning of what is being said, but nevertheless learns about the form of the lan-
guage. Z.-H. Han (2002) taught tense consistency to students with and without
recasts, and suggested that important factors which affected the extent to which stu-
dents benefited from recasts were intensity of instruction and developmental readi-
ness to acquire the point in question.
The most obvious drawback to the interaction approach is that, while there is
considerable research describing how interaction occurs, there is still little proof of
its importance to second language learning rather than to second language com-
prehension, whether correction or recasts. Indeed, Pauline Foster (1998) found that
most students in the classroom would avoid making negotiation moves if they pos-
sibly could, perhaps because it exposed their ignorance in public. Undoubtedly
interaction helps some aspects of second language learning, but it is not clear how
crucial this may be compared to all the other factors in the complex second lan-
guage learning situation. Teachers’ interaction patterns are probably based on their
experience and training; we do not know if there are better patterns they could
adopt than these pre-existing patterns. Moreover, the analysis is usually based on
interview-type data or classroom data involving a native speaker and a non-native
student; hence it is not representative of normal L2 usage in the world outside the
classroom, which often takes place between L2 users. Ernesto Macaro (2005) argues
that the ‘unswerving faith in the comprehensible input – negotiation – compre-
hensible output has been entirely due to the fact that the proponents of these the-
ories and hypotheses simply did not speak the first language of their subjects or
students’; in a situation where the teacher could speak the same language as the
students they would resort to codeswitching. In other words, ‘natural’ L2 learning
would involve an L1 component, and teaching becomes ‘unnatural’ when its
reliance on the L2 forces the learner into these forms of interaction.
The teaching applications are partly to do with communication and task-based
learning, discussed in Chapter 13. Mostly the interaction approach to teaching has
been seen as encouraging the teacher to interact with students in the classroom
and to use activities that require mutual interaction, also discussed in Chapter 13.
Lightbown and Spada (2006) recommend recasts rather than corrections with
adults, but not with children, as ‘learners seem to hear them as confirmation of
meaning rather than correction of form’. Since the approach is based on what
teachers already do, it seems fairly circular to feed it back to them as advice on what
they should do; it is only allowable if the expert says so. How many teachers trained
in the past 40 years run inflexible classrooms with no interaction with the students
or between the students?
Box 12.5 The interaction approach

Key theme
Conversational interaction involving negotiation of meaning is the crucial ele-
ment in second language learning.
Teaching
● Teaching means setting up tasks that involve negotiation of meaning.
● Teacher or peer feedback is important to interaction, particularly through
recasts.
12.5 Sociocultural SLA theory
Focusing questions
● What do you think is the relationship between what you say and what is
going on in your mind?
● How much do you think language learning comes from within the child, how
much from assistance from other people?
Keywords
internalization: in Vygotsky’s theory, the process through which the child turns
the external social use of language into internal mental use
zone of proximal development (ZPD): to Vygotsky, the gap between the
child’s low point of development, as measured individually, and high point,
as measured on social tasks; in SLA research often used to refer to the gap
between the learner’s current stage and the next point on some develop-
mental scale the learner is capable of reaching
scaffolding: the process that assists the learner in getting to the next point in
development, in sociocultural theory consisting of social assistance by other
people rather than of physical resources such as dictionaries
One of the most influential models since the early 1990s has been sociocultural
theory, which emphasises the importance of interaction from a rather different
perspective. This theory takes its starting point from the work of Lev Vygotsky, a
leading figure in early Soviet psychology who died in 1934, but whose impact in
the West came from the translations of his main books into English in 1962 and
1978 (misleadingly, in much of the SLA literature, his works are cited as if they
appeared in the 1960s to 1980s, rather than being written in the 1930s). Vygotsky
(1934/1962) was chiefly concerned with the child’s development in relationship
to the first language. His central claim is that, initially, language is a way of acting
for the child, an external fact: saying ‘milk’ is a way of getting milk. Gradually
Sociocultural SLA theory 229
language becomes internalized as part of the child’s mental activity: ‘milk’

becomes a concept in the mind. Hence at early stages children may seem to use
words like ‘if’ and ‘because’ correctly, but in fact have no idea of their meaning,
rather like Eve Clark’s features view of vocabulary development seen in Chapter 3.
There is a tension between external and internal language, with the child progres-
sively using language for thinking rather than for action. Language is not just
social, not just mental, but both – Lang4 as well as Lang5.
Vygotsky also perceived a potential gap between the child’s actual developmen-
tal stage, as measured by standard tests on individual children, and the stage they
are at when measured by tasks involving cooperation with other people. This he
called ‘the zone of proximal development’ (ZPD), defined as ‘the distance between
the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving
and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving
under adult guidance or in cooperation with more capable peers’ (1935/1978: 86).
In this zone come things that the child cannot do by himself or herself, but needs
the assistance of others; in time these will become part of the child’s internal
knowledge. This means ‘the only good learning is that which is in advance of
development’. In one sense the ZPD parallels the well-known idea of ‘reading
readiness’; in Steiner schools, for example, children are not taught to read until
they show certain physical signs of development, such as loss of milk teeth. And
it is also a parallel to the teachability concept in processability theory seen in
Chapter 3; you cannot teach things that are currently out of the learner’s reach.
The distinctive aspect of Vygotsky’s ZPD is that the gap between the learner’s cur-
rent state and their future knowledge is bridged by assistance from others; learn-
ing demands social interaction so that the learner can internalize knowledge out
of external action. Any new function ‘appears twice: first on the social level, and
later on the individual level; first between people (interpsychological) and then
inside the child (intrapsychological)’ (Vygotsky, 1935/78: 57).
The ZPD has been developed in SLA sociocultural theory far beyond Vygotsky’s
original interpretation. In particular, social assistance is interpreted through the
concept of scaffolding, taken from one of the major later figures in twentieth-cen-
tury developmental psychology, Jerome Bruner, who spent much time specifically
researching the language of young children. He saw children as developing lan-
guage in conjunction with their parents through conversational ‘formats’ that
gradually expand over time until they die out; classic examples are nappy-chang-
ing routines and peekaboo games, which seem to be universal (Bruner, 1983). The
child’s language acquisition is scaffolded by the helpful adult who provides a con-
tinual supporting aid to the child’s internalization of language, what Bruner calls the
innate Language Acquisition Support System (LASS), in rivalry with Chomsky’s
Language Acquisition Device (LAD).
In an SLA context, scaffolding has been used in many diverse senses. For some,
anything the learner consults or uses constitutes scaffolding, such as the use of
grammar books or dictionaries; virtually anything that happens in the classroom,
then, can count as scaffolding, say the traditional teaching style described in
Chapter 9 known as IRF (initiation, response and feedback), or any kind of correc-
tion by the teacher. Others maintain the original Vygotskyan idea of the ZPD as
the teacher helping the student; scaffolding is social mediation involving two
people, and is performed by a person who is an expert. Some have extended
scaffolding to include help from people at the same level as the student, that is,
fellow students. In teaching terms, this includes everything from teacher-directed
learning to carrying out tasks in pairs and groups – the liberating effect of the
communicative revolution of the 1970s. Swain and Lapkin (2002) combined both
approaches by having an expert reformulate students’ descriptions and then hav-
ing the students discuss the reformulation with a fellow student, which turned
out to be effective.
For this SLA theory, development seems to mean greater success in doing the
task. For example, Amy Ohta (2000) describes the development of a learner of
Japanese called Becky in a single classroom session, through detailed grammatical
correction and prompting from a fellow student Hal, so that by the end she has
reached a new developmental level; she has internalized the social interaction and
become more autonomous. In a sense, this is micro-development over minutes
rather than the macro-development over years mostly used by developmental
psychologists.
Like the interaction hypothesis, sociocultural theory bases itself on the dialogue
that learners encounter in the classroom. It is broader in scope in that it empha-
sises the assistance provided by others, of which the repairs to monolingual L2
conversation form only a small part. It has much higher aims in basing the learn-
ing that takes place through social interaction on a whole theory of mental devel-
opment. Its essence is what Merrill Swain (2000: 102) calls ‘collaborative
dialogue’ – ‘dialogue in which speakers are engaged in problem solving and
knowledge building’. Hence it is not the dialogue of the interaction hypothesis in
which people exchange information, that is, communication, but an educational
dialogue in which people create new knowledge, that is, learning. Dialogue pro-
vides not so much negotiation for meaning, as assistance in internalization.
The obvious teaching implications are structured situations in the classroom in
which the students cooperate with the teacher or with fellow students, as shown
in numerous detailed studies of L2 classrooms. In a sense, this is the same message
as the other interaction-based teaching applications of SLA research; for instance,
it can provide an underpinning in development psychology for the task-based
learning movement, discussed in Chapter 13. In another sense it is too vague to
give very precise teaching help; it could be used to justify almost anything in the
classroom that involved an element of social interaction by the students and
teacher. In particular, it is hard to see what the goals of language teaching are for
sociocultural theory; it concerns the process of development, not the end point.
Apart from the knowledge of language itself as an internalized mental entity, the
only other gain from second language learning seems to be the enhanced metalin-
guistic awareness of the students.
Box 12.6 Sociocultural theory

Key themes
● Language learning is social mediation between the learner and someone
else during which socially acquired knowledge becomes internal.
● It takes place through scaffolding by an expert or a fellow learner.
Teaching
● Use collaborative dialogue in the classroom through structured cooperative
tasks.
Multi-competence – the L2 user approach 231
12.6 Multi-competence – the L2 user approach
Focusing questions
● Do you speak your first language any differently because you know a second
language?
● Do students want to speak like native speakers? Can they actually achieve it?
Keywords
multi-competence: the knowledge of more than one language in the same

mind
L2 user: the person who knows a second language, at whatever level, consid-
ered as a user rather than a learner
Most of the models seen so far assume that having a second language is unusual.
Whether it is Universal Grammar or the Competition Model, the starting point is
knowledge of one language, not knowledge of several languages: a second lan-
guage is an add-on to a first language model. Only the social-educational model is
specifically a model of how L2 learning occurs, rather than an extrapolation from
more general models. Thus, mostly they regard L2 learning as inefficient because
the learners seldom reach the same level as the L1 child.
But why should they? By definition, L2 learners are not native speakers – at least
according to the definition advanced in Chapter 1, ‘a monolingual person who still
speaks the language they learnt in childhood’. They can never be native speakers of
another language, without time travel back to their childhood. There is a need to
recognize the distinctive nature of knowing two or more languages without subor-
dinating L2 knowledge to monolingual knowledge. As Sridhar and Sridhar (1986)
point out, ‘Paradoxical as it may seem, second language acquisition researchers
seem to have neglected the fact that the goal of SLA is bilingualism.’
Chapter 1 introduced the term ‘multi-competence’ to refer to the overall knowl-
edge of both the first language and the L2 interlanguage – two languages in one
mind. The multi-competence model develops the implications of this for second
language acquisition. The key insight is that the person who speaks more than
one language should be considered in their own right, not as a monolingual who
has tacked another language on to their repertoire. Since this is the model that I
have been concerned with myself, some of the basic ideas are met everywhere in
this book, particularly in Chapter 10. First we need to show that L2 users differ
from those who use one language.
● L2 users’ knowledge of the second language is not the same as that of native speakers.
Students and teachers are frustrated by their inability to speak like natives. Very
few people are ever satisfied by their L2 proficiency. Even bilinguals who can
pass for native speakers still differ from native speakers; Coppetiers (1987)
found that Americans living in France as bilinguals gave slightly different
answers to questions about French from native speakers, even if none of their
colleagues had noticed their French was deficient. Only a small proportion of
L2 learners can ever pass for natives. SLA research should be concerned with
the typical achievement of L2 learners in their own right, rather than with that
of the handful of exceptional individuals who can mimic native speakers.
● L2 users’ knowledge of their first language is not the same as that of monolingual
native speakers. While everyday experience clearly shows that the second lan-
guage has an effect on the first, this is only now starting to be researched; see,
for example, Effects of the Second Language on the First (Cook, 2003). Yet people’s
intuitions of their first language, their processing of sentences and even their
gestures are affected to some extent by the second language that they know.
Chapter 4 reports that French and Spanish learners of English have their voice
onset time affected by their knowledge of English, so that to some extent they
have a single system they use in both languages. English speakers of Japanese use
aizuchi (nodding for agreement) when talking English (Locastro, 1987).
Experiments with syntax have shown unexpected effects on the first language
from knowing a second language. Hartsuiker et al. (2004) found, for instance,
that hearing passives in one language increased their production in using
another.
● L2 users think in different ways to monolinguals. Learning another language
makes people think more flexibly, increases language awareness and leads to
better attitudes towards other cultures. Indeed, these have often been seen as
among the educational benefits of acquiring another language. English chil-
dren who learn Italian for an hour a week learn to read more rapidly in English
(Yelland et al., 1993).
All in all, learning another language changes people in many ways. The lan-
guages exist side by side in the same person, affecting not only the two languages,
but also the person as a whole. Acquiring a second language does not mean
acquiring the self-contained language system of a monolingual, but a second lan-
guage system that coexists with the first in the same mind.
The L2 user in language teaching

The multi-competence approach suggests that key factors in language teaching
are the L2 user and L2 use of language. Successful L2 users are not just passing for
native speakers, but expressing their unique status as people who can function in
two cultures. The major consequences for language teaching are set out below.
Teaching goals should be L2 user goals, not approximations to

the native speaker
If L2 users differ from monolingual speakers, the benefits of learning a second lan-
guage are becoming a different kind of person, not just adding another language.
This is the basis for the argument presented in Chapter 11 that the proper goal of
language teaching should be the proficient L2 user who is capable of using both
languages, not the monolingual who functions in only one. The overall goals of
language teaching should reflect what L2 users can do; the teaching materials
should incorporate situations of L2 use and features of L2 user language, not those
belonging to monolinguals. The native speaker teacher is not necessarily a good
model for the student, as developed in Chapter 10.
General issues 233
The first language should be recognized in language teaching

If both languages are always linked in the mind, it is impossible for both of them
not to be present in the students’ minds at all times. It is an illusion that permit-
ting only the second language in the classroom forces the students to avoid their
first language; it simply makes it invisible. Hence, as discussed in Chapter 6, teach-
ers should think how teaching can make systematic use of both languages, rather
than try to exclude the first language. The insistence of the multi-competence
model that the L2 user is at the centre of language teaching frees teaching from
some long-standing assumptions. Teachers should be telling students how success-
ful they are as L2 users, rather than implying that they are failures for not speak-
ing like natives.
Box 12.7 Multi-competence and language teaching

Key themes
Multi-competence theory claims that L2 users are not the same as the monolin-
gual native speaker because their knowledge of the second language and their
knowledge of their first language is not the same, and they think in different ways.
Teaching uses
Teaching should:
● aim at the goal of creating successful L2 users, not imitation native speakers;
● make systematic use of the first language in the classroom.
12.7 General issues

All these models of L2 learning account persuasively for what it considers the cru-
cial aspects of L2 learning. What is wrong with them is not their claims about their
own front yard so much as their tendency to claim that the whole street belongs
to them. Each of them is at best a piece of the jigsaw. Do the pieces add up to a
single picture? Can a teacher believe (i) that language is mental knowledge (ii)
gained by assigning weightings to factors (iii) by those with positive attitudes
towards the target culture? This combines three arguably incompatible theories of
language acquisition from different disciplines; superficially, it seems a good
example of what George Orwell calls doublethink – the belief in two contradictory
ideas at the same time. However, the differences between the areas of L2 learning
dealt with by each model mean that they are by no means irreconcilable. UG
applies only to ‘core’ grammar; response weightings apply to speech processing;
attitudes to behaviour in academic classrooms. Only if the models dealt with the
same areas would they come into conflict. There is no overall framework for all the
models as yet. When they are fitted together, an overall model of L2 learning will
one day emerge. At the moment there are many area-specific models, each of
them providing some useful insights into its own province of L2 learning; there is
not much point in debating whether a bicycle or an aeroplane is an easier way of
getting from place to place; both have their proper uses. Hence there is not much
sense in deciding which overall model is best; each has to be developed to its log-
ical limits to see where it might lead.
For the sake of their students, teachers have to deal with L2 learning as a whole,
as seen in Chapter 13. It is premature for any one of these models to be adopted
as the sole basis for teaching, because, however right or wrong each one may be,
none of them covers more than a small fraction of what the students need. As
Spolsky (1989a) wisely remarks: ‘any theory of second language learning that
leads to a single method must be wrong’.
Discussion topics
1 Are there parts of the second language that we do not need to teach, and
parts that are based on transfer from our first language?
2 How can vocabulary be taught in relationship to grammatical structure?
3 What parts of the second language can be built up by practice? What parts
cannot?
4 How can teachers help students go from the formal language of the
classroom to the informal language outside?
5 How much of students’ success would you attribute to motivation, and how
much to other factors?
6 Is it realistic to claim that the target of L2 teaching should be the L2 user, or
do we have to compromise with students’ beliefs that they want to be like
native speakers?
7 Do you think you have gained more from acquiring a second language than
just the language?
Further reading
Teaching applications of the UG model are discussed in Cook (1994) in T. Odlin
(ed.), Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar; its link to L2 learning is discussed in
Cook and Newson (2007) Chomsky’s Universal Grammar. Useful overall accounts of
some L2 models are in Myles and Mitchell (2004) Second Language Learning Theories;
and VanPatten and Williams (2006) Theories in Second Language Acquisition. A syn-
thesising overview of L2 learning can be found in Spolsky (1989a) Conditions for
Second Language Learning. The Competition Model is discussed more critically in
Cook (1993) Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. The multi-competence
model is treated extensively in Cook (2002) Portraits of the L2 User and (2003) Effects
of the Second Language on the First.
Second language
learning and language
teaching styles
13
This chapter looks at some general questions of teaching methodology in the light
of SLA research. It reverses the direction of Chapter 12 by proceeding from teach-
ing to L2 learning. It also provides an overview of the diversity of alternative
language teaching methods that teachers should be aware of, if only to remind
them that there are many successful ways in which languages can be taught. As
Kipling said:
Here’s my wisdom for your use,…

‘There are nine and sixty ways of constructing tribal lays,
And-every-single-one-of-them-is-right!’
The term ‘teaching method’ is used in most of this book as a broad cover term for
the different activities that go on in language teaching. Glosses on the main well-
known methods are given in Chapter 1 (see page 17). Various suggestions have been
put forward over the years for making the term ‘method’ more precise or for aban-
doning it. The traditional distinction is between overall approaches, such as the oral
approach, methods, such as the audio-lingual method, and teaching techniques, such
as drills (Anthony, 1963). Richards and Rodgers (1986) see approaches as related
through design to procedures. Marton (1988), on the other hand, talks about four
overall teaching ‘strategies’: the receptive strategy, which relies primarily on listening;
the communicative strategy, in which students learn by attempting to communicate;
the reconstructive strategy, in which the student participates in reconstructive activi-
ties based on a text; and the eclectic strategy, which combines two or more of the oth-
ers. Allen et al. (1990) distinguish experiential activities, which rely on language use
within a situation, from analytic activities, which use language study and practice.
To avoid the various associations and prejudices that these terms conjure up, I
prefer the more neutral terms ‘teaching technique’ and ‘teaching style’, which will
be used in this chapter. The actual point of contact with the students is the teach-
ing technique. Thus a structure drill in which students intensively practise a struc-
ture is one technique; dictation is another; information gap exercises another, and
so on. A technique, as Clark (1984) puts it, is a ‘label for what we do as teachers’.
Teachers combine these techniques in various ways within a particular teaching
style. Put a structure drill with a repetition dialogue and a role play and you get the
audio-lingual style, with its dependence on the spoken language, on practice and
on structure. Put a functional drill with an information gap exercise and a role play
and you get the communicative style, with its broad assumptions about the impor-
tance of communication in the classroom. A teaching style is a loosely connected
set of teaching techniques believed to share the same goals of language teaching
236 Second language learning and language teaching styles
and the same views of language and of L2 learning. The word ‘style’ partly reflects
the element of fashion and changeability in teaching; it is not intended as an aca-
demic term with a precise definition, but as a loose overall label that we can use
freely to talk about teaching. A teacher who might feel guilty switching from one
‘method’ to another or mixing ‘methods’ within one lesson has less compunction
about changing ‘styles’; there is no emotional commitment to a ‘style’.
This chapter looks at six main teaching styles: the academic teaching style com-
mon in academic classrooms; the audio-lingual style that emphasizes structured oral
practice; the communicative style that aims at interaction between people both in
the classroom and outside; the task-based learning style that gets students doing
tasks; the mainstream EFL style which combines aspects of the others; and, finally,
other styles that look beyond language itself. These six styles are loose labels for a
wide range of teaching rather than clear-cut divisions. The first four are arranged in
roughly chronological order, with the oldest style first.
The range of styles highlights the idea that no single form of teaching suits all
students and all teachers. Teachers should always remember that, despite the
masses of advice they are given, they have a choice. All these methods, techniques
and styles are still available for people to use, regardless of whether they are in
fashion or not. Indeed, it is doubtless true that never a day goes by when they are
not all being used successfully somewhere in the world.
Before looking at these styles in detail, it is useful to assess one’s own sympa-
thies for particular styles by filling in the following questionnaire. This is intended
as a way in to thinking about teaching styles, not as a scientific psychological test.
Box 13.1 What is your style of language teaching?

Tick the answer that suits your own style of language teaching best (even if it is
not the one you are supposed to be using). Try to tick only one answer for each
question; then fill them in on the grid that follows.
1 What is the chief goal of language teaching?

(a) the students should know the rules of the language ❒
(b) they should be able to behave in ordinary situations ❒
(c) they should be able to communicate with other people
by understanding and transmitting information ❒
(d) they should be able to carry out a range of tasks in the L2 ❒
(e) they should both know the rules and be able to behave
and to communicate ❒
(f) they should become better people, emotionally and socially ❒
2 Which of these teaching techniques do you value most highly?
(a) explaining grammatical rules ❒
(b) mechanical drills ❒
(c) communicative tasks ❒
(d) meaning-based goal-oriented tasks ❒
(e) presentation and practice of functions, structures, etc. ❒
(f) discussion of controversial topics ❒
3 How would you describe the language you are teaching the students
in the classroom?
(a) rules about the language ❒
The academic style 237
(b) grammatical patterns ❒

(c) language functions for communicating and solving tasks ❒
(d) ability to carry out tasks ❒
(e) grammatical structures and functional elements ❒
(f) a way of unveiling the student’s own personality ❒
4 Do you think the students are learning language chiefly by:
(a) consciously understanding the language rules ❒
(b) forming habits of using the language ❒
(c) communicating in the classroom ❒
(d) achieving tasks in the classroom ❒
(e) understanding rules, forming habits and communicating ❒
(f) engaging in activities that are personally meaningful to them? ❒
Now fill in your answers with ticks in the table below.
Answer Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Teaching style

(a) academic
(b) audio-lingual
(c) communicative
(d) task-based learning
(e) mainstream EFL
(f) others
You should be able to see which of the six teaching styles you are most in tune
with by looking for the row with the most ticks. Question 1 tested the overall aims
of language teaching you prefer; question 2 the slant on language teaching itself
that you like best; question 3 the language content used in the classroom; question
4 the ideas about language learning that you accept. Most people get a line of ticks
in the same row. The final column tells you the name of your preferred teaching
style, to be expanded below.
13.1 The academic style
Focusing questions
● Do you think grammar explanation should ever be the focus of the lesson?
● Do you think translating texts is a useful classroom activity for the students?
● Do you see any value to using literary texts that have ‘deep’ meanings?
Keywords
grammar-translation method: the traditional academic style of teaching,

which places heavy emphasis on grammar explanation and translation as a
teaching technique
An advanced language lesson in an academic context often consists of a reading

text taken from a newspaper or similar source, for example, the lead story on the
front page of today’s newspaper under the headline ‘PM seeks new curbs on
strikes’. The teacher leads the students through the text sentence by sentence.
Some of the cultural background is elucidated by the teacher, say the context of
legislation about strikes in England. Words that give problems are explained or
translated into the students’ first language by the teacher or via the students’ dic-
tionaries – ‘closed shop’ or ‘stoppage’, for example. Grammatical points of inter-
est are discussed with the students, such as the use of the passive voice in ‘A similar
proposal in the Conservative election manifesto was also shelved’. The students go
on to a fill-in grammatical exercise on the passive. Perhaps for homework they
translate the passage into their first language.
Consider the situation in a secondary school. In one class the pupils are being
tested on their homework. The teacher has written a series of sentences on the board:
The child has (cross /crossed /crossing) the road.

The boy was (help /helped /helping) his father.
… and so on. Then they interact:
Teacher: What’s ‘child’?

Student: A noun.
Teacher: What’s ‘cross’?
Student: A verb.
Teacher: What’s ‘crossed’?
Student: Past participle.
Teacher: So what do we say?
Student: The boy has crossed the road.
Teacher: Good.
In the class next door the pupils have a short text written on the board:
In spring the weather is fine; the flowers come out and everybody feels bet-
ter that winter is over.
And then they interact:
Teacher: What is ‘spring’?

