The IAFOR
Academic Review
Volume 1 | Issue 7

Essays in Language
Learning
ISSN: 2188-9570

EYE MAGAZINE ISSUE 7

4

6

12

4.
From the Editor
An introduction to thelatest edition of The IAFOR
Academic Review

Planning Research to
Explore EFL motivation,
EFL anxiety and EFL
Learning Strategies by Phil
Craigie & Alison Owens

6.
The Propriety of the
Native Speaker:
World Englishes and the
NEST/NNEST Dichotomy
by Kevin Kato

23.
Empowering English
Language Learners:
The Importance ofDeveloping Critical
Literacy Skills by Jennifer
Cope

CONTENTS

12.
Focused Instruction of
Formulaic Language:
Use and awareness ina Japanese University
Class by David Wood by
Kazuhiko Namba

27.
The Teaching of Foreign
Languages for SpecificPurposes- How and Why by Mario
Pace

18.
Front Cover:
What goes on in Foreign Photo by Pascal Maramis,
Language Learners’
Flickr.
minds?
2 | The IAFOR Academic Review Seventh Edition

EYE MAGAZINE ISSUE 7

18

23

IAFOR Academic Review Editorial Committee

The IAFOR
Academic
Review

Rev. Professor Stuart Picken, Chairman of theInternational Advisory Board
Dr. Joseph Haldane, IAFOR, Executive Director

Volume 1 – Issue 7 – April 2015

Mr. Michael Liam Kedzlie, IAFOR, Research andPolicy Manager
The IAFOR International Academic Forum
Advisory Board, Language Learning Conference
Chairs & Advisors
Professor Steve Cornwell, IAFOR International
Director of Programme: Language Learning
Osaka Jogakuin University, Osaka, Japan
Professor Ted O’Neill, Tokyo Medical and Dental
University, Japan

27

EditorMichael Liam Kedzlie
Design & Layout
Thaddeus Pope
Published by The International
Academic Forum (IAFOR), Japan
IAFOR Publications.
IAFOR Publications © Copyright2015
ISSN: 2187-0594 (Online)
www.iafor.org
Sakae 1-16-26-201, Naka-ward,
Aichi, Japan 460-0008

The IAFOR Academic Review Seventh Edition | 3

“FROM THE EDITOR

Editorial Committee Introduction

It is my great pleasure to announce the publication of the seventh issue of the IAFOR
Academic Review. One of the central missions of The International Academic Forum or
IAFOR is to provide avenues for academics and researchers to be international, interculturaland interdisciplinary. In this the seventh issue of the IAFOR Academic Review we the editorialcommittee bring together a selection of the most interesting contributions from our two mostrecent Asian and European Conferences on Language Learning. Though this edition focusedon the importance of Language Learning published by the International Academic Forum.
However, though the primary focus is on the learning of language, the very broad nature of thediscipline means it has wonderful opportunities to reflect and embrace the other disciplinesof study. From applied linguistics, through to educational technology, and on to sociology andpsychological are covered in the five papers presented in this edition. The papers selected by
the editorial committee for this special edition certainly reflect the international, interculturaland interdisciplinary approach that lies at the heart of both IAFOR and Language Learning.
Sincerely,
Michael Liam Kedzlie
Editormkedzlie@iafor.org

Contributors
Kevin Kato
Kevin is lecturer at Kinjo Gakuin University, where he teaches English writing and conversation.
He has presented on topics related to world Englishes at regional and international conferencesin the United States. His research interests include computer-assisted language learning, world
Englishes, language pedagogy, sociolinguistics, and nonnative English speaking teachers in
Applied Linguistics and TESOL. He is currently working on projects that integrate Moodle
into the classroom as well as the role race plays in the myth of the native speaker.

Photograph by A Guy Taking Pictures / Flickr

Phil Craigie & Alison Owens
Currently Phil Craigie teaches English within the Department of Applied Foreign Languages
at Chaoyang University of Technology, Taiwan. He is also currently studying for a doctoral
degree with the Central Queensland University in Australia. Phil Craigie previously studied fora Masters of Professional Education and Training at Deakin University, Australia. Dr. Alison
Owens is currently completing her second doctorate in creative writing at Central Queensland

4 | The IAFOR Academic Review Seventh Edition

FROM THE EDITOR

University in Australia. She is also a former Director International Education Research Centre,
at Queensland Central and is currently teaching at the Australian Catholic University. Her
research focuses on intercultural communication, intercultural and international education,with particular reference to the role of the English language in globalised and technologisedcommunications.
David Wood & Kazuhiko Namba
David Wood’s career in English language education spans over thirty years, including language
teaching in Canada and abroad, and teaching and research in applied linguistics and TESL.
Currently Associate Professor at Carleton University’s School of Linguistics and Language
Studies, where he coordinates TESL programs, Dr. Wood is the author and editor of several
volumes on formulaic language. His research interests centre around formulaic language,
spoken language, and teacher education. Kazuhiko Namba is an Associate Professor of Applied
Linguistics at Kyoto Sangyo University, Japan. His main research interest is the structural
aspects of code-switching and the role of formulaic language in bilingual children’s language
acquisition. Dr. Namba acquired his PhD and MA at Cardiff University in the UK.
Jennifer CopeJennifer Cope has been an English language teacher for over 15 years, teaching internationaland migrant language learners in private and public English colleges in Sydney, Australia. In
addition, she has more recently provided online tutoring to undergraduate students in HongKong. Jennifer is an Academic Tutor on the Masters of Education in Teaching English toStudents of Other Languages (TESOL) program at the University of Sydney, where she isalso completing her PhD research in the area of discourse studies.
Mario Pace
Mario Pace is a resident Senior Lecturer of Italian at the Department of Arts and Languages in
Education within the Faculty of Education at the University of Malta. Dr. Pace is responsible
for the training and formation of teachers of Italian as a foreign language as well as chairpersonof the Professional Development Portfolio committee within the Faculty of Education. He
is coordinator of the PGCE (Post graduate Certificate in Education) course of studies, theM.Ed in Italian Education course as well as coordinator of the teaching practice sessions ofstudent teachers of Italian within the same Faculty. He has participated in conferences bothin Europe and the USA and has published various academic papers, with topics varying from
Italian literature in Malta to the teaching of Italian as a foreign language to the Teaching of
Languages for specific purposes. Dr Pace is responsible for the development, managementand delivery of a number of in-house training courses of ‘Italian for Commercial Purposes’
and “Italian for Call Centres” for various private and public companies across the Maltese
Islands. He is currently coordinator of a National project across the Maltese Islands intended
to increase the number of students obtaining accredited certification in foreign language
proficiency by the end of compulsory schooling.

“

The IAFOR Academic Review Seventh Edition | 5

The Propriety of the Native Speaker: World
Englishes and the NEST/NNEST Dichotomy
By Kevin Kato

Photograph by Australia Department of Foreign Affairs / Flickr

Abstract
Discriminating teachers’ pedagogicaland professional skills, solely
on the basis of accent, physicalappearance, and native speaker statusis unfounded and unethical. The
growing number of English language
learners worldwide correlates toan increasing number of nonnative
English speaking teachers (NNESTs)
and native English speaking teachers(NESTs). Unfortunately, NNESTs
have not always shared equal status
with NESTs in the field; in fact, until
quite recently, NNESTs, the global
majority of English teachers, were notseen by many as legitimate educators.
Moreover, unity between NNESTs
and NESTs seems lacking at best, andat worst a contest to claim superiority
over the other. Specifically, a native
speaker benchmark has divided agroup of teachers sharing a common
goal of teaching English, into two
species with a distinct set of assets.
This article aims to reexamine andimplement the perceived advantages
and disadvantages of NNESTs andNESTs into a coalescent frameworkin which both parties can accessand utilize assets thought before
unique to each group. Specifically,
this paper argues the intersection ofmulticompetence, codeswitching, andsix qualities thought only accessible tononnative English speaking teachersoffers one step towards unifying
two disparate groups by refocusing
the emphasis on the needs of ourstudents. For instance, NESTs in EFL
environments who have proficiency intheir learners’ L1 can empathize withthe frustrations of learning a foreign
language, and of course benefit fromsharing a language in common. Thisessay seeks to move beyond the native
speaker dichotomy and provide
students with qualified teachers.
Introduction
With the current rate English is
continuing to spread across the

6 | The IAFOR Academic Review Seventh Edition

globe, Inner Circle countries can nolonger dictate and control the futureof English; it is now in the hands ofthe world—a world comprised of adiverse population of English speakers
from different cultures and varieties
of English. An often cited statistic
by Canagarajah (1999) projects that
80% of English teachers world-wide
are nonnative speaking teachers ofEnglish (NNESTs). Interestingly,
however, many people both within
and outside of the ELT community
continue to view these educators froma native speaker perspective. That is, aprimarily Inner Circle native speakermodel is used as a benchmark andtarget of ultimate attainment by whichteachers’ pedagogical and professional
skillsaremeasuredagainst.
Paradoxically, these teachers will neverattain native status in the eyes of many
people, but are referred to instead as‘native-like.’ Those falling short ofthe ‘native-like’ title are demoted to
the rank of failed native speakers.
This paper advocates for a perspective

based on L2 users, the majority of
speakers and teachers, rather than onnative speakers the minority group.
It also argues that a native speakerframework has divided a group ofteachers with the same end goal.
Moreover, I will present a foundation
which implements the perceived
advantages of both nonnative andnative speaking English teachers via
the intersection of multicompetence,codeswitching and Medgyes’ (1992)
6 assets.
This paper is written in the context
of language teaching in Japan,
where English is taught as a foreign
language. Although the findings andpedagogical applications are most fully
beneficial with a monolingual group oflearners in an EFL environment, theyalso hold relevance in ESL situations.
Outline of the paper
The current paper is divided into
two major sections. The first section
traces the origins of the native speakerbenchmark and explains how its
reverberation through the field divided
NNESTs and NESTs. The subsequent
section describes a new framework,
aiming to bridge a conceptual gap
between theory and practice byarguing how the intersection ofmulticompetence, codeswitching, andPéter Medgyes’ (1992) six assets of
NNESTs can refocus teaching on theL2 user. I will elaborate how the use ofmulticompetence as basis invalidates
the myth of the native speaker andwill further detail the implications of
this foundation regarding the use of
L1 in the classroom as well as a lens toreevaluate and reply Medgyes’ (1992)
6 assets.
From Deficit to Difference—
Changing
Perspectives
andParadigms in the Literature
In the last three decades, the notionof native and nonnative speakers
in language teaching went from an
overlooked area of research to one
with a dedicated subfield of study
in applied linguistics. While many

academics and practitioners perceive
NNESTs as bona fide educators in
the field, the situations in some EFL
environments, such as Japan, seems toreflect unity between nonnative andnative English teachers as lacking
at best, and at worst a contest forsuperiority between two groups who
possess a common purpose. Moreover,this dichotomy is often portrayedthrough stereotypes in the literature
with NNESTs viewed as grammar
gurus who can better offer insightand teaching strategies from theirexperience as learners and NESTs
as the proprietors of pronunciation(see e.g., Benke & Medgyes, 2005;
Braine, 2010; Reves & Medgyes,
1994). However, prior to the 1980s,
the perceptions of many NNESTs
could not have been any different;
these educators were widely viewed
as second class teachers with language
deficiencies. In this section, I argue
that this reflects one example of how
deeply the native speaker benchmark
has penetrated the field of ELT.

fossilization and interlanguage helped
support the idea of separate grammars
by using a native speaker perspective
and benchmark as a measure ofultimate attainment for L2 learners.
Specifically, the initial interlanguage
model proposed that students traverse
a path from L1 native speakers to L2
native speakers, with interlanguage
representing the language during their
L2 transition. Those failing to attainnative proficiency in the L2 became
fossilized or deficient native speakers.
While Chomsky’s and Selinker’s
theories regarding SLA certainly
represented novel and breakthroughdiscoveries during the 1960s and1970s, these were largely predicatedon the notions and hypotheses of first
language acquisition. This foundation
inherently employed a native
speaker model as a linguistic andcultural target for acquisition which
would reverberate through different
paradigm shifts.

The Native Speaker Construct

Following the rather theoreticallab-based approach to the nativeand nonnative speaker constructs
exemplified by the Chomskian
paradigm, the next shift, the NNEST
movement, would broaden the scopeof investigation to include a wide
range of sociolinguistic variables.
Specifically, scholars and linguists
in the field began to view othervarieties of English through a more
pluricentric lens taking into accountissues such as language ownership,class, race, and (access to) education(e.g., see Halliday, 1974; Higgins,
2003; Norton, 1997; Peirce, 1995;
Widdowson, 1994). Under this more
holistic approach, non-Inner Circle
varieties of English would become
recognized not as erroneous formsof an Inner Circle target, but as
separate and unique varieties worthyof study (see B. Kachru, 1997; Sridhar& Sridhar, 1986). This movement
also signified the legitimizationof NNESTs as educators (see e.g.
Higgins, 2003; Medgyes, 1992;
Pennycook, 1994; Phillipson, 1992;
Widdowson, 1994).

