Spoken language research and ELT:

where are we now?

Ivor Timmis

Introduction

There are a number of reasons, Iwould argue, why spoken language

research provides an apt topic for an article with a retrospective
element. Firstly, thanks to the advent of corpora, spoken language
research has provided a wealth of descriptive insights into spoken
language, particularly over the last 20years. Secondly, although
these findings are undoubtedly of intrinsic interest, the debate about
the relevance of such findings to ELT has crystallized two important
issues: the relationship between research and teaching, and the
role of the native speaker in a world where English is increasingly
used in international contexts. Lastly, the publication of a seminal
article on spoken language and ELT by Michael McCarthy and
Ronald Carter in 1995 coincided with the beginning of the current
editors tenure, and the related debates have continued to the most
recent issues. This article begins by trying to capture the general
tenor of recent insights into spoken language. It then considers
the sociocultural questions raised by spoken corpus findings and
the impact these findings have had on practice thus far. Finally, it
discusses ways in which both research and practice might develop in
relation to spoken language.

Spoken
languageresearch

Corpus-based spoken language research has shed interesting light on

the distinctive use of both lexis and grammar in conversation. There
ELT Journal Volume 66/4 Special issue October 2012; doi:10.1093/elt/ccs042 
The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.

514

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad de La Rioja on September 18, 2012

This article examines the relationship between spoken language research

and ELT practice over the last 20 years. The first part is retrospective. It
seeks first to capture the general tenor of recent spoken research findings
through illustrative examples. The article then considers the sociocultural
issues that arose when the relevance of these insights to ELT was discussed.
This is followed by a brief assessment of the impact spoken language
research has made on ELT practice so far. The second part of the article
looks to the future and considers how research might help us to take a
more principled and coherent approach to teaching spoken language. The
concluding argument of the article is that the spoken language debate
provides an interesting case study of the relationship between theory and
practice in ELT and points to the way we might engage with other debates
in the field.

In terms of spoken grammar, Iwould argue that corpus research has

provided insights in two main ways:
1 It has shown that some non-canonical spoken grammatical

features are more systematic and pervasive than previously thought

(McCarthy and Carter op.cit.).
2 It has shed new light on features that have tended to be described
only in terms of their written use.

As an example of the first kind, we can take the syntactic feature of tails,
illustrated in the example below and discussed by McCarthy and Carter
(op.cit.) in their seminal article:
They all want throwing out, the government.
Although this structure has sometimes laboured under the term right
dislocation on the grounds that the subject has been moved out of its
natural position and placed outside the conventional clause structure,
a number of studies (in English and other languages) have shown
that, far from being a self-repair aberration, it has clear discourse and
pragmatic functions. It can function to retrospectively clarify the subject
of the preceding clause: it is plausible, for example, that the speaker

Spoken language research and ELT

515

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad de La Rioja on September 18, 2012

is not space here for a comprehensive review of descriptive findings,

but the examples below have been chosen with the aim of providing a
window on the general picture that has emerged of spoken language. In
terms of spoken lexis, even simple frequency counts can be revealing,
especially if they are then supported by qualitative analysis. OKeeffe,
McCarthy, and Carter (2007), for example, point to the high frequency
of well, just, and right in conversation. These words are probably
more frequent than one would intuitively suppose, but qualitative
analysis of how the words are used in context helps to account for their
frequency: although each of these words has a simple lexical meaning,
they also have a discourse-marking function, and it is this function
that contributes most to their frequency. This frequency reflects the
interactive nature of conversation and underlines the importance
of words that have pragmatic functions in the organisation and
management of conversation and in the speakerlistener relationship,
particularly in terms of maintaining good relations (ibid.: 159). Shin
and Nation (2008: 339)also used frequency counts to provide insights
into the nature of spoken lexis: their research concluded both that
collocations are more frequent in speech than in writing and that a
large number of these would qualify for inclusion in the most frequent
2,000 words of English, if no distinction was made between single
words and collocation. They also observe that collocations such as
you know, a bit, and come onfirst, third, and twenty-first in the
frequency ranking list respectivelyreflect the interactional nature of
conversation. We should note here that a bit functions commonly as a
softening or hedging device as in, I feel a bit disappointed, rather than
simply as a partitive, as in a bit of peace and quiet. Arguably, then,
words and collocations with interactive functions should have a higher
priority even at the elementarylevel.

in the example above realized mid-utterance that they was somehow

underspecified as the subject. However, the structure has a clear
association with evaluative comments (as in the example above) and can
help to create an affective bond with the listener. Perhaps paradoxically
for a grammatical feature that is almost exclusive to spoken language,
a written example, because it probably represents more considered or
strategic use of the feature, might illustrate how it can serve to establish
an affective bond. The following example is taken from the guidebook
to the Lancashire Cycleway:
Theyre changeable, these moors.

