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.
NAVIGATING THE DISCOURSE 315as appropriate stratcgic behaviour for learn<strong>in</strong>g be it overt or covert. On the other hand,they navigate the discourse anticipat<strong>in</strong>g that the social practices with<strong>in</strong> the classroom willconstruct knowledge and the role identities of, and relationships between teacher andlearners <strong>in</strong> very specific ways.They are therefore obliged to work <strong>in</strong> ordcr to maximise thelearn<strong>in</strong>g and social benef<strong>its</strong> they may ga<strong>in</strong> from the discourse while m<strong>in</strong>imis<strong>in</strong>g <strong>its</strong> potentialpsychological and social costs. Their selective work therefore reflects their understand<strong>in</strong>gof, and contributions to, the emerg<strong>in</strong>g culture of the particular classroom group and theirown location with<strong>in</strong> it. In an carlier paper, I suggested that this culture is not onlyasymmetrical <strong>in</strong> terms of who controls the discourse, or normative <strong>in</strong> terms of the teacher’sjudgements of correctness or appropriacy, but that learners jo<strong>in</strong>tly conspire with teachers <strong>in</strong>crcat<strong>in</strong>g and ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g a managcable work<strong>in</strong>g harmony through the particular rout<strong>in</strong>esand 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 <strong>in</strong> terms of their overt rout<strong>in</strong>es and procedures or, more broadly, their socialpractices will generate different learn<strong>in</strong>g outcomes as well (Wong-Filmorc 1982, Enright1984, Spada 1987, Allen et al. 1990).Allwright (1 989) has suggested that data from classroom <strong>in</strong>tcraction often reveal teacherand learncrs hav<strong>in</strong>g to solve a recurr<strong>in</strong>g discoursal dilemma.The dilemma confront<strong>in</strong>g bothteacher and lcarners is that of ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g social harmony or avoid<strong>in</strong>g what he calls “socialproblems” whilst, at the same time, preserv<strong>in</strong>g what he regards as “pedagogic possibilitics”or genu<strong>in</strong>e opportunitics for learn<strong>in</strong>g. For Allwright, such social problems <strong>in</strong>cludeunexpected topics that arise as side issues but become an extended focus of the <strong>in</strong>tcraction,or dom<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g 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 <strong>in</strong>evitable part of classroom discourse and that, paradoxically, “goodpedagogy” based upon approaches to languagc teach<strong>in</strong>g which encourage overt learnerparticipation necessarily risks creat<strong>in</strong>g social problems. However, the culture of mostclassrooms is often built upon and preserved by a shared and unspoken assumption thatcooperation to ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> relative harmony on the surface of lessons between compet<strong>in</strong>gagendas is ultimately easier for both teacher and learners. The costs of social trouble areconstantly <strong>in</strong> balance with the benef<strong>its</strong> of fairly predictable and stable rout<strong>in</strong>cs andprocedures and the teacher and most learners work hard <strong>in</strong> order to resolvc or avoid suchtroubles. At different times, it is very likely that somc learners will perceive some socialtroubles as learn<strong>in</strong>g opportunitics just as thcy may <strong>in</strong>terpret what the teacher regards as apedagogic possibility as socially thrcatcn<strong>in</strong>g. However, the very salience of social trouble <strong>in</strong>the discourse will alert learners’ attention to it while possibly <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g teacher and learners<strong>in</strong> exactly the k<strong>in</strong>d of resolution work that may be directly beneficial to language learn<strong>in</strong>g.However, learners also navigate through classroom discourse <strong>in</strong> ways that will enablcthem to avoid <strong>in</strong>dividual trouble for themselves, <strong>in</strong> particular avoid<strong>in</strong>g to appear foolish <strong>in</strong>public. The <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g 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 depend<strong>in</strong>g upon whom they are address<strong>in</strong>g and, <strong>in</strong> particular theirperception of the relative status and l<strong>in</strong>guistic competence of their <strong>in</strong>terlocutors. Of directrelevance to the classroom,Takahashi’s research suggests that learners will be more hesitantand briefer <strong>in</strong> their utterances when address<strong>in</strong>g someone whom they perceive as highlycompetent <strong>in</strong> 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