The notion of the ‘idealized native
speaker’ model emerged from theChomskian paradigm in linguistics(see e.g. Chomsky, 1965, 1968, 1986)
which helped define (Inner Circle)
native speakers as the perfect modelsof their language—i.e., the judges ofgrammaticality, against which others
would be measured. The underpinningof this model was in Chomsky’s (1966)
difference between competence andperformance which emphasized theformer over the latter (see also Firth& Wagner, 1997; Sampson, 1980).
While this may have applicability
in examining a static language in a
homogenous group of monolingual
speakers, it does not provide anadequate basis or account for language
variation among the multilingual users
and various contexts in which English
is used today.
Another conceptual emphasis of theChomskian perspective was a focus on
independent grammars. For instance,
Selinker’s (1969, 1972) notions of

An Injection of Sociolinguistics

The IAFOR Academic Review Seventh Edition | 7

Another Divide
Although momentous progress wasmade during the almost 20 year spanfrom the 1980s until the late 1990s, it
was also a double edged sword. Some
research implicitly reiterated remnantsof a Chomskian (in)competencemodel and thus marked the origin of
another division between NNESTs
and NESTs. Medgyes’ 1992 article
represents one such example of thisresearch. Seidlhofer’s (2001) assertion,“this means that the how is changing,but linked to a what that is not” (p.
140), provides a nice analogy for the
analysis of this. While the legitimacy
and status of both NNESTs andNESTs changed, differing degrees
of an “us” versus “them” relationshipbetween the groups remains nearly
the same.
That is, despite insisting that thequestions concerning the relativevalue of NNESTs and NESTs
represent a false dichotomy which“may be conductive to forming wrong
judgments about the differences”(1992, p. 347) between NNESTs
and NESTs, Medgyes’ argument
presupposes this binary contrast, andin fact rests on the advantages anddisadvantages between each group.
Moreover, these merits and demerits
are predicated on the remnants of thenative speaker benchmark via theirderivations in terms of what they areor are not. This shares similarities how
the term nonnative, was conceived
and defined in terms of somethingthat they were not, a native speaker.
Although Medgyes’ 1992 articlebought into a comparative fallacy, his
six assets raise important notions thatpractitioners, researchers and teacher
training programs (e.g. MA TESOL
programs) should address. Shortly
after Medgyes, in 1999, Vivian
Cook, an English linguist, proposed agroundbreaking idea that viewed SLA
from the perspective of the L2 learner.
A New Framework
This marks the second major
portion of the paper. The notionsof multicompetence and the L2
will be introduced as well as theirimplementation as a theoreticalfoundation for L1 use in theclassroom. The subsequent section
will discuss how codeswitching can beutilized as a tool by both teachers andstudents, which will be followed by are-examination of Medgyes’ (1992)
assets.

who uses another language for any
purpose at whatever level, and is thus
not covered by most definitions ofeither bilinguals or L2 learners” (p.47).
The multicompetence and L2 user
approach take into consideration thatmany of people in the world use atleast two languages with many morethat use a multitude of languages fordifferent purposes. When viewed
in this context the native speaker
Multicompetence and the L2 User
framework shifts from a structure of
normality to one of uncommonness.
Cook (1999) offers his notion of That is successful communication can
multicompetence as one way of going and does span more than one language
beyond the native speaker dichotomy. at a time (codeswitching) and occurs
His idea of multicompetence,originally between those possessing a gamutcoined in his 1991 publication, The of proficiencies. As a theoreticalpoverty-of-the stimulus argument and foundation for my framework, it
multi-competence as “the compound provides a constructive basis tostate of a mind with two grammars” address L1 use in the classroom(p.112), encompasses the knowledge and re-evaluate Medgyes’ 6 assets.
of L1, L2, and interlanguage into It will soon be monolingual native
one mind. That is, it accounts for the speakers who find themselves lost in a
total amount of language knowledge multilingual world.
a multilingual person possesses, rather
than isolating a speaker’s L1 and L2(see Figure 1).

Figure 1
Moreover, all languages contained ina user’s language eco-system are seen
as interdependent on one another andencompasses the syntax, culture andpragmatics of each language.
The L2 user comes as a naturalextension of the multicompetence
lens. A non-monolingual speakeris seen as unique user and person in
their own right, free from descriptors
such as a failed native speaker. Cook(2005) defines an L2 user as, “a person

8 | The IAFOR Academic Review Seventh Edition

Codeswitching and L1 Use in theClassroom
Codeswitching denotes one toolaccessible to bilinguals. However,what exactly defines a bilingual?
Or perhaps more specifically, whatlevels of proficiency do bilinguals
possess? Bilinguals represent nota homogenous group of people,
but rather individuals who possess
different ranges of proficiency in morethan one language (cf. V. Cook, 2002;
Han, 2004). Although some bilingualshave equal (balanced) proficiencies
in more than one language, they
represent a minority group among
bilinguals as a whole. For example,
Cook (1999, 2005) argues thatplotting native speaker proficiency as
an ultimate attainment goal represents
an unreasonable, if not impossible
objective, with the exception of people
who are monolingual speakers of two
languages (balanced bilinguals). Not
surprisingly, the differing proficiency
ranges equate to a diverse use ofcodeswitching between bilinguals.This
encompasses not only the linguisticfeatures of codeswitching (e.g., interand intra-sentential switching), butalso extralinguistic variables suchas identity and power. Even undera multicompetence lens, the fear ofnegative transfer may represent a topic
of contention for teachers. However,I argue that the benefits of positivetransfer significantly outweigh thepossible detriments of negativetransfer in EFL environments. The
following sections will discuss somepossible uses of L1 in the classroom(via codeswitching) and its benefits tostudents and teachers.
Codeswitching by Students (Limited
Proficiency Bilinguals)
The use of codeswitching by students
can be utilized as a tool to repair
breakdowns, express personal feelings,
fill lexical gaps and can also foster
stronger classroom solidarity which
may lead to improved motivation(Fotos, 2001; Nishimura, 1995). For
instance, I will introduce two examples
gathered from out of class recordings
submitted by some of my students.
Example 1
I’m going present…chau wa…I’m
going to present. {I’m going present…I
mean…I’m going to present…}
This student’s use of codeswitching
signaled her repair of a grammaticallyincorrect item.
Example 2
Is it totteiru? {Is it recording?}

The code switch to Japanese wasused to prevent the breakdown of her
inquiry. While the students in eachexample learners utilize Japanese fordifferent functions, they both used
English as a base grammar. Researchby other scholars (Vivian Cook, 2001;
Eldridge, 1996; Fotos, 2001; Kite,
2001; Macaro, 2001, 2005) show that
contrary to popular belief, linguisticallyand pedagogically, codeswitching can
improve coherence among students
as well as offer the teacher possibly
more effective classroom management
methods. Macaro (2005) insightfully
writes:the trick for the teacher is toencourage the learners to makeevaluative strategies such as: ‘when
am I likely to be better off sticking
with language I know already(e.g. formulaic expressions; wholesentences I have used in the past)rather than generate new sentences
via translation. Balanced against thisI must try to address the task as fully
and as creatively as I can.’ (p.77)
When used in a constructive andsparing manner, the use of students’ L1and codeswitching in the classroom
can facilitate more L2 production as it
keeps the flow of a conversation intact.
Fotos’ (2001) study observed that an
improved classroom atmosphere andenhanced motivation represented acouple positive effects for students.
Codeswitching by Teachers
Just as codeswitching can facilitate
the use of the target language inthe classroom for students, teachers
can also benefit from employing it
as a tool. Forman (2010) offers ten
principles for the use of L1 in the
EFL classroom (see Table 1 below).
1. Cognitive L2 development
To explain L2 vocabulary, grammar,
usage, culture
2. Affective Solidarity
To facilitate easy, ‘natural’ interaction
amongst students and with teacher
3. Interpersonal development
To develop collaborative, team-workabilities
4. Pedagogic
Time-effectivenessTo
makegood use of limited classroom time
5. Comprehensibility
To convey meaning successfully
6. Inclusivity
To ensure that all students canparticipate
7. Contingency
To respond to immediate teaching/learning needs
8. Classroom management
To maintain discipline
9.
Socio-political
Globalisedcommunication
To enable students to move flexibly
and effectively across two languages
10. Political positioning
To resist the political dimension of
global English
For those in teaching environments
where contact between students andteachers occur one a week for 90
minutes, codeswitching can offer
teachers a powerful tool to build
repertoire with students. Additionally,classroom management via students’
L1 can become much easier as ateacher can more accurate assess andrespond to students who are on or off
task. Codeswitching can also be used
to ease understanding of the target
language (e.g. English) by replacing
seemingly difficult to words withglosses in the students’ L1. Moreover,Macaro (2001, 2005) suggests that thecodeswitching in this context can help
rather than hinder students’ ability torecall and remember new vocabulary.
Perhaps the most beneficial andrealistic outcome from judicious
codeswitching is the authenticity
provides as well as the focus on the L2
user.
Medgyes’ Six Assets
Péter Medgyes, a Hungarian EFL
teacher, published a seminal article andthen a book (1994) which scrutinized
the position and roles of NNESTs
and NESTs in TESOL. Although his
two works were the first to assert thatboth ‘native’ and ‘nonnative’ speakers
of English could be successful

The IAFOR Academic Review Seventh Edition | 9teachers, these suppositions wereaccompanied by the observation thateach group possessed a distinct set ofcharacteristics. Despite the flaws in
his original argument, Medgyes’ six
traits represent a good objective for
NESTs to aspire for. The six inimitable
qualities thought unique to NNESTs
are as follows:
1. Only non-NESTs can serve asimitable models of the successful
learner of English.
2. Non-NESTs can teach learning
strategies more effectively.
3. Non-NESTs can provide learners
with more information about the
English language.
4. Non-NESTs are more able toanticipate language difficulties.
5. Non-NESTs can be more
empathetic to the needs and problemsof their learners.
6. Only non-NESTs can benefit fromsharing the learners’ mother tongue.
(pp. 346-7)
NESTs learning their students’ L1
are adding another tool to theirrepertoire of teaching methods. With
the exception of the first trait, theothers will become more and more
beneficial as the teacher develops
greater fluency. In most of the classes
that I teach I code switch between
English and Japanese with students.
However, with two of my classes, I
took an L2 based approach. Basedon informal comments from student
surveys, I found that students in theL2 only class wished I spoke Japanese,while the others classes remarked it
was a benefit. While further morestructured and formal research is
required, if the informal comments
gathered verbally and via surveys areindicative of the results, it would seemin the best interests of NESTs in
EFL situations to learn and develop
proficiency in their students’ L1s.
As a limited proficiency bilingual
who does not represent a model ofthe successful learner of English, thepedagogical benefits of sharing an L1
and the ability to express my struggles
and successes in learning Japanese to

students have proved invaluable forme.

has potentially powerful benefits forboth teachers and students. That is,
it grants NESTs access to a toolbox
Conclusionof assets once thought unique to
NNESTs. Although codeswitching by
While it seems unlikely the label native limited proficiency bilingual teachers
speaker will disappear from peoples’ may not be as beneficial as thoseminds and the lexicon of English, the performed by a more proficient user,
term itself has grown in breadth and it may have positive wash back effects.
depth from the definition concerning For instance, if you just arrived in athe order a person acquires a language. foreign country with no knowledge
For instance, the term has gone beyond of the local language and someone
the purely linguistic qualities, and now greeted you in your L1, would it notaccounts for other variables such as make you feel a little better? Likewise,social factors, e.g., personal affiliation limited use of a student’s L1 will
and association (see e.g., Davies, 1991, hopefully evoke a feeling of safety
2003; Rampton, 1990). I hope that and express your empathy with the
we can move beyond native speaker outcome leading to more production
status and accept people based on in the target language.
their merit rather than the language
they are born into.
By adapting a multicompetence viewof language in the classroom I hope
I have also attempted to provide a brief we can move past the notion of thehistory of the native speaker benchmark idealized native speaker, help ourin the fields of applied linguistics fellow colleagues and improve ourand ELT. This section will discuss own teaching techniques. I hope the
how notion of multicompetence, future of English teaching entails acodeswitching and Medgyes’ six world in which teachers are judged
assets can be reframed to move past not by native or nonnative status, but
a native speaker standard and also by their pedagogical and professional
bring teachers together. As discussed skills.
earlier, Cook’s (1999) concept ofmulticompetence combines into one Referencesmodel all languages accessible to auser. Moreover, it emphasizes defining Benke, E., & Medgyes, P. (2005).
ultimate measures of acquisition in Differences in teaching behaviour
terms of the L2 user rather than on between native and non-native speaker
the native speaker. In other words, it teachers: As seen by the learners. In
serves as the theoretical underpinning E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-native languageof this trifecta. Now that we can teachers perceptions, challenges, andview access to multiple languages contributions to the profession (pp. 195216). New York, NY: Springer.
(regardless of a user’s proficiency)
as a tool, as opposed to a deficit, theBraine, G. (2010). Nonnative speaker
proverbial door has been opened for English teachers: research, pedagogy,
codeswitching and the re-application and professional growth. New York, NY:
of Medgyes’ assets.
Routledge.
Fotos (2001) argues that limited
proficiency bilinguals can employ
codeswitching as a learning strategy.
Employing the same framework, a
NEST with some knowledge of thestudents’ L1 would also fall into thisclassification and as such have access tothe same benefits. When viewed undera multicompetence lens, this notion

10 | The IAFOR Academic Review Seventh Edition

Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Interrogating
the “native speaker fallacy”: Nonlinguisticroots,
non-pedagogicalresults. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-nativeeducators in English language teaching(pp. 77-92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the
Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT

Press.
Chomsky, N. (1966). Topics in the
Theory of Generative Grammar. In
T. Sebeok (Ed.), Current Trends in
Linguistics 1. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, N. (1968). Language and themind. New York: Praeger
Chomsky,N.
(1986).
Barriers.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond thenative speaker in language teaching.
TESOL Quarterly, 185-209.
Cook, V. (2001). Using the First
Language in the Classroom. [Article].
Canadian Modern Language Review,
57(3), 402-423.
Cook, V. (2002). Portraits of the L2
user. Clevedon; Buffalo: Multilingual
Matters.
Cook, V. (2005). Basing teaching on
the L2 user. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Nonnative language teachers: Perceptions,challenges, and contributions to theprofession (Vol. 5, pp. 47). New York,
NY: Springer.
Davies, A. (1991). The native speakerin applied linguistics. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Davies, A. (2003). The native speaker:
Myth and reality (Vol. 38): Multilingual
Matters Ltd.
Eldridge, J. (1996). Code-switchingin a Turkish secondary school. ELT
journal, 50(4), 303-311. doi: 10.1093/
elt/50.4.303
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On
Discourse,
Communication,
and(Some) Fundamental Concepts in SLA
Research. Modern Language Journal,81(3), 285-259.
Forman, R. (2010). Ten Principles
in Bilingual Pedagogy in EFL. In A.
Mahboob (Ed.), The NNEST Lens: Non
Native English Speakers in TESOL (pp.
54-86). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing.
Fotos, S. (2001). Codeswitching by
Japan’s unrecognised bilinguals: Japanese
university students’ use of their native
language as a learning strategy. In M. G.
Noguchi & S. Fotos (Eds.), Studies inJapanese bilingualism (pp. 329-352).
Han, Z. (2004). Fossilization in adultsecond language acquisition (Vol. 5).
London: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Higgins, C. (2003). “Ownership”
of English in the Outer Circle: Analternative to the NS-NNS dichotomy.
TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 615-644.
Kite, Y. (2001). English/Japanesecodeswitching among students in aninternational high school. In M. G.
Noguchi & S. Fotos (Eds.), Studies
in Japanese bilingualism (pp. 312328). Clevedon [England]; Buffalo:Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Macaro, E. (2001). Analysing Student
Teachers’ Codeswitching in Foreign
Language Classrooms: Theories andDecision Making. [Article]. Modern
Language Journal, 85(4), 531.
Macaro, E. (2005). Codeswitching in
the L2 Classroom: A Communicationand Learning Strategy. In E. Llurda(Ed.), Non-native language teachers:
Perceptions, challenges and contribution
to the profession (pp. 63-84). New York,
NY: Springer.

Medgyes, P. (1992). Native or nonnative: Who’s worth more? ELT journal,
46(4), 340-349.
Nishimura, M. (1995). A functional
analysis of Japanese/English codeswitching. Journal of Pragmatics,
23(2), 157-181. doi: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)E0103-7
Noguchi, M. G., & Fotos, S. (Eds.).
(2001). Studies in Japanese bilingualism.
Clevedon[England];Buffalo:
Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Pennycook, A. (1994). The culturalpolitics of English as an international
language. London: Longman.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic
imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Rampton, M. B. H. (1990). Displacing
the ‘native speaker’: Expertise, affiliation,and inheritance. ELT journal, 44(2), 97101.
Reves, T., & Medgyes, P. (1994). The
non-native English speaking EFL/ESL
teacher’s self-image: An international
survey. System, 22(3), 353-367.
Sampson, G. (1980). Schools of
linguistics: competition and evolution.
London: Hutchinson.
Selinker, L. (1969). Language transfer.
General linguistics, 9(2), 67-92.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage.
IRAL-International Review of Applied
Linguistics in Language Teaching,10(1-4), 209-232.
Widdowson, H. G. (1994). The
ownership of English. TESOL
Quarterly, 28(2), 377-389.

The IAFOR Academic Review Seventh Edition | 11

What goes on in Foreign Language Learners’ minds?
Planning Research to Explore EFL motivation, EFL
anxiety and EFL Learning Strategies
By Phil Craigie & Alison Owens

Photograph by Natalie Schmid / Flickr

Abstract
Learning a foreign language is acomplex task and one that is becoming
more and more popular as the world
becomes smaller. Within Taiwan,
English is taught in elementary,
middle and senior high schools as partof the compulsory education as well asin specialised courses in universities
and cram schools. However, despite
the intensity and breadth of English
instruction, the language proficiency
of Taiwanese English learners is highlyvariable and not improving. According
to the Education First – English
Proficiency Index, Taiwan has slippedfrom 25th ranking down to 30th.
However, it is not just proficiency test
results that can and should informEnglish teaching. What really goeson in the language learner’s mind
and how do these processes influence
proficiency outcomes? Researchers
have established that a wide range offactors influence learning proficiency
including demographic factors such as
age and gender, as well as pedagogicalfactors related to approaches tolearning and teaching and prioreducation. This study explores threepedagogical factors in the adultlanguage learning university context in
Taiwan; language learning strategies,
foreign language classroom anxiety,and foreign language motivation.
This research posits that these factors
may account for a greater portion of
language learning proficiency variance.
This paper explains the language
teaching and learning context andits challenges, existing measures ofmotivation, learning strategies andanxiety used in language research anda proposed approach to research ofthese factors.
Introduction
English is taught as a foreign language

12 | The IAFOR Academic Review Seventh Edition

within Taiwan generally startingin elementary school through touniversity. Furthermore, Taiwan has
many educational institutions outsideof the formal schooling system suchas privately run cram schools that alsoteach English. However, despite all of
the English teaching, Taiwan is ranked
thirtieth for English proficiency
worldwide (EnglishFirst, 2012).
Furthermore, Taiwan has slipped fromtwenty-fifth position in the previous
year of 2011. One of the reasons forthe decline is that Taiwanese students’
overall psychology towards learning
English may have a negative influenceon their English proficiency.
Experiences from my classroom
To begin with, I would like to provide
context for the research problem
by sharing some of my teachingexperiences from my classroom that
I hope may illustrate some of thediversity and the challenges that areevident in learning a foreign language.
The first experience revolves around a
student who wishes to speak English
perfectly, just like a native speaker.
While communicating with thisstudent, there are two actions that hedoes that impede his learning. The
first action is that he will often say
a few words into his sentence, stop,and then ask me how to complete thesentence properly as a native speaker
would. Unfortunately, after a few
words, he has not communicatedenough of his meaning to determine
what he wants to say, let alone help
him phrase a proper English sentence.
Usually after this first action, thenext action is that he will usuallyutter in Chinese that English is
too difficult and then want to giveup trying.
What could be going
through his mind? One thought, andthe student has mentioned this on
numerous occasions to me, is that hewishes to speak English perfectly and
immediately. The desire for perfectionis also evident in his desire to achieve
one hundred per cent for every single
assessment and not achieving thismeans failure. The second thoughtthat does not appear to be apparent
to him is the unnecessary stress andanxiety that he manifests withinhimself. The student’s desire toappear perfect may generate constantworry and also a sense that he is being
constantly evaluated.
The second experience I would liketo share is about a common theme
that I have observed in my students’behaviour. One semester I decided
to run a class activity where I asked
the students to talk about about theirgoals and which professions theywanted to pursue after graduation.
Interestingly, many of my students
told me that they had no idea what
they wanted to do. Rather puzzled, I
asked them why they chose English as
their major. They generally have twoanswers: a) their parents told themto, and b) their university entrance
exam score was not high enough to beoffered a position in a higher ranked

university. Both of these explanations
imply that students only chose English
with resignation. As a result, it isoften difficult to stimulate motivation
within my students, as they seem moreinterested in the games they can playon Facebook and their cell phones.
The third experience I would like toshare is about one student who has
an overwhelming enthusiasm forlearning English. The first exampleof this is during class time, when thisstudent is called up to talk, she has a
big smile on her face. She takes the
microphone and starts talking, andtalking, and talking, and talking. In
fact, it is difficult to stop her talking
because she appears to enjoy it somuch. Another example is when I
have seen her around the university
campus, she immediately approaches
me dragging her friends along andthen instructs them to speak to me
using English. Her friends usually
look a little uncomfortable. Then
immediately after I have spoken
a sentence, she will translate it toChinese so her friends can understand.
The third example worth mentioning
is a piece of writing she gave to me
for reading. While reading it, I had
to have an English dictionary withme because she likes to swap common
English words for unusual words
that she has remembered from word
maps. I deliberately used the word
remembered and not looked up
because it would appear that she has
a photographic memory and likes touse it.
The fourth experience I would liketo share is about one student who
when I first taught him about a year
ago, he did not want to communicate
in English. Often the conversations
followed the pattern of me speaking
in English, he looking very confused.
I repeated the English sentence again
very slowly and clearly, and then I
would have to communicate using
my broken Chinese. Recently, heattended an English Corner sessionthat I hosted and he asked, using
English, if I remembered him.
Initially, I didn’t remember, but aftera few weeks I remember him fromthe previous year. Now, he regularly
comes to the English Corner that I
host, rarely relies on using Chinese,and even has developed the ability
to spell English words based on theirsounds. This skill he has developed
when other students have not.
These scenarios help outline thevariable language learning issues
evident in Taiwanese classes thatproblematize my teaching and provide
incentive for the research proposed inthis paper.
English within Taiwan
To communicate using English is an
important skill that Taiwan appears
to value. This is evident by English
being taught in elementary, junior, andsenior high schools, not to mention
the numerous cram schools that teachor specialize in English, and finally theuniversity courses available. Although
there are many opportunities for
the Taiwanese to learn English, aspreviously mentioned, Taiwan has
recently and significantly slippedin the world rankings of English
proficiency EnglishFirst (2012). If
Taiwan places a high importance onlearning English, and there are somany opportunities for Taiwanese
to learn English and improve theirproficiency, why has Taiwan dropped
in the world rankings? Some possible
reasons could be that other countries
that have jumped ahead of Taiwan
by adopting fresh approaches and/or
materials that have promoted more
effective learning outcomes in English.
Or alternatively, Taiwan has regressedin its pedagogical capacity resulting
in more limited outcomes in English
proficiency. Rather than analyse thereasons why Taiwan has slipped in
the English proficiency ranks, it may
be more productive to look at factorsthat affect English learning within a
Taiwanese context.
There are many opportunities for the
Taiwanese to learn English, and thisgenerally occurs within a classroom.
Students that attend English

The IAFOR Academic Review Seventh Edition | 13

classes may do so for a variety ofreasons including parental influence,
inadequate university entrance exam
scores for target courses, uncertainty
about future career prospects or abelief that English will make them amore attractive job applicant in the
future. Chamot (2004) suggested
some more generalised reasons such as
academic purposes, travel or survival.
Factors that may have an effect on
English language proficiency may
be personal traits such as personality,
learning styles, learning strategies,
anxiety and attitudes, just to namea few. This leads us to the question:
what goes in the mind of the EFL
learner? Questions similar to thishave motivated researchers to search
for answers generally focusing on one
aspect or factor of the teaching andlearning context. Over the last 30
years, there appears to be an increasing
trend to focus on different learning
factors such as motivation, learning
strategies and anxiety and these are
the three factors that I will focus on.

understood and this is in part due
to the lack of consistency between
anxietymeasuring
instruments(Scovel, 1978). During the mid tolate 1970’s, research revealed thatanxiety has different aspects and thathas led to various theories. Kleinmann(1977) and Chastain (1975) suggested
that anxiety might have a facilitating
effect or a debilitating effect on
language learning outcomes. Chastain(1975) pointed out “some concern
about a test is a plus while too muchanxiety can produce negative results”(P.160). Kleinmann’s (1977) researchdemonstrates this theory in findingthat learners with high levels of anxiety(debilitating) tended to avoid synaptic
structures that contrasted most with
their own native language. MacIntyre
and Gardner (1989) also suggested
that facilitating anxiety appears tohave a positive influence on language
learning whereas debilitating anxiety
has a negative effect.

