A COMPARISON OF AN AUTHENTIC TEXT WITH A PEDAGOGIC TEXT - Essay Example

?A COMPARISON OF AN "AUTHENTIC" TEXT WITH A PEDAGOGIC TEXT Numerous teachers all over the globe are conversant with the familiarity of presenting student with dialogues that hold an artificiality quality about them. Artificiality is not bad since the whole point of linguistics learning tasks is to contrive learning. Authentic texts are defined as a text made to realize a social function within the language community. Pedagogic texts such as text dialogues like those found in English as a Foreign Language teaching materials differ largely from authentic texts across a variety of discourse features (Stubbs 2009) and (Widdowson 2008). These features include turn-taking and length patterns, the number of repetitions and false starts, lexical density, pausing, terminal latching or overlap frequency as well as usage of back-channelling and hesitation devices. This paper will compare and contrast an actual dialogue with a text book dialogue using a hotel booking telephone dialogue as an illustration. Conversations’ length Generally, an authentic telephone conversation on hotel booking would be longer than a telephone dialogue in a textbook (See Appedix 1 and 2). This can be explained by the fact that the turns taken by the information givers are virtually twice lengthy as those undertaken by the information receivers (Carter 2008) and (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 2010). Authentic telephone dialogues would have a more intricate arrangement, with the straightforward question-answer pattern interrupted by several factors (McCarthy & Carter 2004). For example, problems arise in ‘Booking a hotel by phone’, there are unavailable rooms on ground floor, plus on top of that a discussion concerning elevators as well as standard rooms versus executive rooms may arise (Cunningham & Moore 2005). Further information is regularly entreated by the giver of information. For instance, in a conversation ‘concerning hotel booking’, the assistant may enquire whether the client would prefer a room with twin beds or single beds. Answers to queries are longer within authentic texts, where the information giver offers more than one option (Stubbs 2009) (Widdowson 2008). For instance, in ‘hotel booking’ the receptionist may suggest a room with an ocean view. Clearly, real-life is not as straightforward and simple as compared to dialogues found in text books. Text book dialogues are precise since they cannot capture a real-life scenario and perhaps because the text books writers’ tend to present them that way (Carter & McCarthy 2007) and (Myers-Scotton & Bernstein 2008). Unlike in real dialogues, the language of text book dialogues represents a ‘can do’ community where interaction is generally problem-free and smooth (See appendix 2). The speakers collaborate with one another courteously; the dialogue is neat, predictable and tidy. The queries and responses sequenced somewhat in the style of a court-room interrogation or quiz show (Cunningham & Moore 2005). This is, certainly, intentional and is executed for several reasons. Principally, if the core objective of text book dialogue is to exhibit novel functional and structural language through text simplification, this enables learners to focus upon target language exhibited, to spot it, as well as hopefully obtain the structures rapidly accordingly (Carter 2008). Another reason for text simplification is to render comprehension tasks simpler. If a dialogue runs along expected lines, in which the author expect the learner to be aware of what may be uttered next as well as utilize top-down procedure to decrypt the message (Carter & McCarthy 2007), (Stubbs 2009) and (Widdowson 2008). The more random a dialogue is, the more acquirers have to depend upon ‘bottom up’ processing, for instance, taking note of individual words as well as developing them up to reach at the implication (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 2010). Nevertheless, if the dialogues are only made predictable, learners may be denied the chance to build up their ‘bottom-up’ processing abilities. If the aim of the teachers in the lecture theatre is to prime learners for sovereign language usage, then certainly teachers are necessitated at some phase to introduce to them realistic discourse models, unpredictable and messy as they are (Brown & Yule 2000) and (Myers-Scotton & Bernstein 2008). Lexical Density Text book dialogues have high lexical density in comparison to real-time dialogues. Calculations in lexical density presume that all terms fall into two classes; a lexical faction comprised of words that have a sovereign sense (for instance, mother) as well as a grammatical faction comprising of words without an independent meaning (for instance, ‘a’) (Carter 2008) and (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 2010). Therefore, lexical density is a representation of the lexical words percentage in a text (Cunningham & Moore 