As an example of an insight into the specifically spoken use of a

canonical feature, we can look at the spoken use of though. Although
we would expect to see it in initial or medial position in writing, (as in
Examples 1 and 2 below), Conrad (2004) makes two interesting points
about the use of though in conversation: it is often used clause-finally
as a linking adverbial (as in Example 3 below) or interactively between
speakers (as in Example 4 below):
1 Though it is used initially or medially in writing, it is more often

used finally in speech.

2 
Though is used initially or medially in writing, though it is more often

used finally in speech.

3 Ienjoy the job. Idont know if Ill be doing it in 10years time though.
4 S1: Its not nice.

S2: Its funny though.

As with the examples with lexis, we see interactive and affective
concerns to the fore. Indeed, it can be argued that although specific
insights are of undoubted interest, of more value is the picture of
spoken language that emerges from the accumulation of specific
findings. This picture shows spoken language to be fundamentally
shaped by the conditions, constraints, and goals of conversation:
real-time processing, shared context, co-construction of conversation,
and relation management (Ruehlemann 2007). Our example of tails,
for instance, can be seen as sensitive to real-time processing concerns
as it allows a subject to be clarified retrospectively; at the same time,
it can reflect relation management concerns by striking an informal
tone. The interactive use of though is a particularly good example of
co-constructive potential in conversation. In Example 4, S2 actually
links his clause to S1s clause, effectively saying, Though its not nice,
its funny. However, it also contributes to relation management by
softening disagreement, i.e. I acknowledge that you say its not nice,
but Ithink its funny.
516

Ivor Timmis

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad de La Rioja on September 18, 2012

We see again the association with evaluation, but what is interesting

here is that, although the adjective changeable is often neutral or
negative, this sentence seems (to me) to show the writers affection
for the moors and at the same time to invite the reader to share
that affection (which Ido). We can also add that, as this example is
in writing, it can hardly constitute retrospective clarification of the
pronounsubject.

It could be argued that such findings, based on naturally occurring

Real English and
the internationaluser native speaker data, would be of clear benefit to teachers as they

A further aspect to the debate naturally emerged: if learners and

teachers are to turn away from native-speaker norms, what are they
to turn to? The growing body of research into the use of English as a
Lingua Franca (ELF) was an obvious direction in which to turn. The
VOICE (Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English) corpus,
which focuses on English spoken by non-native users, is a conspicuous
example of such research. One of the stated aims of VOICE is to redress
the balance in relation to a perceived overemphasis on native-speaker
corpora (further information on VOICE can be obtained at: http://
www.univie.ac.at/voice/). However, as the ongoing debate in the
pages of this Journal attests, although it seems more than reasonable
that corpora of English used among non-native speakers should play
a role in ELT, what ELF research has to offer is not self-evident. Can it
provide alternative norms, or an alternative core of norms, to which
learners might orient? Given the vast number of varieties that would be
represented in such a corpus, codification of ELF might be a quixotic
quest, and a restricted focus on items crucial to spoken intelligibility
might lead to an impoverished syllabus (Kuo 2006). Alternatively, ELF
research might lead to a reappraisal of a fundamental concept, such
as accuracy, in language teaching. Indeed, Willis (1999) took on the
challenge of redefining accuracy by distinguishing between accuracy
and conformity: he defines accuracy as consistent and intelligible use
of language; and conformity as adherence to a given set ofnorms.
The debate about the sociocultural relevance of spoken language
findings has tended to be conducted at a theoretical level, with
different commentators offering opposing arguments for what would
be in learners best interests. Timmis (2002), however, conducted
an attitudinal survey to canvas learners and teachers views on the

