English Language Teaching in its Social Context

~ (1991)~ (1994)~ (1985)268 PAULINE GIBBONSThe research I have described also indicates the significance for language learning ofthe intertextual nature of classroom language: how one text is understood or produced inrelation to another. A wide range of intertextual relationships exist in all classrooms,between, for example, what a teacher says and what students are expected to read; whatstudents listen to and what they are expected to write; the discourse of the lesson and thetexts students are expected to work with for homework; and the familiar language or dialectof the home and the less familiar language of the school. A consideration of how these linksare made intertextually - and recognising where linguistic ‘bridges’ are missing - mightoffer insights for the planning of school programs for all learners, and help to suggest thekind of linguistic support most relevant for students less familiar with the language of theclassroom.A final point concerns the model of language drawn on in my research. A languagemodel which addresses the relationship between context and meaning, and which isconcerned therefore with more than grammatical competence, provides a significantdimension to the planning of ESL program3 and dcsign and sequencing of learningactivities.Further classroom-based studies are needed into the language learning processes ofschool-aged ESL learners, if educators are to develop more theoretically informed andequitable curricula and pedagogy. This task requires researchers to take a moreinterdisciplinary approach to research in multilingual classrooms, one which draws onseveral theoretical and methodological lines of enquiry and which is underpinned by a socialview of learning and a model of language-in-context.ReferencesBarnes, D. (1976) From Communication to Curriculum. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Berry, M. (198 1) ‘Systemic linguistics and discourse analysis: a multi-layered approach toexchange structure’, in M. Coulthard and M. Montgomery (eds) Studies in DiscourseAnalysis. London: Routlcdgc and Kegan.Bruner, J. (1978) ‘The role of dialogue in language acquisition’, in A. Sinclair, R. Jarvella, andW. Levclt (cds) The Child’s Conception oflanguage. New York: Springcr-Verlag.Collier, V. (1989) ‘How long? A synthesis of rcscarch in academic achicvcmcnt in a secondlanguage’. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 509-531.Cummins, J. (1996) Negotiating Identities: Educationfor Empowerment in a Diverse Society. OntarioCA: California Association for Bilingual Education.Dclpit, L. (1988) ‘The silenced dialogue: power and pedagogy in cducating other people’schildren’. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280-298.Dillon, J. (1990) The Practice $Questioning. London: Routledge.Driver, R. (1983) The Pupil as Scientist? Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Edwards, D., and Mercer, N. (1987) Common Knowledge: The Development .f Understanding in theClassroom. London: Methuen.Ellis, R. (1 985) Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.‘The intcraction hypothesis: a critical evaluation’, in E. Sadtono (ed.), LanguageAcquisition and the Second/Foreign Language Classroom. Singapore: Anthology Series 28,SEAMEO Regional Languagc Centre.The Study $Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Prcss.Halliday, M. (1975) Learning How to Mean: Explorations in the Development ofLanguqe. London:Arnold.An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.