Spielberger, Gorsuch, and Lushene(1970), investigated the differences
between state and trait anxiety. State
Foreign Language Anxiety
anxiety is defined as being a “transitory
emotional state or condition of theAnxiety is “the subjective feeling of human organism that is characterised
tension, apprehension, nervousness, by subjective, consciously perceived
and worry associated with an arousal feelings of tension and apprehensionof the autonomic nervous system” and heightened autonomic nervous(Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986, system activity” (p.3). Trait anxiety
p. 125). Horwitz et al. (1986) found is defined as being a “relatively stablethat foreign language learning anxiety individual differences in anxiety
has unique characteristics that are proneness” (p.3).
Trait anxiety
not found in other types of anxiety. represents how individuals respond
MacIntyre and Gardner (1994) have differently to stressful situations andalso stated that foreign language has been found to be consistent overlearning anxiety is “the feeling of time.
tension and apprehension specificallyassociated with second language With no clear definition or a reliable
contexts, including speaking, listening, instrument to measure foreign
and learning” (p. 284). Some of the language learning anxiety, Horwitz
symptoms of foreign language anxiety et al. (1986) undertook research
may be avoiding situations that cause that led to their Foreign Language
anxiety such as skipping class, or not Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS).
completing homework (Horwitz et Understanding more about foreignal., 1986).
language anxiety, particularly if it canfacilitate language learning, as well as
Research prior to the late 1970’s that its relationship with other affective
examined anxiety and its relationship factors could lead to helping learners
to learning a foreign language revealed understand themselves and increasethat it was neither simple or well- their language proficiency. Higher
14 | The IAFOR Academic Review Seventh Edition

achievement is something that most, if
not all, Taiwanese students desire andaddressing language learning anxiety
may assist them meet their goals.
The FLCAS has three subscales thatconsist of comprehension anxiety, fearof negative evaluation and test anxiety.
Comprehension anxiety is the fear ofcommunicating with other students ora teacher using the foreign language.
Fear of negative evaluation is the fearthat other people (not necessarily
confined to the classroom) will think
negatively of the speaker. Test anxiety
is the fear of participating in any typeof quiz or exam (Horwitz et al., 1986).
Reflecting back on the first scenario
about my classroom experiences, thestudent who wishes to speak English
perfectly may be subjecting himself tomore anxiety than necessary. Someanxiety would probably help him
to improve, but his constant fear ofnegative evaluation may push hisanxiety to a debilitating level.
Foreign Language Motivation
Motivation is the desire to dosomething (Ryan & Deci, 2000) withan expectation of some value for theeffort spent (Eccles & Wigfield,
1995). Motivation also must havea goal, a desire to reach the goal, apositive attitude towards learning how
to achieve the goal, and behaviour
that moves the person toward thegoal (Gardner, 1985). From theopening stories about some of mystudents, there are different aspectsof motivation, or lack of motivation,that can be observed. The second
scenario of students studying English
because their parents told them to,or they couldn’t get into a higher
ranked university, or they choseto major in English because theirgrade didn’t allow them to anotherarea, might suggest that they don’t
really have any motivation at all.
This type of motivation has been
described by Ryan and Deci (2000) as
amotivational, meaning the learner isneither motivated nor not motivated.

One of the researchers who appears
most dominant in the motivation area
is Robert Gardner with work on the
topic that dates back to Lambert in theearly 1970s. Over the years, Gardner(1985, 2005) has developed his socioeducational model that examines
motivation from an instrumental andintegrative perspective. Instrumental
motivation is described as desiring
the rewards that an action canbring with two examples being
increased job opportunities andmeeting requirements to graduate.
Integrative motivation is the desire
to integrate oneself into the target
culture by adapting parts of it into
one’s identity and an example ofthis may be my Taiwanese students
using their English name where theycan.
Gardner’s socio-educationalmodel also covers other componentsthat include orientation towards thetarget language, attitudes towards thelearning situation, and anxiety.
There have also been other researcherswith their own theories regarding
motivation with two influential
examples following. The first theory
is Self-Determination Theory (SDT)
proposed by Deci and Ryan (1985,
as cited by Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier,and Ryan (1991); Ryan and Deci
(2000)). The SDT is based on two
types of motivation, intrinsic andextrinsic. Tasks that are consideredfun, enjoyable, or interesting are
considered intrinsic motivation. Tasks
that are done for utilitarian purposes,
even if they are not interesting, areconsidered extrinsic. These theoreticalunderstandings were modified in
2000, when Ryan and Deci (2000)
proposed amotivational theory as
discussed above. The second branchof motivation theory is ExpectancyValue theory proposed by Eccles
and Wigfield (1995); Wigfieldand Eccles (2000) who suggested
that there are four components ofmotivation consisting of attainment
value, intrinsic value, extrinsic utility
value, and cost. Attainment value isthe individual’s perception of how
important a given task is. Intrinsic
value is the pleasure that the individual

enjoys while completing the task.
Extrinsic value is the perceived
usefulness of completion of a task
in relation to the individual’s futuregoals. Cost is the perceived negative
consequences of completing the taskthat includes not only financial cost,
but also physical and emotional cost.
Self-determination theory and the
expectancy-value theory have been
examined within a general education
environment. Whereas, the socioeducational model has been examinedwithin a second language acquisition
environment. Despite the fact that
English is still considered a foreign
language in Taiwan, and not a second
language, thesocio-educationalmodel seems more appropriate forthe following reasons. Firstly, its
development was specifically based insecond/foreign language acquisition
contexts and not in a general setting as
was adopted in development of the selfdetermination and expectancy-value
theories. Even though English is not asecond language in Taiwan, Taiwanese
students have many opportunities tointeract with the English language
and culture. Secondly, motivation is acomplex phenomenon and the socioeducational model appears to offer
a more holistic approach. Thirdly,
the AMTB has been used in manystudies around the world and foundto be useful, reliable and relevant to
identifying the components of learnermotivation as well as the impact ofmotivation on learning outcomes(Gardner, 2001).

exactly what their teachers have said.
However, for learning strategies to beeffective, they must be appropriate forthe contextual situation (O’Malley &Chamot, 1990) otherwise they may, infact, be a hindrance.
Language learning strategies should
be problem-oriented, encourage thelearners to become more self-directed,
be flexible and involve more of thelearner than just his/her cognition.
In addition, learning strategies
should help the learner organise
and integrate the new knowledge,
they may also have an effect on thelearner’s motivational or affective
state (Weinstein & Mayer, 1983).
These strategies may seem strange to
Taiwanese undergraduate students
who have become accustomed to theauthoritarian teaching methods oftheir youth. Therefore, an additional
characteristic should be that thestrategies are also teachable (Oxford,1990). The learning skill that thestudent from my fourth scenario haslearned, to spell words from theirsounds, is interesting for several
reasons. The first reason is very
few other students have this ability.
Therefore, where, how, and who did
he learn this skill from? The second
reason is that, if this student learned
the skill, can it be taught to otherstudents?

One of the more popular instruments
used to measure how many and how
often learning strategies are used is
Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory
for Language Learning (SILL). The
Foreign
Language
Learning SILL has six categories of strategies
Strategies
that consist of mnemonics, cognitive,compensation,
meta-cognitive,
Learning strategies are the “special affective, and social. Mnemonics
thoughts or behaviours that individuals strategies concern adopting different
use to help them comprehend, ways to remember, for example
learn, or retain new information” using pictures and semantic maps.
(O’Malley & Chamot, 1990, p. 1) Cognitive strategies involve how theand are procedures that facilitate learner interacts with and processes
learning especially at the novice new information, for example,
stage (Chamot, 2005). Learning practicing, repeating new words andstrategies assist the learners to move searching for patterns. Compensation
towards their goals through taking strategies involve deploying different
conscious actions (Oxford, 1990) such methods to communicate whenas Taiwanese students memorising there are unknown gaps in the target
The IAFOR Academic Review Seventh Edition | 15

language, for example, using gestures.
Meta-cognitive strategies involve
planning to improve and practice thetarget language, for example, seeking
out native speakers and engaging
in language exchange.
Affective
strategies involve managing one’s own
emotions, for example, relaxing andpositive self-talk. Social strategies areinteracting with others, for example,
asking questions and practicing withother students.
Proposed method for researchThis study is designed to examine
the relationships between the threeselected factors (foreign language
learning strategies, foreign language
anxiety,orforeignlanguage
motivation) and determine which
factor or combination of factors isthe best predictor of foreign language
learning achievement for Taiwanese
undergraduate students.
Several methods can be used toresearch educational phenomena.
Ary, Jacobs, Razavieh, and Sorensen(2010) describe qualitative researchmethods as examining the contextual
setting with no attempt to predict
the future in order to produce a richaccount of the events. On the other
hand, quantitative research methods
make an attempt to predict the future
by determining the dependant factors
associated with the phenomenon
under examination by testing therelationships. After the analysis hastaken place, the conclusion will beformed by deductive reasoning anddictated by the statistical analysis of
the results.
This study aims to examine therelationships between several factors:
foreign language anxiety, foreign
language learning strategies andmotivation to learn a foreign language
and attempts to predict which factors
individually or collectively have thegreatest influence on foreign language
achievement.
The three main
instruments to be used in this study
have been extensively developed,
tested and implemented in a varietyof language learning situations andfound to be fit for purpose and highly
reliable. See Oxford (1986); Oxford
and Burry-Stock (1995) for the SILL,
Aida (1994); Cao (2011) for the
FLCAS, and Ho (1998). Therefore,
it is deemed appropriate that aquantitative research methodology
deployingestablishedsurveyinstruments should be used for thisstudy.
For this study, the three instruments
are all questionnaires that require theparticipants to self-report using a
Likert scale. It is anticipated that theresults will allow a close examinationof the relationships between several
factors: foreign language anxiety,foreign language learning strategies
and motivation to learn a foreign
language. Data from the survey
instruments and a proficiency test will
be analysed using PASW (formallyknown as SPSS).
An enhanced
understanding of correlations between
these factors and language proficiency
will provide evidence for predictions
about which factor individually orcollectively has the greatest influenceon foreign language achievement.
Such understandings can greatly assist
language teachers who encounterlearning issues similar to thosecommon in Taiwanese classrooms.
Descriptive statistics
In order to adequately analyse thedata several procedures will be
implemented to establish validity andreliability.
The next set of data analysis
procedures that will be run will be
descriptive analysis to show the profileof the sample used. The information
to be shown will be the median,frequency distribution and standard
deviation of the participants’ age,gender, study major and number ofyears studying English. In addition to
the demographics descriptive analysis,
procedures will be run to show
participants’ median level of anxiety,use of language learning strategies,
motivation to learn a foreign language

16 | The IAFOR Academic Review Seventh Edition

and foreign language achievement atthat particular point in time when
the data collection will be taken. The
independent factors each have theirown sub-scales and they will also be
included in the descriptive analysis.
After the descriptive analysis
procedures have been ran, the next
set will be Pearson’s correlation
coefficient. As mentioned earlier, theindependent factors have their own
respective sub-scales and each of thesewill be compared for any statisticallysignificant relationship between
the sub-scales of there the otherindependent factors. For example,
the FLCAS has three sub-scales(communication apprehension, fear ofnegative evaluation, and test anxiety),the four sub-scales of the AMTB
(integrativeness, attitudes toward
the learning situation, motivation,and instrumental orientation), andthe six sub-scales of SILL (memory,
cognitive,compensation,
metacognitive, affective, and social) will all
be completed against each other. The
final Pearson’s correlation coefficient
will be compared against each of
the sub-scales and foreign language
achievement.
The next sets of procedures to be run
are inferential statistical proceduresthat they will test for impact andpredictive nature of the independent
variables on the dependant, that being
foreign language achievement.
Inferential statistics
The set of inferential statisticalprocedures to be run are multiple
regression analysis. There are twoparts that will be completed. The first
type multiple regression analysis using
the “enter” method with collinearity
diagnostics included. Any factor
that shows a value of more 10 in thevariance inflation factor (VIF) will be
removed. This will show the impactthat each of the independent variables
will have on the dependent variable.
That being the impact of foreign
language anxiety, and/or foreign
language learning strategies, and/or

motivation to learn a foreign language
will have on the foreign language
achievement. The second multiple
regression analysis to be run will beusing the “the stepwise” method. This
will show the predictive nature ofeach independent variable has on thedependent.
Why this study is important
As mentioned at the beginning of thisarticle, English is taught throughout
the Taiwanese education system,
yet Taiwan has slipped in the world
rankings. The dynamics of teaching
English in a classroom is a combinationof many factors. Previous researchthat has focused on specialised areasthat has helped gained an insight
into a part of the language learners’
psychology. Three areas that have been
discussed are anxiety in the foreign
language classroom, motivation tolearn a foreign language, and language
learning strategies. Individually, thesefactors have guided researchers over
the years. Now that these factors
and instruments have been provenmeasures, maybe it is time to combine
the power of these factors together
and seek to reveal more of the holistic
picture of foreign language acquisition.
References
Aida, Y. (1994). Examination of
Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope’s
Construct of Foreign Language
Anxiety: The Case of Students ofJapanese. The Modern Language
Journal, 78(2), 155-168.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Razavieh, A.,& Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction
to research in education: Cengage
Learning.
Cao, Y. (2011). Comparison of
Two Models of Foreign Language
Classroom Anxiety Scale. Philippine
ESL Journal, 7, 73-93.
Chamot, A. U. (2004). Issues inlanguage learning strategy research andteaching. Electronic Journal of Foreign
Language Teaching, 1(1), 14-26.
Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language
Learning Strategy Instruction: Current
Issues and Research. Annual Review ofApplied Linguistics, 25, 112-130.