Spoken language research and ELT

517

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad de La Rioja on September 18, 2012

represent real English. However, Prodromou (1998) among others

(including some corpus linguists), pointed out that real is a relative
term: What is real for the native speaker may also be real, say, for the
learner studying in Britain, but it may be unreal for the EFL learner
in Greece and surreal for the ESL learner in Calcutta. Prodromous
(ibid.) succinct and witty remark provides the link between the relatively
limited discussion of the usefulness of certain spoken language features
and sociocultural issues, which have been prominent in ELT in recent
years: in a world where English is increasingly used in international
contexts, what is the relevance of native-speaker language and culture
to learners whose primary need may be to communicate with other
non-native speakers of English? In effect, an extra dimension was added
to the older debate about the nature and value of authenticity: whose
authenticity? To contextualize the debate in terms of spoken language,
we can return to our example of tails. Is this a quintessential badge of
native-speaker identity, which it is both unnecessary and undesirable
to teach to the non-native speaker? Or is it a feature that will be of real
value to learners in managing their interactions in English (McCarthy
and Carter op.cit.) and/or in facilitating fluency (Mumford2009)?

They [Chinese teachers] consider the ability to speak naturally and

accurately like a NS from countries such as Britain to be a distinct
advantage. Among Singaporean teachers, however, opinion is
divided, revealing the complexities in language choice in societies
where the local English variety competes with Anglo models for
allegiance and acceptance. (ibid.:305)
The differences noted here remind us that attitudes will be
context-sensitive and that the socio-political contexts in which English is
learnt and used can vary widely.

Spoken language and The coincidence of the advent of native-speaker corpora with the
exponential rise in the number of non-native users of English has
currentpractice
clearly presented a challenge for practice. It will be interesting to see
how practice has responded, but first we should acknowledge that
there is always a pedagogic filtering process that mediates between the
findings of language research (whether about spoken language or not)
and practice. This filtering process will generally consist of obvious
questions such as
1 Is the item useful?
2 Is the item frequent?
3 Is the item complex?

In the case of spoken language, the first question may be particularly

pertinent and, as we have seen, we need to add at least a fourth
question, as follows:
4 Is the item socioculturally appropriate?

It is not difficult to think of obvious examples of socioculturally

inappropriate language. My friends would (I hope) recoil in horror
if Iexclaimed, I was like, Wow!, on the grounds that this was
unbecoming of a strait-laced 53-year-old. Sometimes, however,
judgements are more subtle, and it can be instructive to look at a
coursebook and consider the prototypical user the authors had in mind.
The Touchstone series (McCarthy, McCarten, and Sandiford 2006), for
518

Ivor Timmis

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad de La Rioja on September 18, 2012

desirability of aspiring to native-speaker norms. The survey showed

that the majority of the students consulted did aspire to native-speaker
norms on a general level, though they were less certain with specific
reference to spoken grammar. There was also a consensus among
teachers that learners should be exposed to features typical of spoken
language. This, however, was a broad-brush survey with no claim
to be generalizable: the only safe conclusion that could be drawn
was that a desire to aspire to native-speaker norms exists among
some students and is not necessarily restricted to those who have
a need to communicate with native speakers. And, like any such
questionnaire research, it was unable to probe deeply into the issues.
Goh (2009), however, carried out a more localized and detailed study
into the attitudes of Chinese and Singaporean teachers in relation
to the question of teaching spoken language. She found interesting
differences between the two groups:

example, which offers far more systematic and consistent treatment of

spoken language than most other coursebooks, seems to me to have
in mind young, informal, socially active adults who are either learning
English in a native-speaking country or with a view to using English in
a native-speaking country (the authors state clearly that the book teaches
North American English). There is nothing wrong with that, of course,
but it underlines the importance of matching materials tocontext.
The filtering process outlined above certainly seems to have been at
work in the case of spoken language if we consider current practice in
mainstream materials. Cullen and Kuo (2007: 361), for example, based
on a survey of 24 General English coursebooks published in the United
Kingdom since the year 2000, concluded that:

The overall picture presented by Cullen and Kuo (ibid.) suggests that
spoken language research has filtered through to coursebooks, but in
restricted ways, and with wide variation between coursebooks in how
systematically spoken language is treated (but we should note that the
Touchstone series was not included in the survey). It is interesting that
although Cullen and Kuo (ibid.) noticed differences in the amount of
attention devoted to spoken language in the books they surveyed, they
noticed many similarities in the methodological procedure employed on
those occasions when coursebooks did focus on spoken language. They
noted that the following stages were common:

exposure to the feature through a semi-scripted listening text;

global comprehension task on the listening text;
focus on the target feature (through repeated listening or use of the
transcript);
brief explanation of the feature and questions;
short controlled practice activity.