2005). For instance, a material constructor may sit down on her or his desk and write a conversation, and though she or he may be attempting to mimic an actual dialogue, research indicates that the outcome proves inadequate of this purpose Brown & Yule 2000) and (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 2010). High lexical density indicates a huger range of vocabulary within the contrived texts, therefore, a greater load of vocabulary for the acquirers (McCarthy & Carter 2004). These denser scripts can make greater cognitive demands upon students and increase the problem of listening fathoming activities (Stubbs 2009) and (Widdowson 2008). Though, it must be acknowledged that text writers will likely employ greater control on the vocabulary choice than is likely with authentic texts, through classifying the language to match the cultural background and level of the intended audience, therefore, simplifying the activity (Blundell & Stokes 2011) and (Myers-Scotton & Bernstein 2008). Another explanation for the lexical density difference could be that materials writers employ more overt dialect than is usual within natural speech, for instance, writing a solid noun instead of utilizing a pronoun (a pronoun could be documented as a syntactic term while a noun could be documented as a verbal term) (Carter & McCarthy 2007), (Stubbs 2009) and (Widdowson 2008). If this was the justification, then possibly the textbook conversations would be simpler to understand, however, learners would be deprived the chance to build up their skills in listening in respect to pronouns referents identification (Brown & Yule 2000) and (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 2010). Repetitions and False Starts Repetitions and false starts in spoken dialogue both signify performance mistakes by the utterer that render the comprehension task more difficult. Repetition and false starts occur often in authentic dialogues in comparison to text book dialogues (see appendix 1 and 2) (Carter & McCarthy 2007) and (McCarthy & Carter 2004). Learners are provided with the notion that spoken dialogue is tidy and neat, with speakers who speak precisely what they planned to utter, though that is incorrect (see appendix 1) (Brown & Yule 2000) and (Carter 2008). Text book dialogues provide a language model that is both unattainable and unrealistic, and may serve to discourage learners who think they may never reach perfect speech lofty heights (Stubbs 2009) and (Widdowson 2008). This language tidying up may as well slow down students’ acquisition of effective listening approaches like focusing upon content terms (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 2010). Authentic dialogue encompasses much redundant language as well as listeners must be expert at mining a meaning from the sounds barrage see appendix 1) (Myers-Scotton & Bernstein 2008), (Blundell & Stokes 2011) and (Cunningham & Moore 2005). Pauses Pauses in dialogues are normal as utterers convey their concepts or as a novel utterer ‘take the floor’. In actual dialogues, pauses are natural as utterers consider their answers, consult maps, and check their laptop screens unlike in text book dialogues (Brown & Yule 2000), (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 2010) and (Carter 2008). In distinction, pauses within text book dialogues are uncommon as well as where they ensue they are brief (see appendix 2, where the text book dialogue does not exhibit any pauses) (Stubbs 2009) and (Widdowson 2008). Although it might appear unnecessary for material writers to encompass long pauses within their discourse in the appeals of being ‘authentic-like’, the regular, smooth turn-taking displayed does not correctly reflect the speed and random nature of normal dialogue (Blundell & Stokes 2011), (Myers-Scotton & Bernstein 2008) and (Cunningham & Moore 2005). Terminal latching and overlap Actual dialogues have terminal overlaps and latching unlike the text book dialogues that cannot be able to exhibit this trait (see appendix 1 and 2). Terminal overlap ensues when two speakers attempt to speak simultaneously, and latching denotes to a moment in dialogue in which there is no pause amid turns or even a minor overlap (Brown & Yule 2000) and (McCarthy & Carter 2004). Latching and overlap is a normal feature of dialogue, and reveal humans sensitivity to TRPs (transition relevance places) as they listen to others converse, they guess when performances are almost done and someone else ‘takes the floor’ (Carter & McCarthy 2007) and (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 2010). If the predictions are accurate, latching ensues, but if they are incorrect, terminal overlap occurs, and one interlocutor is forced to abandon the floor (Blundell & Stokes 2011) and (Carter 2008). The variances amid textbook and actual dialogues are substantial, with text book dialogues presenting a domain of distinct, clean, exchanges, which rarely ensue in actual life(see appendix 2)(Cunningham & Moore 2005) and (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 2010). Once more, there exist pedagogical explanations for this levelling out of ‘turn-taking’, with students attempting to understand other facets of verbal English (Blundell & Stokes 2011) and (Myers-Scotton & Bernstein 2008). Hesitation Devices Actual dialogues have more hesitation devices and these hesitation devices render them more real unlike in text book dialogues, where use of hesitation devices is next to impossible (see appendix 1 and 2). According to Brown & Yule 2000) and (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 2010), hesitation devices like ‘er’ or ‘erm’ are very frequent in normal spoken dialogue, as interlocutors try to retain the floor whereas constructing their next expression; a break by itself could provide another speaker the opportunity to take charge, through saying ‘erm’ the interlocutor suggests that she or he is not, however; ready to abandon the floor (Brown & Yule 2000) and (McCarthy & Carter 2004) and (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 2010). There is a comparative hesitation devices’ shortage within text book conversations, which is rather puzzling, because there appears to be slight pedagogic explanation for excluding them (Carter & McCarthy 2007) and (Carter 2008). They contribute little to the reasoning load of the students, and can actually assist in the comprehension task through breaking up statements onto slight ‘meaning chunks’ (Cunningham & Moore 2005). Hesitation devices are as well crucial in production, and in assisting learners keep the floor whereas they tussle with what to utter next (Blundell & Stokes 2011) and (Myers-Scotton & Bernstein 2008). Back-Channels Actual dialogues have back channels unlike in text book dialogues. Uhum’, ‘yeah’, ‘no’, ‘mm’, ‘oh’ and ‘right’ are classic back-channels that used in combination or individually see appendix 1 and 2. Bach-channels are noises that are not complete words as well as short verbal answers made by hearers that accept the incoming conversation and respond to it, without wanting to take charge the dialogue turn (Carter 2008). By itself, they have a crucial affective function to play in dialogue, suggesting a sympathetic and responsive listener (see appendix 1) (Cunningham & Moore 2005). Keeping in mind the significance affective function back-channelling offers in dialogue, it is worrying to see that this trait is absent in text book dialogues (Brown & Yule 2000) and (McCarthy & Carter 2004). Interlocutors in text book dialogues risk being seen as somewhat unsympathetic and cold, or bored as well as students face the same in case they adhere to this model of interface outside the lecture room (Carter & McCarthy 2007) and (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 2010). With merely a few back-channels to grasp, and provided the datum that their presence in conversations has small effect over the intricacy, it is impossible to realize why they are not encompassed more frequently in textbooks. Possibly, if they are, more students would integrate them into their individual language repertoire (Blundell & Stokes 2011) and (Myers-Scotton & Bernstein 2008). Conclusively, it is evident that there are considerable variances amid actual dialogues and authentic dialogues. Nevertheless, there are several evidences that textbook writers are starting to accept the inclusion of specific dialogue features within their conversations (Cunningham & Moore 2005) and (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 2010). The point that text book dialogues have not correctly imitated authentic communications is logical taking into account that writers of materials have customarily tended to utilize conversations as a mode of reinforcing specific grammar facts or to introduce functional language as well as vocabulary (Blundell & Stokes 2011) and (Myers-Scotton & Bernstein 2008). They have as well had functional or structural pedagogic objectives, and it is because of these they have dwelled on instead of any matters concerning authenticity. Few persons, beyond dialogue analysts, are conscious of simply how messy dialogue truly is, filled with interruptions, false starts, pauses, and overlaps and latching, repetitions and hesitation devices (Cunningham & Moore 2005) and (McCarthy & Carter 2004). Perhaps writers of materials have intentionally preferred not to render their conversations authentic-like (Brown & Yule 2000). Some elements like back-channelling and hesitation devices can helpfully be encompassed from an extremely early phase without influencing the complexity of the text book dialogues (Carter 2008) and (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 2010). As with other facets, for instance, false starts or terminal overlap, there exist more explanation for exclusion, but to what degree according to Brown & Yule 2000) and (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 2010) should students be deprived of disclosure