Chastain, K. (1975). Affective And
Ability Factors In Second-Language
Acquisition. Language
Learning,
25(1), 153-161. doi: 10.1111/j.14671770.1975.tb00115.x
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier,
L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991).
Motivation and Education: The SelfDetermination Perspective. Educational
Psychologist, 26(3-4), 325-346. doi:
10.1080/00461520.1991.9653137
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In
the Mind of the Actor: The Structureof Adolescents’ Achievement Task
Values and Expectancy-Related Beliefs.
Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 3(21), 215-225.
EnglishFirst. (2012). EF English
Proficiency Index. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ef-australia.com.au/__/~/
media/efcom/epi/2012/full_reports/
EF%20EP I%202012%20Repor t_
MASTER_LR.pdf
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social
Psychology and Second Language
Learning: The Role of Attitudes andMotivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. C. (2001). Integrative
Motivation and Second Language
Acquisition. In Z. Dörnyei (Ed.),
Motivation and second language
acquisition (Vol. 23): University of
Hawaii Press.
Gardner, R. C. (2005). Integrative
motivation and second language
acquisition. Paper presented at the
Canadian Association of Applied
Linguistics/Canadian
Linguistics
Association Joint Plenary Talk,
London, Canada. http://publish.uwo.
ca/~gardner/docs/caaltalk5final.pdf
Ho, M.-C. (1998). Culture Studies
and Motivation in Foreign andSecond Language Learning in
Taiwan. Language, Culture andCurriculum, 11(2), 165-182. doi:
10.1080/07908319808666548
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., &Cope, J. (1986). Foreign Language
Classroom Anxiety. The Modern
Language Journal, 70(2), 125-132. doi:
10.1111/j.1540-4781.1986.tb05256.x
Kleinmann, H. H. (1977). Avoidance
Behavior In Adult Second Language
Acquisition. Language
Learning,
27(1), 93-107. doi: 10.1111/j.14671770.1977.tb00294.x
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C.
(1989). Anxiety and Second-Language

Learning: Toward a Theoretical
Clarification*. Language Learning,
39(2), 251-275. doi: 10.1111/j.14671770.1989.tb00423.x
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C.
(1994). The subtle effects of language
anxiety on cognitive processing in thesecond language. [Article]. Language
Learning, 44(2), 283-305.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990).
Learning strategies in second language
acquisition / J. Michael O’Malley, Anna
Uhl Chamot: Cambridge [England]; New York : Cambridge University
Press, 1990.
Oxford, R. L. (1986). Development andpsychometric testing of the Strategy
Inventory for Language Learning(SILL). ARI Technical Report 728.
Alexandria VA: Army ResearchInstitute.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language
Learning Strategies : What Every
Teacher Should Know: Boston : Heinle& Heinle, c 1990.
Oxford, R. L., & Burry-Stock, J. A.
(1995). Assessing the Use of Language
Learning Strategies Worldwide with
the ESL/EFL Version of the Strategy
Inventory for Language Learning(SILL). System, 23(1), 1-23.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000).
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations:Classic
Definitions
andNew
Directions. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 25(1), 54-67. doi: 10.1006/
ceps.1999.1020
Scovel, T. (1978). The Effect of Affecton Foreign Language Learning: A
Review Of The Anxiety Research.
Language Learning, 28(1), 129142. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1978.
tb00309.x
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., &Lushene, R. (1970). STAI. Manual for
the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Self
Evaluation Questionnaire). Palo Alto
California: Consulting Psychologist.
Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1983).
The Teaching of Learning Strategies(Vol. 5): Innovation Abstracts.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S.
(2000). Expectancy–Value TheoryofAchievement
Motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology,
25(1), 68-81. doi: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015.

The IAFOR Academic Review Seventh Edition | 17

Focused Instruction of Formulaic Language:
Use and awareness in a Japanese University Class
By David Wood & Kazuhiko Namba

Photograph by Danny Choo / Flickr

Abstract
While there exists a growing body ofresearch on the nature and functionsof formulaic language (FL), there
remains a paucity of analysis of theways language teachers may implement
this knowledge in their classrooms,
and the relative effectiveness ofteaching techniques. FL, defined
as multiword units of language
which have particular functions andmeanings in discourse, and which
may be processed as if single words,
may be acquired through exposure tolanguage input. However, a benefit
may accrue from techniques involving
repetition and memorization, focusedon a performance task. The present
study is a report of a university EFL
course in Japan in which students
were taught about FL and provided
with FL to repeat and memorize
for a class presentation task. Results
indicate that they used the sequencesin their presentations and that theirawareness of the nature and functionsof FL was augmented by the course
experience.
Plenty of research has been conductedon the nature of formulaic language(FL), defined by Wray (2002: 4) as“…word strings which appear to beprocessed without recourse to theirlowest level of composition…,” thatis, multiword units of language which
are prefabricated and/or holistically
produced and understood. The role of
FL in communication and language
acquisition has been studied, but
relatively little work has focused on
how second language (L2) learners
may develop awareness of FL andacquire facility with it in specificeducational contexts.
The present study is an investigationof how students in a FL-focused
university communication class at
a Japanese university grew theirawareness and skill of using FL
through a variety of pedagogicalmeans
includingform-focused

18 | The IAFOR Academic Review Seventh Edition

activity, guided oral presentations,and attending to lectures on various
aspects of FL. They were required
to produce pre and post course
freewriting about FL, and to perform
an oral presentation about an aspect of
FL. This presentation was guided andstudents were provided with formulaic
sequences (FS) to memorize, to aid
their crafting of effective academic oral
discourse. The study was grounded in
the research literature on task-basedteaching and the role of memory inlanguage gain, specifically as regards
FL and formal, rehearsed speaking.
Formulaic Language and Repetition,
Memory, and Production
It appears that benefits accrue fromproviding students with time andsupport in preparation for a speech
production task. Pre-task planningand online or within-task planninghave positive results for spoken
language development. Ellis (2005)
discusses a range of planning types,

and notes that pre-task planningmay be in the form of rehearsal of
production or strategic planning –ways in which learners can take timeto prepare how to express the ideas
they want or need to formulate. The
benefits of within-task planning, or
taking time to reflect and plan while
performing, for fluent production havebeen studied by Ellis and Yuan (2005),
who found that the complexity andaccuracy of learner speech improved
when allowed online processing time.
In the present study, learners were
given the opportunity to discuss andrevise their presentation topics and topractice their presentations using FL
provided by the researchers.
Recently, some developments in the
study of formulaic sequences and theways they may be beneficial to fluent
production focus on memorization asa means of boosting competence. The
potential value of memory is targetedin research such as that of Gatbonton
and Segalowitz (1988), who outline
principles for encouraging memory
to further automatization. Phonemic
aspects of formulaic sequences,including alliteration and assonance(Lindstromberg and Boers, 2008a,
2008b) have been shown to aid in
the learning or memorization of
FS. In the present study, learners
were encouraged to memorize
formulaic sequences relevant to theirpresentation topics, in an effort toautomatize them.
Several recent studies have been
conducted in which participants
memorized FL with positive resultsfor effective communication. In
one study (Wray, 2008), a beginnerlearner of Welsh memorized phrases
and sentences necessary in order toprovide a cooking demonstration
broadcast on television, all withina one-week period. The learnerdelivered a competent and fluent
demonstration and nine months
later recalled a significant amountof the targeted language. In anothercase (Wray, 2008), advanced learners
memorized nativelike formulaic
ways of expressing ideas which

they deemed valuable in everyday
encounters with native speakers. Aftera week of practice and rehearsal, thelearners recorded themselves in reallife encounters using the memorizedmaterial.
Participants
producedthe memorized utterances in theirreal life encounters, although notalways accurately, and they reported
that the memorized language aided
them in confidence, satisfaction, andfeeling like nativelike interlocutors.
This supports the assertion of Boers,
Eyckmans, Kappel, Stengers, and
Demecheleer (2006) that use offormulaic sequences can help L2
learners by providing nativelike
idiomaticity, a nativelike temporal
pattern of speech, and multiword
strings of accurate speech. The learners
in the present study underwent a
process similar to those in Wray’s
studies, in that they memorized
FL in order to achieve nativelike
idiomaticity and multiword strings ofaccurate speech in a real-life task, inthis case an in-class presentation
Memorization has been viewed inWestern contexts as a questionable
and archaic learning techniquewith limited potential for language
acquisition, but evidence from Asianlearners has indicated a role formemorization and repetition of texts
in language acquisition. Some researchwith Chinese learners suggeststhat memorization may have some
utility in facilitating understandingof written texts (Dahlin & Watkins,
2000). Other research has shown ameasurable perceived positive effectof memorization. Ding (2007) foundpositive effects of memorization oflarge amounts of text by university
students in China. After extensive
experience
memorizing
lengthytexts in English, students reported
that the practice had made thembetter communicators in English
by enhancing their fluency, focusing
attention on collocations and formulas,and enabling the transfer of these toreal life communication. Similarly,
Walker and Utsumi (2006) found thatmemorizing dialogues in Japanese as asecond language was valued by learners

as a learning technique and as a boost
to fluency and transferable to real life
communication. In another recent
study, Dai and Ding (2010) foundthat Chinese L2 learners of English
who engaged in text memorization
activities used more FSs in their L2
writing than those who did not, andthat their writing proficiency andability outstripped that of learners
who did not memorize texts. These
pieces of research provide hintsof a potentially powerful effect ofmemorization in furthering language
proficiency and production.
Psycholinguistic
research
intophonological memory appears relevant
to FL processing and retention. The
basic model of working memory, as
elaborated by Baddeley (2000) andothers, is that language production
involves the short-term retention of
aspects of language in a cognitive loop.
The loop has several components:
a visual-spatial sketchpad whichholds visual and spatial information
related to the target language items;
a phonological loop which deals withverbal information and is linked tophonological memory; an episodic
buffer which integrates informationfrom the sketchpad and phonologicalloop with long-term memory.
Phonological memory is said tofacilitate language acquisition througha process of holding phonologicalinformation temporarily over andover until a permanent or longterm memory representation can becreated. This aspect of the working
memory model has been studied quite
extensively in laboratory settings,
and considerable evidence exists toconfirm the existence of a phonologicalloop (see Baddeley, Gathercole, &Papagno, 1998). While studies ofadult L2 acquisition and phonologicalmemory are numerous and haveactually indicated that phonologicalmemory plays a significant role invocabulary acquisition, a limited bodyof work has investigated possible links
between phonological memory andoral L2 fluency.
O’Brien,

Segalowitz,

Freed,

andThe IAFOR Academic Review Seventh Edition | 19

Collentine(2007)
examined
phonological memory in the context
of the real world of language learning,
comparing the development of
Spanish L2 fluency of native speakers
of English in a regular university
language program and a study-abroad
semester. Psycholinguistic tests ofphonological memory were conducted
before and after a semester of study
and examined for correlation withgains in speech fluency over the same
period of time. Results indicated that,independent of the learning context,
phonologicalmemoryactually
appears to be related to gains in L2
fluency. One could speculate that theeffect of phonological memory on theability to retain and produce formulaic
sequences may be a key component of
the fluency gains of the learners in thisstudy.
In practice, then, it appears that
repetition is important if formulaic
sequences are to be automatized, or
readly available for use in spontaneous
discourse. Repetition can be built into
tasks in a number of ways, including
the repetition of a particular task in
its entirety, such as a presentation ora role play, or form-focused, with afocus on improving particular pointsof language such as FS. In the present
study, students were encouraged torepeat FL in order to memorize it for
use in a presentation.
In light of the existing knowledge ofthe possible role of memorization andrepetition in developing facility withFL, and the notion that experience
using FL in real-life performancemight heighten student awarenessof the nature and utility of FL, we
conducted our research to addressthese two questions:
1. When students have been provided
with FL to repeat and memorize
specific to a performance task, will
they use it appropriately in the task?
2. Will a range of experience withFL, including using it in performancetasks, heighten student awareness ofthe nature and utility of FL?

Methods

expression of their chosen content.

The course

Each participant met with a researcher
several times to select a presentation
topic, refine the topic, and create an
outline. After the initial round of
meetings, each participant presented a
spoken draft of his or her presentation
to the researcher, who gave feedback
on content, organization, andlanguage.

In an attempt to examine how
particularpedagogicalpracticescan facilitate awareness and use offormulaic language, we engaged
students in a communication studies
course at a Japanese university ina range of activity. The 14-session
course of 22 students followed a mixedsyllabus of lectures, form-focusedtasks, and group and individual oralpresentations, all conducted entirely
in English:•
The form-focused tasks wereadapted from McCarthy and O’Dell(2005)•
Lecturetopicsincluded
identification, formulaic language andsecond language acquisition, codeswitching, spoken fluency, and lexicalbundles.
•
Students prepared and performedgroup presentations on aspects ofJapanese FL which were of interest,
and received content and languagefocused feedback.
Data collection
Both quantitative and qualitative data
were collected from students over thecourse of the semester:• students were coached and provided
with formulaic sequences to practiceand memorize for a final oralpresentation about formulaic language• students produced a piece of
freewriting on the first and last days ofthe course, responding to the prompt“what is formulaic language and why
is it important?”
Eight students volunteered toparticipate in a round of activity
designed to examine the idea thatmemorizing formulaic sequences fora specific purpose can be beneficial.
The individual final presentations forthe course were scaffolded and guided,
and the participants were provided
with formulaic sequences which
could aid in effective and appropriate

20 | The IAFOR Academic Review Seventh Edition

The researcher provided eachparticipant with a number of specificformulaic sequences which could refine
and augment the presentation. The
sequences were chosen based on theirappropriateness for the expressions ofparticular functions in the discourseof the presentations, following themetacategories of lexical bundles(a functionally specialized subset ofFL) elaborated by Biber, Conrad &Cortes (2004). While the categories
are presented by Biber et. al. as a way
of classifying lexical bundles as todiscourse function, they are readily
applicable to FL in general. Referential
sequences deal with factual content,
and characteristics such as quantity,
time, and space, for example a numberof, a range of, and late by X minutes.
11such sequences were provided in
total. Discourse sequences deal withorganizing information, for example
all in all, in the course of, and someof which are. 16 such sequences were
provided in total. Stance sequences
deal with modality, attitude, and a linkto the listener, for example curious
as to why, as illustrated here, and thetruth is that. 18 such sequences were
provided in total.
The sequences were all selectedwith reference to the Corpus ofContemporary American English at a frequency of at least 10/million
words and with a Mutual Information
score (MI) of at least 3.0 in the corpus(for an overview of MI see Schmitt,2010). Appendix 1 presents a full listof the sequences provided.
Participants were then encouraged topractice the presentation and include
the formulaic sequences which had
been provided, repeating them untilthey felt confident in using them.
From one to three weeks elapsed
between the provision of the formulaic
sequences and the actual presentations.
Participants were strongly advised not
to memorize and entire text for theirpresentation, and to only use notes
which contained point-form prompts.

their presentations. It appears thatpracticing and memorizing formulaic
sequences for a specific performancegoal is a practical and effective
way of improving communicative
effectiveness for the target task itself.
Pre-post course freewriting

structural aspects, for example “we canmodify easily, for example, we can justmodify simple verbs when we don’tknow the past form,” or a sense of
the noncompositional nature of somesequences, as in “they are composed ofsome words … idiom has a completely
different meaning.”

