Discourse rating tasks: a teaching tool for developing sociocultural competence Jin Sook Lee and Beverley McChesney

Transcription

1 Discourse rating tasks: a teaching tool for developing sociocultural competence Jin Sook Lee and Beverley McChesney This paper introduces a teaching activity designed to address sociocultural competence in the classroom. It recommends the use of discourse rating tasks (DRTs) to develop students! awareness of appropriate second language use, and then offers structured practice with DRTs and role-plays as a means of transforming students' sociocultural awareness into sociocultural performance. Two levels of sociocultural competence, speakerrelated and context-related factors, are proposed to give teachers and students a more tangible way to target factors involved in appropriate language use. This activity encourages students and teachers to coconstruct their learning experience. With these methods, students can go beyond formulaic expressions to convey the subtleties of language appropriate to the communicative situation. Introduction For two decades, the focus on communicative competence in ESL classrooms has placed a greater emphasis on teaching not only the linguistic forms, but also the sociocultural skills required for appropriate and native-like language use. Although the Threshold Level and Notional-Functional Syllabuses (van Ek 1975; Wilkins 1976) laid out sociocultural skills in terms of language functions that served as a basis for communicative textbooks, the patterns of actual native-speaker use have not been elaborated sufficiently for teachers to develop systematic tools to teach these skills. The acquisition of sociocultural competence is difficult for language learners. A growing body of research shows that even advanced learners often lack appropriate language behaviour in various contexts (Beebe, Takahashi, and Uliss-Weltz 1990; Cohen and Olshtain 1981; Eisenstein and Bodman 1986; Takahashi and Beebe 1987; Thomas 1983). Research has also shown that second language classrooms may well be impoverished environments for the acquisition of sociocultural and sociolinguistic competence (Trosborg 1995). For example, unlike natural conversation, teacher-fronted discourse is often characterized by a narrow range of speech acts, lack of politeness markings, shorter responses, simplified openings and closings, discourse organization management monopolized by the teacher, and a limited range of discourse markers (Kasper 1997). Furthermore, many English language teaching materials do not adequately represent the frequency and choice ELT Journal Volume 54/ April 000 Oxford University Press

2 of expressions inherent in natural speech behaviour. For instance, textbooks typically introduce the phrase 7 disagree with...' to express one's disagreement, but observation of native speakers' speech behaviour shows that less direct expressions such as 'We//,... but..." are preferred (Boxer and Pickering 1995). Functional textbooks have also addressed students' needs to learn formulaic phrases such as 'thanks so much' and 'I'm really sorry'; however, attempts have not gone beyond these set phrases to include more context-dependent language that expresses the nuances of particular communicative goals, for example, politeness or ness. This paper revisits sociocultural competence by framing it in more teachable terms, introduces the use of discourse rating tasks (DRTs) to develop students' awareness of appropriate second language use, and then proposes structured practice with DRTs and role-plays for transforming students' sociocultural awareness into sociocultural performance. Socioculturat competence /revisited Figure 1 Generally, sociocultural competence refers to the cultural norms, values, and beliefs needed for appropriate and native-like language use, but such competence is elusive. To make native speakers sociocultural strategies more tangible for teachers and L students, we propose that two levels of contextual awareness be considered in teaching: Levels of awareness Content-related factors Speaker-related factors Definitions and examples Refers to speech acts of particular sociocultural functions, such as complaining, apologizing, thanking, refusing, persuading, insisting, etc., on specific topics in particular settings. Refers to speaker/hearer characteristics that affect speech behaviour, such as age, rank, gender,familiarity, and ego investment. Discourse rating task As a first step, these levels serve as analytical tools for teachers to guide students in understanding pragmatic functions more precisely, making class practice more informed and more concrete. This approach enables lessons to go beyond implicit references to speech acts and social relationships by directing learners to consider, explicitly, the array of sociocultural factors necessary for making appropriate linguistic choices. One of the most popular tools in interlanguage and cross-cultural pragmatics research is the discourse completion task (DCT), a completion exercise which requires the informant to provide appropriate responses in given scenarios (Cohen 1996). The basic objective of the DCT is to elicit speech behaviour that is appropriate to the context of a situation. An alternative version of the DCT is a discourse rating task (DRT). Unlike the DCT, this format requires the student to rate various responses on a continuum (e.g. un to, indirect to direct, or impolite to polite) based on a given scenario and dialogue 16 Jin Sook Lee and Beverley McChesney

