JACET SIGonESP AnnualReport Vol14

ISSN 1346-4302

Annual Report of JACET-SIG on ESP

Volume 14

The Japan Association of

College English Teachers

Special Interest Group on ESP

Kanto Chapter

December 2012

Annual Report of JACET-SIG on ESP

Volume 14

The Japan Association of

College English Teachers

Special Interest Group on ESP

Kanto Chapter

December 2012

ISSN 1346-4302

Editors & Reviewers for Annual Report Vol. 14 (2012)

Chief Editor: Atsuko K. Yamazaki

Associate Editors: Setsu Tsuji, Mitaka Yoneda, David Rear

Reviewers: Tamao Araki, Reiko Fujita, Kayoko H. Murakami,

Hisashi Naito, Tom Orr, David Rear, Sanae Saito,

Akiko Tsuda, Setsu Tsuji, Masa Tsuneyasu,

Atsuko K. Yamazaki, Mitaka Yoneda

Annual Report of the JACET-SIG on ESP

Volume 14

ISSN 1346-4302

JACET-SIG on ESP, Kanto Chapter

Publication Contact:

Atsuko K. Yamazaki

Faculty of Engineering

Shibaura Institute of Technology

307 Fukasaku, Minuma-ku, Saitmama-shi,

Saitama 337-8570, JAPAN

Phone & Fax +81-48-687-5724

E-mail: [email protected]

Printed by PROPRINT Shoyo Co., Ltd.

3-17-2 Naka-cho, Omiya-ku, Saitama-shi, Saitama 330-0845, JAPAN

URL: http://www.proprint.co.jp/

Table of Contents

Foreword

Reiko Fujita, Charlie Robertson, Kayoko H. Murakami -------------------------1

Article

A Survey on the Needs of English in Performing Job-related Tasks in Japanese Companies Classified

by Various Industries

,, ------------------------------------------------2

Applying conversation analysis to English for Specific Purposes:

A single case analysis on the use of negations

Akiko Matsumoto Otsu --------------------------------------------------------------10

A Proposed Set of Can-Do Statements for Technical English

Michihiro Hirai ---------------------------------------------------------------------18

Examining Authenticity and Motivation from an International Perspective

Richard Pinner ------------------------------------------------------------------------24

Survey of Communication with Foreign Parents of Children in Nursery Schools

-----------------------------------------------------------------34

ESP 2012

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------42

Annual Report of JACET-SIG on ESP, Volume 14, December 2012

1

Foreword

It is our great pleasure to present the 2012 Annual Report of the JACET-SIG on ESP,

Volume 14. This issue contains five articles. It also includes an outline of the activities of our

group, the JACET-SIG ESP Kanto chapter in 2012. We were delighted to receive many

submissions from diverse ESP fields, and the five articles chosen were successfully selected

from these submissions. All the articles reflect the rapid changes to Japanese society in this

global age and suggest a need for more systematic ESP curriculum development and

instruction at tertiary level institutions.

An article by Ito, Kawaguchi & Ohta investigates the need for English across various

industries. Their results show that needs vary from industry to industry and individual

workers sense that they will be asked to perform more required tasks in English in the near

future. Otsu focuses on the linguistic features of business conversations in a Singapore branch

of a Japanese company. Through conversation analysis, it was found that the use of negation

is quite normal, indicating that efficiency seemed to be prioritized over politeness. Hirais article proposes a set of Can-Do statements for technical English for the Japanese. Hirais carefully designed descriptors are the first to be produced for technical English for the

Japanese learner. These three articles, briefly described above, have great significance for

English instruction in Japan as they illuminate the challenges faced by students in todays globalized business world.

Pinner poses a question about the meaning of authentic materials. He proposes that authenticity should be defined according to a continuum rather than a single definition. His

insights are particularly valuable when ESP practitioners choose teaching materials.

Carreira-Matsuzaki investigates the communication between teachers and non-Japanese

parents of nursery school children. Today, more and more families from overseas are living

in Japan due to their business assignments; as a result, the need for English-speaking nursery

school teachers is becoming more important than ever.

