English Language Teaching in its Social Context
English Language Teaching in its Social Context
English Language Teaching in its Social Context
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
102 LEO VAN LIERfor utterance design, as well as reactive resources other than repair. Repair is thus only oneamong many forms of negotiation of mean<strong>in</strong>g.A fourth and f<strong>in</strong>al consideration goes to the very foundations of learn<strong>in</strong>g and <strong>its</strong> relationto the environment. Almost all the work <strong>in</strong> applied l<strong>in</strong>guistics that addresses the role of<strong>in</strong>put and <strong>in</strong>teraction (see Ellis ( 1 994) for an overview) assumes an <strong>in</strong>put-output model ofcommunication and learn<strong>in</strong>g. This model is based on a view of language use as the transferof l<strong>in</strong>guistic matter from one person to another and largely ignores issues of reciprocity andcont<strong>in</strong>gency. Be<strong>in</strong>g basically a transmission model (as words like <strong>in</strong>put and output <strong>in</strong>dicate),it does not address learn<strong>in</strong>g as transformation and language learn<strong>in</strong>g as grammaticalization(the development of grammatical complexity <strong>in</strong> the organic sense, outl<strong>in</strong>ed, e.g., byRutherford (1 987)). It is likely that the true role of <strong>in</strong>teraction <strong>in</strong> learn<strong>in</strong>g and the truesense of whatvygotsky meant by the zone of proximal development can be revealed onlythrough an organic or ecological approach (see Gibson 1979; Bowers and Fl<strong>in</strong>ders 1990).In such an approach, notions like cont<strong>in</strong>gency and symmetry will be central, and overt actsof repair<strong>in</strong>g will be epiphenomena1 (Marcus and Zajonc 1985; Graumann 1990; Platt andBrooks 1994). L<strong>in</strong>guistic matter <strong>in</strong> the environment, to the extent that the learner has accessto it (see van Lier (1996) for a detailed discussion of access), provides affordances to theactive and perceptive learner (Gibson 1979; Dcci and Ryan 1992).’Whether or not suchaffordances are packaged as repair sequences is likely to be a m<strong>in</strong>or issue.A theoretical conclusionI have discussed two different types of <strong>in</strong>teraction <strong>in</strong> language learn<strong>in</strong>g, teacher-learner<strong>in</strong>teraction <strong>in</strong> the IRF mode and learner-learner <strong>in</strong>teraction, to illustrate equality andsymmetry. I have suggested that <strong>in</strong>teraction is particularly beneficial for learn<strong>in</strong>g when it iscont<strong>in</strong>gent. Symmetrical <strong>in</strong>teraction is naturally cont<strong>in</strong>gent <strong>in</strong> a variety of ways, butasymmetrical <strong>in</strong>teraction is deficient <strong>in</strong> cont<strong>in</strong>gency. Unequal discourse partners tend tof<strong>in</strong>d it more difficult to orient their <strong>in</strong>teraction toward symmetry; as a result their<strong>in</strong>teractions often look like IRF sequences or <strong>in</strong>terviews where one of the partners takes acontroll<strong>in</strong>g role.Two questions rema<strong>in</strong>: What are some ways <strong>in</strong> which unequal discourse partners - suchas teachers and learners or native speakers and nonnative speakers -- can engage <strong>in</strong>symmetrical and cont<strong>in</strong>gent <strong>in</strong>teraction, and how would that engagement benefit learn<strong>in</strong>g?What are the pedagogical benef<strong>its</strong> of various forms of asymmetrical discourse, such aslectures and IRF exchanges?<strong>Language</strong> learn<strong>in</strong>g depends on the access learners have to relevant language material(affordances) <strong>in</strong> the environment and on <strong>in</strong>ternal conditions like motivation. <strong>Social</strong> <strong>in</strong>teractionis the prime external condition to ensure access and Icarncrs’ active engagement.Cont<strong>in</strong>gent <strong>in</strong>teraction provides an “<strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sic motivation for listen<strong>in</strong>g” (Sacks, Schegloff,and Jefferson 1974). Learners’ natural learn<strong>in</strong>g processes, through the desire to understandand be understood, synchroni~e with efficient perception and focus<strong>in</strong>g. Learners will bevigilant toward l<strong>in</strong>guistic features and will make an effort to be pragmatically precise yetambiguous where ambiguity is needed. Grammaticalization is thus a natural by-productof cont<strong>in</strong>gent <strong>in</strong>teraction. To put this idea <strong>in</strong> the strongest possible (though of coursehypothetical) terms: the organic, self-regulat<strong>in</strong>g process of cont<strong>in</strong>gent <strong>in</strong>teraction is anecessary and sufficient condition for language development to occur. In the absence ofappropriate research, this is of course a speculative hypothesis.But that is only one side of the co<strong>in</strong>. To the extent that the target of language learn<strong>in</strong>g