English Language Teaching in its Social Context

NAVIGATING THE DISCOURSE 315as appropriate stratcgic behaviour for learning be it overt or covert. On the other hand,they navigate the discourse anticipating that the social practices within the classroom willconstruct knowledge and the role identities of, and relationships between teacher andlearners in very specific ways.They are therefore obliged to work in ordcr to maximise thelearning and social benefits they may gain from the discourse while minimising its potentialpsychological and social costs. Their selective work therefore reflects their understandingof, and contributions to, the emerging culture of the particular classroom group and theirown location within it. In an carlier paper, I suggested that this culture is not onlyasymmetrical in terms of who controls the discourse, or normative in terms of the teacher’sjudgements of correctness or appropriacy, but that learners jointly conspire with teachers incrcating and maintaining a managcable working harmony through the particular routinesand procedurcs of the surface text of lessons (Brcen op. cit.). From SLA research, we knowthat different types of classroom-based activities and tasks will permit different outcomesfor different learners (Larsen-Freeman 1976a,Tarone 1988, Schmidt 1980, Bahns andWode1980, Hyltenstam 1984, Lightbown 1991). But wc also know that different types ofclassrooms in terms of their overt routines and procedures or, more broadly, their socialpractices will generate different learning outcomes as well (Wong-Filmorc 1982, Enright1984, Spada 1987, Allen et al. 1990).Allwright (1 989) has suggested that data from classroom intcraction often reveal teacherand learncrs having to solve a recurring discoursal dilemma.The dilemma confronting bothteacher and lcarners is that of maintaining social harmony or avoiding what he calls “socialproblems” whilst, at the same time, preserving what he regards as “pedagogic possibilitics”or genuine opportunitics for learning. For Allwright, such social problems includeunexpected topics that arise as side issues but become an extended focus of the intcraction,or dominating or highly reluctant learners, or procedural confusions that appear to detractfrom the teacher’s plans or lesson rnanagemcnt. Allwright suggests that the resolution of“social trouble” is an inevitable part of classroom discourse and that, paradoxically, “goodpedagogy” based upon approaches to languagc teaching which encourage overt learnerparticipation necessarily risks creating social problems. However, the culture of mostclassrooms is often built upon and preserved by a shared and unspoken assumption thatcooperation to maintain relative harmony on the surface of lessons between competingagendas is ultimately easier for both teacher and learners. The costs of social trouble areconstantly in balance with the benefits of fairly predictable and stable routincs andprocedures and the teacher and most learners work hard in order to resolvc or avoid suchtroubles. At different times, it is very likely that somc learners will perceive some socialtroubles as learning opportunitics just as thcy may interpret what the teacher regards as apedagogic possibility as socially thrcatcning. However, the very salience of social trouble inthe discourse will alert learners’ attention to it while possibly involving teacher and learnersin exactly the kind of resolution work that may be directly beneficial to language learning.However, learners also navigate through classroom discourse in ways that will enablcthem to avoid individual trouble for themselves, in particular avoiding to appear foolish inpublic. The interesting studies of Beebe and Zuengler (Beebe 1977, Beebe and Zuengler1983) and ofYoung (1988 and 1991) reveal that the learners will actually vary the style oftheir production depending upon whom they are addressing and, in particular theirperception of the relative status and linguistic competence of their interlocutors. Of directrelevance to the classroom,Takahashi’s research suggests that learners will be more hesitantand briefer in their utterances when addressing someone whom they perceive as highlycompetent in the target language such as their teacher (Takahashi 1989). And Rampton(1 987) reveals that learners, while actually capable of more complex language, may revert