It’s Not What You Say, but How You Say It!

-To become proficient in using the semantic, syntactic, lexical, morphological and phonological
elements of the language being learnt. They also need to understand its pragmatic use.

-Words stressed incorrectly or with inappropriate pitch or intonation will impede the learner in getting
the intended message across. Phonology, then, should be an integral part of any ESL lesson/syllabus.

-It would seem essential that phonology be learned in context and not treated incidentally and/or
separately.

-It is probably better to focus on the global aspects of oral production than on accuracy

-A diagnosis of learners’ spoken English will provide information as to the types of activities and
techniques that will be required.

STEP 1. SETTING THE CONTEXT:

Listthe nationalities represented in the class on the chalkboard; make sure that they are grouped
according to similar stress patterns (e.g., Chin‘ese, Vietnam‘ese, Japan‘ese). Ask learners which part
of the word sounds ‘stronger, louder and longer’. Indicate what you mean by these terms; clench your
fist for strong, raise your voice for louder and draw out an utterance for longer by exaggerating the -ese
(e.g., Chin‘E-S-E). Mark the stressed syllable. Make sure the learners understand that the symbol used
is to mark the stress. Shift the stress onto another syllable to show how it alters the sound of the word.

STEP 2: DIAGNOSING LEARNERS’ SPOKEN ENGLISH

-Collect samples of learners’ speech, on cassette or video.

Suprasegmental level

General speaking habits

1. Clarity. Is the learner’s speech clear? Are there instances where there is a breakdown in
communication? What are the major factors?

2. Speed. Does the learner speak too quickly? Is her speech unintelligible because she speaks too
quickly?

3. Loudness. Does the learner speak too softly? Does the lack of volume affect intelligibility?

4. Breathing. Does the learner speak with appropriate pauses, breaking each utterance into thought
groups?

5. Fluency. Does the learner speak with either long silences between words or too many ‘filled pauses’
(e.g., ‘ah . . .ummm’)? It’s Not What You Say, but How You Say It!

6. Voice. Is there enough variation in pitch?

7. Eye gaze. Does the learner use eye-gaze behaviour appropriate to the context (e.g.,facing a
conversational partner or looking at the audience if delivering an oral presentation)?

8. Expressive behaviour. Does the learner overuse gestures? Does the facial expression match the
utterance?

Intonation

1. Is the learner using appropriate intonation patterns in utterances? Can the learner use intonation
contours to signal whether utterances are statements, lists, wh- questions or yes/no questions?

2. Is the learner changing pitch at the major stressed words?

Stress and rhythm

1. Word-level stress. Does the learner produce the schwa in unstressed syllables? Does the learner
use loudness and length to differentiate between stressed and unstressed syllables?

2. Sentence-level stress. Does the learner stress each syllable equally? Is she able to produce
appropriate strong and weak stresses? Are lexical words stressed and ungrammatical words
unstressed? Does the learner place the tonic stress on the appropriate words?
3. Linking. Is the learner linking words appropriately? Are identical consonants linked
(e.g., top position)? Are vowels linked (e.g., pay up)? Are consonants linked to vowels (e.g., top of )?

Segmental level

Consonants

1. Substitution. Is the learner substituting one phoneme for another?

2. Omission. Is the learner omitting consonants?

3. Articulation. Is the consonant being articulated properly (e.g., is /p/ aspirated word-initially)?

4. Clusters. Are consonant clusters articulated properly?

5. Linking. Are consonants linked to each other?

Vowels

1. Substitution. Is one vowel being substituted for another?

2. Articulation. Is the learner articulating vowels correctly (e.g., lip rounding)?

3. Length. Do vowels have their appropriate length?

4. Reduction. Are vowels reduced in unstressed syllables?

5. Linking. Are vowels properly linked to other vowels across word boundaries?
STEP 3: SELECTING THE CONTENT
I believe that it is prudent to not only diagnose the learners’ phonological problems, but also the
communicative contexts in which they use English outside the classroom. With lower levels this can be
done in the following way:Ask learners to vote on those areas they would like to be covered and in what
order. Tell them that in the next few weeks you will cover these topics and ask them to do activities that
will help them to understand and produce utterances in these contexts.

STEP 4: INCORPORATING PHONOLOGY INTO ESL LESSONS

You’ve established that the majority of learners have problems with stress and rhythm and intonation
patterns. They’ve indicated that banking is a topic they are interested in.

CONCLUSION
I have attempted in this paper to present a procedural approach for incorporating phonological elements
into an ESL syllabus. The process can be applied to any ESL context; it is not confined to an adult ESL
context.

The focus on the suprasegmental level has been deliberate, as it is my opinion that this area causes
most communication breakdowns between ESL learners and native speakers. I strongly believe that in
making learners aware of phonological concepts, the learning process becomes more comprehensible
and enjoyable. It’s not only about putting s on plurals /s/, /z/ or /Iz/, or marking past events with past-
tense markers /t/ or /d/. By making learners aware of the role of phonological elements in discourse,
we provide them with a means for decoding and encoding meaning in exchanges: who the people are,
what their perceived status is, how they feel about what they are saying, cues for signalling a change
in topic, the status of the message (‘I’m imparting information, you listen’, ‘I’m asking you, answer me’
or ‘I’m not sure about what I’m saying’) and boundary marking (‘I’m finished’, ‘I’mJulie Hebert not
finished yet’). We provide learners with a key to how the culture is articulated through language and
how to use language. Without this key, it is difficult to understand ‘why and how’ people convey their
intended meanings.
 TEACHING SPEAKING

A large percentage of the world’s language learners study English in order to develop proficiency in
speaking. The ability to speak a second or foreign language well is a very complex task if we try to
understand the nature of what appears to be involved. To begin with, speaking is used for many
different purposes, and each purpose involves different skills.