Cullen and Kuo (ibid.) also observe that the procedures followed have
much in common with the I-I-I (illustration-induction-interaction)
paradigm proposed by McCarthy and Carter (op.cit.) and adapted
by Timmis (2005). Cullen and Kuo (ibid.) focused on similarities in
approach, whereas Mumford (op.cit.) observed a division between those
who advocate an awareness-raising approach with little or no emphasis
on production and those who argue that there is an important place for
production.

Spoken language
research:
lookingforward

We have seen that research has offered us a great deal in terms of

descriptive insights, yet there is still considerable uncertainty as to
what to do with this information. What more can research offer in the
future? Although purely academic research into spoken language will
and should go on, pedagogically oriented corpus research might move
us closer to the elusive goal of a core spoken grammar of interaction. In

Spoken language research and ELT

519

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad de La Rioja on September 18, 2012

coverage of features of spoken grammar is at best patchy.

Where it is dealt with at all, there tends to be an emphasis on
lexicogrammatical features and common syntactic structures
peculiar to conversation are either ignored or confined to advanced
levels as interesting extras.

terms of native-speaker spoken grammar, this will involve producing a

more socially nuanced picture of spoken language. Adolphs and Carter
(2003), for example, argued that the structure be + like (for example
I was like, Whats going on?) to introduce reported speech, was
predominantly restricted to the under-30s. One suspects this may have
changed now, but this kind of information about features that are more
or less socially or culturally marked will be of value in informing our
decisions. In this vein, we can observe that although there is evidence
that tails in general are common to all varieties of English, there is also
evidence that the particular variant below, which includes the verb, is a
northern British variant.
Shes a nice girl is Fanny.

Hes a hard nail is Colonel Biddlestone.

To return to the structure be + like to introduce reported speech, it has
gained massively in popularity in the last 20years, but is it here tostay?
If we take the view that applied linguistics involves the interaction of
theory and practice, rather than simply the application of theory to
practice, two further kinds of research will be useful: attitudinal research
and classroom research. Local attitudinal research is particularly
important because, as Gohs (op.cit.) study suggested, contextual
variables will influence attitudes to the desirability of aspiring to
native-speaker norms. These variables will include factors such as the
history, role, and status of English in a given context; political relations
with native-speaker countries; and learners aims. Timmis (2005)
carried out some very small-scale classroom research, which involved the
evaluation of materials that focused on spoken grammar. The materials
were very positively received, but as the students involved were all
studying in a UK higher education context, the results need to be treated
with extreme caution. Classroom research of this kind could, however,
be carried out on a larger scale and in different contexts.
520

Ivor Timmis

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad de La Rioja on September 18, 2012

We also need further research into ELF to establish whether expert

non-native speakers use similar features to native speakers to similar
effect and/or what other features they use to achieve the interactive
and affective goals of conversation. Research may be able to identify
pan-varietal or multi-varietal features of spoken language. Aneglected
aspect of spoken language research, in my view, is the historical
dimension. Corpora such as CANCODE (Cambridge and Nottingham
Corpus of Discourse in English) and the spoken component of the
British National Corpus will soon be regarded as historical corpora,
offering us baseline data against which change can be mapped. Future
corpora that are aligned with current corpora in terms of genre and the
demography of the speakers will be able to give us a more precise idea
of which features are ephemeral and which are enduring. If a feature
proves to be enduring, it is reasonable to suppose, Iwould argue, that
it plays some useful function. In this respect, Iwould like to cite an
example of tails produced by a character in a Sherlock Holmes story
(The Blanched Soldier by Arthur Conan Doyle), written, of course, over
100years ago:

Research evidence on the lines suggested should facilitate a more

principled and coherent approach to the teaching of spoken language.
It is important to note that a principled and coherent approach does
not necessarily mean a heavy emphasis on spoken language: it simply
means having an informed rationale for how far you choose to proceed
with spoken language and how you go about it. However, if research
can point us towards pan-varietal or multi-varietal spoken-language
features, or at least towards features that are not too socially or
culturally marked, we have the makings of a core syllabus. Attitudinal
data will then help us to determine how far beyond this core we
want to go, if at all. If we have confidence in what we have decided
to teach, we should then be able to approach the task of teaching
spoken language with more conviction. If an item has survived the
rigorous pedagogic filtering process, then it need not be consigned to
a space-filling box in the corner of a page; we can give serious thought
to the methodology. Classroom research can help us to determine
how explicit and overt the treatment of spoken language needs to be,
whether it lends itself more to one presentational model, for example
present-practise-produce (P-P-P) or I-I-I, than another, or whether it
depends on the particular feature.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Ihave tried to show in this article how spoken language

research has been both stimulating and disconcerting in recent years.
It has been stimulating in bringing into the foreground features of
spoken language hitherto neglected and allowing us to see more
established features in a fresh light. Above all, it has shown the
importance of interactional, interpersonal, and situational concerns
in shaping spoken language. It has been disconcerting in challenging
previously held views of language, but also in providing a challenge
to practitioners: what do we make of this research in the light of rapid
changes of patterns of use of English in the world? Personally, Ihave
very much enjoyed engaging with the research and the associated
debate. Strangely perhaps, the more Ihave engaged with it, the more
relaxed Ihave felt about not knowing the answer. This has underlined
to me the importance of three qualities in approaching research:
1 Asense of perspective: although corpus-based spoken language

research has been going on for well over 20years, it is a very short
time in the history of language teaching. Why should we know the
answer to its implicationsyet?
2 
Critical curiosity: spoken language research can make us think afresh
about language; make us ask, What am Idoing and why?; but the
pedagogic filter remains in place.
3 Cheerful agnosticism: our classrooms are not experimental
laboratories, but we can perhaps find space to explore the
implications of research for a while in an open-minded spirit.

I would suggest that these three qualities would also be useful in

engaging with contemporary research into and debate about areas
such as task-based learning, content and language integrated learning
(CLIL), and technology-enhanced learning, in addition to engaging with
other research to come.

Spoken language research and ELT

521

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad de La Rioja on September 18, 2012

Teaching spoken
language:
lookingforward

522

Ivor Timmis

Ruehlemann, C. 2007. Conversation in Context:

ACorpus-driven Approach. London: Continuum.
Shin, D. and P. Nation. 2008. Beyond single
words: the most frequent collocations in spoken
English. ELT Journal 62/4: 33948.
Timmis, I. 2002. Native-speaker norms and
international English: a classroom view. ELT
Journal 56/3: 2409.
Timmis, I. 2005. Towards a framework for
teaching spoken grammar. ELT Journal 59/2:
11725.
Willis, D. 1999. An international grammar of
English? Paper presented at the 33rd IATEFL
Conference, Edinburgh.

The author
Ivor Timmis works at Leeds Metropolitan
University, where he teaches on the MA in
ELT course and supervises PhD students. His
research interests include the relevance of corpus
findings for ELT and the analysis of spoken
language. In recent years, he has developed an
interest in spoken language from an historical
perspective and has been compiling a corpus of
conversations that took place in Bolton in the late
1930s. He has worked on the ELTJ Editorial Panel
and is now on the Editorial Panel for TESOL
Quarterly.
Email: i.timmis@leedsmet.ac.uk

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad de La Rioja on September 18, 2012

References
Adolphs, S. and R. Carter. 2003. And shes like
its terrible, like: spoken discourse, grammar and
corpus analysis. International Journal of English
Studies 3/1: 4556.
Conrad, S. M. 2004. Corpus linguistics, language
variation, and language teaching in J. Sinclair
(ed.). How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cullen, R. and I-C. Kuo. 2007. Spoken grammar
and ELT course materials: a missing link?
TESOL Quarterly 41/2: 36186.
Goh, C. 2009. Perspectives on spoken grammar.
ELT Journal 63/4: 30312.
Kuo, I-C. 2006. Addressing the issue of teaching
English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal 60/3:
21321.
McCarthy, M. and R. Carter. 1995. Spoken
grammar: what is it and how can we teach it?
ELT Journal 49/3: 20717.
McCarthy, M., J. McCarten, and H. Sandiford.
2006. Touchstone. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Mumford, S. 2009. An analysis of spoken
language: the case for production. ELT Journal
63/2: 13744.
OKeeffe, A., M. McCarthy, and R. Carter. 2007.
From Corpus to Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Prodromou, L. 1998. Correspondence. ELT
Journal 52/3: 2667.