Student: A noun.
Teacher: What’s ‘spring’ in Arabic?
Student: Rabi.
Teacher: So how do we translate ‘in spring?
The core aspects of these classrooms are texts, traditional grammar and transla-
tion. Conscious understanding of grammar and awareness of the links between the
first and the second language are seen as vital to learning. The academic teaching
style is sometimes known as the grammar-translation method for this reason. The
style is similar in concept to Marton’s reconstructive strategy or Allen et al.’s ana-
lytic activities. It is a time-honoured way of teaching foreign languages in Western
culture, popular in secondary schools and widespread in the teaching of advanced
students in university systems around the world. James Coleman (1996) said that
when he started teaching in an English university, he found the grammar-transla-
tion method ‘was clearly the most popular approach to language teaching in the
universities’. The academic style can involve aspects of language other than gram-
mar. A teacher explains how to apologize in the target language – ‘When you bump
into someone on the street you say “sorry”’; a teacher describes where to put the
tongue to make the sound /θ/ in ‘think’ – both of these are slipping into an aca-
demic style where the pupils have to understand the abstract explanation before
applying it to their own speech. The difference from later styles is that, in the aca-
demic style, explicit grammar itself is the main point of the lesson.
Translation is the component of the style that has had the least effect on tradi-
tional EFL teaching. For historical reasons, EFL has avoided the first language,
both in methodology and in the coursebooks produced in England. One reason
is the use in many countries of expatriate native speaker teachers who do not
know the first language of the students and so cannot translate, one of the hand-
icaps for the native speaker teacher, described in Chapter 11. The other is the
prevalence within England of multilingual EFL classes, where the teacher would
be quite unable to use the many first languages the students speak. So the transla-
tion component of academic teaching tends to be found in countries that use
locally produced materials with local teachers – the secondary school lessons
mentioned above were actually observed in Gaza, where foreign coursebooks and
native speakers of English are in short supply.
The academic style does not directly teach people to use the language for some
external purpose outside the classroom; translation, for example, is a means, not an
end. To use the division made in Chapter 10 between international, local and
national goals, the academic style is ostensibly aimed primarily at the individual goal
of L2 learning as an academic subject; in other words, it aims to create Lang5 linguis-
tic competence (sheer language knowledge) in the students’ minds, rather than
something to be used directly. In addition, it often claims to train the students to
think better, to appreciate other cultures and to gain other educational advantages.
But the academic style is nevertheless supposed to prepare the student for the
actual use of language. By developing academic knowledge, the student eventually
becomes able to use the second language in situations outside the classroom. While
the style does not directly practise language use itself, it aims to provide a basis for
language use when the student requires it. Hence the undoubted popularity
among students of grammar books such as Basic Grammar in Use (Murphy, 2002).
Despite the lack of explicit grammar in most contemporary teaching methods,
students continue to believe that this will help them.
The academic style sees the acquisition of competence as getting hold of tradi-
tional rules and lists of vocabulary. Its syllabus largely consists of a list of gram-
matical points and vocabulary items. One of the first courses I ever taught,
Present-day English for Foreign Students (Candlin, 1964), is organized around ‘sen-
tence patterns’ such as ‘John has a book’, and ‘new words’ such as ‘John Brown’.
The style values what people know about the language rather than what they
comprehend or produce. Students are seen as acquiring knowledge rather than

communicative ability. The learner progresses from controlled conscious under-
standing of language to automatic processing of speech, as described in Chapter
12. The language teaching classroom is similar to classrooms in other school sub-
jects, with the teacher as a fount of knowledge and advice.
The academic style is appropriate for a society or an individual that treats aca-
demic knowledge of the second language as a desirable objective and holds a tra-
ditional view of the classroom and of the teacher’s role. Its strengths, to my mind,
are the intellectual challenge it can present some students, unlike the non-intel-
lectual approach of other styles, and the seriousness with which it views language
teaching: the pupils are not just learning how to get a ticket in a railway station,
but how to understand important messages communicated in another language,
particularly through its literature. The links to literature are then valued. ‘Culture’
is taught as the ‘high culture’ of poetry and history rather than the ‘low culture’
of pop music and football. At the time I was taught Latin I hardly appreciated this;
nevertheless, it has remained with me in a way that the functional French I learnt
has not. One trivial example is the way that Latin quotations come to mind:
Horace’s line, ‘Caelum non animum mutant qui trans mare currunt’ (those who
travel across the seas change the weather not their souls), is pithier than any
English quotation, as is shown by Christopher Marlowe’s use of it in Dr Faustus.
Likewise, the fact that I had studied Cicero’s speeches gave me a good model for
appreciating Fidel Castro’s devastating defence at the tribunal of those accused in
the attack on the Moncado barracks. In other words, I have certainly had my value
out of learning Latin in terms of individual goals.
One weakness in the academic style is its description of language. As Michael
Halliday et al. (1965) pointed out many years ago, you cannot judge the use of
grammar in the classroom as wanting if people have not used proper grammars.
The linguistic content is usually traditional grammar, rather than more recent or
more comprehensive approaches, described in Chapter 2. At advanced levels, it
ventures into the descriptive grammar tradition in English, for example Collins
COBUILD Grammar (Sinclair, 1990). While the treatment of vocabulary in text
exercises is far-ranging, it is also unsystematic; the teacher has to cover whatever
comes up in the text. Though the academic style laudably strives to build up rela-
tionships between vocabulary items encountered in texts, it has no principled way
of doing so. Despite being concerned with linguistic forms, it pays little attention
to components of language other than grammar and vocabulary, and occasionally
pronunciation. The same academic techniques could in fact be applied systemati-
cally to other areas, say listening comprehension or communicative function.
The academic teaching style caters for academically gifted students, who will
supplement it with their own good language learner strategies, and who will prob-
ably not be young children – in other words, they are Skehan’s analytic learners
from Chapter 8. Those who are learning language as an academic subject – the lin-
guistics students of the future – may be properly served by an academic style. But
such academically oriented students form a small fraction of those in most educa-
tional settings – the tip of an iceberg. Those who wish to use the second language
for real-life purposes may not be academically gifted or may not be prepared for
the long journey from academic knowledge to practical use that the style requires.
When should the academic style be used? If the society and the students treat
individual goals as primary, language use as secondary, and the students are aca-
demically gifted, then the academic style is appropriate. In a country where the
learners are never going to meet a French-speaking person, are never going to visit
a French-speaking country, and have no career needs for French, an academic
style of French teaching may be quite appropriate. But the teacher has to recognize
its narrow base. For the academic style to be adequate, it needs to include descrip-
tions of language that are linguistically sound and descriptions that the students
can convert into actual use. The academic style would be more viable as a way of
L2 teaching within its stated goals if its grammatical and vocabulary core better
reflected the ways in which language is described today. Little teaching of English
grammar in the academic style, for example, makes use of the basic information
from Chapter 2 about grammatical morphemes or principles and parameters. If
the intention is that the students are able to use language at the end, the grammar
it teaches has to be justified not only by whether it is correct, but also by whether
the students can absorb it. Stephen Krashen makes the useful point that we
should be teaching ‘rules of thumb’ that help the student, even if they are not
totally true (Krashen, 1985). A quick remark by the teacher that English compara-
tives are formed with ‘-er’ for monosyllabic words (‘big /bigger’, ‘small /smaller’,
etc.) and with ‘more’ for words of more than two syllables (‘intelligent /more
intelligent’, ‘beautiful /more beautiful’), leaves the student only to puzzle out
words with exactly two syllables, such as ‘lovely’ or ‘obscure’. The rule of thumb
will not satisfy the linguists, but it may help the students.
While the individual goals of the academic style are potentially profound, the
danger is that teachers can lose sight of them and see grammatical explanations as
having no other role than imparting factual knowledge about grammar. The other
important goals of language awareness, mental training and the appreciation of
other cultures may not be achieved if the teacher does not give them particular
attention in planning lessons and in carrying them out.
Box 13.2 The academic style of language teaching

Typical teaching techniques
● grammatical explanation, translation, etc.
Goals
● directly, individual learning of the second language as an academic subject
● indirectly, ability to use language
Type of student
● academically gifted, not young children
Learning assumptions
● acquisition of conscious grammatical knowledge and its conversion to use
Classroom assumptions
● formal, teacher-controlled
Weaknesses from an SLA research perspective

● inadequate use of grammar
● inefficient as a means of teaching language use
Suggestions for teaching

● use it with academic students who have individual goals of self-
development rather than international or local goals
● supplement it with other components and processes of language
● remember to develop the powerful individual goals for the students, rather
than be carried away by the sheer knowledge of grammar
13.2 The audio-lingual style
Focusing questions
● Do you think language learning is a matter of acquiring ‘habits’?

● Do you believe speech necessarily has to be taught before writing?
Keywords
drill: a form of mechanical practice in which words or phrases are substituted

within a frame and practised until they become automatic
dialogue: usually a short constructed piece of conversation used as a model of
language and to introduce new words or structures
audio-lingual style: the style that stresses language learning as habits and the
importance of spoken language
exploitation activity: the formally structured part of the lesson is followed up
with freer activities, allowing the students to use what has been learnt in their
own speech
four skills: language teaching can be divided into the four skills of listening,
speaking, reading and writing; in the audio-lingual style, additionally, listening
and reading are considered ‘passive’ skills, speaking and writing ‘active’ ones
The name ‘audio-lingual’ is attached to a teaching style that reached its peak in
the 1960s, best conveyed in Robert Lado’s thoughtful book Language Teaching: A
Scientific Approach (Lado, 1964). Its emphasis is on teaching the spoken language
through dialogues and drills. A typical lesson in an audio-lingual style starts with
a dialogue, say about buying food in a shop:
A: Good morning.
B: Good morning.
A: Could I have some milk please?
B: Certainly. How much?
The language in the dialogue is controlled so that it introduces only a few new
vocabulary items, ‘milk’, ‘cola’, ‘mineral water’, for instance, and includes several
examples of each new structural point: ‘Could I have some cola?’, ‘Could I have
some mineral water?’ and so on. The students listen to the dialogue as a whole,
The audio-lingual style 243
either played back from a tape or read by the teacher; they repeat it sentence by
sentence, and they act it out: ‘Now get into pairs of shopkeeper and customer and
try to buy the following items …’
Then the students have a structure drill in which they practise grammatical
points connected with the dialogue, such as the polite questions used in requests:
‘Could I …?’ This is handled by an adjacency pair of turns, to use terms from
Chapter 9. Mostly these are called stimulus and response, taken from behaviourist
theory, but I have tended to use the more neutral input and output to fit in with
processing theory (Cook, 1968). So the teacher presents a specimen from a tape, or
written up on a whiteboard in less strict audio-lingual classes:
Input: Could I have some (milk, water, cola)?

Output: Milk.
The students now answer by constructing appropriate outputs from each input:
Output: Could I have some milk?

Input: Water.
Output: Could I have some water?
… and so on. The drill repeatedly practises the structure with variation of vocabu-
lary; the students hear an input and have to manipulate it in various ways to get
an output, here by fitting a vocabulary item into a slot in the structural pattern.
Drills developed historically into semi-realistic exchanges, by linking the input
and output in conversational adjacency pairs:
Input: What about milk?

Output: Oh yes, could I have some milk?
Input: And cola?
Output: Oh yes, could I have some cola?
Input: And you might need some mineral water.
Output: Oh yes, could I have some mineral water?
Essentially the same technique occurs still in New Headway (Soars and Soars, 2002)
as a repetition exercise, ‘Listen Check and Repeat’:
I got up early.
Are you getting up early tomorrow?
I went swimming.
Are you going to swim tomorrow?
Finally, there are exploitation activities to make the students incorporate the
language in their own use: ‘Think what you want to buy today and ask your
neighbour if you can have some.’ As Wilga Rivers (1964) puts it, ‘Some provision
will be made for the student to apply what he has learnt in a structured commu-
nication situation.’ In Realistic English (Abbs et al., 1968), we followed up the main
audio-lingual dialogue with ‘Things to do’. For instance, after practising a dia-
logue about a traffic accident, the students had to make notes about the witnesses,
to imagine what the policeman would say to his wife when he gets home, and to
work with a partner to devise advice to give a 5-year-old on how to cross the road.
Similarly, a drill about ‘infinitive with negative’, practising ‘And the woman /man/
car not to meet/ see /buy …?’ leads into an activity: ‘Now offer each other advice
about the people you should see and the cars you should buy.’
Chapter 1 mentioned the language teaching assumption that speech should

take precedence over writing. The audio-lingual style interprets this in two ways.
One is short-term: anything the students learn must be heard before being seen,
so the teacher always has to say a new word aloud before writing it on the black-
board. The other is long-term: the students must spend a period using only spo-
ken skills before they are introduced to the written skills; this might last a few
weeks or indeed a whole year. This long-term interpretation in my experience led
to most problems. Adult students who were used to the written text as a crutch did
not know why it was taken from them; I used to present dialogues only from tape
until I caught the students writing down the text under their desks; so I decided
that, if they were going to have a written text anyway, my correctly spelt version
was preferable to their amateur version.
Audio-lingual teaching divided language into the four skills of listening, speak-
ing, reading and writing, and grouped these into active skills which people use to
produce language, such as speaking and writing, and passive skills through which
they receive it, such as listening and reading. As well as speech coming before writ-
ing, passive skills should come before active skills, which leads to the ideal
sequence of the four skills given in Figure 13.1: (1) listening, (2) speaking, (3) read-
ing, (4) writing. So students should listen before they speak, speak before they read,
read before they write. Needless to say, no one now accepts that listening and
reading are exactly ‘passive’, as Chapter 7 demonstrates.
spoken language written language
1. LISTENING 2. SPEAKING 3. READING 4. WRITING
passive active passive active
Figure 13.1 The sequence of the four skills in the audio-lingual method
Of all the styles, the audio-lingual most blatantly reflects a particular set of beliefs
about L2 learning, which is often referred to as ‘habit formation’. Language is a set
of habits, just like driving a car. A habit is learnt by doing it again and again. The
dialogues concentrate on unconscious ‘structures’ rather than the conscious ‘rules’
of the academic style. Instead of trying to understand every word or structure, stu-
dents learn the text more or less by heart. Learning means learning structures and
vocabulary, which together add up to learning the language. Like the academic
style, language is seen more as form than meaning, even if its basis is more in struc-
tural than traditional grammar. Oddly enough, despite its emphasis on the spoken
language, the structures it teaches are predominantly from written language.
The goal of the audio-lingual style is to get the students to ‘behave’ in common
L2 situations, such as the station or the supermarket; it is concerned with the real-
life activities the students are going to face. In one sense it is practical and com-
munication-oriented. The audio-lingual style is not about learning language for
its own sake, but learning it for actual use, either within the society or without.
While the appropriate student type is not defined, the style is not restricted to the
The audio-lingual style 245
academically gifted. Indeed, its stress on practice can disadvantage those with an
analytical bias. Nor is the audio-lingual style obviously catering for students of a
particular age; adults may do it as happily as children.
Its views of L2 learning are closest to the processing models described in
Chapter 12: language is doing things, not knowing things. Partly this comes
across in its emphasis on the physical situation: the dialogues illustrate language
used in situations such as the travel agent’s or the chemist’s shop. Most impor-
tance is attached to building up the strength of the students’ response through
practice. Little weight is given to the understanding of linguistic structure or to
the creation of knowledge. The ability to use language is built up piece by piece
using the same type of learning all the time. Grammar is seen as ‘structures’ like
‘Could I have some X?’ or ‘This is a Y’, within which items of vocabulary are sub-
stituted. Courses and syllabuses are graded around structures; drills practise partic-
ular structures; dialogues introduce and exemplify structures and vocabulary in
context. The style requires a classroom which is teacher-controlled, except for the
final exploitation phase when, as Lado (1964) puts it, the student ‘has the patterns
ready as habits but he must practise using them with full attention on purposeful
communication’. Until the exploitation phase of the cycle, students repeat, answer
or drill at the teacher’s behest. Though they work individually in the language lab-
oratory, all of them still use the same activities and teaching materials. The style
demands students who do not expect to take the initiative. All responsibility is in
the teacher’s hands. The different aspects of the audio-lingual method can be seen
in the list made by Wilga Rivers (1964).
Box 13.3 Assumptions of audio-lingual language teaching

(Rivers, 1964)
● Assumption 1. Foreign Language Learning is basically a mechanical process
of habit formation.
● Assumption 2. Language skills are learned more effectively if items of the
foreign language are presented in spoken form before written form.
● Assumption 3. Analogy provides a better foundation for foreign language
learning than analysis.
● Assumption 4. The meanings which the words of the language have for the
native speaker can be learned only in a matrix of allusions to the culture of
the people who speak that language.
In Europe, audio-lingualism happened to arrive from the USA at a time when the
language laboratory became technically feasible. Many of its techniques indeed
worked well with this equipment; repeating sentences and hearing recordings of
your repetition, doing drills and hearing the right answer after your attempt, fitted
in nicely with the tape recorder and later the language laboratory. Recent styles
that emphasise free production of speech and interactive communication have
found language laboratories far harder to assimilate, apart from for listening activ-
ities. Indeed, any glance at materials for computer-assisted language learning
(CALL) on the Web show that they are largely audio-lingual in their emphasis on
drill and practice, though they necessarily depend more on the written language
because of the computer’s limitations in dealing with speech.
One virtue of the academic style is that if it does not achieve its secondary goal of
allowing the student to communicate, it might still have educational value via its
goals of improving thinking, promoting cross-cultural understanding, and so on.
The audio-lingual style has no fallback position. If it does not succeed in getting the
student to function in the second language, there is nothing else to be gained from
it – no academic knowledge or problem-solving ability. Lado does claim, however,
that it teaches a positive attitude of identification with the target culture. Its insis-
tence on L2 learning as the creation of habits is an oversimplification of the behav-
iourist models of learning that were scorned as explanations for language
acquisition for many years. Many would deny that the unique elements of language
are in fact learnable by these means; the ability to create or understand ‘new’ sen-
tences is not acquired by practising ‘old’ sentences. The principles of Universal
Grammar, for example, are impossible to acquire through drills and dialogues.
Syllabuses and textbooks in the audio-lingual style mostly see structures,
phonemes and vocabulary items as the sum total of language. Though based on the
four skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing, the style pays surprisingly lit-
tle attention to the distinctive features of each skill. The skill of listening, for exam-
ple, is not usually broken up into levels or stages that resemble those seen in
Chapter 7. Moreover, the communication situation is far more complex than the
style implies. If communication is the goal of language teaching, the content of
teaching needs to be based on an analysis of communication itself, which is not
adequately covered by structures and vocabulary. Even if students totally master
the content of an audio-lingual course, they still need much more to function in a
real-life situation.
Yet many teachers fall back on the audio-lingual style. One reason may be that
it provides a clear framework for teachers to work within. Few other styles could
be captured in four assumptions, as Wilga Rivers manages to do. Teachers always
know what they are supposed to be doing, unlike more flexible or improvisational
styles. Students can relax within a firmly structured environment, always know-
ing the kinds of activities that will take place and what will be expected of them.
After teaching a group of beginners audio-lingually for six weeks, I decided it was
time to have a change by introducing some communicative exercises; the stu-
dents requested to go back to the audio-lingual techniques.
Certain aspects of language may lend themselves best to audio-lingual teaching.
Pronunciation teaching has hardly changed its audio-lingual style teaching tech-
niques such as repetition and drill, or its academic style conscious explanation in
the past 40 years, unlike the rapid change in other areas of teaching, perhaps
because of lack of imagination by teachers, perhaps because the audio-lingual
style is indeed the most effective in this area. Lado’s (1964) pronunciation tech-
niques of ‘demonstration, imitation, props, contrast, and practice’ seem as compre-
hensive as anything presented in Chapter 4. The style reminds us that language is
in part physical behaviour, and the total language teaching operation must take
this into account.
Though ostensibly out of fashion, the influence of audio-lingualism is still per-
vasive. Few teachers nowadays employ a ‘pure’ audio-lingual style; yet many of
the ingredients are present in today’s classrooms. The use of short dialogues, the
emphasis on spoken language, the value attached to practice, the emphasis on the
students speaking, the division into four skills, the importance of vocabulary con-
trol, the step-by-step progression, all go back to audio-lingualism. Many teachers
feel comfortable with the audio-lingual style and use it at one time or another in
their teaching.
The communicative style 247
Box 13.4 The audio-lingual style of language teaching

● dialogues, structure drills, exploitation activities
Goals
● getting students to ‘behave’ in appropriate situations
Type of student
● non-analytical, non-academic
● ‘habit-formation’ behaviourist theory
● teacher-controlled classroom

● inadequate form of grammar
● no position on other aspects of language knowledge or use
● inefficiency of habit formation as a means of teaching use

● use for teaching certain aspects of language only
● be aware of the underlying audio-lingual basis of many everyday techniques
13.3 The communicative style
Focusing questions
● What do you understand by ‘communication’? Do you think this is what stu-

dents need?
● To what extent do you think the classroom is an educational setting, to what
extent a preparation for situations outside?
Keywords
functions and notions: functions are the reasons for which people use lan-
guage such as persuading and arguing; notions are the general semantic
ideas they want to express, such as time and location
information gap: an exercise that gives different students different pieces of
information which they have to exchange
communicative style: basing teaching on communication, both as the target that
the students need to achieve, and as the means of acquiring it in the classroom
The 1970s saw a worldwide shift towards teaching methods that emphasized com-
munication, seen as the fundamental reason for language teaching. Indeed, com-
municative teaching has now become the only teaching method that many
teachers have experienced; it was the traditional method from the twentieth cen-
tury as grammar/translation was the traditional method from the nineteenth.
To start with, this style meant redefining what the student had to learn in terms
of communicative competence rather than linguistic competence, social Lang4
rather than mental Lang5, to use the terms introduced in Chapter 1. The crucial
goal was the ability to use the language appropriately rather than the grammati-
cal knowledge or the ‘habits’ of the first two styles. The communicative behaviour
of native speakers served as the basis for syllabuses that incorporated language
functions, such as ‘persuading someone to do something’, and notions, such as
‘expressing point of time’, which took precedence over the grammar and vocabu-
lary accepted hitherto as the appropriate specification of the syllabus. Instead of
teaching the grammatical structure ‘This is an X’, as in ‘This is a book’, students
were taught the communicative function of ‘identifying’, as in ‘This is a book’.
Though the structure may end up exactly the same, the rationale for teaching it is
now very different, not grammatical knowledge but ability to use grammar for a
purpose.
The elaboration of communicative competence into functions and notions
affected the syllabus but did not at first have direct consequences for teaching
methods. The fact that the teaching point of a lesson is the function ‘asking direc-
tions’ rather than the structure ‘yes-no questions’ does not mean it cannot be
taught through any teaching style, just as grammar can be taught in almost any
style. The course Function in English (Blundell et al., 1982) displayed a list of alter-
natives for each function categorized as neutral, informal and formal, and linked
by codes to a structural index – clearly academic style. The coursebook Opening
Strategies (Abbs and Freebairn, 1982) made students substitute ‘bank’, ‘post office’,
‘restaurant’, and so on, into the sentence ‘Is there a __________ near here?’, an
audio-lingual drill in all but name.
To many people, however, the end dictates the means: a goal expressed in terms
of communication means basing classroom teaching on communication and so
leads to techniques that make the students communicate with each other.
Consequently, communication came to be seen more as processes rather than
static elements like functions and notions. So syllabuses started to be designed
around the processes or tasks that students use in the classroom.
Techniques of communicative teaching

The archetypal communicative technique is an information gap exercise.
Touchstone (McCarthy et al., 2005) uses cartoon maps of two imaginary neighbour-
hoods; students have to find the differences. Living with People (Cook, 1983) used
pairs of photographs of Oxford street scenes with slight differences – a butcher’s
shop taken from two different angles, a queue at a bus stop taken a few seconds
apart, and so on. Students look at one or other set of photos and have to discover
what the differences are, if any, by talking to each other without looking at the
other set. This information gap technique originated with language expansion
exercises for native English primary school children in the 1970s, in courses such
as Concept 7–9 (Wight et al., 1972), but it soon became a mainstay of EFL teaching.
It might use visuals, tapes or models – in fact, anything where the teacher could
deliberately engineer two sets of slightly differing information so that the students
had an information gap to bridge. The point of the activity is that the students
have to improvise the dialogue themselves to solve their communicative task.
They have to use their own resources to achieve a communicative goal with other
people, thus bringing communication directly into the classroom.
The second standard communicative technique is guided role play. The stu-
dents improvise conversations around an issue without the same contrived infor-
mation gap. New Cutting Edge (Cunningham et al., 2005), for example, suggests: ‘Act
out a conversation in the tourist information office’. One student role-plays an offi-
cial, the other their normal character. The aim is practising how to assume partic-
ular roles in situations. The situations themselves are virtually the same as those
in the audio-lingual method – the doctor’s, the station, the restaurant – but
instead of starting from the highly controlled, pre-set dialogues of the audio-lin-
gual method, students try to satisfy communicative needs by talking for them-
selves; it is not the language of the station that is important, it is what you do with
it – buying a ticket, asking for the time of a train, and so on.
The third general technique is tasks: students carry out tasks in the classroom
with a definite outcome. For instance, in Lesson 14 of Atlas 1 (Nunan, 1995), stu-
dents go through a linked series of tasks on ‘giving reasons’, called a ‘task chain’.
First they listen to a taped conversation and have to tick how many times they hear
‘why’ and ‘because’; then they listen again to find out specific reasons; in pairs,
they compare their answers, and after the teacher has given a ‘model’ conversa-
tion, they role-play equivalent conversations about ‘asking for things and giving
reasons’. Finally, they discuss in groups whether it is appropriate to ask other peo-
ple to do things like ‘buy you a drink’ in their own cultures. Students are working
together to achieve the task and to share their conclusions with other students:
the picture that accompanies this task chain is two smiling students talking to
each other, highlighting the classroom-internal nature of the task.
In one sense, these three techniques cover the same ground. The information
gap game merges with the role play when the person playing the ticket collector
has information the other students do not; the task becomes a role play when they
practise fictional requests.
The communicative classroom is a very different place from classrooms using
the other two styles encountered so far. The teacher no longer dominates it, con-
trolling and guiding the students every minute. Rather the teacher takes one step
back and hands the responsibility for the activities over to the students, forcing
them to make up their own conversations in pairs and groups – learning language
by doing. A key difference from other styles is that the students are not required
to produce speech with the minimum of mistakes in native terms. Instead, they
can use whatever forms and strategies they can devise themselves to solve their
communication problem, producing sentences that may be entirely appropriate
to their task but are often highly deviant from a native perspective. The teacher
stands by. While the teacher provides some feedback and correction, this plays a
much less central part in his or her classroom duties. The teacher has the role of
equal and helper rather than the wise expert of the academic style or the martinet
of the audio-lingual.
This jump from the traditional teacher-led class disconcerts or indeed alienates
those from cultures who see education differently. The adoption of the commu-
nicative style in a particular place always has to recognize this potential cultural
obstacle, however ideal communicative language teaching may be on other
grounds. Here is a conversation taking place at a parents’ evening featuring an

Inuk parent and a non-Inuit teacher (Crago, 1992):
Teacher: Your son is talking well in class. He is speaking up a lot.