Our hope is that ESP will be understood by more people involved in curriculum

development and that ESP approaches to English instruction can help Japanese students

efficiently prepare themselves for the globalized world. In addition, we hope that our

continuing efforts to publish the Annual Report will contribute to the promotion of research

and development of ESP education in Japan. Last but not least, we would like to express our

sincere gratitude to the members of the editorial committee and reviewers who contributed

their precious time to help prepare this issue.

Reiko A. Fujita (Chair)

Charlie Robertson (Vice Chair)

Kayoko H. Murakami (Vice Chair)


2

Article

A Survey on the Needs of English in Performing Job-related Tasks in

Japanese Companies Classified by Various Industries

Abstract: The aim of this paper is to identify the specific needs of English usage in Japanese companies.

The data was collected by conducting an on-line survey. A questionnaire consisting of the descriptions of

45 job-related tasks in various work settings was used. The 3,000 employees who participated were asked

1) how frequently they need to use English in their current job, 2) whether they had ever performed each

of the tasks before and 3) which tasks are performed in English now or will be in the future. The data was

classified and analysed using 28 types of industry, such as the electronics industry, the chemical industry,

wholesale distribution, and other industries. The results suggest that the needs of English in the workplace

vary depending on the type of industry. Some tasks, such as communicating through e-mail, are

common in all industries, while other tasks, such as communication with clients and colleagues,

especially in phone conferences, are limited to some industries. The results also suggest that many of the

survey respondents feel that a lot of more complicated tasks, such as those that have never been

performed before, will be needed in the future. This is part of a larger research project aiming at providing

guidelines for designing an in-house English program that meets the needs of Japanese employees with a

wide-range of background and work experiences.

I.

24 2000

, 2012, p.16

23

7

, 2012 242008

2011 5.6%, 2012

, 2011


3

2011

59 58

, 2011

2 2012

2013 TOEIC730 2012

80

II.

1.

Ito, Kawaguchi, & Ohta, 2005 can-do

45

E

)45 6

A. B. C. D.

E. F. 5

2


4

51. 2. 3. 4. 5.

TOEIC

2.

2012 6

TOEIC 2 3,000

2,906 2,739 167

2,341 565 38.8 39.8 34.6 TOEIC

587.5

III.

1.

15

TOEIC

513 338 231 221

206 3.3

3.33.23.03.0

18

2 2.4

4. 5. 53%

1TOEIC

638.0629.4709.2 TOEIC

28 26540.5

24 558.2 23 560.8 517.7

TOEIC

2.

2.1


5

1. TOEIC %

M SD M SD

89 3.3 1.21 638.0 158.76 18 3.3 1.33 629.4 202.38 91 3.2 1.26 709.2 155.03 206 3.0 1.15 540.5 169.75