3 prompt (see Figure ). This format is especially suitable when teaching about the various degrees of ness or politeness, or about the nuances conveyed by different expressions used to perform pragmatic functions. Figure Bob is a senior manager who has worked at the company for 0 years. Two months ago a college student intern, Barbara, started a three-month project there. There is a 'no smoking' policy at the company. However, Bob, who is not Barbara's supervisor, has seen her openly smoking in the office several times, even after he has told her that there is a 'no smoking' policy. Bob feels very strongly that the smoke is harmful to other employees. He is trying to persuade Barbara to stop smoking in the office. Bob: Barbara: Barbara, can I talk to you for a minute? Sure, whats up? a) I would appreciate it if you could smoke outside. non- b) Look, smoking is not allowed in here. Please smoke outside, non- c) Don't you think it might be a good idea to smoke outside? non- d) I've been smelling smoke in the office, have you? non- e) How many times do I have to tell you there is a 'no smoking' policy in the office? non- In constructing DRT scenarios to teach about language behaviour, 1 we first created scenarios that were of interest to our students, such as academic settings and work-related settings. We wanted a continuum of native-speaker responses that ranged from un to to aggressive, to show students that although the basic message is 'don't smoke in here', there are various ways of conveying this message and no two structures express exactly the same nuance. Although we had our own ideas of some possible responses, for confirmation, we distributed the scenarios to 0 native-speaker colleagues and friends and asked them to provide an un, an, and an aggressive response for each scenario. Their responses showed that there was much variation in what people perceived to be un,, or aggressive. So we took it a step further, and on the basis of the collected responses created a list of ten possible responses for each scenario. Then we had two native speakers make recordings of all the dialogues and responses. Because intonation can make a difference in meaning, we gave the rating task to another 18 native speakers, asking them to rate the recorded responses on a scale of Discourse rating tasks 163

4 0 (un) to 6 (aggressive). We calculated the means and the standard deviations for each of the responses, and for practical purposes we chose five responses which best represented the full continuum from un to aggressive. We then edited the original tape recordings for the five responses that were selected, and used it with the students. Pedagogical benefits of DRTs Classroom activity stages After going through the process of designing a DRT for a pilot study (Lee 1996), we recognized its pedagogical potential as a vehicle for student-centered spoken English practice. Not only is it valuable in class practice, but it affords opportunities for students to learn from the community of native speakers. DRTs give teachers and students significant flexibility to vary contextual factors and target situations beyond academic settings to a wider array of everyday situations. They also offer students and teachers a chance to co-construct their understanding of appropriate sociocultural behaviour. In particular, the process of creating DRTs enables teachers to expand their own understanding of sociocultural styles and language use in their speech community. It is crucial for teachers to realize that one individual's ideas of language use cannot represent the whole speech community. Our pilot study, using a DRT to assess perceptions and appropriateness of language use by native and non-native speakers of English, revealed gender and individual variations. However, we found that the more context we provided, the more consensus there was among native speakers. This leads us to believe that there is a shared understanding of appropriate language use among native speakers, and that this competence is what we expect our students to acquire from our teaching practices. When our students performed role-plays based on their initial DRT experience, without any further practice, the exchanges were relatively superficial. That is, having just been introduced to the various degrees of ness, they did not sufficiently apply that awareness during the 'traditional' role-plays. This lack of transfer prompted us to design more in-depth role-plays in four steps by applying the contextual awareness levels. Thus, classroom use may be developed in four stages: (1) awareness of speaker-related and context-related factors; () experience completing a DRT and surveying native speakers using the same DRT with subsequent analysis in class; (3) manipulating speaker and context-related factors to create modified scenarios; and (4) practice with in-depth role-plays. In the first stage, the teacher introduces the speaker-related and contextrelated factors with examples, reinforcing the idea that the choices speakers make are greatly influenced by these two factors. In the second stage, using a previously designed DRT, students individually rate the degree of ness of phrases; each of them then each asks two or more native speakers to do the ratings outside class, after which they compile the results as a group in class. At this point the teacher helps 164 Jin Sook Lee and Beverley McChesney

5 Figure 3 AWARENESS DRT MODIFY SCENARIOS ROLE-PLAY them to analyse and clarify native speaker and non-native speaker differences. In the third stage, the students engage in practice leading up to in-depth role-plays by modifying scenarios. Teachers begin by asking students to manipulate the speaker-related factors to create modified scenarios in the original DRT. For instance, in the scenario about the non-smoking policy in the Figure DRT example, students might respecify the parameters as follows: Figure 4 Content Function Topic Setting To persuade Non-smoking Office Next, they identify the two players according to four factors often identified in the sociolinguistic literature as those speaker-related factors that affect speech behaviour: age, rank, gender, and familiarity (social distance). In addition, we have added a fifth characteristic, ego investment, which refers to how much care one takes or how likely the speaker is to ensure that something is accomplished. Although age, rank, and gender have typically been specified by teachers in a general sense during role-plays (e.g. teacher-student, employee-customer, and peer-peer), in this activity the factors making up the relationship between the two speakers are quantified explicitly so that the students will have a clearer sense of degree. For example, rank in a company, school, or organization can be described as follows: Figure 5 most relatively mid-level relatively most junior junior position senior senior position position Discourse rating tasks 165

