Book Reviews

Silence in the Second Language
Classroom

Jim King, Palgrave Macmillan (2013) (211 pages). ISBN 9781-137-30148-2 Price: 12,002 yen
Reviewed by Sam Morris
Kanda University of International Studies
Encouraging students to speak more in the second language classroom haslong been a preoccupation of language teachers and researchers, particularlyin the context of Japan where critics have lamented the reticence of learners tocommunicate in their second languages. The question of why learners may behesitant to speak has been discussed before in, for example, the literature on
language anxiety (e.g., Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986; Young, 1992) andwillingness to communicate (e.g., Macintyre, 2007). However, as Macintyre notes,
this is “not a simple question when one recognises the various relevant individual,social, linguistic, situational, and other factors” (p. 154). In a refreshingly
direct approach, Jim King places silence at the centre of his 2013 work, Silencein the Second Language Classroom. By doing so, he aims to unmask some of
the complexity behind the silent behaviour that language teachers experience.
The work is successful as both an incisive and enlightening investigation of thephenomenon of silence in language classrooms in Japan, providing much food forthought for the teacher as they negotiate the complex meanings of the silences
they encounter on a daily basis.
The work is organised neatly and logically in the form of eight chapters,
which may be differentiated into two halves: a comprehensive literature review
80Silence in the Second Language Classroom, OnCUE Journal, 10(1), pages 80-85

and three empirical studies. The first half of the book presents firstly, an overviewof relevant models of silence; secondly, a socio-cultural investigation of theorigins of silence within the Japanese context; and finally, a critical discussionof how the Japanese education system is likely contributing to the problem ofsilence. These interdisciplinary reviews are rigorously researched, and presented
with clear and meaningful prose, and a number of enlightening observations
are offered which resonated with this reader. King describes, for example, thatsilence is not simply the opposite of orality but has a “multiplicity of forms andfunctions” (p.30), some of which may overlap with speech during meaningfulcommunication. He also explains that while silence plays an important role in
the pragmatics of Japanese communication, stereotypes of the “Japanese as silent”
do not provide an adequate description of the intricacies of this phenomenon.
Indeed, these early sections continually assert the complexity of student silence
and the importance of avoiding generalisations of silent learners and cultures:
In order to truly understand a learner’s silent episode we must first consider
the underlying attitudes and beliefs towards the relative merits of speech vssilence in his/her culture, whilst at the same time paying close attention tothe context in which the silences occur. (p. 62)
As such, it is no surprise that King later opts for dynamic systems theory(DST) as the orienting lens through which to discuss his own findings. DST,
originally a mathematical concept, posits that human behaviour is inherently
complex, and therefore that factors affecting behaviour are highly interrelated(for a more thorough discussion of the application of DST to SLA see De Bot,Lowie, & Verspoor, 2007; Larsen-Freeman, 1997).
The second half of the book takes the form of three empirical studies
conducted on student silence. In chapter 5, King describes a quantitative
observational study of classroom behaviour, for which the author created theClassroom Oral Participation Scheme (COPS). This instrument may be used
to observe and record the types of interactions that occur in classrooms on aminute-by-minute basis, and was employed by the author across nine universities
in Japan to provide an illustrative depiction of the silent landscape (previously
published in King, 2013). In chapter 6, King reports on a series of semi81

Morrisstructured interviews that he conducted with eight students, the focus of which
was to provide depth to the data he obtained in his quantitative study (chapter 5)through discussions of the forms and functions of silence that the students usedand encountered. Finally in chapter 7, King describes a stimulated recall study,
wherein the author discussed critical incidents of classroom silence in interviews
with seven participants, enabling him to investigate more acutely a series of silent
events he had observed.
The results of these studies were, at least to this reader, highly compelling. That
only seven communicative acts were observed to originate from students rather
than teachers across 48 hours of research with 900 students is a truly astonishingstatistic. In addition, the revelation that that only 16% of observed class time
was spent with students interacting with peers in pairs or groups is startling,and suggests the Japanese government’s ongoing push for communicative
instruction is not yet working. King makes a cogent argument for viewing silence
as a dynamic and complex system in his qualitative analyses (Chapters 6 and7), since his inquiry unveiled a plethora of factors that may influence students’silent behaviour. These factors included, among others: mental characteristics,
previous learning, task complexity and interest, the relationship between student
and teacher, and social factors within the class. King notes that DST “emphasisesthat multiple concurrent variables may influence one’s classroom behaviourat any one time” (p. 145) and provides evidence of this in his stimulated recall
study (chapter 7). One relatable case given is that of Nao, a non-language major
who remained almost entirely silent throughout three observed classes, evenduring whole-class drills. King’s stimulated recall with Nao revealed that her
reluctance to speak was not governed by simplistic cause/effect logic, but rather
was influenced by multiple-factors such as limitations in her own first-language
expressiveness, general apathy towards English, and the teacher’s approach tothe class. The conclusion raised here is that in order to tackle silence properly,
teachers need to adopt a “multi-strategy intervention” (p. 168) for which King
discusses some practical suggestions in his concluding chapter.
Beyond the rigour of the literature review and the significance of the resultspresented, the book has a number of strengths which are worth highlighting.
82