Inuk parent: I am very sorry.
To the teacher, it is obvious that it is a virtue to speak and contribute in class; to

the parent, it is equally obviously that children who show proper respect for the
teacher stay silent in class. A communicative style with its emphasis on sponta-
neous production by the learners is unlikely to go down well in cultures that value
silence and respect.
Learning in communicative language teaching

In general, there is surprisingly little connection between the communicative style
and SLA research. Its nearest relations are functional theories of how children
acquire the first language, like Bruner (1983), rather than models of L2 learning. It
assumes little about the learning process, apart from claiming that, if the right cir-
cumstances are provided to them, something will happen inside the students’
minds.
Historically, the communicative style relates to the idea of interlanguage
described in Chapter 1. Teachers should respect the developing language systems
of the students rather than see them as defective. Indeed, the major impact of SLA
research on language teaching so far may have been the independent language
assumption described in Chapter 1, which liberates the teacher from contrived
grammatical progressions and allows them to desist from correcting all the stu-
dent’s mistakes: learners need the freedom to construct language for themselves,
even if this means making ‘mistakes’. So the favoured techniques change the
teacher’s role to that of organizer and provider, rather than director and con-
troller. The teacher sets up the task or the information gap exercise and then lets
the students get on with it, providing help but not control. The students do not
have to produce near-native sentences; it no longer matters if something the stu-
dent says differs from what natives might say.
One strand in this thinking comes from ideas of Universal Grammar, seen in
Chapter 12. If the students are using natural processes of learning built into their
minds, the teacher can step back and let them get on with it by providing activi-
ties and language examples to get these natural processes going. Sometimes this is
seen as hypothesis-testing, an early version of the Universal Grammar theory. In
this the learner makes a guess at the rules of the language, tries it out by produc-
ing sentences, and accepts or revises the rules in the light of the feedback that is
provided. However, hypothesis testing in this sense is no longer part of UG theory
as it requires more correction than L1 children get from their parents, or indeed
most L2 learners from teachers in communicative classrooms.
In a way, this style has a laissez-faire attitude: learning takes place in the stu-
dents’ minds in ways that teachers cannot control; the students should be trusted
to get on with it without interference. It can lead to the dangerous assumption
that any activity is justified which gives students the opportunity to test out
‘hypotheses’ in the classroom, with no criteria applied other than getting the stu-
dents talking. However enjoyable the class may be, however much language is
provoked from the students, the teacher always has to question whether the time
is being well spent: are the students learning as much from the activity as they
would from something else?
Language learning in this style is the same as language using. Information gap
exercises and role-play techniques imitate what happens in the world outside the
classroom in a controlled form, rather than being special activities peculiar to lan-
guage learning. Later on, students will be asking the way or dealing with officials
in a foreign language environment just as they are pretending to do in the class-
room. Learning language means practising communication within the four walls
of the classroom. You learn to talk to people by actually talking to them: L2 learn-
ing arises from meaningful use in the classroom.
The communicative style does not hold a view about L2 learning as such, but
maintains that it happens automatically, provided the student interacts with other
people in the proper way. Many of its techniques carry on the audio-lingual style’s
preoccupations with active practice and with spoken language. Communicative
tasks belong in the historical tradition of the exploitation phase of the audio-lin-
gual style, in which the students use the language actively for themselves; they
have now been developed into a style of their own, task-based learning (TBL), as
seen below. This exploitation phase was regarded as essential by all the commenta-
tors on audio-lingualism, whether Lado or Rivers. It consisted of ‘purposeful com-
munication’ (Lado, 1964) such as role playing and games – precisely the core
activities of the communicative style. The main difference is that in communica-
tive teaching there is no previous phase in which the students are learning dia-
logues and drills in a highly controlled fashion.
Like the audio-lingual style, communicative teaching often resembles behav-
iourist views of learning. I have sometimes introduced the ideas of ‘mands’ and
‘tacts’ to teachers without telling them they are verbal operants within Skinner’s
behaviourist model, as outlined in Chapter 12. Their reaction has been that they
sound a useful basis for a communicative syllabus. The main difference between
the audio-lingual style and the communicative style is the latter’s emphasis on
spontaneous production and comprehension.
The style is potentially limited to certain types of student. For instance, it might
benefit field-independent students rather than field-dependent students, extro-
verts rather than introverts, and less academic students. Its cultural implications
can also go against students’ expectations of the classroom more than other styles;
students in some countries have indeed been upset by its apparent rejection of the
ways of learning current in their culture, in favour of what they regard as a
‘Western’ view (though there seems no reason to think of the academic or audio-
lingual styles as intrinsically any more or less Western than the communicative –
all come from educational traditions in the West). The audio-lingual style, with its
authoritarian teacher controlling every move the students makes, fits more with
cultures that are ‘collectivist’, to use Hofstede’s term (Hofstede, 1980), say, in
Japan; the communicative style, with the teacher setting up and organizing activ-
ities, goes more with cultures that are ‘individualistic’, say, in Australia.
The communicative teaching style covers only some of the relevant aspects of
L2 learning, however desirable they may be in themselves. For example, it has no
techniques of its own for teaching pronunciation or vocabulary, little connection
with speech processing or memory, and little recognition of the possibilities avail-
able to the learner through their first language. Pair work and group work among
students with the same first language, for example, often lead to frequent
codeswitching between the first and the second language, perhaps something to
be developed systematically rather than seen as undesirable. In so far as the style
uses grammar, it often relies on a structuralist grammar reminiscent of audio-lin-

gualism, for instance in the substitution tables found in many communicative
coursebooks, to be discussed below.
In general, communicative language teaching has sophisticated ideas of what
students need to learn, which have undoubtedly freed the classroom from the
rigours of the academic and audio-lingual styles. It is hard, however, to pin it
down in a set of axioms in the way that Wilga Rivers could do for audio-lingual
teaching. The best attempt at setting out the basic tenets of communicative lan-
guage teaching was by Keith Morrow (1981):
1 Know what you are doing.

2 The whole is more than the sum of the parts.
3 The processes are as important as the forms.
4 To learn it do it.
5 Mistakes are not always a mistake.
These clearly do not have the straightforward practicality of the audio-lingual

assumptions and would apply to many teaching methods rather than being exclu-
sive to communicative teaching. The basic question of what we do in the class-
room next Monday at 11.15 is seldom answered by the generalities of the
communicative style. However interesting the techniques we have mentioned
may be, there are rather few of them compared to the vast range available in ear-
lier styles. Teachers sometimes feel lost because they have not been told exactly
what to do, but essentially have been given some overall guidance and a handful
of techniques and told to get on with it. Their preparation time also goes up as
they have to devise roles for the students to play, collect pictures for information
gap games, or invent ingenious tasks for them to do.
Over time, at least three variants of the communicative style emerged, which we
shall call here ‘social communicative’, ‘information communicative’ and ‘task-
based learning’. A conversation requires someone to talk to (social), something to
talk about (information), and a reason for talking (task). As the pioneer linguist
Ferdinand de Saussure (1916) said: ‘Speech has both an individual and a social side
and we cannot conceive of one without the other’; Lang4 is bound to Lang5. Social
communicative teaching emphasises the joint functioning of two people in a situ-
ation, what Halliday (1975) terms the interpersonal function of language.
Information communicative teaching stresses the exchange of information, of
ideas and meanings, rather than the relationships between people – Halliday’s
ideational function of language. These two uses will be dealt with under this style;
tasks are expanded as a style of their own below.
Social communicative teaching

Those who put more weight on social communication see language as communi-
cation between people, rather than as texts or grammatical rules or patterns: it has
a social purpose. Language is for forming relationships with people and for inter-
relating with them. Using language means meeting people and talking to them.
The aim is to give the students the ability to engage in conversations with people.
The teaching syllabus is primarily a way of listing the aspects of communication
the students will find most useful, whether functions, notions or processes. It is not
so much the ideas which people exchange that matter, as the bonds they build up
between them.
Social communication mostly aims more at international use of the second lan-
guage with people in another country than at local goals in multilingual societies.
The overall goals of the communicative style have not been specified in great
detail in general-purpose language teaching, which usually tries for the gener-
alised situation of visitors to the target country, with the accent on tourism and
travel, without specific goals for careers, for education or for access to informa-
tion. In more specialized circumstances, social communication has been taught
for specific careers – doctors, businessmen, oil technicians, or whatever – and for
higher education.
In practice, many communicative coursebooks adopt what might be called
‘package holiday communication’, centred on tourist activities, with the book
resembling a glossy holiday brochure and the teacher a jolly package-tour rep
organizing fun activities. One entertaining, if light-hearted, method of evaluating
courses is to measure the ‘smile factor’: the average number of smiling faces per
page of the textbook, which gives a quick insight into the attitudes being expressed.
The higher the smile factor, the closer to ‘package holiday communication’.
Headway Elementary (Soars and Soars, 1993), for example, manages to pack 15 smil-
ing faces onto the first four pages (and seven unsmiling); Touchstone (McCarthy
et al., 2005) also has 15 smiles on the first four pages; True to Life (Collie and Slater,
1995) a mere two. The other genres of printed English where such smiling faces
abound are travel brochures and clothes catalogues: the Landsend Overstocks cata-
logue, for example, has 18 on four pages. Whether you consider smiling faces an
advantage or not depends on whether you think this makes English a happy, inter-
esting subject or makes the coursebook a trivialization of human existence.
Information communicative teaching

Information communicative teaching departs from the core communicative style
in several ways. Overall, it emphasizes the information that is transferred rather
than the social interaction between the participants, resembling Marton’s recep-
tive strategy and Halliday’s ideational function. A typical technique in this style
forms the core of Asher’s total physical response (TPR) method, that is, acting out
commands, as seen in Chapter 7. For example, in Live Action English (Romijn and
Seely, 2000) an activity called ‘sharpening your pencil’ gets students to carry out
a series of commands: ‘Pick up your pencil’, ‘Look at the point…’ There is no real-
life social role involved; the point is understanding the information. TPR students
are listening in order to discover what actions to carry out; their social interaction
with the teacher is unlike that found in any normal language exchange, except for
the army drill square. So, unlike social communication, information communica-
tive teaching emphasizes the listening-first approach mentioned in Chapter 7; lis-
tening is the crucial key to extracting information from what you hear.
Gary and Gary (1981b) have published a specimen lesson from their listening-
based materials (‘More English Now!’), which are designed for hotel staff in Egypt.
The lesson starts with a ‘Preview’ section in which the language content of the les-
son is explained and in which ‘important words’ such as ‘last week’ and ‘checked
out’ are translated into Arabic. In the next section, ‘Let’s Listen’, students hear a
tape giving the bookings for a hotel for next week and then carry out a task-listen-
ing exercise, first filling in a form with the guests’ names and details, and then
answering questions such as ‘Who was in room 104?’ in writing. Finally, a ‘Let’s
Read’ section gives them the same tasks with a written text. Such listening-first
teaching requires the students to listen actively but not to produce sentences until
they are ready. The point here is the information transfer. Students following
‘More English Now!’ are listening to get specific information to be written down
in various forms. While this partly resembles their real-life hotel duties, it deliber-
ately minimizes spoken production and natural social interaction, vital to their
actual conversation with guests. The concentration is on the information to be
obtained from language, not on the social relationship between listener and
speaker. Working out information is the key factor: take care of the message and
the learning will take care of itself. Hence the style is compatible with a large range
of teaching techniques, united only by their emphasis on information.
The overall goal is to get students to use the language, first by comprehending,
then by producing. Comprehension of information, however, is not a goal in its
own right, but a way into fuller command of the language in use. Sometimes the
overall goal is more specific, as with the Cairo hotel staff. Mostly, however, the goal
is non-specific, whether local or international, playing down the individual goals of
language teaching and making few claims to general educational values. In terms of
classrooms, it is, for good or for ill, much more teacher-dominated than the other
communicative variants. The teacher supplies, in person or through materials, the
language input and the organization of the students’ activities and classroom strate-
gies. The social communicative style is limited by physical factors in the classroom
in that it becomes progressively more difficult to organize its activities the larger the
group. The listening-based information communicative style lends itself to classes
of any size. It is therefore more compatible with the traditional teacher-dominated
classroom than is the social communicative style. It also caters for a range of student
types, provided they do not mind having to listen rather than speak in the class-
room. Again, the students need to be prepared for what the style is trying to do,
since it differs from their probable expectations of the classroom.
Finally, information communicative teaching implies that there is information to
communicate. An important factor in the style is the choice of information. Many
courses rely on ‘imaginary’ content (Cook, 1983), such as ‘For sale’ ads for imaginary
houses (Headway). In a survey I found that this type of content figured on nine
pages out of ten in beginners’ courses, seven out of ten in intermediate. But it is also
possible to have ‘real’ content based on actual information about the ‘real’ world:
the best-selling mineral waters in different countries (International Express), the
London Eye (New English File), the lives of Calamity Jane (Just Right) and Amy
Johnson (Move), methods for brewing coffee (Meeting People). My own feeling is that
imaginary content trivializes language learning; the message is conveyed that you
do not gain anything significant from your language class apart from the ability to
use the language, and this can become just another form of language practice. ‘Real’
content makes the language lesson have a point; the students have acquired some-
thing through the language they would not otherwise have known.
Different types of real information that might be conveyed include:
● Another academic subject taught through English. I have recommended to students

in England who complained they were stuck at a developmental plateau to go
to classes in cookery rather than in English.
● Student-contributed content. Getting the students to talk about their own lives
and real interests, fascinating in a multilingual class, boring in one where
everybody has known each other since primary school. In the first English class
I ever taught, a class discussion brought out how the headman in a student’s
Vietnamese village had been hanged in front of his very eyes. People and Places
(Cook, 1980) used a cumulative personal information section at the end of the
book, which the student filled in lesson by lesson as they supplied the different
aspects of information about themselves.
● Language. That is to say, information about the language they are studying. After
all, this is the one thing that all the students have in common. Meeting People
(Cook, 1982), for instance, had a text about the varieties of English spoken in
different parts of the world.
● Literature. For many years, literature was despised because of its inappropriate
language and links to the academic method. It is capable, however, of bringing
depth of emotion and art to the classroom that materials written by course-writ-
ers can never do. Living with People (Cook, 1983) used two short poems by the
controversial psychotherapist R.D. Laing to get students discussing their feelings.
● Culture. That is to say, discussing the cultural differences between languages – one
of the goals of the UK National Curriculum. Are English people aware of showing
a polite back (i.e. not obstructing people’s view in a stadium) as Japanese are?
● ‘Interesting facts’. These might not be connected to English, but after the lesson
the students can say they learnt something: how to treat a nosebleed, how to
use chopsticks, how to play cards, how to make coffee, to take examples from
Meeting People (Cook, 1982).
There is no logical reason why information communicative teaching should

rely on listening at the expense of speaking; communication requires a speaker as
well as a listener. Reading for gist may be just as much within this style. The use
of listening-first techniques, as outlined in Chapter 7, represents the additional
assumption that listening is basic to the learning process. There has often been a
geographical division in the communicative styles: ‘British-influenced’ teaching
has emphasised that students have to both listen and speak from day one of the
course. ‘American-influenced’, or perhaps more strictly ‘Krashen-influenced’,
teaching has emphasized listening without speaking. As a consequence, ‘British’
teaching has concentrated more on the interpersonal function; the double role of
listener and speaker immediately calls up interactive ‘conversation’, while the lis-
tener-only role resembles people listening to the radio.
In general, the communicative style is appropriate for students and societies
that value international goals of a non-specific kind. The teacher using it with a
particular class has to remember that it will not appeal to students with other
types of goal, say an interest in language structure or a desire for personal libera-
tion. The unexpectedness of the classroom situation it relies on may need selling
to the students; they have to realise that the onus is on them to take advantage of
the classroom, not on the teacher to spoon-feed them. It needs balancing with
other styles to make certain that the coverage of language components is adequate
even to achieve its own goal of communicative competence, for example, in the
teaching of pronunciation. But at least it sees communication as a dynamic social
activity to be acquired by active participation by the students, marking a clear
break in this respect from the academic and audio-lingual styles.
One seldom discussed danger has been the academic standing of language teach-
ing as a discipline. The academic style of teaching was to some extent educationally
respectable because it stressed intellectual understanding of the language system,

studied high art in the form of literature, and used translation as a teaching tech-
nique, which was clearly a unique and highly demanding skill. First audio-lingual-
ism, then communicative language teaching, said teaching should be based on
everyday use of language. When describing the setting up of the language centre at
the University of Essex in the 1960s, David Stern (1964) claimed that it would con-
centrate on ‘learning as a practical skill as distinguished from an academic discipline
dependent on the command of the language’. Both at school level and at university
level, this view resulted in teachers from other disciplines failing to take language
teaching seriously. In schools, some felt that it should no longer be part of the core
academic curriculum, but an optional extra, like keyboard skills, because it no
longer contributed to the core educational values of the school. At universities in
England, if not elsewhere, this has led to a down-valuing in terms of esteem. The
consequences of Stern’s plan is that an Essex professor said recently that language
teaching is only about teaching people to order coffee in a bar in Paris. These dan-
gers are one reason why I have been arguing for the deeper value of language teach-
ing throughout this book. L2 users are different from those who speak one language,
not just people who can order a coffee or read a map in another language. L2 teach-
ing is about turning learners into these distinctive types of people.
Box 13.5 The communicative style of language teaching

● information gap, role plays, tasks
Goals
● getting students to interact with other people in the second language, in
the classroom and outside
Type of student
● field-independent students rather than field-dependent students, extroverts
rather than introverts, and less academic students
● learning by communicating with other students in the classroom: laissez-faire
● some use of conscious understanding of grammar
● teacher as organizer, not source of language knowledge

● lack of views on discourse processes, communication strategies, etc.
● black box model of learning
● lack of role for the first language

● use with appropriate students in appropriate circumstances
● supplement with other components of language
● avoid trivialization of content and aims
The task-based learning style 257
13.4 The task-based learning style
Focusing questions
● What is the ideal way of organizing what students do in the classroom?

● What relationship does what happens in the classroom have to the world
outside the classroom?
Keywords
task: ‘A task is an activity which requires learners to use language, with empha-
sis on meaning, to attain a goal’ (Bygate et al., 2001)
task-based learning (TBL): the notion that learning and teaching should be
organized around a set of classroom tasks
focus on form (FonF): discussion of grammar and vocabulary arising from
meaningful language in the classroom
In the past few years the most fashionable style among teaching methodologists
has been task-based learning (TBL). In the everyday sense of the word ‘task’, all
language teaching consists of tasks, whether these are translation tasks, structure
drill tasks or information gap tasks: a teacher’s job is to set up things for the stu-
dents to do in the classroom, that is, give them tasks to carry out. But TBL uses
‘task’ in a narrower way, as seen in the definition by Martin Bygate et al. (2001):
‘A task is an activity which requires learners to use language, with emphasis on
meaning, to attain a goal.’ This definition illustrates some of the main points of
TBL that most of its enthusiasts agreed on. Of course, as with any teaching exer-
cise, the task the teacher plans may be very different from what the students actu-
ally do (Hosenfeld, 1976; Seedhouse, 2005b)
According to the definition, a task ‘requires learners to use language’: students
are learning the language by using it, as assumed by the communicative style. This
implies that learning is the same as processing, that is, codebreaking is the same as
decoding, reminiscent of Krashen’s thinking. While the communicative style
organizes its tasks and activities around a language point – teaching a function, a
communicative strategy, and so on – TBL denies this: the language must come
from the learners themselves, not from the teacher. It is solving the requirements
of the task itself that counts. So a task is chosen because it is a good task, not
because it teaches a particular language point. Suppose we design a class task:
‘Make a shopping list for your weekly internet order from a supermarket.’ This task
requires the students to work together and to report back; but it does not tell them
how to interact to achieve this, nor does it supply the vocabulary.
The second part of the definition is that a task has ‘an emphasis on meaning’. The
teaching focus is not on the structures, language functions, vocabulary items, and so
on, of earlier approaches, but on the meaning of what is said. Hence structure drills
count as exercises, not as tasks, since they do not involve meaning. Meaning in TBL
is one person conveying information appropriate to the particular task to another
person, rather like information communicative teaching. There is no requirement
for the information to be meaningful in any other way, say by emotionally involv-
ing the student, or for it to be useful in the world outside the classroom: meaning
relates only to the task at hand. However, it is meaning in a pure information sense,
rather like the digits of computer data. As Garcia Mayo (2007: 91) puts it, TBL is ‘a
computational model of acquisition in which tasks are viewed as devices which can
influence learners’ information processing’. So the focus in the shopping list task is
entirely on the content of the list, the information to be transmitted to the super-
market. It is irrelevant whether the students have ever done or will do online shop-
ping orders.
The last part of the definition requires the student ‘to use language … to attain
a goal’. The point of the task is not to master a specific language point, but to
achieve a particular non-language goal. There has to be an outcome to a task
which the students do or do not achieve. Again, this distinguishes tasks from
other forms of teaching activities, where a task ends essentially when the teacher
says so. The goal of the shopping list task is the shopping list itself; have they suc-
ceeded in making a list that will cater for a week’s shopping needs?
TBL draws on an eclectic range of sources for its support. It is related to the
interaction model in Chapter 12 in that it depends on negotiation of meaning; to
the sociocultural model in that it depends on peer-to-peer scaffolding; and to the
Conversation Analysis model in that it depends on continuous conversational
interaction between the students. It is also related to the various views of process-
ing seen in Chapter 7, in particular to views on the centrality of meaning in pro-
cessing. Its main support is classroom-based research studies which show in
general that TBL does lead to an improvement in fluency and accuracy. However,
this is not the same thing as proving that TBL leads to acquisition and to use out-
side the classroom.
FonF and task-based learning

A central component of TBL for many people is the idea of FonF mentioned in
Chapter 2 – discussion of formal aspects of language following non-language-
based practice. While the use of tasks in itself is in the direct line of descent from
the exploitation phase of audio-lingualism through communicative language
teaching, FonF is the distinctive ingredient of the TBL style. In this view, it is ben-
eficial to focus on language form, provided this emerges out of a task rather than
being its starting point or sole rationale. To some extent this modifies the basic
TBL tenet that language itself is not the focus of the task, by letting language form
in through the back door.
Though explanation of forms has been extensively discussed as part of FonF, there
are comparatively few examples of what it means in practice. Dave and Jane Willis
(2007) give the example of a task based on a text about a suicide attempt. They sug-
gest that the teacher can exploit this to show the various uses of the reflexive pro-
noun in the text, such as ‘Jim Burney himself’ and ‘kill himself’, and to introduce
other uses such as ‘help yourself’. This is an informal, commonsense view of gram-
mar based on some frequent uses of reflexives. Since the tasks have not been
designed with language in mind, such follow-up activities are necessarily ad hoc and
unsystematic (unless, of course, the teacher cheats and works a language point into
the design of the task).
The FonF idea thus abandons one aspect of audio-lingualism that had still
been implicitly accepted by communicative teaching, namely Rivers’ assumption
(3): ‘Analogy provides a better foundation for foreign language learning than
analysis’. The FonF approach harks back to earlier models of language teaching,
which also saw explicit grammar as a follow-up activity. FonF is foreshadowed, for
example, in Article 4 of the International Phonetics Association manifesto of the
1880s: ‘In the early stages grammar should be taught inductively, complementing
and generalising language facts observed during reading.’ It resembles the tradi-
tional teaching exercise known as ‘explication de textes’, which was an integral
part of the grammar-translation methodology for teaching French – and is still
apparently encountered by British university students on their year abroad. In
this, the teacher goes through a written text to draw out and discuss useful vocab-
ulary and grammar on an ad hoc basis. The difference is that in FonF there is a task
to be carried out – and the explication takes place in the second language after the
event rather than as it happens. But the underlying question remains, not whether
grammar should be explained, but what grammar should be explained, out of the
alternatives presented in Chapter 2, for example.
The nature of tasks