The presentations were video recorded
and the recorded speech was checked
for the presence of the formulaic
sequences which had been provided.
Of the eight students who had chosen
to participate in the study, three madedeep changes to their presentations
shortly before the presentation day,to the extent that it rendered theformulaic sequences irrelevant. These
presentations were therefore notanalyzed.

On the first day and the last day of classthe students were asked to freewrite
for ten minutes to the prompt “whatis formulaic language and why is it
important?” Freewriting is a process offast, timed writing in which a writer
puts thoughts on paper without theopportunity to preplan content or
language. In this case, the freewriting
was meant to capture the students’
deep sense of formulaic language, notto test their recall of lecture or textbook
content. In other words, the technique
was designed to capture more what
they had acquired about formulaic
language than what they had learnedor been taught. The freewriting
samples were matched pre- and post
course and were analyzed for evidenceof a developing sense of the functionaland communicative value of formulaic
language. It was expected that theexperience of the course, particularly
the lectures and the coached final
presentations, might have raised
awareness of the communicative valueof formulaic language.

A strikingly clear and salient
broad theme from the post-course
freewriting samples is the powerof formulaic language to facilitate
effective and fluent speech. Common
statements to this effect include:•
If we don’t have FL, we can’t
speak or write speedily … makes
language better and comfortable•
There are a lot of cases that we
can’t explain in terms of grammaticalrules, but these words are commonlyused in daily communication by native
speakers•
It help to speak fluently andnaturally•
It help us to speak smoothlyor understand easily•
We can communicate witheach other efficiently, quickly, andeasily•A way of expressing how wefeel or understanding socially•
We need not think about thegrammatical system•
We can speak fluently byusing itA common theme in the first precourse freewriting was the idiomatic
nature of formulaic language, often
referred to as “expressions,” along witha perceived basis in cultural traditions,and even slang. Statements to theseeffects from the initial freewrites
include:During the course students had agreat deal of exposure to backgroundinformation on the types andfunctions of formulaic language, andthey had ample opportunity to study
and manipulate formulaic sequencesin practice and in the preparations forthe final presentations. It is likely that
this body of experience contributed totheir final observations that formulaic
language is a set of tools for efficientand effective communication, rather
than a set of idioms, expressions, slang,or traditional ways of expression.

Results
Presentations
Of a total of 45 formulaic sequences
provided to the remaining five
participants, all were used in thepresentations. Individual results arepresented in Table 1. Student names
are presented as abbreviations. In
some instances the number of FS used
exceeds the number provided becausesome sequences were used more thanonce in a presentation See appendix).
Table 1
Use of formulaicpresentation
Participant
SequencesprovidedSequencesused
A W 12
KM 7
SY
8
YO
8
YU
10
Total 45

sequences

in

No.
No.
14 (2 duplicated)
7
7
7
10
45

The participants who followed
through on all stages of theresearch process used the formulaic
sequencescomprehensivelyin•
It was passed from ancestor tous•
It’s a traditional expression
which old people have used for a longtime•
Idioms are difficult forJapanese student•
Idioms combine two words•
It has a slangy expression
Other perceptions of the function andnature of formulaic language included

Discussion and Conclusions
The students who participated in thecourse and the cycle of FL-focused
activity appear to have gained in

The IAFOR Academic Review Seventh Edition | 21

two ways: their overall awareness ofthe value, functions, and uses of FL
in communication expanded anddeepened; their repertoire of FL for
use in the expression of particular
ideas was augmented. The former gainis evidenced by their freewriting, inwhich they express a broader range of
attitudes and beliefs about FL after
completing the course – particularly
as regards the benefits of FL in
facilitating overall speech proficiency
and fluency. The latter gain, theincrease in repertoire of FL, is present
in their speech presentations, into
which they integrated a new set of
specific FSs after practice, repetition,and memorization.
Research of this type is fraught withdifficulties and complications, yet
it is essential that we continue toinvestigate how learners may benefit
from specific pedagogical practices
with regard to FL. In future, projects
involving closely matched of genre
and dynamics between rehearsed
and practiced performances andsubsequent recalls might yield firmer
results. However, the present study
provides tantalizing preliminary
evidence that utilizing the power ofrepetition and memory in speechtasks can augment facility with andawareness of FL; it remains for future
research to determine how and towhat extent this is so in a range ofcircumstances.
Appendix
Formulaic Sequences Provided for
Presentations
1.
a number of2.
a range of3.
according to
4.
all in all5.
are generally defined as6.
as illustrated here7.
as many (examples) as
possible8.
can be a source of difficulty
9.
can be tricky
10.
comes across11.
compiled a list
12.
curious as to why

13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.

dealing withdirect our attention to
down through generations
draw out
for the most partfrom (their) point of view
from our perspective
have the additional benefit ofhighly unusual
how the X differ
in factin an instance in whichin the course of
initial reaction
it became apparent thatlate by X minutes
launch intolooked down on
may appear similar
point out
present a comparison between
presents problems
some of which aresome such thingsuch asthe truth is thatthrough the eyes of
to sum up
use in error
with particular attention toReferences
Baddeley, A. 1986. Working memory.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Baddeley, A., Gathercole, S., & Papagno,
C. 1998. ‘The phonological loop as alanguage learning device’. Psychological
Review 105/1: 158-173.
Biber, D., Conrad, S, & Cortes, V. (2004).
“If you look at…” Lexical bundles
in academic lectures and textbooks.
Applied Linguistics, 25, 371-405.
Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J.,
Stengers, H., & Demecheleer, M. 2006.
‘Formulaic sequences and perceived oral
proficiency: Putting a Lexical Approachto the test’. Language Teaching
Research 10/3: 245-261.Dahlin, B., &Watkins, D. 2000. ‘The role of repetitionin the processes of memorising andunderstanding: A comparison of theviews of German and Chinese secondary
school students in Hong Kong’. British
Journal of Educational Psychology 70/1:
65-84.
Dai, Z., & Ding, Y. 2010. ‘Effectivenessof text memorization in EFL learning

22 | The IAFOR Academic Review Seventh Editionof Chinese students’ in D. Wood (ed.).
Perspectives on formulaic language:
Acquisition
andcommunication.
London/New York: Continuum.Ding,
Y. 2007. ‘Text memorization andimitation: The practices of successful
Chinese learners of English’. System 35:
271-280.
Ellis, R. & Yuan, F. 2005. ‘The effectsof careful within-task planning on oral
and written task performance’ in R. Ellis(ed.). Planning and task performance ina second language. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Ellis, R. 2005. ‘Planning and task-based
performance: Theory and research’in R. Ellis (ed.). Planning and task
performance in a second language.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gatbonton, E., & Segalowitz, N. 2005.
‘Rethinking communicative language
teaching: A focus on access to fluency’.
The Canadian Modern Language
Review 61/3: 325-353.
Lindstromberg, S., & Boers, F. 2008a.
‘The mnemonic effect of noticing
alliteration in lexical chunks’. Applied
Linguistics 29/2: 200-222.
Lindstromberg, S., & Boers, F. 2008b.
‘Phonemic repetition and the learning oflexical chunks: The power of assonance’.
System 36: 423-436.
McCarthy, M., & O’Dell, F. 2005.
English collocations in use. Cambridge;
Cambridge University Press.
O’Brien, I., Segalowitz, N., Freed, B.,& Collentine, J. 2007. ‘Phonologicalmemory predicts second language
oral fluency gains in adults’. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition 29: 557582.
Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching
vocabulary: A vocabulary researchmanual. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Walker, I., & Utsumi, T. 2006.
‘Memorizing dialogues: The case for“performative exercises”’ in W. M. Can,K. N. Chin, and T. Suthiwan (eds.).
Foreign language teaching in Asiaand beyond: Current perspectives andfuture directions. Singapore: Centre for
Language Studies.
Wray, A. 2002. Formulaic language andthe lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Wray, A. 2008. Formulaic language:
Pushing the boundaries. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Empowering English Language Learners: The
Importance of Developing Critical Literacy Skills
By Jennifer Cope

Photograph by Daniel Foster / Flickr

Abstract
For some time, listeners andreaders have been regarded as active
participants in the complex andinteractional nature of negotiating
meaning (Savignon, 2001). However,many of those who are learning
English do not have equal access tothe skills of understanding the social
practices in which reading and writing
are embedded (Clark, 1995). For
English language learners to criticallyengage with textual and cultural
practices, they must have access to,and be able to critique, both culturaland linguistic resources (Hammond& Mackin-Horarick, 1999). One way
to achieve this effectively in English
language teaching is to consider theteaching of context alongside themeaning of the words themselves.
This paper presents some of theresearch relating to critical literacy

skills and responds to the challengeof teaching critical literacy skills
to English language learners. In sodoing, it provides a contribution
towards the development of theseskills in the classroom as a way ofenabling learners to participate fullyin the discourse. This paper provides
an overview of the discourse analytic
study in progress, from which it isderived, that is critically analysing
newspaper texts from the USA, theUK and Australia, and discusses how
contextual factors can affect readers’
understanding of discourse.
The
paper concludes with a discussionof the factors under consideration inteaching critical literacy skills in the
English language learning classroom,and the proposed pedagogical tool.
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to discuss
the importance of critical literacy skills

and that, by aiding English language
learners to develop these skills, may
provide a viable way of empowering
them. Motivations for this paper
are based on the following premises.
Firstly, the significant role that critical
literacy skills play in unpacking
meanings within texts, to better
understand the ideologies and or setsof belief which are inherent in them,cannot be underestimated. Secondly,
from an English language teaching
perspective, it is considered that thebetter the understanding of learnersof the depth and range of meanings
within a text or genre, the more that it
enables them to access and participate
in those genres. Thirdly, it should
not be assumed that the language ofEnglish which is shared as the main
language by the countries of theUnited States of America (USA),the United Kingdom (UK) andAustralia, automatically means thatthe cultural context of these countries

The IAFOR Academic Review Seventh Edition | 23

are the same. Fourthly, in an ongoing
discourse analytic study, being carriedout by the author of this paper, theextent to which contextual featuresand intertextual references affect themeaning of the discourse are being
questioned. The final motivating
factor for this paper lies in assessing
the pedagogical implications of the
discourse study and, as a consequence,developing a proposed pedagogicaltool for the language learningclassroom.
This paper will review each of thesemotivational aspects outlined above
and attempt to contribute to thediscussion of how language learners
can be empowered to engage withand participate in the multitude ofinteractions to which they are exposed,
whether as a migrant living within aparticular country, or as an interactant
who communicates from afar.
Critical Literacy
Language Learners

andEnglishWhile listening and reading are
considered as ‘receptive’ as opposed tothe ‘productive’ skills of speaking andwriting, they nevertheless require acertain amount of activity on the partof listeners and readers to understandwhat is being said or written. For
some time, therefore, listeners andreaders have been regarded as active
participants in the complex andinteractional nature of negotiating
meaning (Savignon, 2001). However,language learners, including many of
those who are learning English, do
not have equal access to the skills of
understanding the social practices
in which reading and writing areembedded (Clark, 1995). For English
language learners to be able to criticallyengage with textual and cultural
practices, they must have access to,and be able to critique, both culturaland linguistic resources (Hammond& Mackin-Horarick, 1999).
It is useful to take account of the workof the following scholars in considering
how and why it is important todevelop the critical literacy skillsof English language learners. Kress(1982) and Martin (1989) suggest that
language learners may be excluded
from engaging in ‘genres of power’unless they are specifically taught
how to critique them. Genres ofpower tend to be specialised ways ofwriting, such as, scientific reports andlegal documents, which are generally
monopolised by group members andrestricted to members of particulartechnical and professional activities(Lemke, 1995). While acknowledging
that access to these genres suggests a
certain degree of acquiescence withdominant cultural systems (Lemke,
1995), it is however asserted thatcritiquing these genres as they aretaught can empower ESL students
to both understand and participate
in them. The strategies used in‘professional’ genres (Bazerman, 1988,
1994; Halliday & Martin, 1993),
according to Lemke (1995), should
be taught in their context for deeper
understanding. Developing the abilityof language learners to critique thesetexts may, furthermore, lead them tochallenge the values which underlie
the texts (van Dijk, 1998). Thus, ananalysis of texts undertaken from a
critical linguistic position, will help tohighlight the...” ideological loading ofparticular ways of using language andthe relations of power which underliethem” (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997,
p.258). Alongside critiquing texts or
discourse, identifying the contributionof multimodal features can beimportant, as it may affect peoples’
reactions to events (Paltridge, 2006),
and thus reveal the different ways inwhich texts are constructed. Enabling
English language learners to accessand participate in genres, through thedevelopment of their critical literacy
skills, could therefore ensure more
equitable interactions (Cope, 2009).
Cross-Cultural Aspects of English
The notion of cross-culture has mainly
been examined in spoken or written
texts from cultures and countries
whose first languages are different(see, for example, Bhatia, 2006;
Simon-Vandenbergen, White, &24 | The IAFOR Academic Review Seventh Edition

