Australian Review of Applied Linguistics - Volume 14, Issue 2, 1991

This paper explores the relationship between teachers’ theories of language and learning and the nature of classroom discourse. Through analysis of data collected from two year 3 classes, it is argued that there are three components functioning simultaneously in all lessons. These are the interpersonal, the content and the metalanguage components. The focus of the paper is on how the content and the metalanguage components are realized in the classroom discourse, and on the educational implications of the metalanguage component in particular. It is suggested that the quality of the metalanguage component has an impact on the overall quality of the language education program and that this impact derives from an appropriate theory of language use.

Current systems for analyzing classroom talk require some refinement in order that they may be applied for professional development purposes. Sinclair and Coulthard’s (1975) system is particularly useful as a potential tool for diagnostic purposes, but requires further development at the level of ‘act’ both in order to clarify theoretical frameworks and to provide manageability in terms of its application. This study will present a first approximation towards the development of a more refined system of classifying classroom discourse. In its focus on teacher talk, it will provide a preliminary taxonomy of types of teacher acts. This taxonomy, it is hoped, will both inform existing theory and provide a diagnostic tool in the training of teachers.

Four short-term British Council Key English Language Teaching (KELT) tertiary education projects in South India were evaluated through visits, interviews and study of relevant documents. An evaluation model was developed incorporating four outcome criteria of project success (product, teacher development, sustainability, extendibility) and four input predictors (ongoing institutional support, ongoing training as education, consultant as team member, growing professional perception). Recommendations on future policy are given; these include the wider dissemination of existing information about ELT projects in India and involve a homogeneous but unequal network design.

This paper examines approaches to the analysis of speech reporting, finding that these approaches fall into two broad categories: traditional approaches which emphasize the syntactic dimension of speech reporting and are informed by an autonomous model of language and discourse pragmatic approaches which emphasize the interaction of syntactic, pragmatic and stylistic factors in discourse. A model for speech reporting strategies in discourse is proposed, involving direct and indirect speech reporting strategies and a ‘lexicalization strategy’. Using this model, a number of approaches to the function of direct speech reporting strategies in the early stages of SLA are reviewed, which analyze the function of direct speech reporting as a ‘compensatory discourse strategy’, not as stylistic variation. It is argued that this analysis is informed by the traditional approach to speech reporting and does not take into account the ‘lexicalization strategy’. When the lexicalization strategy is considered, direct speech is found to function both referentially and stylistically in learner discourse. The argument is illustrated via an analysis of speech reporting in narrative in learner varieties of English and German.

This paper investigates the speech act of apologizing in English between Chileans and Australians. It examines the frequency, distribution and function of apology-strategies used by both groups in a situation of having missed an important appointment with ‘a boss’. Results indicate that L2 Chileans and Australians do not differ significantly in the frequency of using some apology-strategies, nevertheless striking divergences emerged from the modification attached to them (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989). This finding may indicate that each group of speakers coined a different weight to the apology-strategies. Thus while ‘remedial work’ (Goffman 1971) in Spanish is accomplished by the use of positive politeness strategies (Brown and Levinson 1987), Australians appear not to favour them. These differences may anticipate some communication problems which may lead to ‘sociopragmatic failure’ (Thomas 1983) between both groups. Moreover the sex of the apologizer and the recipient is an important factor which determines the speaker’s performance in the act of apologizing.