The original impetus for task-based learning came from the celebrated Bangalore
Project (Prabhu, 1987), which reacted against both the traditional form of EFL used
in India and the type of situational teaching then practised. The main grounds
were the refusal to recognize the classroom as a ‘real’ situation in its own right,
rather than as a ‘pretend’ L2 situation. A real classroom uses activities that are
proper for classrooms, that is, educational tasks. If learning is doing tasks, teaching
means specifying and helping with the tasks, for example, ‘making the plan of a
house’. The tasks are not defined linguistically, but in an order based on difficulty.
The whole-class activity consisted of a pedagogic dialogue in which the teacher’s
questions were, as in other classrooms, invitations to learners to demonstrate their
ability, not pretended requests for enlightenment; and learners’ responses arose
from their role as learners, not from assumed roles in simulated situations or from
their individual lives outside the classroom (Prabhu, 1987: 28).
Educational value depends on the validity of the tasks and their usefulness as
vehicles for language learning. Hence teaching started to recognize the impor-
tance of the classroom itself as a communicative educational setting in its own
right and to organize the activities that occurred there in terms of educational
tasks rather than tasks that necessarily relate to the world outside the classroom.
Prabhu’s original list of tasks categorized them as:
● information gap activities, such as the picture comparison described above;

● reasoning gap activities, deriving new information by inference, such as working
out timetables for the class;
● opinion gap activities, in which there is no right or wrong answer, only the per-
son’s preference, as in ‘the discussion of a social issue’.
Jane Willis (1996), on the other hand, lists six main types of task: listing, ordering
and sorting, comparing, problem solving, sharing personal experience and creative. In
Atlas 1 (Nunan, 1995, teacher’s book) there are ten types of task, including predict-
ing (e.g. ‘predicting what is to come on the learning process’), conversational patterns
(‘using expressions to start conversations and keep them going’) and cooperating
(‘sharing ideas and learning with other students’). The concept of the task, then,
does vary considerably: it seems to be a peg that you can hang many coats on.
Jane Willis (1996) has provided a useful outline of the flow in task-based learn-
ing (shown in Box 13.6), which has three main components – pre-task, task-cycle
and language focus.
Box 13.6 The flow in task-based learning (Willis, 1996)

The pre-task: the teacher sets up the task.
1 The task cycle
A. task. The students carry out the task in pairs with the teacher monitoring.
B. planning. The students decide how to report back to the whole group.
C. report. The students make their reports.
2 Language focus
A. analysis. Students discuss how others carried out the task on a recording.
B. practice. The teacher practises new language that has cropped up.
This may, however, be a good teaching sequence in any style. In an academic

style, for example, the teacher might present an advertisement for translation
(pre-task) and set the students the specific task of translating parts of it in pairs
(task). They decide how to present it to the group (planning), then compare notes
on it with other groups (report), possibly by using networked word-processing.
Then the students compare their advertisement with real advertisements (analysis)
and they practise new language that has come up (practice). Task-based learning
develops communicative language teaching by providing a much greater range of
classroom activities and much firmer overall guidance for the teacher.
Issues with TBL

The goals for task-based learning that are usually mentioned are fluency, accuracy
and complexity (Skehan, 1998). But people need to be fluent, accurate or complex
because they need a second language for buying and selling, for translating
poetry, for passing an exam, for listening to operas, for travelling, for praying, for
writing a novel, for organising a revolution, or any of the myriad reasons for which
people learn second languages. Task-based learning concentrates on what can work
in the classroom. Its expressed goal is short-term fluency. It does not appear con-
cerned with overall teaching goals, which are hardly ever mentioned. Presumably
there are higher goals to language teaching than fluency, accuracy and complex-
ity, such as the beneficial effects on the students of the second language (personal
goals), the usefulness of knowing a second language for the society (local goals),
and the benefits for the world in general (international goals), as in Chapter 11.
Though classroom tasks may well lead to all these outcomes, this is unlikely to
work if they are not explicitly included in the design and implementation.
Nor does TBL require that tasks should mirror what the students have to do in
the world outside the classroom. Sometimes it is briefly mentioned that it would
be nice if classroom tasks had some relationship to later L2 uses – ‘I regard this as
desirable but difficult to obtain in practice’ (Skehan, 1998: 96). External relevance
is an optional extra for task-based learning rather than a vital ingredient, as it

would be for most other language teaching. Nor have internal goals been men-
tioned, for example the beneficial educational effects of learning through tasks
on, say, the students’ interactional abilities or their cognitive processes.
The information that is conveyed in tasks and the outcomes of the tasks seem
essentially trivial; there is no reason why they should matter to anybody. Take the
list of specimen tasks given in Ellis (2003):
● completing one another’s family tree;

● agreeing on advice to give to the writer of a letter to an agony aunt;
● discovering whether one’s paths will cross in the next week;
● solving a riddle;
● leaving a message on someone’s answer machine.
These tasks would be fascinating to 10-year-olds, reminding us that information

gap activities indeed originated in primary schools. The old-fashioned justifica-
tion for these topics was the language that they covered, a defence no longer avail-
able for TBL since it does not teach specific language points.
The question of the relevance and power of the native speaker model, so eagerly
debated by much contemporary SLA research, as seen in Chapter 11, has passed
TBL by. It does not seem to care what the long-term purpose may be, provided it
gets short-term gains on performance on tasks. It does not see the classroom as an
L2 user situation, but follows the traditional line of minimizing the use of the first
language. The students are seen as belonging to the learner group described in
Chapter 10, rather than as potential or actual members of L2 user groups. For
example, Willis and Willis (2007) devote a handful of pages to saying how the
teacher can help the students to get over the ‘hurdle’ of using the language, that
is, the first language is seen as a hindrance rather than a help. The reasons for
using the second language for any of these classroom-centred tasks seem entirely
arbitrary: what is the motive for making a shopping list, discussing suicide or com-
pleting your family tree in a second language? The students could carry out the
tasks far better in the first language: why use the second? In other words, despite
its protestations, TBL is essentially language practice, since it provides no motive
for the task to be in another language.
The sword that hangs over both the communicative and TBL styles is the ques-
tion of where the language that the students need for the task comes from in the
first place. As exploitation techniques, tasks require the students to draw on their
own language resources to carry them out, but they do not provide the resources
to do so. The task of completing a family tree requires at least the vocabulary of
relatives – ‘mother’, ‘husband’, ‘aunt’, ‘cousin’, and so on. Many coursebooks use a
tree to teach or revise the words for relatives. Touchstone (McCarthy et al., 2005: 26)
shows an illustrated tree going from grandparents down to children; students
practise by stating the various relationships of the people to each other; later they
fill out two trees in their ‘vocabulary notebook’ – all straightforward standard
teaching. Indeed, family tree exercises can also be found in Move, New Headway
and New Cutting Edge – all, of course, showing a British middle-class view of the
nuclear family, rather than the extended family networks of other classes or cultures.
But how can the students make a family tree if they have not first had the vocab-
ulary taught to them (‘father’, ‘aunt’, ‘cousin’…)? In first language acquisition
research, this is called ‘bootstrapping’ – how the child works out the language by
pulling itself up with its own boots. TBL must presuppose bootstrapping of the
language necessary to the task – the students must have learnt the vocabulary and
structures before they can actually perform the task. If this has already been
taught, for example in Jane Willis’s ‘pre-task’ stage, this represents the true teach-
ing stage, not the task itself.
So TBL is not concerned with the overall goals or purposes of language teaching,
only with short-term fluency gains. Hence it does not have a syllabus for teaching
so much as a list of tasks carefully designed and selected to work with the students
at a particular stage. It does not cover many areas of language proficiency such as
pronunciation. The teacher’s role is even more as an organizer and helper than as
an expert, since they do not need particular knowledge of anything but task
design and the minimal grammar necessary for FonF. The students must be pre-
pared for this type of communal learning through tasks, and be convinced that it
is a proper way of acquiring the language and that the teacher knows what they
are doing. This approach will not go down well with highly academic students or
in certain cultural situations. Students have been concerned when they first
encounter this form of teaching where the language content is invisible and not
supplied by the teacher, since it is even further from their expectations than the
communicative style.
The overall difficulty with the TBL style, then, is its detachment from every-
thing else in language use and language teaching: it is a single-solution approach
that tackles the whole of language teaching in the same way. Its tasks are highly
useful exploitation activities, and important for teachers to know about and to use
with other techniques. But they cannot realistically form the core of any language
teaching classroom that sees its students as people engaged with the world.
Box 13.7 The task-based learning style of language

teaching
● meaning-based tasks with definite outcomes
Goals
● fluency, accuracy, complexity
Type of student
● possibly less academic
● language acquisition takes place through meaning-based tasks with a
specific short-term goal
● teaching depends on organizing tasks based on meaning with specific
outcomes
The mainstream EFL style 263

● lack of wider engagement with goals, learner groups, etc.
● lack of a role for first language
● reliance on a processing model as opposed to a learning model

● use in conjunction with other styles, not as a style on its own
● useful as a way of planning and preparing lessons
13.5 The mainstream EFL style
Focusing questions
● What does the word ‘situation’ mean to you in language teaching?

● How much do you think a teacher can mix different teaching styles?
Keywords
situation: some teaching uses ‘situation’ to mean physical demonstration in the

classroom; other teaching uses it to mean situations where the student will
use the language in the world outside the classroom
substitution table: a language teaching technique where students create sen-
tences by choosing words from successive columns of a table
The mainstream EFL style has developed in British-influenced EFL from the 1930s
up to the present day. Until the early 1970s, it mostly reflected a compromise
between the academic and the audio-lingual styles, combining, say, techniques of
grammatical explanation with techniques of automatic practice. Harold Palmer in
the 1920s saw classroom L2 learning as a balance between the ‘studial’ capacities
by which people learnt a language by studying it like any content subject, that is,
what is called here an academic style, and the ‘spontaneous’ capacities through
which people learn language naturally and without thinking, seen by him in simi-
lar terms to the audio-lingual style (Palmer, 1926). The name for this style in India
was the structural-oral-situational (SOS) method, an acronym that captures several
of its main features (Prabhu, 1987) – the reliance on grammatical structures, the
primacy of speech, and the use of language in ‘situations’. Recently it has taken on
aspects of the social communicative style by emphasising person-to-person dia-
logue techniques.
Until the 1970s, this early mainstream style was characterized by the term ‘situ-
ation’ in two senses. In one sense of ‘situation’, language was to be taught though
demonstration in the real classroom situation; teachers rely on the props, gestures
and activities that are possible in a real classroom. I remember seeing a colleague
attempting to cope with a roomful of EFL beginners who had unexpectedly

arrived a week early by using the only prop he had to hand, a waste-paper basket.
In the other sense of ‘situation’, language teaching was to be organized around the
language of the real-life situations the students would encounter: the railway sta-
tion, the hotel, and so on. A lesson using the mainstream EFL style starts with a
presentation phase in which the teacher introduces new structures and vocabu-
lary. In the Australian course Situational English (Commonwealth Office, 1967),
for example, the teacher demonstrates the use of ‘can’ ‘situationally’ to the stu-
dents by touching the floor and trying unsuccessfully to touch the ceiling to illus-
trate ‘can’ versus ‘can’t’.
The next stage of the lesson usually involves a short dialogue. In this case it
might be a job interview which includes several examples of ‘can’: ‘Can you drive
a car?’ or ‘I can speak three languages.’ The students listen to the dialogue, they
repeat parts of it, they are asked questions about it, and so on.
Then they might see a substitution table such as Table 13.1, a technique sug-
gested by Harold Palmer in 1926 that allows students to create new sentences
under tight control. (Historically, the substitution table has been traced back to
Erasmus in 1524 (Kelly, 1969).) Chapter 2 discusses the way substitution tables
depend on structural grammar analysis. The example comes from a coursebook,
Success with English (Broughton, 1968), which used lengthy substitution tables as
the main teaching technique. Here the students have to make up four true sen-
tences by combining words from different columns – ‘I have some grey gloves in
my drawer’, ‘I have some black stockings in my house’, and so on.
Substitution tables continue to appear in coursebooks. A typical modern substitu-
tion table is seen in Move (Bowler and Parminter, 2007).
The change is that this has moved to the ‘grammar reference’ section of the
book; the substitution table is now treated as a method of displaying sentence
structure, an alternative to a phrase structure tree, to help the students’ under-
standing, not as a way of getting them directly to practise a structure intensively.
This depends on the students having some idea of both structural grammar and
paradigm displays used in the traditional grammar discussed in Chapter 2.
new shoes
black clothes in my house.
I have some grey socks in my cupboard.
white stockings in my drawer.
smart gloves in my room.
warm hats
Table 13.1 Substitution table from Success with English (Broughton, 1968)
Are you
we
they
going to set up a new business?
Is he
she
it
Table 13.2 Substitution table from Move (Bowler and Parminter, 2007)
The mainstream EFL style 265
The mainstream style combines Palmer’s studial and spontaneous capacities. A

coursebook such as New Headway (Soars and Soars, 2002), for instance, has ele-
ments of the academic style in that it explains structures: ‘We use the Present
Continuous to talk about actions that last a short time.’ It has elements of the
audio-lingual style in that it is graded around structures and the ‘four skills’. But it
has also incorporated elements of social communicative teaching in pair work
exercises, such as acting out conversations about solving problems.
The pivot around which the lesson revolves is the grammatical point, couched
in terms of structural or traditional grammar. The main difference from the early
mainstream style is the use of group work and pair work, and the information ori-
entation to the exercises. A mainstream EFL method is implied every time a teacher
goes through the classic progression from presentation to dialogue to controlled
practice, whether it is concerned with grammar or communicative function.
Many have seen this sequence of presentation, practice, production (PPP) as the
chief characteristic of the mainstream style, or indeed of the audio-lingual and
communicative styles (Scrivenor, 1994), but not of task-based learning. The main-
stream style is the central style described in TEFL manuals such as The Practice of
English Language Teaching (Harmer, 2007). It represents, perhaps, the bulk of EFL
teaching of the past 50 years, if not longer.
The goals are, in a sense, an updated version of audio-lingualism. What counts is
how students use language in the eventual real-world situation rather than their
academic knowledge or the spin-off in general educational values. The version of
learning involved is similarly a compromise, suggesting that students learn by con-
scious understanding, by sheer practice and by attempting to talk to each other.
Some aspects of the knowledge models seen in Chapter 12 are reflected here, as are
aspects of the processing models. Mainstream EFL teaching tries to have its cake
and eat it, by saying that if the student does not benefit from one part of the les-
son, then another part will help. Hence, while I have been using EFL courses here
to illustrate particular styles, nearly all of them are actual mainstream mixtures bal-
ancing the styles.
In terms of student types as well, this broadens the coverage. One student ben-
efits from grammatical explanation, another from structure practice, another
from role play. Perhaps combining these will suit more of the students more of the
time than relying on a purer style. Mainstream teaching does not usually encom-
pass the information communicative style, with its emphasis on listening, prefer-
ring to see listening and speaking as more or less inseparable. It has the drawbacks
common to the other styles – the concentration on certain types of grammar and
discourse at the expense of others.
Is such a combination of styles in one mainstream style to be praised or blamed?
In terms of teaching methods, the debate has revolved around ‘eclecticism’. Some
have argued that there is nothing wrong with eclectic mixing of methods provided
the mixing is rationally based. Others have claimed that it is impossible for the stu-
dents to learn in so many different ways simultaneously; the teacher is irresponsi-
ble to combine incompatible models of language learning. Marton (1988) argues
that only certain sequences are possible. His receptive strategy, for instance, may
precede, but not follow, the reconstructive or communicative strategies.
Each of the teaching styles we have seen so far captures some aspects of this com-
plexity and misses out on others. None of the teaching styles is complete, just as
none of the models of L2 learning is complete. Eclecticism is only an issue if two
styles concern the same area of L2 learning rather than different areas. Hence, at
the moment, it is unnecessary to speculate about the good or bad consequences of
eclecticism. When there is a choice between competing styles of language teach-

ing, each with a coverage ranging from grammar to classroom language, from
memory to pronunciation, from motivation to the roles of the second language in
society, then eclecticism becomes an issue. At the moment, all teaching methods
are partial in L2 learning terms; some areas of language are only covered by one
type of teaching technique; conversely, some methods deal with only a fraction of
the totality of L2 learning. The mainstream EFL style cannot be dismissed simply
because of its eclecticism, as it is neither more nor less eclectic than any other over-
all teaching style in terms of L2 learning. My own feeling is that the mainstream
style does indeed reflect a style of its own that is more than the sum of its parts.
Box 13.8 The mainstream EFL style of language teaching

● presentation, substitution, role play
Goals
● getting students to know and use language
Type of student
● any
● understanding, practice and use
● both teacher-controlled full classes and internal small groups

● combination of other styles
● lack of role for the L1
● drawbacks of mixture of styles

● do not worry about the mixture of different sources
● remember that even this rich mixture still does not cover all aspects relevant
to L2 teaching
13.6 Other styles
Focusing questions
● To what extent do you think teaching should aim to make students ‘better’
people?
● How would you strike the balance in language teaching between the
students’ independence and the teacher’s control?
Other styles 267
Keywords
community language learning (CLL): a teaching method in which students

create conversations in the second language from the outset, using the
teacher as a translation resource
suggestopedia: a teaching method aimed at avoiding the students’ block
about language learning through means such as listening to music
autonomous learning: in this the choice of what and how to learn is essentially
handed over to the students, whether immediately or over time
Other teaching styles have been proposed that mark a radical departure from
those outlined earlier, either in their goals or in their execution. It is difficult to
call these by a single name. Some have been called ‘alternative methods’, but this
suggests there is a common conventional method to which they provide an alter-
native and that they are themselves united in their approach. Some are referred to
as ‘humanistic methods’ because of their links to ‘humanistic psychology’, but this
label suggests religious or philosophical connections that are mostly inappropriate.
Others are called ‘self-access’ or ‘self-directed learning’. In England, the practice of
these styles is so rare that they are difficult to observe in a full-blooded form,
although every EFL or modern language teaching class probably shows some influ-
ence from, say, communicative teaching or TBL. Most of these methods came into
being around the 1970s and attracted some enthusiastic supporters who prosely-
tised their message around the world. However, as this generation died out, they
do not seem to have been replaced by new adherents or indeed new alternative
methods. SEAL (Society for Effective Affective Learning), the association for
spreading the ideas of Lozanov, discussed below, once a thriving concern, was
actually wound up in 2007.
Let us start with Community Language Learning (CLL), derived from the work
of Charles Curran (1976). Picture a beginners’ class in which the students sit in a
circle from which the teacher is excluded. One student starts a conversation by
remarking, ‘Weren’t the buses terrible this morning?’ in his first language. The
teacher translates this into the language the students are learning and the student
repeats it. Another student answers, ‘When do the buses ever run on time?’ in her
first language, which is translated once again by the teacher, and repeated by the
student. And the conversation between the students proceeds in this way. The
teacher records the translations and later uses them for conventional practice,
such as audio-lingual drilling or academic explanation. But the core element of
the class is spontaneous conversation following the students’ lead, with the
teacher offering the support facility of instant translation. As the students
progress to later stages, they become increasingly independent of the teacher. CLL
is one of the ‘humanistic’ methods that include Suggestopedia, with its aim of
relaxing the student through means such as listening to music (Lozanov, 1978),
the Silent Way, with its concentration on the expression of meaning abstractly
through coloured rods (Gattegno, 1972), and Confluent Language Teaching,
with its emphasis on the classroom experience as a whole affecting the teacher as
much as the students (Galyean, 1977).
In general, CLL subordinates language to the self-expression of emotions and
ideas. If anything, language gets in the way of the clear expression of the student’s
feelings. The aim is not, at the end of the day, to be able to do anything with lan-
guage in the world outside. It is to do something here and now in the classroom,
so that the student, in Curran’s words, ‘arrives at a more positive view of himself,
of his situation, of what he wishes to do and to become’ (Curran, 1976). A logical
extension is the therapeutic use of language teaching for psychotherapy in men-
tal hospitals. Speaking about their problems is easier for some people in a second
language than in their first.
The goal of CLL is to develop the students’ potential and to enable them to
‘come alive’ through L2 learning, not to help them directly to communicate with
others outside the group. Hence it stresses the general educational value for the
individual rather than local or international benefits. The student in some way
becomes a better person through language teaching. The concept of ‘better’ is usu-
ally defined as greater insight into one’s self, one’s feelings and one’s relationships
with others. Learning a language through a humanistic style has the same virtues
and vices as jogging; while it does you good, it is concerned with getting you fit
rather than with the care of others, with the individual self, not other-related
goals. This type of goal partly accounts for the comparative lack of impact of CLL
on the mainstream educational system, where language teaching is often thought
of as having more benefit outside the classroom, and where self-fulfilment
through the classroom has been seen more as a product of lessons in the mother
tongue and its literature. Hence the humanistic styles are often the preserve of
part-time education or self-improvement classes. The goals of realizing the individ-
ual’s potential are perhaps coincidentally attached to L2 teaching; they might be
achieved as well through mother-tongue teaching, aerobics, Zen, assertiveness
training or motorcycle maintenance. Indeed, Curran says that CLL ‘can be readily
adapted to the learning of other subjects’; Suggestopedia, similarly, is supposed to
apply to all education; the Silent Way comes out of an approach to teaching
mathematics in primary school.
A strong affinity between them is that they see a ‘true’ method of L2 learning
which can be unveiled by freeing the learner from inhibiting factors. L2 learning
takes place if the learner’s inner self is set free by providing the right circum-
stances for learning. If teachers provide stress-free, non-dependent, value-respect-
ing teaching, students will learn. While no one knows what mechanisms exist in
the students’ minds, we know what conditions will help them work. So the CLL
model of learning is not dissimilar to the communicative, laissez-faire, learning-
by-doing. If you are expressing yourself, you are learning the language, even if
such expression takes place through the teacher’s mediating translation.
The other humanistic styles are equally unlinked to mainstream SLA research.
Suggestopedia is based on an overall theory of learning and education using ideas
of hypnotic suggestion. The conditions of learning are tightly controlled in order
to overcome the learner’s resistance to the new language. Georgi Lozanov, its
inventor, has indeed carried out psychological experiments, mostly unavailable in
English, which make particular claims for the effective learning of vocabulary
(Lozanov, 1978). Again, where the outlines of an L2 learning model can be dis-
cerned, it resembles the processing models seen in Chapter 12.
Oddly enough, while the fringe humanistic styles take pride in their learner-cen-
tredness, they take little heed of the variation between learners. CLL would clearly
appeal to extrovert students rather than introverts. Their primary motivation would
have to be neither instrumental nor integrative, since both of these lead away from
the group. Instead, it would have to be self-related or teaching-group related. What
happens within the group itself and what the students get out of it are what matters,
Other styles 269
not what they can do with the language outside. Nor, despite their psychological
overtones, do methods such as CLL and Suggestopedia pay much attention to the
performance processes of speech production and comprehension.
An opposing trend in teaching styles is the move towards learner autonomy. Let
us look at a student called Mr D, described by Henner-Stanchina (1985). Mr D is a
brewery engineer who went to CRAPEL (Centre de Recherches et d’Applications
Pédagogiques en Langues), in Nancy in France, to develop his reading skills in
English. He chose, out of a set of options, to have the services of a ‘helper’, to have
personal teaching materials, and to use the sound library. The first session with
the helper revealed that his difficulties were, inter alia, with complex noun phrases
and with the meanings of verb forms. Later sessions dealt with specific points aris-
ing from this, using the helper as a check on the hypotheses he was forming from
the texts he read. The helper’s role faded out as he was able to progress through
technical documents with increasing ease.
The aim, above all, is to hand over responsibility for learning to the student.
The teacher is a helper who assists with choice of materials and advises what to
do, but does not teach directly. As Henri Holec (1985) from CRAPEL puts it:
By becoming autonomous, that is by gradually and individually acquiring the capac-

ity to conduct his own learning program, the learner progressively becomes his own
teacher and constructs and evaluates his learning program himself.
Using autonomous learning depends on devising a system through which stu-

dents have the choice of learning in their own way. To quote Holec (1987) again:
Learners gradually replace the belief that they are ‘consumers’ of language courses
with the belief that they can be ‘producers’ of their own learning program and that
this is their right.
At North-East London Polytechnic (now University of East London), we had a

system in which students could make use of language teaching material of their
own choice from the selection provided in a language laboratory at any time. One
afternoon per week, helpers were available in all the languages on offer. These
could be used by the students in any way they liked, for example, for discussion of
which materials to use, for assessment of progress, or for straightforward conversa-
tion practice. This system was particularly attractive to people like bus drivers who
work varying shifts, as they could fit the timings, and so on, to suit their conven-
ience. Dickinson (1987) describes more sophisticated systems in operation at the
Language Laboratory in Cambridge University, at Moray House in Edinburgh, and
the one encountered by Mr D at CRAPEL in Nancy. But self-direction can also be
offered to children within the secondary school classroom. Leni Dam in
Copenhagen uses a system of group-based tasks chosen by the students to suit their
own needs and interests, what they want to learn and how they want to learn.
Autonomous learning is not yet widely used, nor is it clear that it would fit in
with many mainstream educational systems. One reason is the incompatibility
between the individual nature of the instruction and the collective nature of most
classrooms and assessment. Autonomous learning takes the learner-centredness of
the humanistic styles a stage further in refusing to prescribe a patent method that
all learners have to follow. It is up to the student to decide on goals, methods and
assessment. That is what freedom is all about. In a sense, autonomous learning is
free of many of the criticisms levelled against other styles. No teaching technique,
no type of learner, no area of language is excluded in principle. Nevertheless,
much depends on the role of the helper and the support system. Without suitable
guidance, students may not be aware of the possibilities open to them. The helper
has the difficult job of turning the student’s initial preconceptions of language
and of language learning into those attitudes which are most effective for that stu-
dent. SLA research can assist autonomous learning by ensuring that the support
systems for the learner reflect a genuine range of choices, with an adequate cover-
age of the diverse nature of L2 learning.
Box 13.9 Other styles of language teaching

