Create realistic goals
Tutors should always bear in mind, when leading an oral class, what realistic expectations are for spoken language. Different modes of production have different notions of correctness. Insisting upon a complete sentence for every utterance, for example, is as unrealistic as it is unnatural. A spoken utterance has certain features which clearly demarcate it from written discourse:
- it is syntactically less structured;
- it is often incomplete;
- it contains little subordination;
- it is characterized by the speaker correcting / refining as she or he goes along;
- it is largely based upon generalized vocabulary;
- it contains much repetition and redundancy;
- it uses 'fillers'.
(Brown and Yule, 1983a: 15-17)
Bygate (1987: 15-18) lists four ways in which a speaker facilitates the production of speech:
- by simplifying structure, through juxtaposition or co-ordination as opposed to subordination (eg 'That's the job of the liaison officer, the person responsible for links with schools');
- by ellipsis, ie short cuts, economical utterances, incomplete sentences; eg ' 'Not me', or 'Count us out';
- by using formulaic expressions (ie idiomatic phrases, 'I don't believe a word of it');
- by the use of time-creating devices, such as fillers and hesitation devices) (eg 'Well, it was, sort of, you know, difficult to …er... get a word in while he was so annoyed ').
To this list one could add: working with the interlocutor, co-constructing the conversation, using non-verbal forms of communication (eg gesture, facial expressions) and using mutual or shared understandings.
|
Consider the dialogue below. List the particular features of spoken utterance that characterize the dialogue. This is an interesting example, because the two speakers are academics! D: on occasion we do a bit proof reading along there + K: uhuh D: and we're all sort of called on to do that from time to time |
|
K: what does that involve D: well + one of our main jobs in the Botanics is writing for the flora of Turkey + K: uhuh D: they haven't got the scientists to do it so + we sort of supply the scientists for that + K: uhuh D: well when + you've got all the scientific work written up + we all sort of check through it and one - reads and the others + K: oh I see you read aloud D: uhuh that's right K: I see D: and then you sort of switch back and forward like this + K: uhuh + and that doesn't bother you D: it does actually (laughter) I'm terrible at it + but I don't know K: even when it's something you're interested in + D: well it makes it a bit easier to read certainly but + em just because you're reading to somebody else you feel + a bit uneasy somehow K: uhuh (From Brown and Yule, 1983b: 5 ) |
See Commentary for feedback.
When considering these factors, we must bear in mind that we are preparing our students for both 'short turns' (one or two utterances) and longer transactional turns (open-ended, involving longer explanations, summaries of important detail, justifications of an opinion, etc). The former are characterized by the factors picked up in the commentary to Activity 5, while the latter must be clear, precise, structured and expressed in much more controlled utterances (Brown and Yule, 1983b: 16-20); for example:
|
A: What features of the film appealed to you, then? B: Well….First, I particularly enjoyed the constantly changing camera angle and the way the viewer was made to feel part of the action….. Second, I also liked the way the story about the… small boy, in a way, reflected the main storyline, the main plot…and added depth to it, if you know what I mean. And third, it was exciting, it held my attention throughout. A: Didn't you feel the double storyline was a little confusing in places? For example, it kept jumping from the present back to last year without any warning? B: Well, on the one hand, it's true there was a lot of chopping and changing, but on the other, seeing the boy's difficulties with his father did, as I say, present the main story in a different light. |
The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEF, 2002; see 6.6.1 for details) labels these two types of performance Interaction and Production (CEF, 2002, section 9.2.1). This has implications when devising marking guidelines for assessment exercises, which are considered in section 6.6.3.