to natural dialect? If students’ aim is to have the capacity to function independently within the second language outside the lecture room, nevertheless; at some instance, they must be presented with the right nature of dialogue (Brown & Yule 2000). Pedagogic craft is perfectly vindicated in text resources as a phase in the procedure of developing into a proficient user of a different language (Carter & McCarthy 2007). This cannot culminate there since in many textbooks, learners obtain something that is invented for them, and might hence; resent being discouraged by instructors or writers of materials who, on seemingly laudable grounds, seem to understand better (McCarthy & Carter 2004). Knowledge or information concerning language must never be inhibited; the role is to render it accessible, without artificial restrictions, in manners that most learners’ require (Blundell & Stokes 2011) and (Myers-Scotton & Bernstein 2008). References Blundell, L. & Stokes, J. 2011, Task Listening, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Brown, G, & Yule, G. 2000, Discourse Analysis, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Carter, R. & McCarthy, M. 2007, Exploring Spoken English, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Carter, R. 2008, Orders of Reality, CANCODE, Communication and Culture, ETL Journal 52/1: 43-56. Cunningham, S. & Moore, P. 2005, Making Headway, Everyday Listening and Speaking, Oxford, Oxford University Press. McCarthy, M. & Carter, R. 2004, Language as Discourse, Perspectives for Language Teaching, Harlow, Essex, Longman. Myers-Scotton, C. & Bernstein, J. 2008, Natural Conversations as a Mode for Textbook Dialogue, Applied Linguistics 9/4: 372-84. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. & Jefferson, G. 2010, A simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation, Language, 50: 696-735. Stubbs, M. 2009, Lexical Density, Birmingham. Widdowson, H. 2008, Context, Community and Authentic Language, TESOL Quarterly 32/4: 705-16. Appendix 1 An authentic dialogue on hotel booking Receptionist: Good morning. This is the Smith’s Hotel. What can I do for you Sir? Client: Hi, erm good morning. (Um.. good morning Sir.) I'd like to make a reservation for the 3rd weekend in August. Erm... are there any vacancies? R: Yes sir, (erm) we have a few rooms available for that precise weekend. Er.... and what will be your exact date of arrival? C: On the 24th. R: (Alright) for how long will you be staying? C: Yeah, um.., I'll be staying for two nights. R: OK. How many people is the reservation for? C: (Er) There will be two of us. R: (Alright) And would you like a room with twin beds or a double bed? C: Oh, A double bed, please. R: Great. Um..., and would you prefer to have a room with a view of the ocean? C: Yeah, if that type of room is available, i would love to have an ocean view. Er...what's the rate for the room? R: Um.. Your room is five hundred and ninety dollars per night. Now what name will the reservation be listed under? C: Charles Hannighan Miss. R: Could you (um) spell your last name for me, please? C: Oh apologies...Yeah... H-A-N-N-I-G-H-A-N R:(Oh, Alright) And is there a cell phone number where you can be contacted? C: Yeah, Sure, my cell phone number is 555-26386. R: Great. (Er) Now I'll need your credit card information to reserve the room for you. What type of card is it? C: (Um) Visa. ( OK) (Erm) And the number is 987 (er )654321. R: Erm, OK...And what is the name of the cardholder? C: Charles H. Hannighan. R: Alright, Mr. Hannighan, Er your reservation has been made for the twenty-fourth of September for a room with (um) a double bed and view of the ocean. ( yeah) Check-in is at 2 o'clock. ( OK) If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to call us. C: Great, thank you so much. R: My pleasure. ( Thank you) We'll see you in September, Mr. Hannighan. Have a nice day ( Have a good day too Miss). Appendix 2 A textbook telephone dialogue on hotel booking Receptionist: Good morning. Welcome to The Grand Woodward Hotel. Client: I'd like to make a reservation for the third weekend in September. R: Yes sir, we have several rooms available for that particular weekend. R: How long will you be staying? C: I'll be staying for two nights. R: How many people is the reservation for? C: There will be two of us. R: And would you like a room with twin beds or a double bed? C: A double bed, please. C: What's the rate for the room? R: Your room is five hundred and ninety dollars per night. R: Great. Now I'll need your credit card information to reserve the room for you. R: And what is the name of the cardholder? C: Charles H. Hannighan. R: Alright, Mr. Hannighan, your reservation has been made for the twenty-fourth of September for a room with a double bed and view of the ocean. Check-in is at 2 o'clock. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to call us. C: Great, thank you so much. R: My pleasure. We'll see you in September, Mr. Hannighan. Have a nice day. Read More