● CLL, Suggestopedia, Confluent Language Teaching, self-directed learning
Goals
● individual, development of potential, self-selected
Type of student
● those with personal motivations
● diverse, mostly learning by doing, or a processing model
● learner’s freedom of choice

● either no view of learning or idiosyncratic views
● little attention to learner variation
● usually small groups with cofigurative or prefigurative aims
Suggestions for teachers

● a reminder of the importance of the students’ feelings
● open discussions with students over their needs and preferences
13.7 Conclusions
The diversity of L2 teaching styles seen in this chapter may seem confusing: how
can students really be learning language in so many ways? However, such diversity
reflects the complexity of language and the range of student needs. Why should
one expect that a system as complex as language could be mastered in a single way?
Even adding these teaching styles together gives an inadequate account of the
totality of L2 learning. Second language learning means learning in all these ways,
and in many more. This chapter has continually been drawing attention to the gaps
in the coverage of each teaching style, particularly in terms of breadth of coverage
of all the areas necessary to an L2 user – not just grammar or interaction, but also
pronunciation, vocabulary and all the rest. As teachers and methodologists become
more aware of SLA research, so teaching methods can alter to take them into
account and cover a wider range of learning. Much L2 learning is concealed behind
such global terms as ‘communication’, or such two-way oppositions as ‘experien-
tial/analytic’, or indeed simplistic divisions into six teaching styles. To improve
teaching, we need to appreciate language learning in all its complexity.
But teachers live in the present. They have to teach now, rather than wait for a
whole new L2 learning framework to emerge. They must get on with meeting the
needs of the students, even if they still do not know enough about L2 learning.
David Reibel once presented a paper at a conference entitled ‘What to do until the
linguist gets here’. A psychoanalyst treating an individual patient has to set aside
theories in order to respond to the uniqueness of that particular person. Teachers
too have the duty to respond to their students. To serve the unique needs of actual
students, the teacher needs to do whatever is necessary, not just that which is sci-
entifically proven and based on abstract theory.
And the teacher needs to take into account far more than the area of SLA
research; in the present state of knowledge, SLA research has no warrant to suggest
that any current teaching is more than partially justified. This book has therefore
made suggestions and comments rather than asserted dogmatic axioms.
Practising teachers should weigh them against all the other factors in their unique
teaching situation before deciding how seriously to take them. Considering teach-
ing from an L2 learning perspective in such a way will, it is hoped, lead in the
future to a more comprehensive, scientifically based view of language teaching.
Discussion topics
1 Think of what you did or saw done the last time you visited a class. Would
you say the terms to characterize it best were ‘techniques’, ‘approaches’,
‘styles’, or something else?
2 To what extent does the academic style incorporate traditional values of
education, say, those held by the man in the street or government
ministries, compared to the values of other styles?
3 What aspects of the audio-lingual style are still practised today (whatever
they are actually called)?
4 To what extent do students carry over the ability to communicate socially
from their first language to their second?
5 If communicative teaching is about transferring ‘information’, what
information do you feel should be conveyed during the language lesson?
6 Should classroom tasks in fact relate to the world outside the classroom?
7 Does task-based learning represent a whole new method of language
teaching or is it just a way of organizing some aspects of teaching?
8 In what ways do you think language teaching has changed in the past 70
years, so far as the average classroom is concerned?
9 Does teaching an ‘alternative’ style mean adopting an ‘alternative’ set of values?
10 Which aspect of SLA research have you found most useful for language
teaching? Which have you found least useful?
Further reading
The models are best approached through the main texts cited in each section,
namely Lado, Rivers, Curran, and so on. Any modern teaching methodology book
should cover the more recent methods, such as Ur (1996) A Course in Language
Teaching. For TBL, Willis and Willis (2007) Doing Task-based Teaching, is good value.
The two articles by Swan (1985, 2005) should remind people to moderate their
enthusiasm for new teaching methods, by taking practical issues into consideration.
List of coursebooks
mentioned
These are arranged by book title since this is the usual way teachers refer to them.
Those which are not for English should be obvious from the title. Older editions
of some books that are cited have been listed separately.
Active Intonation (1968) V.J Cook, Harlow: Longman.

Angol Nyelv Alapfoken (1987) B.A. Edina and S. Ivanne, Budapest: Tankonyvkiado.
Atlas 1 (1995) D. Nunan, Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Basic Grammar in Use (2002) R. Murphy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2nd edition.
Beginner’s Choice, The (1992) S. Mohamed and R. Acklam, Harlow: Longman.
Break into English (1985) M. Carrier, S. Haines and D. Christie, Sevenoaks: Hodder
and Stoughton.
Buzz (1993) J. Revell and P. Seligson, London: BBC English.
Cambridge English (1984) M. Swan and C. Walters, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Changes (1998) J.C. Richards, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ci Siamo (1997) C. Guarnuccio and E. Guarnuccio, Port Melbourne, Australia:
CIS Heinemann.
COBUILD English Course 1 (1988) J. Willis and D. Willis, London: Collins.
Concept 7–9 (1972) J. Wight, R.A. Norris and F.J. Worsley, Leeds: E.J. Arnold.
Deux Mondes: A Communicative Approach (1993) T.D. Terrell, M.B. Rogers,
B.K. Barnes and M. Wolff-Hessini, New York: McGraw-Hill.
English for the Fifth Class (1988) V. Despotova, T. Shopov and V. Stoyanka, Sofia:
Nardodna Prosveta.
English for You (1983) G. Graf, Berlin: Volk und Wissen Volkseigener Verlag.
English Topics (1975) V. Cook, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Flying Colours 1 (1990) J. Garton-Sprenger and S. Greenall, London: Heinemann.
Function in English (1982) J. Blundell, J. Higgins and N. Middlemiss, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Handling Spelling (1985) J. Davis, Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes.
Headway (1987) J. Soars and L. Soars, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Headway Elementary (1993) L. Soars and J. Soars, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hotline (1992) T. Hutchinson, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
How to Improve Your Memory (1987) A. Wright, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
I Love English (1985) G. Capelle, C. Pavik and M.K. Segal, New York: Regents.
Intercultural Interactions: A Practical Guide (1996) K. Cushner and R.W. Brislin,
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
International Express (1996) L. Taylor, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
274 List of coursebooks mentioned
Just Right (2004) J. Harmer, London: Marshall-Cavendish.

Keep Talking (1984) F. Klippel, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Language Activator (1993) Harlow: Longman.
Learning to Learn English (1989) G. Ellis and B. Sinclair, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Libre Echange (1995) J. Courtillon and G.-D. de Salins, Paris: Hatier/Didier.
Listening File, The (1989) J. Harmer and A. Ellsworth, Harlow: Longman.
Live Action English (2000) E. Romijn and C. Seely, Berkeley, CA: Command
Performance Language Institute.
Living with People (1983) V. Cook, Oxford: Pergamon.
Making Sense of Spelling and Pronunciation (1993) C. Digby and J. Myers, Hemel
Hempstead: Prentice-Hall.
Meeting People (1982) V. Cook, Oxford: Pergamon.
More English Now! (appendix) (1981) J. Gary and N. Gary, ‘Comprehension-
based language instruction: practice’, in H. Winitz (ed.) Native Language and
Foreign Language Acquisition, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: 379:
332–52. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Move (2007) B. Bowler and S. Parminter, Oxford: Macmillan.
New Crown English (2002) E. Morizumi, Tokyo: Sanseido.
New Cutting Edge (2005) S. Cunningham, P. Moor and F. Eales, Harlow:
Longman.
New English File (2004) C. Oxenden, C. Latham-Koenig and P. Seligson, Oxford:
New Headway Beginners (2002) L. Soars and J. Soars, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Opening Strategies (1982) B. Abbs and I. Freebairn, Harlow: Longman.
Panorama (1996) J. Girardet and J.-M. Cridlig, Paris: European Schoolbooks.
People and Places (1980) V. Cook, Oxford: Pergamon.
Pre-Intermediate Matters (1995) J. Bell and R. Gower, Harlow: Longman.
Present-day English for Foreign Students (1964) E.F. Candlin, London: University of
London Press.
Pronunciation Book, The (1992) T. Bowen and J. Marks, Harlow: Longman.
Pronunciation of English: A Workbook, The (2000) J. Kenworthy, London: Edward
Arnold.
Realistic English (1968) B. Abbs, V. Cook and J. Underwood, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Reward (1994) S. Greenall, Oxford: Heinemann.
Ship or Sheep? (1981) A. Baker, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Situational English (1967) Commonwealth Office of Education, London:
Longman.
South Africa – The Privileged and the Dispossessed (1983) G. Davies and M. Senior,
Paderborn: Ferdinand Schoningh.
Success with English (1968) G. Broughton, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Tapestry 1 Listening and Speaking (2000) C. Benz and M. Dworak, Boston, MA:
Heinle & Heinle.
Tapestry 1 Writing (2000) M. Pike-Baky, Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Test Your Spelling (1994) V. Parker, London: Usborne.
Touchstone (2005) M. McCarthy, J. McCarten and H. Sandiford, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Tracks (1979) Northern Territory Department of Education, Northern Territory,
Australia.
List of coursebooks mentioned 275
True to Life (1995) J. Collie and S. Slater, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Use Your Head (1995) T. Buzan, London: BBC.
Using Intonation (1979) V. Cook, Harlow: Longman.
Voix et Images de France (1961) CREDIF [Centre for Information, Documentation,
Studies and Research on Women], Paris: Didier.
Words You Need, The (1981) B. Rudzka, J. Channell, Y. Putseys and P. Ostyn,
London: Macmillan.
This page intentionally left blank
References
Note: coursebooks are listed separately by title (see page 273).

All websites accessed January 2008.
Adams, S.J. (1983) Scripts and second language reading skills. In J.W. Oller, Jr
and Richard-Amato, P.A. (eds) Methods that Work. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Adamson, H. and Regan, V. (1991) The acquisition of community norms by
Asian immigrants learning English as a second language: a preliminary study.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13(1): 1–22.
Allen, P., Swain, M., Harley, B. and Cummins, J. (1990) Aspects of classroom
treatment: toward a more comprehensive view of second language education.
In Harley, B., Allen, P., Cummins, J. and Swain, M. (eds) The Development of
Second Language Proficiency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Alptekin, C. and Atakan, S. (1990) Field-dependence–independence and hemi-
sphericity as variables in L2 achievements. Second Language Research 6(2):
139–49.
Anderson, J. (1993) Rules of the Mind. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Anderson, R.T. (2004) Phonological acquisition in preschoolers learning a sec-
ond language via immersion: a longitudinal study. Clinical Linguistics &
Phonetics 18(3): 183–210.
Anthony, E.M. (1963) Approach, method and technique. English Language
Teaching 17: 63–7.
Anton, M. and DiCamilla, F. (1998) Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative
interaction in the L2 classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review 54(3):
414–42.
AQA (Assessment and Qualification Alliance) (2007) GCSE French Specification
2009 (www.aqa.org.uk).
Arnberg, L. (1987) Raising Children Bilingually: The Pre-school Years. Clevedon,
Avon: Multilingual Matters.
ASD Simplified Technical English Maintenance Group (STEMG) (2007) Simplified
Technical English (www.simplifiedenglish-aecma.org).
Asher, J.J. (1986) Learning Another Language Through Actions: The Complete
Teacher’s Guidebook. Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Productions.
Asher, J.J. and Garcia, R. (1969) The optimal age to learn a foreign language.
Modern Language Journal 53(5): 33–41.
Asher, J.J. and Price, B. (1967) The learning strategy of the total physical
response: some age differences. Child Development 38: 1219–27.
Assessment of Performance Unit (1986) Foreign Language Performance in Schools:
Report on 1984 Survey of French. London: DES.
278 References
Athanasopoulos. P. (2001) L2 acquisition and bilingual conceptual structure. MA

thesis, University of Essex.
Athanasopoulos, P., Sasaki, M. and Cook, V.J. (2004) Do bilinguals think differ-
ently from monolinguals? Paper presented at EUROSLA, San Sebastian,
September.
Atkinson, R.C. (1975) Mnemotechnics in second language learning. American
Psychologist 30: 821–8.
Bacon, S. (1987) Differentiated cognitive style and oral performance. In
VanPatten, B., Dvorak, T.R. and Lee, J.F. (eds) Foreign Language Learning: A
Research Perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Baetens Beardsmore, H. (ed.) (1993) European Models of Bilingual Education.
Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Bahrick, H.P. (1984) Fifty years of second language attrition: implications for
programmatic research. Modern Language Journal 68: 105–18.
Baker, P. and Eversley, J. (2000) Multilingual Capital. London: Battlebridge.
Bates, E. and MacWhinney, B. (1981) Second language acquisition from a func-
tionalist perspective. In Winitz, H. (ed.) Native Language and Foreign Language
Acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 379: 190–214. New
York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Beauvillian, C. and Grainger, J. (1987) Accessing interlexical homographs: some
limitations of a language-selective access. Journal of Memory & Language 26:
658–72.
Bellugi, U. and Brown, R. (eds) (1964) The Acquisition of Language. Monographs
of the Society for Research in Child Development 29: 92.
Benke, E. and Medgyes, P. (2005) Differences in teaching behaviour between
native and non-native teachers: as seen by the learners. In Llurda, E. (ed.)
Non-native Teachers. New York: Springer: 195–216.
Ben Zeev, S. (1977) Mechanisms by which childhood bilingualism affects under-
standing of language and cognitive structure. In Hornby, P.A. (ed.)
Bilingualism: Psychological, Social, and Educational Implications. New York:
Academic Press: 29–55.
Berlin, B. and Kay, P. (1969) Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Berry, J.W. (1998) Official multiculturalism. In Edwards, J. (ed.) Language in
Canada. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 84–101.
Best, C., McRoberts, G. and Sithole, N. (2001) Discrimination of non-native con-
sonant contrasts varying in perceptual assimilation to the listener’s native
phonological system. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 109(2):
775–94.
Bhatt, R.M. (2005) Expert discourses, local practices, and hybridity: the case of
Indian Englishes. In Canagarajah, A.S. (ed.) Reclaiming the Local in Language
Policy and Practice. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 25–54.
Bialystok, E. (1990) Communication Strategies: A Psychological Analysis of Second-
Language Use. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Bialystok, E., Craik, F.I.M., Klein, R. and Viswanathan, M. (2004) Bilingualism,
aging and cognitive control: evidence from the Simon task. Psychology and
Aging 19(2): 290–303.
Bialystok, E., Majumdar, S. and Martin, M. (2003) Developing phonological
awareness: is there a bilingual advantage? Applied Pyscholinguistics 24: 27–44.
Biko, S. (1978) I Write What I Like. The Bowerdan Press. Reprinted London:
Penguin (1998).
References 279
Blackwell, A. and Broeder, P. (1992) Interference and Facilitation in SLA:

A Connectionist Perspective. Seminar on PDP and NLP, University of
California, San Diego, May. Reported in Broeder, P. and Plunkett, P. (1994)
Connectionism and second language acquisition. In Ellis, N. (ed.) Implicit and
Explicit Learning of Languages. London: Academic Press: 421–53.
Bloomfield, L. (1933) Language. New York: Holt.
Bonnet, G. (ed.) (2002) The Assessment of Pupils’ Skills in English in Eight European
Countries. The European Network of Policy Makers for the Evaluation of
Education Systems.
Bransford, J.D. and Johnson, M.K. (1982) Contextual prerequisites for
understanding: some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11: 717–26.
Breen, M.P. (1984) Process syllabuses for the language classroom. In Brumfit, C.J.
(ed.) General English Syllabus Design. ELT Documents 118: 47–60.
Broeder, P. and Plunkett, P. (1994) Connectionism and second language acquisi-
tion. In Ellis, N. (ed.) Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages. London:
Academic Press: 421–53.
Bruner, J. (1983) Child’s Talk. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002) World English: A Study of its Development. Clevedon, Avon:
Multilingual Matters.
Buber, M. (1947) Between Man and Man. London: Fontana.
Bygate, M., Skehan, P. and Swain, M. (2001) Researching Pedagogic Tasks, Second
Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. Harlow: Longman.
Byram, M. (1990) Foreign language teaching and young people’s perceptions of
other cultures. ELT Documents 132.
Call, M. (1985) Auditory short-term memory, listening comprehension and the
input hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly 19(4): 765–81.
Canagarajah, A.S. (2005) Reconstructing local knowledge, reconfiguring
language studies. In Canagarajah, A.S. (ed.) Reclaiming the Local in Language
Policy and Practice. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 3–24.
Caramazza, A. and Brones, I. (1980) Semantic classification by bilinguals.
Canadian Journal of Psychology 34(1): 77–81.
Carney, E. (1994) A Survey of English Spelling. London: Routledge.
Carrell, P.L. (1983) Three components of background knowledge in reading com-
prehension. Language Learning 33(2): 183–207.
Carrell, P.L. (1984) Evidence of a formal schema in second language comprehen-
sion. Language Learning 34: 87–111.
Carroll, J.B. (1981) Twenty-five years of research on foreign language aptitude. In
Diller, K.C. (ed.) Individual Differences and Universals in Language Learning.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House: 83–118.
Carter, R. (1988) Vocabulary, cloze, and discourse. In Carter, R. and McCarthy,
M. (eds) Vocabulary and Language Teaching. Harlow: Longman.
Chaudron, C. (1983) Foreigner talk in the classroom – an aid to learning? In
Seliger, H. and Long, M. (eds) Classroom-oriented Research in Second Language
Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House: 127–43.
Chaudron, C. (1988) Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and
Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chikamatsu, N. (1996) The effects of L1 orthography on L2 word recognition.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18: 403–32.
Chomsky, N. (1959) Review of B.F. Skinner, Verbal Behavior. Language 35: 26–58.
Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
280 References
Chomsky, N. (1976) Reflections on Language. London: Temple Smith.

Chomsky, N. (1980) Rules and Representations. Oxford: Blackwell.
Chomsky, N. (1986) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. New York:
Praeger.
Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2000) The Architecture of Language. New Delhi: Oxford University
Press.
Clachar, A. (1997) Ethnolinguistic identity and Spanish proficiency in a para-
doxical situation: the case of Puerto Rican return migrants. Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development 18(2): 107–24.
Clark, E. (1971) On the acquisition of ‘before’ and ‘after’. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior 10: 266–75.
Clark, M.A. (1984) On the nature of techniques: what do we owe the gurus?
TESOL Quarterly 18(4): 577–84.
Clement, R., Dornyei, Z. and Noels, K.A. (1994) Motivation, self-confidence, and
group cohesion in the foreign language classroom. Language Learning 44(3):
417–48.
Cobbett, W. (1819) A Grammar of the English Language. Reprinted Oxford: Oxford
University Press (1984).
Cohen, A. (1990) Language Learning: Insights for Learners, Teachers, and
Researchers. New York: Newbury House/Harper Row.
Coleman, J.A. (1996) Studying Languages: A Survey of British and European Students.
London: CILT (Centre for Information in Language Teaching).
Commission for Racial Equality (1986) Teaching English as a Second Language:
Report of a Formal Investigation in Calderdale Education Authority. London: CRE.
Commission of the European Communities (1987) Young Europeans in 1987.
Brussels: EC Commission.
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (2008) Strasburg: Council
of Europe (www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/CADRE_EN.asp).
Cook, V.J. (1968) Some types of oral structure drill. Language Learning XVIII: 155–62.
Cook, V.J. (1977) Cognitive processes in second language learning. International
Review of Applied Linguistics XV(1): 73–90.
Cook, V.J. (1981) Some uses for second language learning research. Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences 379: 251–8. New York: New York Academy of
Sciences.
Cook, V.J. (1982) Kategorisierung und Fremdsprachenerwerb. Gegenwärtige
Probleme and Aufgaben der Fremdsprachen-psychologie. Leipzig: Karl Marx
University.
Cook, V.J. (1983) What should language teaching be about? English Language
Teaching Journal 37(3): 229–34.
Cook, V.J. (1986) Experimental approaches applied to two areas of second lan-
guage learning research: age and listening-based teaching methods. In Cook,
V.J. (ed.) Experimental Approaches to Second Language Learning. Oxford:
Pergamon: 23–37.
Cook, V.J. (1989) Reciprocal language teaching: another alternative. Modern
English Teacher 16(3/4): 48–53.
Cook, V.J. (1992) Evidence for multi-competence. Language Learning 42(4):
557–91.
Cook, V.J. (1993) Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Basingstoke:
Macmillan.
References 281
Cook, V.J. (1994) Universal Grammar and the learning and teaching of
second languages. In Odlin, T. (ed.) Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 25–48.
Cook, V.J. (1997) Inside Language. London: Edward Arnold.
Cook, V.J. (2000) Linguistics and second language acquisition: one person with
two languages. In Aronoff, M. and Rees-Miller, J. (eds) The Blackwell Handbook
of Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell: 488–511.
Cook, V.J. (2001) Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern
Language Review 57(3): 402–23.
Cook, V.J. (ed.) (2002) Portraits of the L2 User. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual
Matters.
Cook, V.J. (ed.) (2003) Effects of the Second Language on the First. Clevedon, Avon:
Cook, V.J. (2004) The English Writing System. London: Edward Arnold.
Cook, V.J. (2007) The nature of the L2 user. In Roberts, L. and Gurel, A. (eds)
EUROSLA Yearbook 7: 205–220.
Cook, V., Al-Ebary, K., Al-Garawi, B., Chang, C.-Y., Huang, K., Lee, S., Li, G.,
Mitani, H. and Sieh, Y.-C. (2007) Effects of cue processing in the Competition
Model on the first language of L2 users. Paper presented at the 17th EUROSLA
annual conference, Newcastle upon Tyne.
Cook, V.J. and Bassetti, B. (eds) (2005) Second Language Writing Systems.
Cook, V.J., Bassetti, B., Kasai, C., Sasaki, M. and Takahashi, J.A. (2006) Do bilin-
guals have different concepts? The case of shape and material in Japanese L2
users of English. International Journal of Bilingualism 2: 137–52.
Cook, V.J., Iarossi, E., Stellakis, N. and Tokumaru, Y. (2003) Effects of the second
language on the syntactic processing of the first language. In Cook, V.J. (ed.)
Effects of the Second Language on the First. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual
Matters: 214–33.
Cook, V.J. and Newson, M. (2007) Chomsky’s Universal Grammar. An Introduction,
3rd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Coppetiers, R. (1987) Competence differences between native and near-native
speakers. Language 63(3): 545–73.
Corder, S.P. (1981) Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Coulmas, F. (1996) The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Writing Systems. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Crago, M. (1992) Communicative interaction and second language acquisition:
an Inuit example. TESOL Quarterly 26(3): 487–506.
Crookes, G. and Schmidt, R.W. (1991) Motivation: reopening the research
agenda. Language Learning 41(4): 469–512.
Cruse, D.A. (1986) Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cuban Ministry of Education (1999) Principios que rigen la enseñanza del inglés en
la escuela media. Cuba: Ministry of Education.
Cummins, J. (1981) Age on arrival and immigrant second language learning in
Canada: a reassessment. Applied Linguistics 2: 132–49.
Curran, C.A. (1976) Counselling-Learning in Second Languages. Apple River, IL:
Apple River Press.
Cushner, K. and Brislin, R.W. (1996) Intercultural Interactions: A Practical Guide.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
282 References
de Saussure, F. (1916) Cours de linguistique générale. Ed. Bally, C., Sechehaye, A.