6 The other two factors, familiarity and ego investment, have been considered less frequently in the past. Familiarity can be ranked most familiar, frequent contact, moderate contact, rare contact, or no contact (strangers). Unlike the other variables, familiarity is bi-directional; that is, speakers have the same degree of familiarity with one another, and neither has a status independent of the other speaker. Ego investment can be ranked very strongly invested, strongly invested, moderately invested, slightly invested, or indifferent. By arbitrarily specifying degrees for these speaker-related factors, teachers encourage students to go beyond thinking in 'binary' opposites such as 'close friends' or 'strangers' to deal with degrees of familiarity that cover the whole range of the relationship continuum from strangers to close friends. Figure 6 Speaker-related factors for figure scenario Rolei Characteristics Bob Permanent employee age 50 rank 4 gender M familiarity ego investment 5 Role Barbara Temporary intern 4 1 F Next, students manipulate the relationship specifications by modifying one or more of the factors. For example, in Figure 6 they can switch the genders, change one of the ages, and/or change other factors. In the process of doing so, students need to discuss how factor changes may alter the language they used in previous practice. This in turn prepares them for the third step, in which they refer back to the DRT rating responses shown in Figure. The students then construct responses with the appropriate degree of ness for their modified scenarios. For example: Figure 7 Speaker-related factors for modified scenario Rolei Characteristics Bob Permanent employee age 8 rank 3 gender M familiarity 4 ego investment 5 * italics indicate changed variables Role Barbara Temporary intern 4 1 F Jin Sook Lee and Beverley McChesney

7 Based on these changed variables students can create new scenarios such as the following one: Modified context Figure 8 Bob, 8 and Barbara 4, live in the same neighbourhood and now work in the same office space in a company. Bob has a mid-level position in the company and has worked there for six years; he is not Barbara's supervisor. Barbara, a graduate student, is in the middle of a three-month internship there. Several people have observed Barbara smoking in the office on numerous occasions. Although Bob has mentioned the no-smoking policy, she continues to smoke.the manager has told Bob to talk to her about her smoking habits. Bob: Barbara: Barbara, can I talk to you for a minute? Sure, what's up? Bob: Given this modified context, students can refer back to the list of responses in Figure and determine the appropriate degree of ness to use in this context. Finally, in the fourth stage, students act out their modified scenarios in role-plays for continued practice in authentic situations. implications This activity addresses two fundamental areas of language teaching recognition through the use of DRTs, and production through role-plays. Once students understand the routine, this activity can be completed easily and quickly. Moreover, the basic format and content of the DRT can be altered depending on the pedagogical purpose and proficiency level of the students. For example, while our more advanced students are proficient in modifying or co-constructing scenarios, for students at the lower levels the number of parameters and the number of degrees might be limited to two or three atfirst,until the students understand how the practice works, and are able to build both their skills and their confidence. Based on our trials over the past year and a half in eight classes with four different instructors, we have found this four-step sequence to be feasible, engaging, and productive. Audiotapes of students' role-plays clearly demonstrated improvement in their ability to make finer distinctions in expressing their communicative intent. Through this four-step practice, we offer a way for teachers to integrate theory and practice, and for students to reinforce and extend their learning. In addition, the repetition built into the activity allows teachers ample opportunity to reflect on their own practices, and to assess whether students respond more appropriately to variations in language behaviour and context. Received February 1999 Discourse rating tasks 167

8 Notes 1 We defined ness as having a 'definite and sure manner in which you represent your own interest and position while still showing respect for others'. For further explanation of role-plays commonly used in language classrooms, refer to H. D. Brown Teaching By Principles. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents. References Beebe, L. M., T. Takahashi, and R. Uliss-Weltz 'Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals' in R. Scarcella, E. Andersen, and S. D. Krashen (eds.). Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language. New York: Newbury House. Boxer, D. and L. Pickering 'Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: the case of complaints'. ELT Journal 49/1: Cohen, A 'Developing the ability to perform speech acts'. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18: Cohen, A. and E. Olshtain 'Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: the case of apology'. Language Learning 31: Eisenstein, M. and J. Bodman 'I very appreciate: Expressions of gratitude by native and non-native speakers of American English'. Applied Linguistics 111: Kasper, G 'Can pragmatic competence be taught?' Paper presented at the TESOL Conference, Orlando, Florida. Lee, J 'Perceptions and use of language behaviour among native and nonnative speakers of English'. Unpublished manuscript. Takahashi, T. and L. Beebe 'The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English'. J ALT Journal 8: Thomas, J 'Cross-cultural pragmatic failure'. Applied Linguistics 4: Trosborg, A Interlanguage Pragmatics. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. van Ek, J "The Threshold Level in a European unit/credit system for modern language learning by adults'. Systems Development in Adult Language Learning. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Wilkins, D Notional Syllabuses. London: Oxford University Press. The authors Jin Sook Lee recently received her Ph.D from the School of Education, Language Learning, and Policy program at Stanford University. She is involved in research on the development of pragmatic competence among adult language learners, contrastive sociopragmatics, and language assessment. She has taught ESL/EFL at various educational levels both in Korea and the USA. <jslee@leland.stanford.edu> Beverley McChesney is the director of English for Foreign Students at Stanford University. Building on her 30 years of teaching experience in the ESL/EFL classroom, she is currently involved in developing teaching materials that target communicative strategies such as indirectness and euphemism. She also works with international teaching assistants, and teaches an introductory course in TEFL at Stanford University. <mcchesne@csli.stanford.edu> 168 Jin Sook Lee and Beverley McChesney