Aijmer, 2007; Wang, 2006). However,the number of varieties of English isincreasing in addition to the numberof people throughout the world whoare speaking Englishes. According
to Kachru’s (1988) concentric circles,
countries such as the UK, the USA
and Australia form part of the inner
circle of English-speaking countries –those countries where English is theprimary language for the majority ofthat country’s population (Kirkpatrick,2007). Yet the largest proportion ofEnglish language speakers, over 1,000
million people, now belongs to the
expanding circle which includes China
and Russia and consists of countries
where people mainly use English as aforeign language. There seems to be
an implicit assumption, however, that
because certain countries, for example,
the UK, the USA and Australia, share
English as their first language, itfollows that their cultural contexts are
similar. While there are likely to besome cultural similarities in the inner
circle countries due to their common
origins, differences may have occurred
too with the evolution of thesecountries away from their common
ancestry. In consequence, the English
language may have continued todevelop too, particularly in the USA
and Australia, as a result of contact
with other languages or varieties andchanges in the social and culturalcontexts (Kay, 2004).
An illustration of the important
influence of context on language
can be seen in the use of the word‘sorry’ in Kevin Rudd’s, a former
Prime Minister of Australia, formal
Apology speech to the Aboriginaland Indigenous people of Australia
at the opening of Parliament in early2008 (Rudd, 2008). In the Australian
context, the word ‘sorry’ is emotionallyand politically charged because it
had been withheld from being said
to Aboriginal people ever since theEuropeans arrived in Australia in thelate 1700s. In the North Americanor British context, however, saying asingle word of apology may not be
construed as particularly sincere anda more embellished apology may bedemanded for a similar experience.
In Australia, English language
learners are likely to benefit froman understanding of the Australian
historical and cultural backgroundto be able to obtain a deeper
understanding of Kevin Rudd’s formal
Apology speech. Contextual factors,
therefore, can affect how language
is used across cultures, and, for thisreason, it is necessary to highlight anddistinguish features of the context inorder to analyse hidden and coded
meanings in texts (Wodak, 2007).
Wierzbicka (1997) additionally claims
to have provided evidence of specific
Australian patterns of social relations
and cultural values in her examinationof the word ‘mate’, stating that theAustralian variety of English includes
a socio-category of the word ‘mate’ notfound in other varieties of English,
such as British and American English.
English language learners, therefore,
who find themselves living in a country,
or communicating from elsewhere,with people whose first or main
language is English, may find thatthey do not fully grasp the meaningof what is being said or that thevariety of English is different to thatwith which they are familiar. While
the sequence of events in a spoken or
written transaction are often similar,
even in two cultures in which the first
language is different, the way of using
language may vary from one culturalgroup to another (Paltridge, 2006), andis strongly influenced by their cultural
norms (Huth & Taleghani-Nikazm,2006). Consequently, speakers andwriters reflect their cultures androles in interactions, making certain
assumptions about a situation andthe participants (Moerman, 1988).
Thus, in English language learning,
there needs to be an awareness that
understanding a text is more than justknowing the meaning of the words
and that, in particular, the context has
an effect on the discourse. For learnersof English to be truly empowered,they need to be aware of the impactthat both the broader socio-culturalcontext of the country and the local
situational context in which the text

is published may have on the meaningof texts.
Overview of a Critical Discourse
Analytic Study
This paper has been derived from an
ongoing study, which is examining a
selection of newspaper texts from theUSA, the UK and Australia, written
by influential authors, on the Global
Financial Crisis. From a critical
discourse perspective, one of the aimsof the study is to compare and evaluate
writing strategies to highlight theextent to which, and in what ways,
the cultural contexts impact thediscourse of the texts. It is consideredthat an investigation of the impact ofbackground knowledge of cultural andsituational contexts on discourse, may
lead to an understanding of how thisaffects readers’ understanding of themeaning of a text. Additionally, thecritical analysis of writers’ strategies
could reveal the underlying ideologies
or sets of beliefs, which they adhere to.
An analysis of cross-cultural aspects
will allow comparisons to be drawn
between the three English-speaking
countries of the USA, the UK andAustralia during the Global Financial
Crisis. Even though English isthe dominant language in all three
countries, it is expected that thecontext may affect the discourse invarious ways from country to country.
Examining the impact that these threecultural contexts have on the discourse
could be of additional importancebecause, as well as demonstrating how
socio-economic factors and ideologies
inherent in national contexts affectthe production of discourse during acrisis across three English-speaking
cultures, it may also lead to anunderstanding of how writers position
themselves and their readers.
Pedagogical Implications and a Tool
For Developing Critical Literacy
SkillsThe development of critical literacy
skills for English language learners isthus important because through theapplication of these skills, learners
will develop an understanding of theunderlying meanings of spoken andwritten English. It is intended thatdeveloping the ability to critiqueand access ‘genres of power’, suchas newspaper texts from the study
written by influential writers, will
ultimately allow students to engage
with and participate in them. It is
proposed that a simplified versionof the methodology derived fromthe study could be applied in theclassroom as a pedagogical tool.
In consideration of how to develop apedagogical tool for teaching critical
literacy skills, the following factors havebeen taken into account. A top-down
approach is favoured, as put forward
by Ellis (2003), so that the heading
and structural aspects of the whole
text are considered before individual
words. This concurs somewhat with
Crawford’s (2002) proposition that thefocus of classroom materials should
be on “whole texts” (p.84), and where
possible an audiovisual component isuseful for richness in linguistic andcultural information. Texts should
be authentic-like (Crawford, 2002),
and be adapted for learners according
to their proficiency levels and theteaching context. There should be
an understanding that, in reading atext, the reader is actively interactingwith it in order to negotiate meaningfrom the text. Guiding the language
learner through the reading task using
their critical literacy skills can allow
the reader to discover possible culturaland linguistic resources for themselves
which can lead to powerful insights.
This paper has stressed the importanceof context in understanding a text. This
tool, therefore, emphasises two typesof contextual factors, those relating
to the broader socio-cultural context
in which the text is set, and thosewhich relate to the more immediate
contextual factors in which the text is
produced. Some of these aspects may
already be known to students, whileother information may need to beelicited from students, or supplied by
the teacher.

The IAFOR Academic Review Seventh Edition | 25

A table or grid could be drawn up foreach student and questions adapted
according to the level of proficiency ofthe students. The following contextual
factors could be considered before
reading the text, for example:• When and where was the text
written?
• Who wrote it? What is known about
the identity of the writer - what istheir age group, gender, nationality,role?
• What is the title of the text and subtitle? Do these give an idea of what
the purpose of the text is or what the
text is about?
After finding the answers to thequestions above and discussing them,
the following could be consideredwhile reading the text:• What values may be associated withthe text? Which words or structures
suggest these values?
• What phrases or names or individual
words are unfamiliar? Do you thinkthese names or words are written
without explaining them because thewriter thinks the reader might alreadyknow them? Why might the writer dothat?
• Which words or phrases areimportant to understanding the text?
Awareness of both contextual andtextual factors in reading materials
will provide a starting point for thedevelopment of English language
learners’ critical literacy skills. It will
help them to more fully understandthe cultural context of the English
writers of either the country in which
they are living or with which they
are communicating from afar. It is
intended that eventually these skills
will empower them by enabling themto participate fully in the discourse.
References
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping writtenknowledge: The genre and activity ofthe experimental articles in science.
Madison: University of Wisconsin
Press.
Bazerman, C. (1994). Systems of genres
and the enactment of social intentions.
In A. Friedman & P. Medway (Eds.),
Genre and the new rhetoric (pp.79101). London & Bristol: Taylor &Francis.
Bhatia, A. (2006). Critical discourse
analysis of political press conferences.
Discourse & Society, 17(2), 173-203.
Clark, R. J. (1995). Developing criticalreading practices. Prospect: A journal ofAustralian TESOL, 10(2), 65-80.
Cope, J. (2009). Accessing the vocational
college from an ESL perspective: A
system of genres analysis. University ofSydney Papers in TESOL, 4, 21-55.
Crawford, J. (2002). The role of materials
in the language classroom: Finding thebalance. In J.C. Richards & W.A.
Renandya (Eds.), Methodology inlanguage teaching: An anthology ofcurrent practice (pp. 80-91).
Cambridge & New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language
learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Fairclough, N. & Wodak, R. (1997).
Critical discourse analysis. In T.A.
van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social
interaction (pp. 258-284). London:
Sage.
Halliday, M.A.K. & Martin, J.R.
(1993). Writing science: Literacy anddiscursive power. Pittsburgh: Universityof Pittsburgh Press.
Hammond, J., & Macken-Horarik, M.
(1999). Critical literacy: Challenges andquestions for ESL classrooms. TESOL
Quarterly, 33(3), 528-544.
Huth, T. & Taleghani-Nikazm, (2006).
How can insights from conversation
analysis be directly applied to teaching
L2 pragmatics? Language Teaching
Research, 10(1), 53-79.
Kachru, B. (1988). The sacred cows ofEnglish. English Today, 16 (4), 3-8.
Kay, C.J. (Ed.) (2004). Macquarie
International English Dictionary:Complete and unabridged edition (2nded.). Sydney: Pan MacMillan Australia
Pty Ltd.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). Models ofWorld Englishes. In World Englishes:
Implicationsforinternational

26 | The IAFOR Academic Review Seventh Edition

communication and English language
teaching(pp.27-37). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kress, G. (1982). Learning to write.
London: Routledge.
Lemke, J. (1995). Textual politics:
Discourse and social dynamics.
London: Taylor & Francis.
Martin, J.R. (1989). Martin, J. R.
(1989). Factual writing: Exploring
and challenging social reality. Oxford:
Oxford University Press
Moerman, M. (1988). Talking culture.
Ethnography
andconversation
analysis. Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania Press.
Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse analysis.
London; New York: Continuum.
Rudd, K. (2008). Apology to Australia’s
Indigenous Peoples. Retrieved April 15,
2013 from:http://australia.gov.au/aboutaustralia/our-countr y/our-people/
apology-to-australias-indigenouspeoples
Savignon, S. (2001). Communicative
language teaching for the twenty-first
century. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.),
Teaching English as a second or
foreign language. (pp. 13-28). Boston:Heinle & Heinle.
Simon-Vandenbergen,
A.-M.,White, P. R. R., & Aijmer, K. (2007).
Presupposition and ‘taking-for-granted’in mass communicated politicalargument: An illustration from British,
Flemish and Swedish political colloquy.
In A. Fetzer & G. E. Lauerbach(Eds.), Political discourse in the media:
Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 3174). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John
Benjamins B.V.
van Dijk, T.A. (1998). Ideology.
London: Sage.
Wang, W. (2006). Editorials on
terrorism in Chinese and English: A
contrastive
genre
study. The
University of Sydney
Wierzbicka, A. (1997). Patternsof “friendship” across cultures. In
Understanding cultures through their
key words: English, Russian, Polish,
German, and Japanese (pp. 101-123).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Wodak, R. (2007). Pragmatics andcritical discourse analysis. Pragmatics& Cognition, 15(1), 203-225.