and Reidlinger, A., Paris: Payot.
de Swaan, A. (2001) Words of the World: The Global Language System. Cambridge:
Polity.
DeKeyser, R.M. (1997) Beyond explicit rule learning. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 19: 195–221.
DeKeyser, R. (2005) What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A
review of issues. Language Learning 55: 1–25.
DeKeyser, R. and Larson-Hall, J. (2005) What does the critical period really
mean? In Kroll, J. and De Groot, A. (eds) Handbook of Bilingualism. Oxford:
Oxford University Press: 88–108.
DES (Department of Education and Science) (1990) Modern Foreign Languages for
Ages 11 to 16. London: DES and the Welsh Office.
Dewaele, J.M. and Furnham, A. (1999) Extraversion: the unloved variable.
Language Learning 49(3): 509–44.
DfES (Department for Education and Skills) (2001) The Adult ESOL Core
Curriculum. London: DfES.
Diaz, R.M. (1985) The intellectual power of bilingualism. Quarterly Newsletter of
the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition 7(1): 16–22.
Dickerson, W. (1987) Explicit rules and the developing interlanguage phonol-
ogy. In James, A. and Leather, J. (eds) Sound Patterns in Second Language
Acquisition. Dordrecht: Foris.
Dickinson, L. (1987) Self-instruction in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Dodson, C.J. (1967) Language Teaching and the Bilingual Method. London: Pitman.
Donaldson, M. (1978) Children’s Minds. London: Fontana.
Dorian, N.C. (1981) Language Death: The Life Cycle of a Scottish Gaelic Dialect.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Dornyei, Z. (1990) Conceptualising motivation in foreign-language learning.
Language Learning 40(1): 45–78.
Dornyei, Z. (1995) On the teachability of communicative strategies. TESOL
Quarterly 29(1): 55–83.
Dornyei. Z. (2001) Teaching and Researching Motivation. Harlow: Longman.
Dornyei, Z. (2005) The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in
Second Language Acquisition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Doughty, C. (2001) Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Robinson, P.
(ed.) Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press: 206–57.
Doughty, C. and Williams, J. (eds) (1998) Focus on Form in Classroom Second
Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Downing, J. (ed.) (1973) Comparative Reading. New York: Macmillan.
Dulay, H. and Burt, M. (1973) Should we teach children syntax? Language
Learning 3: 245–57.
Eckman, F.R., Elreyes, A. and Iverson, G.K. (2003) Some principles of second lan-
guage phonology. Second Language Research 19: 169–208.
Eckstrand, L. (1978) Age and length of residence as variables related to the
adjustment of migrant children with special reference to second language
learning. In Nickel, G. (ed.) Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of
Applied Linguistics. Stuttgart: Hochschulverlag: 3: 179–97.
Ellis, R. (1986) Classroom Second Language Development. Oxford: Pergamon.
Ellis, R. (1990) Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.
References 283
Ellis, R. (1996) SLA and language pedagogy. Studies in Second Language Acquisition
19: 69–92.
Ellis, R. (2003) Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
English – Curriculum for All Grades (2002) Jerusalem: Ministry of Education
(www.education.gov.il/tochniyot_limudim/eng1.htm).
EuroBarometer (2006) Europeans and their Languages 243. Brussels: European
Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_243_
sum_en.pdf).
European Commission (2006) The Euro Mosaic Study (http://ec.europa.eu/
education/policies/lang/languages/langmin/euromosaic/da1_en.html).
Eurydice (2005) Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe. Eurydice
European Unit (www.eurydice.org).
Faerch, C. and Kasper, G. (1984) Two ways of defining communication strate-
gies. Language Learning 34: 45–63.
Favreau, M. and Segalowitz, N.S. (1982) Second language reading in fluent bilin-
guals. Applied Psycholinguistics 3: 329–41.
Felix, S. (1981) The effect of formal instruction on language acquisition.
Language Learning 31: 87–112.
Firth, A. (1996) The discursive accomplishment of normality: on lingua franca
English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics 26: 237–59.
Firth, J.R. (1951) Modes of meaning. In Firth, J.R. Essays and Studies. The English
Association: 118–49.
Fishman, J.A. (1991) Reversing Language Shift. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual
Matters.
Flege, J.E. (1987) The production of ‘new’ and ‘similar’ phones in a foreign lan-
guage: evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. Journal of Phonetics
15: 47–65.
Flowerdew, J. and Miller, L. (2005) Second Language Listening. Cambridge:
Foster, P. (1998) A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied
Linguistics 19(1): 1–23.
Franklin, C.E.M. (1990) Teaching in the target language. Language Learning
Journal September: 20–4.
Freed, B. (1980) Talking to foreigners versus talking to children: similarities and
differences. In Krashen, S.D. and Scarcella, R.C. (eds) Issues in Second Language
Research. Rowley, MA: Newbury House: 19–27.
Freire, P. (1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Gaies, S.J. (1979) Linguistic input in first and second language learning. In
Eckman, F.R. and Hastings, A.J. Studies in First and Second Language Acquisition.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Gallagher-Brett, A. (n.d.) Seven Hundred Reasons for Studying Languages. The
Higher Education Academy LLAS Languages, Linguistics, Area Studies,
University of Southampton (www.llas.ac.uk/700reasons).
Galtung, J. (1980) The True Worlds. A Transnational Perspective. New York: The
Free Press.
Galyean, B. (1977) A confluent design for language teaching. TESOL Quarterly
11(2): 143–56.
Garcia Mayo, M. del P. (2007) Tasks, negotiation and L2 learning in a
foreign language context. In Garcia Mayo, M. (ed.) Investigating Tasks in
Formal Language Learning. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters: 44–68.
284 References
Gardner, R. (1985) Social Psychology and Second Language Learning. London:

Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. (2007) The socio-educational model of second language acquisition.
EUROSLA Yearbook 6: 237–60.
Gardner, R. and Lambert, W. (1972) Attitudes and Motivation in Second-language
Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Gary, J. and Gary, N. (1981a) Caution: talking may be dangerous to your linguis-
tic health. International Review of Applied Linguistics XIX(1): 1–14.
Gary, J. and Gary, N. (1981b) Comprehension-based language instruction: prac-
tice. In Winitz, H. (ed.) Native Language and Foreign Language Acquisition,
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: 379: 332–52. New York: New York
Academy of Sciences.
Gattegno, C. (1972) Teaching Foreign Languages in Schools: The Silent Way. New
York: Educational Solutions.
Genesee, F. (1976) The role of intelligence in second language learning. Language
Learning 26: 267–80.
Genesee, F. (2002) Portrait of the bilingual child. In Cook, V.J. (ed.) Portraits of
the L2 User. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters: 161–79.
Goldschneider, J.M. and DeKeyser, R.M. (2001) Explaining the natural order of
L2 morpheme acquisition in English: a meta-analysis of multiple
determinants. Language Learning 51(1): 1–50.
Gordon, R.G., Jr (ed.) (2005) Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 15th edition.
Dallas, TX: SIL International (www.ethnologue.com).
Grabe, E. and Post, B. (2002) Intonational variation in the British Isles
(http://aune.lpl.univ-aix.fr/sp2002/pdf/grabe-post.pdf).
Graddol, D. (2006) English Next. London: British Council
(www.britishcouncil.org/files/documents/learning-research-english-next.pdf).
Green, J. and Oxford, R. (1995) A closer look at learning strategies, L2
proficiency and gender. TESOL Quarterly 29(2): 261–97.
Griffiths, R. and Sheen, R. (1992) Disembedded figures in the landscape: a reap-
praisal of L2 research on field dependence/independence. Applied Linguistics
13(2): 133–47.
Grosjean, F. (1982) Life with Two Languages. An Introduction to Bilingualism.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Grosjean, F. (1989), Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolin-
guals in one person. Brain and Language 36: 3–15.
Gross, M. (1991) Lexique et syntaxe. Travaux de Linguistique 23: 107–32.
Gruneberg, M. (1987) The Linkword Language System: French. London: Corgi.
Guiora, A., Beit-Hallahmi, B., Brannon, R., Dull, C. and Scovel, T. (1972) The
effects of experimentally induced changes in ego states on
pronunciation ability in a second language: an exploratory study.
Comprehensive Psychiatry 13: 421–8.
Hakuta, K. (1974) A preliminary report on the development of grammatical mor-
phemes in a Japanese girl learning English as a second language. Working
Papers on Bilingualism 3: 18–38.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1975) Learning How to Mean. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1985) Spoken and Written Language. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Halliday, M.A.K., McIntosh, A. and Strevens, P. (1965) The Linguistic Sciences and
Language Teaching. Longman: London.
References 285
Han, Z.-H. (2002) A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2

output. TESOL Quarterly 36(4): 543–72.
Hannan, M. (2004) A study of the development of the English verbal
morphemes in the grammar of 4–9 year old Bengali-speaking children in the
London borough of Tower Hamlets. PhD thesis, University of Essex.
Hansen, J. and Stansfield, C. (1981) The relationship of field dependent–inde-
pendent cognitive styles to foreign language achievement. Language Learning
31: 349–67.
Hansen, L. (1984) Field dependence–independence and language testing:
evidence from six Pacific island cultures. TESOL Quarterly 18(2): 311–24.
Harding, A., Page, B. and Rowell, S. (1981) Graded Objectives in Modern Languages.
London: CILTR (Centre for Information in Language Teaching and Research).
Harding, E. and Riley, P. (1986) The Bilingual Family: A Handbook for Parents.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harley, B. (1986) Age in Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon, Avon:
Harmer, J. (1998) How to Teach English. Harlow: Longman.
Harmer, J. (2007) The Practice of English Language Teaching, 4th edition. Harlow:
Longman.
Harrington, M. (1987) Processing transfer: language-specific processing strategies
as a source of interlanguage variation. Applied Psycholinguistics 8: 351–77.
Hartsuiker, R.J., Pickering, M.J. and Veltkamp, E. (2004) Is syntax separate or
shared between languages? Cross-linguistic syntactic priming in Spanish-
English bilinguals. Psychological Science 16(6): 409–14.
Hasan, R. (1996) Ways of Saying: Ways of Meaning. London: Cassell.
Hatch, E. (ed.) (1978) Second Language Acquisition: A Book of Readings. Rowley,
MA: Newbury House.
Hawkins, E. (1984) Awareness of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Hawkins, E. (1987) Modern Languages in the Curriculum, 2nd edition. Cambridge:
Haynes, M. and Carr, T.H. (1990) Writing system background and second lan-
guage reading: a component skills analysis of English reading by native-speak-
ing readers of Chinese. In Carr, T.H. and Levy, B.A. (eds) Reading and its
Development: Component Skills Approaches. San Diego, CA: Academic Press:
375–421.
Henner-Stanchina, C. (1985) From reading to writing acts. In Riley, P. (ed.)
Discourse and Learning. London: Longman: 91–104.
Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-
related Values. London: Sage.
Holec, H. (1985) On autonomy: some elementary concepts. In Riley, P. (ed.)
Discourse and Learning. London: Longman.
Holec, H. (1987) The learner as manager: managing learning or managing to
learn? In Wendon, A. and Rubin, J. (eds) Learner Strategies in Language
Learning. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Holliday, A. (1994) Appropriate Methodology and Social Context. Cambridge:
Horwitz, E. (1987) Surveying student beliefs about language learning. In
Wendon, A. and Rubin, J. (eds) Learner Strategies in Language Learning. New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
286 References
Hosenfeld, C. (1976) Learning about learning: discovering our students’ strate-

gies. Foreign Language Annals 9(2): 117–29.
Howatt, A. (2004) A History of English Language Teaching, 2nd edition. Oxford:
Howe, C. (1981) Acquiring Language in a Conversational Context. London:
Academic Press.
Hullen, W. (1989) Investigations into classroom discourse. In Dechert, H. (ed.)
Current Trends in European Second Language Acquisition Research. Clevedon,
Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Hyams, N. (1986) Language Acquisition and the Theory of Parameters. Dordrecht:
Reidel.
Hymes, D. (1972) Competence and performance in linguistic theory. In Huxley,
R. and Ingram, E. (eds) Language Acquisition, Models and Methods. New York:
Academic Press.
Ianco-Worrall, A. (1972) Bilingualism and cognitive development. Child
Development 43: 1390–400.
Institute of Linguists (2008) Examinations (www.iol.org.uk/index.asp).
Ioup, G. and Tansomboon, A. (1987) The acquisition of tone: a maturational
perspective. In Ioup, G. and Weinberger, S.H. (eds) Interlanguage Phonology.
Jacobson, R. and Faltis, C. (eds) (1990) Language Description Issues in Bilingual
Schooling. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters: 3–17.
Jenkins, J. (2000) The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford:
Jenkins, J. (2002) A sociolinguistically based, empirically researched pronuncia-
tion syllabus for English as an international language. Applied Linguistics
23(1): 83–103.
Johnson, J.S. and Newport, E.L. (1989) Critical period effects in second language
acquisition: the influence of maturational stage on the acquisition of ESL.
Cognitive Psychology 21: 60–99.
Kanno, Y. (2000) Kikokushijo as bicultural. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations 24: 361–82.
Kasper, G. and Kellerman, E. (eds) (1997) Communication Strategies:
Psycholinguistic and Sociolinguistic Perspectives. London: Longman.
Kellerman, E., Ammerlaan, T., Bongaerts, T. and Poulisse, N. (1990) System and
hierarchy in L2 compensatory strategies. In Scarcella, R.C., Andersen, E.S. and
Krashen, S.D. (eds) Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House: 163–78.
Kellerman, E., Bongaerts, T. and Poulisse, N. (1987) Strategy and system in L2
referential communication. In Ellis, R. (ed.) Second Language Acquisition in
Context. London: Prentice-Hall.
Kellerman, E., Koonen, H. and van der Haagen, M. (2005) ‘Feet speak louder
than words’: a preliminary analysis of language provisions for professional
footballers in the Netherlands. In Long, M.H. (ed.) Second Language Needs
Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 200–24.
Kelly, L.G. (1969) 25 Centuries of Language Teaching 500 BC–1969. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Kenworthy, J. (1987) Teaching English Pronunciation. Harlow: Longman.
Kenworthy, J. (2000) The Pronunciation of English: A Workbook. Harlow:
Longman.
References 287
Kilborn, K. and Cooreman, A. (1987) Sentence interpretation strategies in adult

Dutch-English bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics 8: 415–31.
Kirsner, K., Brown, H.L., Abrol, S., Chadha, N.K. and Sharma, N.K. (1980)
Bilingualism and lexical representation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology 32: 585–94.
Koenig, E.L., Chia, E. and Povey, J. (1983) A Sociolinguistic Profile of Urban Centres
in Cameroon. Kinsey Hall, University of California, Los Angeles: Crossroads
Press.
Kramsch, C. (1998) The privilege of the intercultural speaker. In Byram, M. and
Fleming, M. (eds) Language Learning in Intercultural Perspective. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press: 16–31.
Krashen, S. (1981a) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning.
Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1981b) The ‘fundamental pedagogical principle in second language
teaching’. Studia Linguistica 35: 5–70.
Krashen, S. (1985) The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. Longman: New
York.
Krashen, S., Sferlazza, V., Feldman, L. and Fathman, A.K. (1976) Adult perform-
ance on the SLOPE test: more evidence for a natural order in adult second
language acquisition. Language Learning 26(1): 145–51.
Krashen, S. and Terrell, T. (1983) The Natural Approach. New York: Pergamon.
Lado, R. (1964) Language Teaching: A Scientific Approach. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Laitin, D.D. (2000) What is a language community? American Journal of Political
Science 44(1): 142–5.
Lambert, W.E. (1981) Bilingualism and language acquisition. In Winitz, H. (ed.)
Native Language and Foreign Language Acquisition, Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences: 379: 9–22. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Lambert, W.E. (1990) Persistent issues in bilingualism. In Harley, B., Allen, P.,
Cummins, J. and Swain, M. (eds) The Development of Second Language
Proficiency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Landry, R.G. (1974) A comparison of second language learners and
monolinguals on divergent thinking tasks at the elementary school level.
Modern Language Journal 58: 10–15.
Laponce, J.A. (1987) Languages and their Territories. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1976) An explanation for the morpheme acquisition order
of second language learners. Language Learning 26: 125–35.
Leather, J. (1987) F0 pattern inferences in the perceptual acquisition of
second language tone. In James, A. and Leather, J. (eds) Sound Patterns
in Second Language Acquisition. Dordrecht: Foris.
Lee, D.J. (1981) Interpretation of morpheme rank ordering in L2 research. In
Dale, P. and Ingram, D. (eds) Child Language: An International Perspective.
Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Lenneberg, E. (1967) Biological Foundations of Language. New York: Wiley &
Sons.
Levenston, E. (1979) Second language lexical acquisition: issues and problems.
Interlanguage Studies Bulletin 4: 147–60.
Lewis, M. (1993) The Lexical Approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis, M. (1999) How to Study Foreign Languages. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
288 References
Lightbown, P. and Libben, G. (1984) The recognition and use of cognates by L2

learners. In Alderson, R. (ed.) A Crosslinguistic Perspective for Second Language
Research. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Lightbown, P. and Spada, N. (2006) How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Linguistic Minorities Project (1983) Linguistic Minorities in England. University of
London Institute of Education, distributed by Tinga Tonga.
Little, D., Devitt, S. and Singleton, D. (1988) Authentic Texts in Foreign Language
Teaching: Theory and Practice. Dublin: Authentik.
Llurda, E. (ed.) (2005) Non-native Teachers. New York: Springer.
Locastro, V. (1987) Aizuchi: a Japanese conversational routine. In Smith, L.E.
(ed.) Discourse Across Cultures. New York: Prentice Hall: 101–13.
Long, J. and Harding-Esch, E. (1977) Summary and recall of text in first and sec-
ond languages: some factors contributing to performance difficulties. In
Sinmaiko, H. and Gerver, D. (eds) Proceedings of the NATO Symposium on
Language Interpretation and Communication. New York: Plenum Press.
Long, M. (1981) Input. Interaction and second language acquisition. In Winitz,
H. (ed.) Native Language and Foreign Language Acquisition, Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences 379: 259–78. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Long, M. (1991) Focus on form: a design feature in language teaching methodol-
ogy. In de Bot, K., Ginsberg, R. and Kramsch, C. (eds) Foreign Language
Research in Cross-cultural Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 39–52.
Long, M. (1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language
acquisition. In Ritchie, W.C. and Bhatia, T.K. (eds) Handbook of Second
Language Acquisition. San Diego, CA: Academic Press: 413–68.
Long, M. and Crookes, G. (1993) Units of analysis in syllabus design: the case for
task. In Crookes, G. and Gass, S.M. (eds) Tasks in a Pedagogical Context.
Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters: 9–54.
Lozanov, G. (1978) Suggestology and Outlines of Suggestopedia. New York: Gordon
& Breach.
Lyster, R. and Ranta, L. (1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake: negotia-
tion of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 19(1): 37–66.
Macaro, E. (1997) Target Language, Collaborative Learning and Autonomy.
Macaro, E. (2003) Teaching and Learning a Second Language: A Guide to Recent
Research. London: Continuum.
Macaro, E. (2005) Codeswitching in the L2 classroom: A communication and
learning strategy. In Llurda, E. (ed.) Non-Native Language Teachers: Perceptions,
Challenges and Contributions to the Profession. Boston, MA: Springer: 63–84.
Macaro, E. (2006) Strategies for language learning and for language use: revising
the theoretical framework. Modern Language Journal 90: 320–37.
Mackey, W.F. (1967) Bilingualism as a World Problem. Montreal: Harvest House.
MacWhinney, B. (1987) Applying the Competition Model to bilingualism.
Applied Psycholinguistics 8: 315–27.
MacWhinney, B. (2005) Extending the Competition Model. International Journal
of Bilingualism 9(1): 69–84.
Major, R. (1986) The ontogeny model. Evidence from L2 acquisition of Spanish
r. Language Learning 36: 453–504.
Major, R.C. (2001) Foreign Accent: The Ontogeny and Phylogeny of Second Language
Phonology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
References 289
Major, R.C. (2002) The phonology of the L2 user. In Cook, V.J. (ed.) Portraits of
the L2 User. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters: 65–92.
Makino, T. (1980) Acquisition order of English morphemes by Japanese second-
ary school students. Journal of Hokkaido University of Education 30: l01–8.
Marton, W. (1988) Methods in English Language Teaching. Hemel Hempstead:
Prentice Hall.
McArthur, T. (ed.) (1992) The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford:
McDonald, J. (1987) Sentence interpretation in bilingual speakers of English and
Dutch. Applied Psycholinguistics 8: 379–413.
McDonough, S. (1995) Strategy and Skill in Learning a Foreign Language. London:
Edward Arnold.
McLaughlin, B. (1987) Theories of Second-language Learning. London: Edward Arnold.
McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T. and McLeod, B. (1983) Second language learning: an
information-processing perspective. Language Learning 33: 135–58.
Mead, M. (1970) Culture and Commitment. London: Bodley Head.
Medgyes, P. (1992) Native or non-native: who’s worth more? English Language
Mennen, I. (2004) Bi-directional interference in the intonation of Dutch speak-
ers of Greek. Journal of Phonetics 32: 543–63.
MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology) (2003)
Regarding the Establishment of an Action Plan to Cultivate ‘Japanese with English
Abilities’. Tokyo: MEXT.
Montague, N.S. (1997) Critical components for dual language programs.
Bilingual Research Journal 21: 4.
Morgan, J.L. (1986) From Simple Input to Complex Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Morrow, K. (1981) Principles of communicative teaching. In Johnson, K. and
Morrow, K. (eds) Communication in the Classroom. Harlow: Longman: 59–66.
Myers-Scotton, C.M. (2005) Supporting a differential access hypothesis: code-
switching and other contact data. In Kroll, J. and De Groot, A. (eds) Handbook
of Bilingualism. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 326–48.
Myers-Scotton, C. and Jake, J. (2000) Four types of morpheme: evidence from
aphasia, code-switching and second language acquisition. Linguistics 38:
1053–100.
Myhill, J. (2003) The native speaker, identity and the authenticity hierarchy.
Language Sciences 25(1): 77–97.
Myhill, M. (1990) Socio-cultural content in ESL programmes for newly arrived
and NESB and Aboriginal school children in Western Australia. English
Language Teaching Documents 132: 117–31.
Myles, F. and Mitchell, R. (2004) Second Language Learning Theories, 2nd edition.
London: Edward Arnold.
Naiman, N., Fröhlich, M., Stern, H. and Todesco, A. (1978) The Good Language
Learner. Research in Education Series No. 7. The Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education, Toronto. Reprinted Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters (1995).
Nation, I.S.P. (2001) Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge:
Nation, P. (1990) Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. New York: Newbury
House/Harper Row.
National Curriculum for England: English (2004) London: Qualifications and
Curriculum Authority (www.nc.uk.net/nc_resources/html/download.shtml).
290 References
Nelson, K.E., Carskaddon, G. and Bonvillain, J.D. (1973) Syntactic acquisition:

impact of experimental variation in adult verbal interaction with the child.
Child Development 44: 497–504.
Neufeld, G. (1978) On the acquisition of prosodic and articulatory features in
adult language learning. Canadian Modern Language Review 34(2): 163–74.
Nisbett, R.E. (2003) The Geography of Thought. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Odlin, T. (ed.) (1994) Pedagogical Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Ohta, A.S. (2000) Rethinking interaction in SAL: developmentally appropriate
assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2
grammar. In Lantolf, J. (ed.) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning.
Oxford: Oxford University Press: 51–78.
O’Malley, J.M. and Chamot, A.U. (1990) Learning Strategies in Second Language
Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’Malley, J., Chamot, A.U. and Kupper, L. (1989) Listening comprehension
strategies in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 10(4): 418–37.
O’Malley, J.M., Chamot, A.U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Kupper, L. and Russo,
R.P. (1985) Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL stu-
dents. Language Learning 35: 21–46.
Oxford, R. (1990) Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know.
Oxford, R., Crookall, D., Cohen, A.D., Lavine, R., Nyikos, M. and Sutter, W.
(1990) Strategy training for language learners: six situational case studies and
a training model. Foreign Language Annals 22(3): 197–216.
Oxford English Dictionary (1989) 2nd revised edition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press (online subscription at www.oed.com).
Palmer, H.E. (1926) The Principles of Language Study. London: Harrap.
Paulston, C. (1986) Linguistic consequences of ethnicity and nationalism in
multilingual settings. In Spolsky, B. (ed.) Language and Education in
Multilingual Settings. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Peters, R.S. (1973) The Philosophy of Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Phillipson, R. (1992) Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pienemann, M. (1984) Psychological constraints on the teachability of
languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6(2): 186–214.
Pienemann, M. (1998) Language Processing and Second-language Development:
Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Piller, I. (2002) Bilingual Couples Talk: The Discursive Construction of Hybridity.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Poplack, S. (1980) Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in English y termino en
español. Linguistics 18: 581–616.
Porte, G. (2003) English from a distance: code-mixing and blending in the L1 out-
put of long-term resident EFL teachers. In Cook, V.J. (ed.) Effects of the Second
Language on the First. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters: 103–19.
Postovsky, V. (1974) Effects of delay in oral practice at the beginning of
second language learning. Modern Language Journal 58: 229–39.
Poulisse, N. (1990) The Use of Compensatory Strategies by Dutch Learners of English.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruijter.
Prabhu, N.S. (1987) Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pusat Perkembangan Kurikulum (2003) Huraian Sukatan Pelajaran: Kurikulum
Bersepadu Sekolah Rendah [Curriculum specifications for English]. Kementerian
Pelajaran Malaysia (http://myschoolnet.ppk.kpm.my).
References 291
Quality Control Authority (2004) National Curriculum online (www.nc.uk.