Silence in the Second Language Classroom, OnCUE Journal, 10(1), pages 80-85

Firstly, the writing concerning the students and their decisions to use silence
is commendably non-judgmental. While King acknowledges early on in thetext that he views silence to be a negative prospect in the language classroom
when considering its effect on language acquisition, at no point does he criticize
the participants in his study for using silence. In fact, the author makes pains
not to single out the Japanese as the only culture reluctant to communicate
in a second language: “I can testify that the Japanese certainly do not havea monopoly on reticent students” (p. 162). (King does however, make criticalremarks of governmental agencies such as MEXT for their failure to correlate
their rhetorical policies with their institutional level support, and these felt
earned to this reader in the context of his literature review.) A further strength tothe work is the degree of clarity provided to the methodological considerations
taken in the studies. While introspective methods such as the stimulated recall
can be remarkably informative, they require stringent planning and design(Gass & Mackey, 2000). Here the author outlines his methodological decisions
with detail and clarity, and offers useful advice and practical guidelines in theappendices for those wishing to explore silence in their own contexts.
If there is any weakness to the work, it could be argued that King fails todeliver the same level of detail to the teachers involved in his studies thathe provides his participant students and institutions. For example, in his
observational study, he explains that the institutions involved were bothprivate and national, and varied in size and reputation, and we are given clear
information about the age and proficiency levels of students; however, we aregiven scant details of the teachers or their methodological choices. It may be that
King was required to offer anonymity to his participant teachers with regards tothese matters; however, if so, it is not mentioned clearly. Consequently, a numberof times as I read the book I found myself wondering about the instructor, thecurriculum they were using, and the methodology they were employing. Given
that King identifies the student/teacher relationship and chosen teaching style aspotential causes of silence, and also given that he strongly critiques the grammartranslation method still common to Japan, I felt that the inclusion of morebackground information about instructors and their pedagogic choices would83

Morrishave provided greater contextual understanding.
Overall, the book is a highly readable, informative and compellinginvestigation into a subject that all experience and many oversimplify. In the eightmonths since first reading the text, the themes of the book have often returned tomy own classroom, and I have a newfound curiosity: is this student quiet because
he/she is shy, or is it because of my own actions? Should I be holding this student
to a higher standard of oral participation than I currently do? Will proactively
discussing silence with this student be a positive way to deal with the issue? Thisinquisitiveness is perhaps the most important consequence of the work, which
I feel has had a positive impact on my teaching. King challenges readers to lookbeyond simplistic understandings of silence as a reflection of learner anxiety
or low ability, and to reassess how they understand silence. The book achieves
this goal by combining rigorous research with highly detailed empirical studies,and it would make a compelling read for any interested in learning more about
why Japanese students are seemingly attracted to silence when learning a secondlanguage.

References

De Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A dynamic systems theory
approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language andcognition, 10(1), 7-21. doi:10.1017/S1366728906002732
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second
language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
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
King, J. (2013). Silence in the second language classrooms of Japaneseuniversities. Applied Linguistics, 34(3), 325-343. doi: 10.1093/applin/
ams043
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second
language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141-165. doi:10.1093/
applin/18.2.141
84

Silence in the Second Language Classroom, OnCUE Journal, 10(1), pages 80-85

Macintyre, P. D. (2007). Willingness to communicate in the second language:
Understanding the decision to speak as a volitional process. The Modern
Language Journal, 4(91), 564-576. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00623.x
Young, D. J. (1992). Language anxiety from the foreign language
specialists’ perspective: Interviews with Krashen, Omaggio Hadley,
Terrell, and Rardin. Foreign Language Annals, 25(2), 157-172.
doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.1992.tb00524.x

Author bio

Sam Morris is a lecturer at Kanda University of International Studies and PhD
student at the University of Leicester. He is researching teacher emotion regulation
behaviour. sammorris.work@gmail.com.
Received: August 6, 2016
Accepted: August 26, 201685