In the first paper, Kang discusses a number of factors that need to be considered in planning a speaking
course. She refers to the influence of age, listening ability, sociocultural knowledge, and affective
factors on the ability to speak a second or foreign language, and introduces the useful model developed
by Canale and Swain to account for the components.

Teaching Speaking of speaking ability. This model describes speaking proficiency as depending on
grammatical competence, discourse competence, sociolinguistic competence, and strategic
competence, each of which needs to be addressed in a speaking course. Kang describes a variety of
classroom activities which can be used to practice different aspects of conversational proficiency.

In the second paper, Tsang and Wong describe a study which sought to demonstrate the effectiveness
of teaching university students in Hong Kong a set of conversational microskills and a working
vocabulary needed to handle everyday conversations. Their study focused on the use of conversation
starters, and with only 15 hours of instruction using videotaped conversation practice, they found that
students did achieve considerable gains in fluency and in the use of conversation starters. Therewas
little improvement in pronunciation or grammar.

In the final paper in this section Green, Christopher, and Lam examine one aspect of speaking
proficiency – discussion skills – and explore how these can be developed in the classroom.The
approach discussed in the article is learner-centered, which allows students to choose and organize
their own topics, carry out peer- and self-observation and evaluation, and analyze the information they
gather.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

Before Reading
1. What needs do your learners (or a group of learners you are familiar with) have for interactional
functions of language?

2. What aspects of speaking (e.g., pronunciation, intonation, grammatical accuracy, fluency) do you
emphasize most in your teaching? Why?

3. Getting learners to produce the language orally at the very early stage of learning can result in
fossilization. Do you agree with this statement? Why?

4. Besides grammar rules, what other rules do learners need to know? How do you teach these
rules?

5. What types of speaking activities do you normally use in your classroom? Do they serve different
purposes?

6. What kinds of materials do you use for teaching speaking skills? Why do you usethem?
7. Beginning second language learners are often asked to memorize short dialogues. Is this useful?
What do you think is the rationale behind this?

After Reading

1. Can you give examples of situations you know where second language learners have broken one
of the rules of conversation? What was the rule? Were there any consequences of breaking the rule?

Introduction

2. Examine an ESL textbook for teaching speaking skills. What aspects of speaking skills are taught?
How adequate do you think the coverage of speaking skills is in the book?

3. Within the framework of a speaking course, discuss activities that can be used to address
grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and strategic
competence.

4. Review the four kinds of activities discussed by Kang and suggest other activities that fit these
categories.

5. What factors do you think account for the lack of improvement in pronunciation and accuracy in
Tsang and Wong’s study?

6. Examine the microskills addressed in Tsang and Wong’s study. Suggest activities that could be used
to teach some of these skills.

7. Discuss ways in which students can be given feedback on their performance on oral activities, and
the advantages and disadvantages of different feedback strategies.

8. Suggest a lesson plan for a lesson on discussion skills.

 Conversational English: An Interactive, Collaborative, and Reflective Approach

Conversations are listener- or person-oriented (Brown & Yule, 1983; Slade, 1986). As in other speaking
tasks, a conversation requires the speaker to ‘face temporal constraints and the social pressures of
face-to-face interaction’ (Chafe, 1986, p. 16). A conversation is a truly communicative event which is ‘a
dynamic exchange in which linguistic competence must adapt itself to the total informational input, both
linguistic and paralinguistic’ (Savignon, 1971, cited in Higgs & Clifford, 1982, p. 58). Conversations
‘begin with greetings and progress through various ordered moves: the speaker’s and hearer’s roles
are ascertained, topics are introduced, rights to talk are assumed, new topics are raised, and at the
appropriate time, the conversation is terminated in a suitable manner’ (Richards, 1983, p. 118). Put
briefly, the speaker and the hearer have to take the initiative, ask questions, or express disagreement
in the conversation, all of which require a command of particular language features and which ‘can be
learnt’ (Underhill, 1987, p. 45). The conversation class reported here is based on this assumption of
learnability.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the students made several achievements in this program. As seen on the tapes and as
commented upon in students’ own evaluations, they were able to build up a working vocabulary to
handle everyday conversation; make appropriate use of conversational microskills to initiate, maintain
and terminate a conversation; and gain confidence in speaking. The starters used in the conversation
practices provided enough basis to develop free conversation which approximated reality. Taping in
the teacher’s absence was effective. In addition, self- and peer feedback was effective. Indeed, teacher
feedback confirmed self- and peer feedback, and complemented it. Apart from these achievements,
other possible directions for future programs of this kind include the following:

1. Further strengthen pronunciation and vocabulary, as indicated in the students’ action plans.

2. Deal more with grammatical accuracy, an area where the present programme failed to effect major
improvement.