net/nc_resources/html/download.shtml).
Queen, R.M. (2001) Bilingual intonation patterns: evidence of language change
from Turkish-German bilingual children. Language in Society 30: 55–80.
Rampton, M.B.H. (1990) Displacing the ‘native speaker’: expertise, affiliation
and inheritance. ELT Journal 44(2): 338–43.
Ramsey, C. and Wright, C. (1974) Age and second language learning. Journal of
Social Psychology 94: 115–21.
Ranney, S. (1993) Learning a new script: an explanation of sociolinguistics com-
petence. Applied Linguistics 13(1): 25–50.
Rhodes, N.C., Christian, D. and Barfield, S. (1997) Innovations in immersion:
The Key School two-way model. In Johnson, R.K. and Swain, M. (eds) Immersion
Education: International Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press:
265–83.
Richards, J. and Rodgers, T. (1986) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Riley, P. (ed.) (1985) Discourse and Learning. London: Longman.
Ringbom, H. (1982) The influence of other languages on the vocabulary of for-
eign language learners. In Nickel, G. and Nehls, D. (eds) Error Analysis,
Contrastive Analysis and Second Language Learning. Heidelberg: IRAL.
Rivers, W.M. (1964) The Psychologist and the Foreign Language Teacher. Chicago,
IL: Chicago University Press.
Robinson, P. (2005) Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics 25: 46–73.
Roller, C.M. and Matombo, A.R. (1992) Bilingual readers’ use of background
knowledge in learning from text. TESOL Quarterly 26(1): 129–40.
Rosch, E. (1977) Human categorisation. In Warren, N. (ed.) Studies in Cross-
Cultural Psychology. New York: Academic Press.
Rossier, J. (1975) Extroversion-introversion as a significant variable in the learn-
ing of English as a second language. PhD thesis, University of Southern
California. Dissertation Abstracts International 36: 7308A–7309A.
Rubin, J. and Thompson, I. (1982) How to Be a More Successful Language
Learner. Boston Studies in the Humanities 12. Boston, MA: Heinle &
Heinle.
Rumelhart, D.E. and McLelland, J.L. (1986) On learning the past tenses of
English verbs. In McLelland, J.L., Rumelhart, D.E. and the PDP Research
Group Parallel Distributed Processing: Volume 2 Psychological and Biological
Models. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 216–71.
Sampson, G.P. (1984) Exporting language teaching methods from Canada to
China. TESL Canada Journal 1(1): 19–31.
Sanquillet, M. and Peterson, E. (eds) (1978) The Essential Writings of Marcel
Duchamps. London: Thames and Hudson.
Sassoon, R. (1995) The Acquisition of a Second Writing System. Oxford: Intellect.
Saunders, G. (1982) Bilingual Children: Guidance for the Family. Clevedon, Avon:
Schank, R. and Abelson, R. (1977) Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding. New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schegloff, E.A., Koshik, I., Jacoby, S. and Olsher, A. (2002) Conversation Analysis
and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 22: 3–31.
Schmid, M., Kopke, B., Keijzer, M. and Weilemar, L. (eds) (2004) First Language
Attrition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
292 References
Schmitt, N. (1997) Vocabulary learning strategies. In Schmitt, N. and McCarthy,

M. (eds) Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press: 99–227.
Scrivenor, J. (1994) Learning Teaching. Oxford: Heinemann.
Seedhouse, P. (2004) The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Seedhouse, P. (2005a) Conversational analysis and language learning. Language
Teaching 38(4): 165–87.
Seedhouse, P. (2005b) ‘Task’ as research construct. Language Learning 55(3): 533–70.
Seely, C. and Romijn, E.K. (1995) TPR is More than Commands. Berkeley, CA:
Command Performance Language Institute.
Seidlhofer, B. (2004) Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua
franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24: 209–39.
Selinker, L. (1972) Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics X(3):
209–31.
Sharwood-Smith, M. (1993) Input enhancement in instructed SLA: theoretical
bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15(2): 165–79.
Sheen, Y. (2004) Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative class-
rooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research 8(3): 263–300.
Sinclair, J. (ed.) (1990) Collins COBUILD Grammar. London: Collins.
Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, M. (1975) Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford:
Singleton, D. (1989) Language Acquisition: The Age Factor. Clevedon, Avon:
Singleton, D. (1999) Exploring the Second Language Mental Lexicon. Cambridge:
Skehan, P. (1986) Cluster Analysis and the identification of learner types. In
Cook, V. (ed.) Experimental Approaches to Second Language Learning. Oxford:
Pergamon: 81–94.
Skehan, P. (1989) Individual Differences in Second-language Learning. London:
Edward Arnold.
Skehan, P. (1998) A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Skinner, B.F. (1957) Verbal Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1981) Bilingualism or Not: The Education of Minorities.
Smolicz, J.J. and Secombe, M. (2003) Assimilation or pluralism? Changing
policies for minority languages education in Australia. Language Policy
2: 3–25.
Snow, C. and Hoefnagel-Höhle, M. (1977) Age differences and the pronunciation
of foreign sounds. Language and Speech 20: 357–65.
Sparks, R., Ganschow, L. and Pohlman, J. (1989) Linguistic coding deficits in for-
eign language learners. Annals of Dyslexia: An Interdisciplinary Journal 39:
179–95.
Spolsky, B. (1989a) Conditions for Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Spolsky, B. (1989b) Maori bilingual education and language revitalisation.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 10(2): 89–106.
Sridhar, K.K. and Sridhar, S.N. (1986) Bridging the paradigm gap: second
language acquisition theory and indigenised varieties of English. World
Englishes 5(1): 3–14.
References 293
Stern, H.H. (David) (1964) Modern languages in the universities. Modern

Languages 46(3): 87–97.
Stern, H.H. (David) (1983) Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford:
Streets, L. (1976, reprinted 1991) I Can Talk. London: Down’s Syndrome
Association.
Swain, M. (2000) The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating
acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In Lantolf, J. (ed.) Sociocultural
Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 97–114.
Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (2000) Task-based second language learning: the uses of
the first language. Language Teaching Research 4(3): 251–74.
Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (2002) Talking it through: two French immersion learn-
ers’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research 37:
285–304.
Swan, M. (1985) A critical look at the communicative approach. English Language
Swan, M. (2005) Legislation by hypothesis: the case of task-based instruction.
Applied Linguistics 26(3): 376–401.
Swan, M. and Smith, B. (2001) Learner English, 2nd edition. Cambridge:
Takeuchi, O. (2003) What can we learn from good foreign language learners? A
qualitative study in the Japanese foreign language context. System 31: 385–92.
Tarone, E. (1980) Some influences on the syllable structure of interlanguage
phonology. International Review of Applied Linguistics 4: 143–63.
Terrell, T.D., Rogers, M.B., Barnes, B.K. and Wolff-Hessini, M. (1993) Deux
Mondes: A Communicative Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Thompson, G.G. (1952) Child Psychology. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Timmis, I. (2002) Non-native speaker norms and international English: a class-
room view. English Language Teaching Journal 56(3): 240–9.
Tomasello, M. (1999) The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Tomasello, M. (2003) Constructing a Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Tucker, G.R., Otanes, F.E. and Sibayan, B. (1971) An alternating days approach to
bilingual education. 21st Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and
Language Studies, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Underwood, M. (1989) Teaching Listening. Harlow: Longman.
Ur, P. (1996) A Course in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
US Census Bureau (2003) Nearly 1-in-5 speak a foreign language at home; most
also speak English ‘very well’ (www.census.gov/Press-
Release/www/releases/archives/census_2000/001406.html).
VanPatten, W. and Williams, J. (2006) Theories in Second Language Acquisition.
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Vatican City (n.d.) Henry VIII Letter to Ann Boleyn (www.ibiblio.org/expo/
vatican.exhibit/exhibit/a-vatican_lib/images/vlib06.jpg).
Venezky, R.L. (1999) The American Way of Spelling. New York: Guilford.
Verma, M.K., Firth, S. and Corrigan, K. (1992) The developing phonological
skills of Panjabi/Urdu speaking children learning English as a foreign
language in Britain. In Leather, J. and James, A. (eds) New Sounds 92.
Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
294 References
Vygotsky, L.S. (1934/1962) Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1935/1978) Mind in Society. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wallerstein, N. (1983) The teaching approach of Paolo Freire. In Oller, J.W., Jr
and Ricard-Amato, P.A. (eds) Methods that Work. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Watson, I. (1991) Phonological processing in two languages. In Bialystok, E. (ed.)
Language Processes in Bilingual Children. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press: 25–48.
Weeks, F., Glover, A., Johnson, E. and Strevens, P. (1988) Seaspeak Training
Manual: Essential English for International Maritime Use. Oxford: Pergamon.
Weinreich, U. (1953) Languages in Contact. The Hague: Mouton.
Wesche, M.B. (1981) Language aptitude measures in streaming, matching stu-
dents with methods, and diagnosis of learning problems. In Diller, K. (ed.)
Individual Differences and Universals in Language Learning. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House, 83–118.
White, J. (1998) Getting the learner’s attention: a typographical input enhance-
ment study. In Doughty, C. and Williams, J. (eds) Focus on Form in Classroom
Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 85–113.
White, L. (1986) Implications of parametric variation for adult second language
acquisition: an investigation of the pro-drop parameter. In Cook, V.J. (ed.)
Experimental Approaches to Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon:
55–72.
Wieden, W. and Nemser, W. (1991) The Pronunciation of English in Austria.
Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Wilkins, D.A. (1972) The linguistic and situational content of the common core
in a unit/credit system. Strasburg: Council of Europe. Reprinted in Trim, J.,
Richterich, R., Van Ek, J. and Wilkins, D.A. (1980) Systems Development in
Adult Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Williams, J. and Evans, J. (1998) What kind of focus and on what forms? In
Doughty, C. and Williams, J. (eds) Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language
Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 139–55.
Williams, L. (1977) The perception of consonant voicing by Spanish-English
bilinguals. Perception and Psychophysics 21(4): 289–97.
Willis, D. and Willis, J. (2007) Doing Task-based Teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Willis, J. (1996) A Framework for Task-based Learning. Harlow: Longman.
Winitz, H. (ed.) (1981) The Comprehension Approach to Foreign Language
Instruction. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Yelland, G.W., Pollard, J. and Mercuri, A. (1993) The metalinguistic benefits of
limited contact with a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics 14: 423–44.
Index
Page numbers in bold refer to Keywords. Those in italics refer to figures (only
indexed separately if there is no other information about the topic on the page).
Headings referring to specific groups of language users are constructed in the
following way: [L1-L2] language users, e.g. Spanish-English language users.
4 skills 242, 244 animacy 219, 220

4M model 177 Anthony, E.M. 235
Anton, M. 184
Abbs, B. 243 antonyms 55
Abelson, R. 122–3 approximation, communication strategy
absolute location, Aboriginal languages 107
57 approximative stage, L2 learning 71
academic English 200–1, 204 aptitude 144–6, 223
academic teaching style 237–42 Arabic 191
accents 71, 73, 75, 76–7 Arabic-English language users 74–5
choice of model 78–9, 172–3, 186–7 argument structure 50, 63, 217
acculturation 140, 141–2 Arnberg, L. 196
achievement strategies 108 articles 44
Acklam, R. 139, 173 ASD Simplified Technical English (2007) 204
acquisition sequence see sequence of Asher, James 131, 132, 148, 149, 253
acquisition aspiration 72, 73
Active Intonation (1968) 84 assessment 137–8, 144–5, 178, 223
active sentences 44 assimilation 141, 142
Adams, S.J. 122 assimilationist teaching 205, 206
Adamson, H. 171 Atakan, S. 151
additive bilingualism 140 Atkinson, R.C. 62
adjacency pair 165, 167 Atlas 1 (1995) 32, 184, 259–60
Adult ESOL Core Curriculum (1999) 102 attitudes 137–8, 138–9, 140–3
affective strategies 116 Attitudes and Motivation Test Battery
age, effect on L2 learning 147–50 137–8, 223
agreement 218, 219–20 audio-lingual method 4, 17, 82, 158, 208,
allophones 68, 69, 73, 76, 77 242, 242–7
alphabetic writing systems 87, 89 audio-visual method 4, 17, 56, 150, 201
Alptekin, C. 151 Australian Aboriginal languages 57
alternating language methods 183 authenticity, teaching materials 130, 155,
alternative teaching styles 267–70 158–60, 254–5
AMTB (Attitudes and Motivation Test automatic processing 221–2
Battery) 137–8 autonomous learning 118, 210, 267,
analytic ability 145 269–70
Anderson, James 221 avoidance 107, 108–9
Angol Nyelv Alapfoken (1987) 208 awareness 39, 41, 82
296 Index
baby talk 42, 161, 225 Call, M. 128

background knowledge 122–3, 124–5, 128 Canagarajah, A.S. 201
Bacon, S. 151 Candlin, E.F. 239
Baetens Beardsmore, H. 196 capitalization 91, 92, 96
Bahrick, Harry 60–1 Caramazza, A. 53
Baker, A. 70 careers, and L2 learning 208
Baker, P. 197–8 Carr, T.H. 93
Bangalore Project 259 Carrell, Patricia 122, 123
Basic Grammar in Use (2002) 20, 239 Carroll, J.B. 144–5
basic-level terms, vocabulary 55 case systems 218, 220
Bates, E. 219 central languages 190, 191
Beauvillain, C. 53 Chamot, A.U. 115–16, 118, 221
Beginner’s Choice (1992) 139, 173 Changes (1998) 20, 100, 173, 216
behaviourism 220–1, 251 Chaudron, Craig 157, 158
Bellugi, Ursula 225 Chikamatsu, N. 93
Ben Zeev, S. 209 children 147–9, 149–50, 195–6, 209,
Benke, E. 186, 187 228–9
Benz, C. 61, 119 Chinese 74, 83–4, 88, 151, 199
Bhatt, R.M. 201 Chinese-English language users 93–4
Bialystok, Elaine 107, 118, 196, 209 Chomsky, N. 15, 18, 22, 23, 33, 51, 90,
Biko, Steve 199 214–18
Bilingual Education Act (USA) 206 Ci Siamo (1997) 50, 173
bilingual language teaching 183, 184, circumlocution 107
205 Clachar, A. 203
bilingualism 140, 195 see also L2 users Clark, E. 54, 229, 235
attitudes to 137–8, 138–9, 140–3 classroom interaction 155, 155–69,
bilingual/monolingual modes 174, 175 226–7, 249
codeswitching 108, 174, 174–81, 184 and culture 163–4
effect on cognition 209 initiation-response-feedback 156–7
effect on first language 7, 57, 72, 220, language-as-subject 157–8
232 optimization of input 162–3
effects on cognition 7–8, 57, 182, click languages 76
191–2 COBUILD English Course 1 (1988) 129
and official languages 197 codebreaking 125, 131–2, 160
Bilingualism or Not (1981) 206 codeswitching 108, 174, 174–81, 184
Blackwell, A. 221 restrictions on 176–7
Bloomfield, Leonard 171, 221 cofigurative culture 161, 164
bootstrapping 262 cognates 60
borrowing 60 cognition
bottom-up parsing 125, 126–8 effect of bilingualism 7–8, 57, 182,
Bowen, T. 80 191–2, 209, 232
Bowler, B. 37, 173, 264 cognitive behaviourism 221
Bransford, J.D. 121–2 cognitive strategies 113, 115, 116, 118
British National Corpus 25 cognitive style 150, 151–2
most frequent words 47, 48 Coleman, J.A. 138, 152, 239
Broeder, P. 221 Collie, J. 124, 253
Brones, I. 53 Collins COBUILD Grammar (1990) 240
Broughton, G. 264 collocations 51
Brown, Roger 225 colons 96
Bruner, Jerome 225, 229, 250 colour, perception of 56–7
Buber, M. 121 commas 96
Burt, Marina 25–7 Common European Framework of Reference for
business English 204 Languages (2008) 211
Bygate, Martin 257 communication breakdown 82, 84, 167–8
Byram, Michael 211 communication strategies 106, 106–12
Index 297
communicative competence 23, 248 cross-linguistic transfer 76 see also

communicative teaching method 17, 162, transfer
201, 247, 247–56 Cruse, D.A. 54–5
techniques 248–50 Cuban Ministry of Education 4
communities 201–5 culture
community language learning (CLL) background knowledge 122–3, 124–5,
183–4, 201, 267, 267–9 128
comparatives 54 cross-cultural differences 124–5, 151,
compensation strategies 116 255
compensatory strategies 109–12 influence of language 8, 56–7, 151
competence 5, 248 and literature 240, 255
grammatical competence 19, 22–3, 24 pre/co/post-figurative 161
multi-competence 11, 15–16, 211–12, and stereotyping 123, 138–9, 223
231, 231–3 and teaching methods 163–4, 200, 201,
pragmatic vs. communicative 23 249–50, 251
Competition Model 218, 219 understanding of differences 209
components of meaning 53, 54 Cummins, J. 148
compound bilinguals 182 Cunningham, S. 249
comprehensible input 132 Curran, Charles 267, 268
computer-assisted language learning (CALL) curricula 4, 101–2
245 goals 173, 199, 206, 209
computers, learning experiments 221
Concept 7–9 (1972) 248 Dam, Leni 269
conceptual archistrategy 109–10 de Salins, G.-D. 173
confluent language teaching 267 de Swaan, A. 143, 190
connectionism 218, 221 declarative vs. procedural memory 218,
consciousness-raising 39 221
consonant doubling rule 93, 94 decoding 125, 160
consonants 68, 72–3, 79–80 DeKeyser, Robert 37, 148, 222
clusters 74–5, 76, 77 Department for Education and Science
content words 24, 25, 26, 28, 48 (UK) 4
context, and meaning 122–5 Despotova, V. 21
Contrastive Analysis 6 developmental sequence see sequence of
Conversation Analysis 165, 165–8 acquisition; sequence of development
coordinate bilinguals 182 Dewaele, J.M. 152
Coppetiers, R. 231 dialects 75
Corder, S.P. 6 dialogues 242, 242–3, 264
corpus-based teaching materials 46–7, Diaz, R.M. 196
49, 59 DiCamilla, F. 184
correspondence rules 87, 89, 91–3, 94 Dickerson, W. 84–5
Coulthard, M. 156 Dickinson, Leslie 210, 269
Courtillon, J. 173 dictionaries, as learning aid 59
Crago, M. 250 Digby, C. 100–1
CRAPEL (Centre de Recherches et direct teaching method 17
d’Applications Pédagogiques en discourse analysis see Conversation
Langues) 269 Analysis
creativity 110 distinctive features, phonemes 69
CREDIF (Centre de Recherche et d’Etude Dodson, C.J. 183, 184
pour la Diffusion du Français) 46–7 Donaldson, M. 151
Cridlig, J.-M. 184 Dorian, Nancy 201
critical period hypothesis 147 Dornyei, Zoltan 110
Crookes, G. 136, 163 Doughty, Catherine 184
cross-cultural differences 124–5, 151, drills 22, 242, 243
255 dual language programmes 183
cross-linguistic differences 20 Duchamps, Michel 171
298 Index
Dulay, Heidi 25–7 Felix, S. 156

Dworak, M. 61, 119 field-dependent vs. field-independent
150, 151–2, 251
Eckmann, Fred 76 Finnish 191
Eckstrand, L. 148 first language see L1; L1 learning
Edina, B.A. 208 Firth, J.R. 171, 204
educational systems 196, 200–1, 204, 206 Fishman, Joshua 199
EFL see English as a foreign language (EFL) Flowerdew, J. 130
ELF (English as a lingua franca) see English Flying Colours (1990) 31
as lingua franca (ELF) focus on form (FonF) 39, 40, 42–3, 184,
elite bilingualism 195, 196, 204, 210 257, 258–9
Ellis, G. 41, 118 focus on FormS 39, 39–40
Ellis, R. 211, 261 FonF see focus on form (FonF)
Ellsworth, A. 130 foreign language 11
emotion, and intonation 83, 84 foreign language teaching 12 see also L2
empathy, and L2 learning ability 152 learning; teaching
emphasis 42 foreigner talk 161
English foreignerization 108
consonants 68, 74–5, 76, 77, 79–80 fortis/lenis contrast 72
sociolinguistic variation 38, 64, 172–3 Foster, Pauline 227
spelling 88, 89, 90–5, 99–102 four M model 177
syllable structure 74–5 ‘four skills’ 242, 244
English as a foreign language (EFL) 1–2 Franklin, Carole 182
choice of model 5, 38, 64, 78–80 free morpheme constraint 176
curricula 4 Freed, Barbara 161
mainstream teaching style 263–6 Freire, Paulo 210
pronunciation 74–5 French-English language users 72
English as lingua franca (ELF) 1–2, 78, full stops 96
189, 189–93, 199–201, 204 function words see structure words
academic purposes 200–1, 204 functions 247
grammar 192–3 Furnam, A. 152
pronunciation 79–80, 192
English for the Fifth Class (1988) 21 Gaies, Steven 158
English for You (1983) 63 Galyean, B. 267
English-Japanese language users 93 Garcia, R. 148, 149
English-Spanish language users 77 Gardner, Robert 137, 138, 198, 223
English Topics (1975) 130, 159 Garton-Sprenger, J. 31
epenthesis 73, 74–5 Gary, J. & N. 132, 253–4
equivalence constraint 176 Gattegno, C. 267
Error Analysis 6 Genesee, F. 152, 178
European Science Foundation Project 27–8 German 72, 76
Eurydice network 197 German-English learners 156
Evans, Jacqueline 42 Girardet, J. 184
Eversley, J. 197–8 good language learner strategies 113,
examinations see assessment 113–15, 118
explicit grammar instruction 5, 39–43 Gordon, R.G. 198
exploitation activities 242, 243 see also Grabe, E. 83
information gap exercises Graddol, D. 192, 204
extroverts 150, 251 Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale
(GIDS) 199
Faerch, C. 107–9 Graf, G. 63
Fairy E rule 92–3 Grainger, J. 53
false friends 57, 60 grammar 18–45 see also morphology;
Faltis, C. 179 syntax
Favreau, M. 124 constraints on codeswitching 176–7
feedback 155, 156, 158, 225–8 explicit instruction 5, 39–43, 184
Index 299
grammatical competence 22–3, 24 Hotline (1992) 150, 173

keywords 19 Howatt, A. 3, 160
prescriptive grammar 19–20, 24 Howe, Christine 225
principles and parameters grammar Hullen, W. 158
33–6 humanistic teaching styles 267–70
processability model 28–33 Hutchinson, T. 150, 173
properties of words 50–1 Hyams, N. 35
structural grammar 21–2, 24 hypercentral languages 189, 190, 191,
teaching materials 20, 21–2, 31–2, 37, 199–201, 204
41, 264–5 see also English as lingua franca (ELF)
teaching methods 5, 31, 32, 36–43, hyponyms 55
40–1, 42–3
terminology 20–1 I Can Talk (1976) 195
traditional grammar 20–1, 24, 240 identity
Universal Grammar (UG) 33, 36, 214, and language 211–12
214–18, 233, 250 identity, and language 7–8, 141, 142,
grammar-translation method 17, 180, 171–2, 199, 207
237–42, 238 and language 203
grammatical competence 19, 22–3 imaginary content 254–5 see also
grammatical morphemes 24, 25–7, 217 authenticity, teaching materials
grammatical sensitivity 145 immersion teaching 147, 148, 207
grammaticality judgements 22 immigrants 141, 198, 206–7
Green, J. 152 independent language assumption 11,
Greenall, S. 31 14, 15 see also interlanguages
Griffiths, Roger 152 India, multilingualism 201–2
Grosjean, François 175, 206 individual differences 135–54, 268–9
Gruneberg, M. 62 effect on learning 8–9, 119
Guarnuccio, C. & E. 50, 173 and teaching 138–40, 146
guessing, as learning strategy 58–9 information communicative teaching
Guiora, A. 152 253–6
information gap exercises 111–12, 247,
habit formation 244–5 248–9, 261
Hakim, Zubaidah 174 initiation 155, 156
Hakuta, K. 27 input 161–4, 215–16
Halliday, Michael 4, 13, 240, 252 optimization of 42, 132, 162–3, 216
Hannan, Muhammad 27 instrumental motivation 136, 138
Hansen, J. 151 integrated pronunciation teaching 80
Harding, E. 194, 196 integration 141, 142
Harding-Esch, Edith 124 integrative motivation 136, 137–8
Harmer, J. 4, 63, 130, 166, 265 integrativeness 223
Hasan, Ruqaiya 124 intelligence, and L2 learning ability 152
Hatch, Evelyn 165 interaction approach 224–8
Hawkins, Eric 41, 82, 183 interaction hypothesis 225
Haynes, M. 93 intercultural differences 124–5
Headway Elementary (1993) 253 intergenerational language shift 199
Hebrew 191, 197, 206 interlanguages 13–15, 27–8, 32, 250
Henner-Stanchina, C. 269 communication strategies 108
heritage language learners 203 phonologies 74–5, 81
heritage languages 199, 207 principles and parameters grammar 34,
highlighting 42 35–6
Hindi 72 internalization 228, 229
Hoefnagel-Höhle, M. 147–8 International Express (1996) 32, 51–2, 61
Hofstede, G. 251 international languages see hypercentral
Holec, Henri 269 languages
Holliday, Adrian 164, 201 International Schools 196
Hosenfeld, C. 257 interviews 131
300 Index
intonation 42, 82–5, 83 attitudes to target language 137–8,