The Teaching of Foreign Languages for SpecificPurposes - How and Why
By Mario Pace

Photograph by Steve Wilson / Flickr

Every time I am asked to prepare an
Italian course for specific purposes,
be it a “Commercial Italian” course,
an “Italian for Call Centres” course,“Italian for Hotel Front Desk People”
etc, the first thing I do is ask myself
the following questions:i. What is a language for specificpurposes?
ii. Who are my clients/ students/ myaudience?
iii. What are their objectives? Whatobjectives would they like to reach?
iv. What is their level of Italian?
v. What should my role be in such acourse?
vi. What /which methods shall I
adopt?
vii. What shall I include in my course?
In other words: The teaching of aforeign language for specific purposes:
How and why?
Balboni (2000) describes a language for
specific purposes as a linguistic variety

used in scientific and professional
sectors. Its objective is to help anyone
belonging to that particular scientificor professional sector communicate in
the least ambiguous manner possible.
Dita Gálová (2007; viii) states that.
“globalization of the world economy
requires professionals and specialists
in various areas to communicate
effectively in foreign languages. The
success is conditional on their ability
to manage language and culturalbarriers, i.e. on the language skills
and competences with respect totheir professional areas.” Jesus Garcia
Laborda (2011) is, maybe, even more
specific, when he describes LSP as “theteaching of a language as a second or
foreign language for certain groups ofstudents to whom the syllabus, tasks,
and methodology is especially tailoredto their interests and needs”.
Indeed, in today’s world, knowing
how to use a language in specificcircumstances and purposes gives
people a very strong bargaining

power, especially in the labour world.
Whereas up to a few years ago, very
few people considered speaking
a foreign language an important
prerequisite, today it has becomeof fundamental importance in all
professional circles. In fact, in today’s
European society, languages andinterculture play a fundamental rolein getting to know different people
and in obtaining professional andeconomic development.
In the global marketplace that we now
live in, language skills are becoming
always increasingly important inorganisations and businesses whowant to remain competitive on aninternational level. Companies today
require a versatile staff in order tocommunicate effectively and it is in
their interest to employ speakers of
foreign languages who are able to talkto clients, business partners, fellow
employees in different countries intheir own languages as this will not justhelp communication but, above all, it

The IAFOR Academic Review Seventh Edition | 27

helps to make sales and to negotiate
and secure contracts. As declared by
the European Commission in one ofits documents on multi-linguilism,
entitled, “Languages mean Business!”,
one of the main reasons why
thousands of European companies
lose out on concluding deals andcontracts is their lack of linguistic
and intercultural competencies . Thisis also confirmed by the Bologna
process: “If higher education
programmes are to be relevant to theEuropean labour market, graduates
have to be able to communicate in a
number of languages and to expand
their repertoire in changing needs”.
And this is exactly why today there
exists an array of courses in foreign
languages for specific purposes, be
it for tourism, for call centres, forbusiness, for commerce and so on,
focusing on acquiring the necessary
terminological,
interdisciplinary
and intercultural skills needed forspecific jobs. This is confirmed by the
CBI Education and Skills Survey(2009: 48), which states that “in an
increasingly competitive job market,
it is clear that foreign language
proficiency adds significant value to a
candidate’s portfolio of skills, and cangive them a real competitive edge when
applying for jobs.” Furthermore, theBusiness Forum for Multilingualism
establishedbytheEuropeanCommission (2008: 8) declares clearly
that “A significant percentage ofEuropean SMEs lose business every
year as a direct result of linguistic andintercultural weaknesses. Although it
appears certain that English will keep
its leading role as the world businesslanguage, it is other languages thatwill make the difference between
mainstream and excellence andprovide a competitive edge”.
Furthermore, several research studies
not only show that a variety oflanguages are required on international
markets but also that the most quoted
barrier to intra-European mobility
remains lack of foreign language skills. It is no surprise that language skills
are considered by employers as one of

the ten most important skills for future
graduates. This was confirmed by arecent Eurobarometer study where
40 % of recruiters in the industry
sector highlighted the importanceof language skills for future higher
education graduates. Another study,
about the internationalisation ofEuropean SME’s published by theEuropean Commission in 2010,shows how when companies start
exporting, language and culturalbarriers start being perceived asimportant obstacles.
This explains why today there exists aneed to diversify the language training
market with courses in foreign
languages for specific purposes.
Although the teaching of foreign
languages in general and the teachingof foreign languages for specificpurposes have a lot in common, there
exist two main divergences, namely, (i)the learners and the reason why they
are learning the subject and (ii) the
aim of instruction. Usually, as we shallsee, the teacher of foreign languages
for specific purposes has 3 main tasks:(i) to carry out a needs analysis; (ii) todesign the course; and (iii) to prepare
original/authentic teaching materials.
Such courses in foreign languages for
specific purposes imply addressing theimmediate and very specific needs ofthe learners involved, having as theirdriving force, both in the preparation
stage as well as in the development
stage, the needs analysis of thelearners. For this reason the starting
point should always be an analysisof the learners’ needs, objectives andexpectations for the course, which canvary in their scope and focus . This
includes forming a list of preferencesof what the learners want and need tolearn, as far as language and content
are concerned, and of how theywould like to learn them. This is by
no means an easy task given that in
the same group individuals may varyconsiderably in age, education level,motivation, aptitude for languages,
work experience, self-discipline, etc.
It therefore includes getting to know
their knowledge in the language, their

28 | The IAFOR Academic Review Seventh Edition

past work experiences (especially incountries where the target language isspoken) as well as their cultural andlinguistic backgrounds. This can bedone either by means of an interview
or a questionnaire or else by meansof a writing task or an initial test. I
consider this stage as fundamental
since the needs of a learner studying,for example, a foreign language forscientific or technological purposes
are totally different from those ofanother learner studying for medical
purposes or legal purposes, or
financial purposes. The same goes forindividuals studying a foreign language
for specific trades or occupations andothers still concerned with findinga job. Even the skills required varyconsiderably. This usually helps me
determine what to teach, how to teachit and what materials must I use tohelp the learners reach their goals. Asa matter of fact, the people studying
for commercial purposes usually needspecific reading and writing skills– reading and understanding thecontents of an email and replying toit; writing various letters of a different
nature, be it a letter of complaint, ofprotest, of acceptance; taking minutesof an important meeting, etc. On
the other hand, those studying theforeign language to work in a callcentre are usually more interested
in listening and speaking skills –answering the phone; leaving amessage; giving information over thephone, etc. What is important is thatthe language being taught should bepresented in authentic contexts. This
helps learners understand better andbecome acquainted with the particular
ways in which the language is usedin functions that they will need toperform in their jobs.
One must also take into consideration
whether or not the learners alreadywork in that particular field or if they
are still concerned with finding a job.
Those already in the job are the primaryknowers of the content of the material
and experts in the field. We need tokeep in mind that we are not teachingthem the job, but rather to help themcommunicate better about their workin the target language. The role of theteacher will therefore be to help, tofacilitate communication in class, toprovide the tools for the learners todevelop and acquire the skills theyneed, to become autonomous learners.
If, for example, there is a course of
Italian for commercial purposes or for
legal purposes, my role as a teacher is
not to teach them the rules of business
management or to teach them the lawsof the country. There is no doubt thatthe learners are experts in the field.
My role is to provide the learners with
the necessary linguistic tools to beable to apply the concepts, interpretthem, and above all communicate
in the target language, not just withthe particular jargon characteristic ofthat specific occupational context but
also with the language of everyday
informal talk, that allows them tocommunicate effectively regardless ofthe occupational context.
All this implies that such courses
cannot be taught according to any
pre-ordained methodology. Rather
than talking about a subject to betaught we need to think of whichapproach to adopt and this implies
flexibility on the teachers’ part,
negotiating with the learners how
best to reach their objectives. In
other words, the teacher needs tounderstand the requirements of theprofession and be willing to adapt tothese requirements. It is important tounderstand the context in which thelanguage will be used as well as any
specialist concepts and terminology,
and this, in turn, implies the need forspecific training, tailor-made courses
and teaching the practical use of thetarget language. It is a known factthat language in different situations
varies and therefore the teacher has
to tailor make not just the curriculum
and the methods, but above all thematerials to be used for each andevery individual course in accordance
to its specific context and centred on
its appropriate language. The fact that,very often, the teacher is asked to
produce a course that exactly matches
the needs of a group of learners, makes
it practically impossible to either findsuitably published material or to use

a particular textbook without theneed for supplementary material. Thismeans that the teacher has to provide
the material for the course himself/
herself. Hutchinson and Waters(2009) suggest three main factors thatneed to be addressed when designing
materials for such courses, namely,(i) the criteria for implementing or
modifying materials, (ii) the subjective
criteria on what teachers and students
want from that material, (iii) the
objective criteria which is what thematerial really offers. Furthermore
the teacher has to tailor make all thematerials to be used for each andevery individual course in accordance
to its specific context and centred on
its appropriate language (grammar,
lexis, register), skills, discourse andgenres (Strevens, 1988, Robinson,
1991, Dudley-Evans and St John,
1998) . And as Nunan (1987) puts it,
this requires time, skills and support.
In fact this involves not just keeping
abreast with the vast selection of
published material and adapting itto the learners’ needs, but very often
it also implies developing a self
produced resource bank of authentic
materials.
From the point of view of the course
contents, each course plan shouldbe threefold: there should be theindividual theoretical component oflearning, which includes, amongst
other things, revising some basic
grammar notions and rules, becoming
familiar with business terminology,
introducing the kind of language
they will face and need to use in
their profession, and writing letters;
the individual practical componentof learning, where, in collaboration
with third parties (employers, banks,business communities, legal offices,
hotels, [depending on the natureof the course], etc), each course
participant is assigned a numberof open-ended, supervised ‘hands
on’ tasks (answering emails, writing
letters, attending meetings, etc) which
can be performed at his/her own
level; the third component should
consist in group work and team work
– classroom discussions, role plays, etc.

It is important to note that, given theheterogeneity of most of the groupsof learners, most of the tasks assigned,
both on an individual level as wellas in team or group work, should be
open-ended and the learners are free
to adapt them according to theirneeds and abilities. At the end ofeach course, a detailed evaluation
sheet should be distributed to thecourse participants in order to havetheir feedback on all the aspects ofthe course. I consider this exercise offundamental importance as it helps
the teacher reflect on what decisions
need to be taken before starting a new
course.
In an article entitled “Business Needs
Language” Language Magazine
explores ‘What Business Wants:
Language Needs in the 21st Century’and concludes that, within theAmerican business sector, there exists
a real need for a more systematic
discussion of the role and value of
foreign language skills, especially In
the face of strong perceptions that
English is — and will continue to be— the lingua franca of international
business. Elisabeth Lord Stuart,
Operations Director of the U.S.Algeria Business Council, argues thatan enormous barrier to increasing
US participation in overseas markets
is the lack of appropriate foreign
language skills and abilities among
U.S. businessmen. Indeed, a lingua
franca can never be enough in today’s
world to satisfy every communicationneed. Learning foreign languages for
specific purposes, not only provide thekeys to the cultures they represent but,above all, open doors to new markets
and new business opportunities.
One last consideration. It is a known
fact that the demand for foreign
languages for specific purposes andcommunication skills is steadily risingon the European labour market andthat very often employers demand
diplomas/certificates as a proof of
language competence. This meansthat the testing and accreditation
methods connected to language
competences for professional purposes

The IAFOR Academic Review Seventh Edition | 29are becoming ever so important andrelevant and that the language skills
acquired through such courses, usuallyoutside the formal education system,
should be formally acknowledged. In
this sense, the Council of Europe’s
Common European Framework ofReference (CEFR), which provides
the structure not just of language
syllabuses and curriculum guidelines
but also for most of the assessment
methods for language competences,provides transparent and authentic
proof of appropriate skills acquired forvarious occupations.
References
Balboni P. (2000). Le microlingue
scientific-professionali.
UTET,
Torino.
2 Gálová D. (Ed). (2007), Languages
for Specific Purposes. Searching for
Common Solutions.
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
3 Laborda JG. (2011), “Revisiting
Materials for Teaching Languages forSpecific Purposes” in The
Southeast Asian Journal of English
Language Studies – Vol. 17(1): 102112. Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia.
4
http://ec.europa.eu/education/
languages/languages-mean-usiness/
doc1460_it. Htm

5
CEL/ELC 2002. http://www.
celelc.org/index.html
6
http://nationalemployerservice.
org.uk/resources/cbi-nord-angliaeducation-and-skills-survey-2009/7
http://ec.europa.eu/education/
languages/languages-mean-usiness/
doc1460_it. Htm
8 “Demographic trends, socioeconomic impacts and policy
implications in the European Union
2007” a monitoring report fromthe European Observatory on Social
Situation and Demography.
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/spsi/docs/social_situation/2007_mon_rep_demo.pdf.
9Eurobarometer 304, (2010)‘’Employers’ perception of graduate
employability’’
10 Internationalisation of European
SME’s http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/
policies/sme/marketaccess/files/internationalisation_of_european_smes_final_en.pdf
11 Elizabeth Martin (2010) lists
6 different types of needs analysis,
namely: target situation analysis;present- situation analysis; strategy
analysis; means analysis; learningcentered approaches andlanguage audits. “Designing andimplementing a French-for-SpecificPurposes (FSP) Program:
Lessons Learned from ESP in

30 | The IAFOR Academic Review Seventh Edition

Global Business Languages. Vol. 5,
Article 3. Purdue Research
Foundation.
12 Hutchinson, T., and Waters, A.
(1987). English for Specific Purposes:
A learning-centeredapproach. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press .
13 Strevens, P. (1988). “ESP after
twenty years: A re-appraisal”. In M.
Tickoo (Ed.), ESP: State of the
Art (pp. 1-13). Singapore:
SEAMEO Regional Centre.
Robinson, P. (1991) ESP Today:a Practitioner’s Guide. Hemel
Hempstead: Prentice HallInternational.
Dudley-Evans, T., and St John,
M. (1998). Developments in ESP: A
multi-disciplinary approach.
Cambridge: CUP.
14 Nunan, D. (1987). The teacher
ascurriculum
developer:An
investigation of curriculum processes
within the Adult Migrant Education
Program. South Australia: National
Curriculum Resource
Centre.
15
http://languagemagazine.com/
April 201016 Council of Europe, Education andlanguages, CEFR: http://www.coe.
int/t/dg4/linguistic/cadre_en.
aspThe IAFOR Academic Review Seventh Edition | 31

The IAFOR
Academic Review
Volume 1 | Issue 7

Essays in Language Learning

Published by The International Academic Forum(IAFOR), Japan
IAFOR Publications. Sakae 1-16-26-201, Naka-ward,
Aichi, Japan 460-0008
IAFOR Publications © Copyright 2015
ISSN: 2188-9570
Design: Thaddeus Pope32 | The IAFOR Academic Review Seventh Edition