intonation languages 83, 84, 85 138–9, 140–3, 223
introverts 150, 251 heritage languages 203
Ioup, G. 84 and identity 7–8
IRF interactions (initiation, response, individual differences 8–9, 119,
feedback) 156–7 135–54, 268–9
irregular forms 51 motivation 136, 136–40, 159
Israel 173, 199, 206, 211 strategy training 117–19
Ivanne, S. 208 and teaching styles 242, 247, 251, 256,
262, 263, 268–9
Jacobson, Rodolpho 179 and writing systems 93–5, 97–8
Jake, J. 177 L2 learning 135 see also cross-linguistic
Japan differences; interlanguages; learning
goals of language teaching 4, 173 strategies
JET programme 188 autonomous learning 269–70
Japanese 35, 74, 220 choice of model 5, 38, 64, 78–80, 99,
writing system 89 172–3, 186–7, 188–9
Jenkins, Jenny 79–80, 192 critical period hypothesis 147
Jespersen, Otto 3 effect on first language 7, 57, 72, 220,
Johnson, J.S. 148 232
Johnson, M.K. 121–2 effects of age 147–50
Just Right (2004) 63, 166 explicit grammar instruction 5, 39–43
goals 5, 9–10, 173, 194–213, 205–12,
Kanno, Y. 203 260–1, 265
Kasper, G. 107–9 independence from first language
Keep Talking (1984) 110–11 12–15, 215–16
Kellerman, Eric 109, 110, 204 interaction hypothesis 225
Kenworthy, Joanne 70, 80, 84–5 and internationalism 207–9
key school two-way model 183 and mental word-stores 52–3, 61–2
kinaesthetic learning see total physical ontology phylogeny model 77–8
response method phonology 69–78
Kirsner, K. 53 primacy of spoken language 4, 244
Klippel, F. 110–11 and pro-drop parameter 35–6
knowledge, and vocabulary acquisition and prototype theory 55–6
49–52 and SLA research 214–34
knowledge, of language see competence as social change 210, 267–8
knowledge, of words see vocabulary transfer 13, 71, 76–7, 94–5
Kramsch, Claire 187 and use of first language 4–5, 110,
Krashen, S. 12, 41, 132, 133, 145, 162, 177–85
241 and variation in language 38
L2 users 11, 12, 171, 171, 201–5, 231,
L1 2 see also native speakers 231–3 see also bilingualism
effect on perception 56–7, 151 careers 208
effects of bilingualism on 7, 57, 220 codeswitching 108, 174, 174–81, 184
as resource for L2 learning 4–5, 110, individual differences 135–54
152, 177–85, 233 as role models 135, 143, 159, 173, 188,
L1 learning 35, 42, 135, 136, 156, 181 208
critical period hypothesis 147 tourists 203, 208–9
interaction hypothesis 225 Lado, Robert 242, 245, 246, 251
models 6 Lambert, Wallace 137, 139, 140, 206,
and prototype theory 55 207
sociocultural theory 228–9 Landry, R.G. 9
universal processes 77, 215 language
L2 learners 11, 12 as academic subject 157–8, 204, 210,
age-appropriate exercises 149–50 255–6
aptitude 144–6 definitions 15–16
Index 301
and identity 7–8, 141, 142, 171–2, 199, Live Action English (2000) 131, 253
203 Living with People (1983) 139, 248, 255
and politics 10, 79, 191, 194–5, 199, local languages 190, 191
200–1, 210 locality principle 34, 35, 215
principles and parameters 33, 33–6, location, absolute 57
214, 215 Long, John 124
and religion 191, 196–7 Long, Mike 39–40, 42, 163, 225, 227
socio-educational model 222–4 Lozanov, G. 267, 268
language acquisition see L1 learning Lyster, Roy 226, 227
Language Acquisition Support System 229
language awareness 39, 41, 82 Macaro, Ernesto 62, 105, 115, 116, 117,
language communities 201–5 182, 227
language hierarchy 190–1 MacWhinney, Brian 219
language learning see L1 learning; L2 mainstreaming 206
learning Major, Roy 77
language learning ability see aptitude Making Sense of Spelling and Pronunciation
Language Learning Strategies (1990) 118 (1993) 100–1
language maintenance 203, 205, 207 Makino, T. 27
language shift 199 Malaysia, language curriculum 101–2, 210
language switch 107, 110 see also Mandarin see Chinese
codeswitching mands 221, 251
Language Teaching: A Scientific Approach marginalization 141, 142
(1964) 242 Marks, J. 80
language transfer see transfer Marton, W. 235, 265
Lapkin, S. 182 Matombo, A.R. 122
Larsen-Freeman, D. 27 matrix language frame model 177
Larson-Hall, J. 148 Mayo, Garcia 226
leader and follower 155, 156–7 McArthur, T. 171
Learner English (2001) 217 McCarthy, M. 61, 139, 248, 253, 261
learning strategies 113, 113–19 see also McClelland, J.L. 221
L1 learning; L2 learning McDonough, Steve 115, 132
research into 105–6, 113–17 McLaughlin, B. 221
teaching materials 118 Mead, M. 164
vocabulary 51–2, 57–62 meaning 51, 53–7
Learning to Learn English (1989) 41, 118 components 53, 54
Leather, J. 83 prototype theory 53, 55–6
Lee, D.J. 27 schema theory 121–2
left-corner parsing 128 scripts 122–5
Levenston, E. 63 teaching techniques 62–4
lexical relations 54–5, 60, 63–4 meaning-based writing systems 87, 88,
Lexical Semantics (1986) 54–5 89, 90
Libben, G. 60 Medgyes, P. 186, 187
Libre Echange (1995) 173 Meeting People (1982) 118, 139, 255
Lightbown, P. 60, 227 memory 145
linguistic archistrategy 110 and background knowledge 122, 124
linguistic competence see competence declarative vs. procedural 218, 221
linguistic imperialism 191, 195, 199, learning strategies 116
200–1 mnemnotechnics 57, 62
Linguistic Minorities Project (UK) 141 processability model 128, 221–2
linguistic relativity 56–7 word retrieval 126
listening 125–33 word-storage 52–3, 61–2
teaching materials 129, 130, 131 Mennen, I. 84
teaching techniques 129–33, 162 metacognitive strategies 113, 115, 116,
Listening File, The (1989) 130 118
literature, and language teaching 240, 255 metaphors 54
Little, David 159 Miller, L. 130
302 Index
miming, as communication strategy 107 New Headway Beginners (2002) 70, 150,
‘minimal pairs’ technique 70, 82 243, 265
Minimalist Program 214, 217 Newport, E.L. 148
minority languages 190, 191, 207 Newson, M. 217
MLF model (matrix language frame) 177 Northern Territory (Australia) 211
mnemnotechnics 57, 62 notions 247
Modern Languages Aptitude Test (MLAT) nouns, grammatical properties 50, 51
144–5 nuclear tone 83
Mohamed, S. 139, 173 number 44 see also plurals
monolingual mode 174, 175 Nunan, D. 32, 184, 259–60
monolingualism, attitudes to 142–3
Montague, N.S. 183 official languages 195, 197, 206–7
moral values 10 Ohta, Amy 230
Morgan, James 42, 216 O’Malley, J.M. 115–16, 118, 128, 221
Morizumi, E. 179 ontology phylogeny model 77
morphemes 24, 25–7, 177, 217 opposites 55
morphology 24, 25–8 order of acquisition see sequence of
Morrow, Keith 252 acquisition
motherese 161, 225 order of difficulty 24, 27–8
motivation 136, 136–40, 159, 223 orthographic regularities 90, 91
Move (2007) 37, 173, 264 Oxenden, C. 55, 81, 100, 158, 173, 184
movement 28, 29–30, 34 Oxford, R. 113, 116, 118, 119, 152
multi-competence 11, 15–16, 211–12,
231, 231–3 Palmer, Harold 40, 264
multidimensional model see processability Panorama (1996) 184
model parameters, language 33, 34, 35–6, 40,
multilingualism 190–1, 194, 195, 197–9 214, 215, 216, 217
India 201–2 paraphrasing 107
Murphy, R. 20, 239 Parminter, S. 37, 264
music, and language learning 137, 267, parsing 125, 126–8
268 passive sentences 44
Myers, J. 100–1 pattern practice 22
Myers-Scotton, Carol 177 Paulston, C. 199
Myhill, M. 201, 211 pedagogy see teaching
People and Places (1980) 63, 139, 166, 209,
Naiman, N. 113–14 255
NASA Manual 20 periods (full stops) 96
Nation, Paul 54 peripheral languages 190, 191, 207
National Curriculum (UK) 209, 210 personality, effect on language learning
native speakers 2, 170–4, 171 see also L1 152
as models for L2 learners 5, 38, 64, Peters, R.S. 136
78–80, 172–3, 186–7, 188–9 Phillipson, Robert 200
as teachers 185–9 phonemes 69, 69–73
Natural Approach, The (1983) 162 English 68
negation 156 and writing systems 70
negotiation for meaning 225, 225–6, phonemic coding ability 144, 145
227 phonetic alphabet 67, 67–8, 81
Nelson, K.E. 225 phonetics 67
Nemser, William 71 phonology 67, 69–78
Neufeld, G. 148 phrase structure 21, 25, 34, 44 see also
New Concurrent Method 179, 183 structural grammar
New Crown English (2002) 179 parsing 126–8
New Cutting Edge (2005) 249 teaching materials 264
New English File (2004) 55, 81, 100, 158, Pienemann, M. 31
173, 184 Pike-Baky, M. 20, 32
Index 303
plurals 20 see also number transfer from L1 93–4

politeness 166, 167, 178 Realistic English (1968) 243
politics, and language 10, 79, 191, 194–5, recasts 225, 226, 227
199, 200–1, 210 Received Pronunciation (RP) 78, 78–9,
Poplack, Shona 176–7 186–7
Porte, G. 188 reciprocal language teaching 183, 187
Post, B. 83 refugees 141, 198
post-listening stage 129 Regan, V. 171
postfigurative culture 161, 164 Reibel, David 271
Postovsky, V. 132 relative clauses 38
Poulisse, Nanda 109–10 religion, supercentral languages 191,
Prabhu, N.S. 157–8, 163, 259, 263 196–7
practice 60–1, 70, 81–2, 222 repair 165, 167–8
Practice of English Language Teaching (2007) repetition 60–1, 70, 81–2, 222, 244–5
265 response 155, 156
pragmatic competence 23 Rhodes, N.C. 183
pre-listening stage 129 Richards, J. 235
prefigurative culture 161, 164 Richards, J.C. 20, 100, 173, 216
prefixes 51 Riley, Philip 41, 194, 196
prepositions 44 Ringbom, Hakan 60
stranding 30 Rivers, Wilga 41, 243, 245, 258–9
prescriptive grammar 19, 19–20, 24 Robinson, Peter 146
Present-day English for Foreign Students Rodgers, T. 235
(1964) 239 role plays 249
presystemic stage, L2 learning 71 Roller, C.M. 122
principles and parameters grammar 33–6 Romijn, E. 131, 132, 253
interlanguages 34, 35–6 Rosch, Eleanor 55
principles of language 33, 34, 214, 215, Rossier, J. 152
216 RP (Received Pronunciation) 78, 78–9,
pro-drop parameter 35–6, 40, 214, 215, 186–7
216, 217 Rudzka, B. 54
problem solving, communication strategies Rumelhart, D.E. 221
107–9
procedural memory 218, 221 Sampson, G.P. 164
processability 28 Sassoon, Rosemary 90
processability model 28–33, 218–22 Saunders, George 196
pronouns 44 Saussure, Ferdinand de 252
pronunciation 50, 67–86 Sauveur, Lambert 160
consonant clusters 74–5 scaffolding 227, 228, 229–30
and identity 7–8 Schank, R. 122–3
teaching materials 70, 80, 81, 84–5 Schegloff, E.A. 166, 167–8
teaching techniques 80–5, 148, 246 schema (schemata) 121, 121–2, 128
and transfer 71, 76–7 Schmidt, Norbert 59
Pronunciation Book, The (1992) 80 Schmidt, R.W. 136
Pronunciation of English, The (2000) 70 school grammar see traditional grammar
prototype theory 53, 55–6 scientific writing 200–1
punctuation 19, 95–7 script 121
scripts 122–5, 128
questions 29–30, 34, 45 SeaSpeak (1988) 204
quotation marks 96 Secombe, M. 201
second language 2, 11, 12 see also L2
Rampton, Ben 172 learners; L2 learning; L2 users
Ramsey, C. 148 second language acquisition research see
Ranta, Leila 226, 227 SLA research
reading 121–5 second language teaching see teaching
304 Index
Seedhouse, Paul 166, 168, 257 SOS teaching method 263–6

Seely, M. 131, 132, 253 sound-based writing systems 87, 88–90
Segalowitz, N.S. 124 Spada, N. 227
Seidlhofer, Barbara 192–3 Spanish-English language users 72
self-directed learning 118 Sparks, Richard 145–6
Selinker, Larry 14 Spell It Right (Write/Rite/Wright) 101
semantics see meaning spelling 19, 50, 70, 90–5
semicolons 96 importance 4
sensitization 39, 41 teaching materials 100–1
separation 141, 142 teaching techniques 98–102
sequence of acquisition 24, 26–8 Spolsky, B. 149–50, 234
sequence of development 28, 29–31, 37–8 Sridar, K.K. & S.N. 231
sex differences, in L2 learning ability 152 standardization 194
Sharwood-Smith, Mike 216 Stansfield, C. 151
Shaw, George Bernard 171 status 19, 78–9, 196, 197
Sheen, Ronald 152 stereotyping 123, 138–9, 223
Sheen, Younghee 227 Stern, David 5, 171, 256
Ship or Sheep? (1981) 70 Strategy Inventory for Language Learning
silent letters 90, 92–3 (1990) 116
Silent Way 267 Streets, L. 195
simplification 74, 77 structural grammar 19, 21–2, 24
simulated learning experiments 221 structural-oral-situational method
Sinclair, B. 41, 118 263–6
Sinclair, J. 156, 240 structure drills 22
Singleton, David 148–9 structure words 24, 25, 26, 28, 47
situation 263, 263–4 spelling rules 91, 92
Situational English (1967) 264 subject pronouns 44
situational learning 150 submersion teaching 205, 206
Skehan, Peter 145, 152, 260 subordinate clauses 30, 31, 32
skills, audio-lingual approach 242, 244 subordinate terms, vocabulary 55
Skinner, B.F. 221 substitution tables 21, 263, 264
Skuttnab-Kangas, T. 206, 207, 210 subtractive bilingualism 140, 140–1
SLA research Success with English (1968) 264
applications to teaching 8–10 suffixes 51
background 1, 2, 6–16 suggestopedia 267, 268
bilingualism 182 supercentral languages 190, 191, 194,
independence from language teaching 204
11–12 superordinate terms, vocabulary 55
key findings 7–8 Swain, M. 182, 230
learning strategies 105–6, 113–17 Swan, M. 217
models of L2 learning 214–34, 250, 251 Sweet, Henry 3
terminology 12 syllabic writing systems 87, 89
Slater, S. 124, 253 syllable structure 73, 73–5
‘smile factor’ 253 syllables 73
Smith, B. 217 symbols 88
Smolicz, J.J. 201 synonyms 54–5
Snow, C. 147–8 syntax 24, 216–17
Soars, L. & J. 70, 150, 243, 253, 265
social communicative teaching 252–3 tacts 221, 251
social strategies 113, 115, 116, 119 Takeuchi, Osamu 115
socio-educational model 222–4 Tansomboon, A. 84
sociocultural SLA theory 228–30 Tapestry 1 Listening and Speaking (2000)
sociolinguistic variation 38, 64–5, 83, 61, 119
172–3 Tapestry 1 Writing (2000) 20, 32
spelling 99–100 Tarone, Elaine 106
Index 305
task-based learning 4, 7, 17, 158, 162, use of first language 4–5, 110, 152,
168, 230, 257, 257–63 177–85, 233
listening 129–30 teaching styles 3–5, 235–71
teaching materials 259–60, 261 academic (grammar-translation) 17,
tasks 249, 257, 257–8, 259–60, 261 180, 237–42, 238
Taylor, L. 32, 51–2, 61 audio-lingual method 242, 242–7
teachability hypothesis 28, 31 communicative teaching method 17,
teacher talk 155, 157–8 162, 201, 247–56
teachers 185–9 and culture 249–50
teaching definition 235
applications of SLA research 8–10, EFL mainstream style 263–6
216–18 humanistic/alternative 267–70
assessment 137–8, 144–5 task-based learning 257, 257–63
classroom interaction 155, 155–69, teaching techniques
226–7, 249 age appropriateness 149–50
goals 205, 206–9, 232 audio-lingual method 242–3
independence from SLA research 11–12 communicative teaching method
mixed-ability groups 146 248–50
motivating students 138–40, 159, 224 conversational exchanges 166
terminology 12 definition 235
Teaching English Pronunciation (1987) 84–5 drills 22, 222, 242, 243
Teaching Listening (1989) 129 grammar 5, 31, 32, 36–43, 40–1, 42–3
teaching materials 2, 79–80 information gap exercises 111–12, 247,
audio-lingual method 242–3, 246 248–9, 261
authenticity 130, 158–60, 254–5 listening 129–33
communicative teaching method pronunciation 80–5, 148, 246
248–9, 253–4 reading 123–4
conversational exchanges 166 repetition 60–1, 70, 81–2, 222, 244–5
corpus-based 46–7, 49, 59 scaffolding 227, 228, 229–30
goals 211 strategy training 117–19
grammar 20, 21–2, 31–2, 37, 41, 216, substitution tables 21, 263, 264
239, 264–5 tasks 249, 257, 257–8, 259–60, 261
listening 129, 130, 131 teacher talk 155, 157–8
portrayal of L2 users 143, 173, 208 vocabulary 62–5, 110–12, 123–4, 240
pronunciation 70, 80, 81, 84–5 writing 98–102
reading 124 technical writing 204
‘smile factor’ 253 temporality 54
strategy training 118 Terrell, Tracey 132, 133, 162
target audience 139, 150, 211 tests 137–8, 144–5, 178, 223
task-based learning 259–60, 261 ‘th’ rule 91, 92
and use of first language 181, 184 three-letter rule 91, 92
vocabulary 46–7, 49, 54, 59, 61, 63 Timmis, Ivor 186
writing 100–1 titles rule 91, 92
teaching methods 3–5, 17, 162–4, 208 Tomasello, Michael 7, 13
and culture 163–4, 200, 201, 249–50, tone languages 83, 83–4, 85
251 top-down parsing 125, 126–8
effect of interlanguage hypothesis total physical response method 4, 131–2,
14–15 148, 149, 162, 253
feedback 155, 156, 158, 225–8 Touchstone (2005) 61, 139, 248, 253,
grammar-translation 17, 180, 238 261
immersion teaching 147, 148 tourists 203, 208–9
listening-based 131–3, 162 TPR method 4, 131–2, 148, 149, 162, 253
reciprocal language teaching 183, 187 Tracks (1979) 211
total physical response method 4, traditional grammar 19, 20–1, 24, 240
131–2, 148, 149, 162, 253 traffic light metaphor 54
306 Index
transfer 13, 71, 75, 76–7, 94–5 Wallerstein, N. 210

as communication strategy 107, 110 Watson, I. 72
transitional L2 teaching 205, 206–7 Webster, Noah 91
translation 239 see also grammar-trans- Weeks, F. 204
lation method Weinreich, Ulrich 194
tree diagrams 21, 25 Welsh 56
True to Life (1995) 124, 253 wh-movement 29–30
Tucker, G.R. 183 wh-questions 45
turn-taking 168 while-listening stage 129
White, Lydia 35, 42
UG see Universal Grammar (UG) Wieden, Wilfried 71
Underwood, M. 129, 130 Wight, J. 248
UNESCO 12 Wilkins, David 166
Universal Grammar (UG) 33, 36, 214, Williams, Jessica 42
214–18, 233, 250 Williams, L. 72
universals, language acquisition 77–8 Willis, D. 129, 258, 261
Ur, P. 184 Willis, J. 129, 258, 259–60, 261
usage-based learning 7 Winitz, H. 132
Using Intonation (1979) 84–5 word building 51
word coinage 107, 108, 110
validity 145, 259 word frequency 46, 46–9
values 10, 210 word order 18, 29–30, 45, 218, 219
variation in language 38, 64–5, 83, 172–3 word spaces 96
spelling 99–100 words see vocabulary
Verbal Behavior (1957) 221 Words You Need, The (1981) 54
verbs, argument structure 50, 63, 217 Wright, C. 148
vocabulary 46–66 see also meaning writing 87–104
acquisition of words 49–52, 60–2 characteristics 4
formal models 217 correspondence rules 87, 89, 91–3,
grammatical categories 50 94
learning strategies 51–2, 57–62 direction of 90
lexical relations 54–5, 60, 63–4 meaning-based systems 87, 88, 89,
and linguistic relativity 56–7 90
mental word-stores 52–3, 61–2 orthographic regularities 90, 91
retrieval 126 punctuation 19, 95–7
structure words 24, 25, 26, 28, 47 scientific writing 200–1, 204
teaching materials 46–7, 49, 54, 59, sound-based systems 87, 88–90
61, 63 spelling 19, 50, 70, 90–5
teaching techniques 62–5, 110–12, teaching materials 100–1
123–4, 240 teaching techniques 98–102
word frequency 46, 46–9 technical writing 204
voice onset time (VOT) 69, 72, 77, 128
Voix et Images de France (1961) 46–7 Yelland, G.W. 209
vowel correspondence rules 92–3, 94
Vygotsky, Lev 228–9 zone of proximal development 228, 229

Cook 2016

Uploaded by

Cook 2016

Uploaded by

Second Language Learning

and Language Teaching

© 2008 Vivian Cook

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

ISBN: 978 0 340 95876 6

Cover © Marco Cristofori/zefa/Corbis

Typeset in 10/13 Stone Serif by Macmillan Publishing Solutions

Printed and bound in Malta

What do you think about this book? Or any other

1 Background to second language acquisition research

2 Learning and teaching different types of grammar 18

3 Learning and teaching vocabulary 46

4 Acquiring and teaching pronunciation 67

5 Acquiring and teaching a new writing system 87

6 Strategies for communicating and learning 105

7 Listening and reading processes 121

8 Individual differences in L2 users and L2 learners 135

9 Classroom interaction and Conversation Analysis 155

10 The L2 user and the native speaker 170

11 The goals of language teaching 194

12 General models of L2 learning 214

12.5 Sociocultural SLA theory 228

13 Second language learning and language teaching styles 235

List of coursebooks mentioned 273

1.1 The scope of this book

1.2 Common assumptions of language teaching

first language: chronologically the first language that a child learns

Box 1.1 Assumptions of language teaching

Assumption 1: The basis for teaching is the spoken, not the

Assumption 2: Teachers and students should use the

Assumption 3: Teachers should avoid explicit discussion of

Assumption 4: The aim of language teaching is to make

1.3 What is second language acquisition research?

Contrastive Analysis: this research method compared the descriptions of two

unaware of what is being conveyed. A second language is a complex new addition

1.4 What a teacher can expect from SLA research

● How do you think SLA research could help your teaching?

Understanding the students’ contribution to learning

Understanding how teaching methods and techniques work

Understanding the goals of language teaching

1.5 Some background ideas of SLA research

multi-competence: the knowledge of more than one language in the same

When SLA research became an independent discipline, it established certain prin-

SLA research is independent of language teaching

L2 learning is independent of L1 acquisition

There is no intrinsic reason, however, why learning a second language should be

L2 learning is more than the transfer of the first language

Learners have independent language systems of their own

Figure 1.1 The learner’s independent language (interlanguage)

The interlanguage concept had a major impact on teaching techniques in the

Figure 1.2 Multi-competence

It is always important, therefore, when discussing language teaching and language

Box 1.2 Meanings of ‘language’ (Cook, 2007)

Glosses on language teaching methods

2.1 What is grammar?

prescriptive grammar: grammar that ‘prescribes’ what people should or

terms in another language; modern language teachers in UK schools lament that

The man fed the dog

They can draw a black dog

Figure 2.2 A typical substitution table

You can go and see him.

Grammar as knowledge in the mind

as knowledge treats it as something stored unconsciously in the mind – the native

Box 2.1 Grammar for beginners

2.2 Structure words, morphemes and

● What do you understand by a structure (function) word?

Box 2.2 Types of grammar

Content words Structure words

are in the dictionary: ‘book’ are in the grammar: ‘the’

are more likely to be preceded by a are less likely to be preceded by a pause

can always be invented: ‘cyberpunk’ can seldom be invented

Table 2.1 Content words and structure words

● a noun phrase followed by a verb, optionally followed by another noun phrase

● a noun phrase followed by a copula and another noun phrase or an adjective