221 3.0 1.22 603.2 164.07 129 2.9 1.23 517.7 156.10

91 2.9 1.23 558.2 175.63 231 2.9 1.29 560.8 179.50

189 2.8 1.30 617.3 169.41 6 2.8 1.17 675.0 183.06

513 2.8 1.24 552.7 168.26 101 2.8 1.25 601.0 191.73 18 2.8 1.31 660.8 182.16

98 2.7 1.37 655.2 172.08 50 2.7 1.20 583.5 183.10 19 2.7 1.16 622.7 212.94

63 2.7 1.08 597.8 163.17 50 2.6 1.31 616.5 147.34 44 2.6 1.33 534.9 164.51

10 2.6 1.43 786.0 204.47 42 2.6 1.27 598.2 169.27

79 2.6 1.30 583.3 163.15 130 2.6 1.25 646.1 164.73

17 2.5 1.07 576.8 178.33 27 2.5 1.25 561.4 149.68 12 2.5 1.24 617.5 157.44

338 2.4 1.14 588.2 175.79 24 2.4 1.14 610.0 177.34

2906 2.8 1.25 587.5 174.86

TOEIC

6%

9%

8%

12%

13%

11%

17%

17%

17%

16%

15%

17%

22%

16%

16%

13%

22%

23%

30%

21%

24%

24%

18%

22%

17%

23%

21%

28%

25%

26%

26%

24%

32%

24%

28%

17%

27%

32%

28%

29%

34%

32%

35%

28%

32%

20%

33%

30%

28%

29%

37%

50%

33%

42%

22%

26%

32%

26%

34%

26%

29%

23%

33%

27%

24%

33%

21%

22%

26%

32%

28%

20%

20%

24%

24%

25%

41%

15%

8%

26%

17%

17%

20%

21%

24%

14%

16%

15%

17%

33%

17%

17%

6%

11%

20%

21%

14%

8%

11%

20%

10%

9%

13%

6%

19%

17%

12%

17%

28%

20%

13%

13%

15%

14%

15%

14%

0%

12%

13%

17%

16%

8%

5%

6%

14%

14%

10%

12%

13%

9%

6%

7%

8%

6%

4%

9% 17% 21% 36% 17%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

1.


6

2 45

45

7. E

2. 45%

A. 1 L 53 482 S 45 453 S 32 394 S ) 28 355 S 25 366 S 26 34

B. 7 W E 58 528 R 50 459 R 40 47

10 R 32 4311 R 22 3512 S 24 3513 R 47 4614 R 39 4015 W 26 3516 L 32 3917 I 18 3018 W 24 3619 W E 31 3920 W 20 3021 I 15 29

C. 22 L 43 4323 L 35 4024 S 30 38

D. 25 S 11 2126 W E 16 2527 I 9 2128 W E 12 22

E. 29 S 18 33

30 S

15 29

31 S 2030 17 3132 R 21 3333 S 19 3334 I 10 25

F. 35 L CEO 19 3236 S 20 3237 I 10 2638 L 23 3639 S 24 3740 I 19 3441 I 24 4042 I 21 3943 I 17 3544 W 18 3445 R 21 36

L= R= S= W= I=


7

58%1. 53%8.

50%13.

47%

27. (9%)34.

(10%)37. 10%

27, 34, 37

42. 21% 39%43.

17% 35%44.

18% 34%F.

34.

10% 25%31. 2030

17% 31% E.

2.2 10

4

3

E

E

F.

E


8

E

14.

41.

52

23

3 10

(%)

B 7 W 58 EC 22 L 57 B 13 R 54 A 1 L 54 B 9 R 49 C 23 L 49 A 2 S 45 C 24 S 45 B 10 R 44 B 11 R 44

(%)B 7 W 57 EB 9 R 54 B 13 R 53 B 8 R 50 B 10 R 49 A 2 S 47 A 1 L 46 F 42 I 45 F 41 I 45 C 22 L 45

(%)

B 7 W 57 EB 9 R 55 B 13 R 54 B 10 R 52 A 2 S 51 A 1 L 50 B 19 W 49 EF 42 I 49 B 18 W 49 B 16 L 49

(%)

B 7 W 62 EB 13 R 56 B 10 R 55 B 9 R 55 A 2 S 55 B 8 R 53 B 14 R 52 F 41 I 52 A 3 S 51 A 1 L 50


9

10 4

2

4 10

IV.

28

E

TOEIC

C23520719

Ito, T., Kawaguchi, K. & Ohta, R. (2005). A study of the relationship between TOEIC scores and

functional job performance: Self-assessment of foreign language proficiency. TOEIC

Research Report, 1, 1-35.

. (2011). . Retrieved from http://www.meti.go.jp/

policy/economy/jinnzai/san_gaku_kyodo/sanko1-3.pdf

. (2012). 24.Retrieved from http://www.meti.go.jp/report/

tsuhaku2012/2012honbun_p/2012_gaiyou.pdf

.(2012). 24. Retrieved from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/wp/

hakusyo/roudou/12/dl/01-1-2.pdf

. (2012). 23.

Retrieved from http://www.jetro.go. jp/world/japan/reports/0700854


10

Article

Applying conversation analysis to English for Specific Purposes:

A single case analysis on the use of negations

Akiko Matsumoto Otsu

Daito Bunka University

Abstract: The present study analyzes talk-in-interaction recorded at the Singapore branch of a Japanese

construction company by adopting Conversation Analysis (CA) techniques. Special focus is on the use of

negations by participants who use English as a lingua franca for business purposes. It is found that, while

conversations in the data are as highly organized and socially ordered as those in traditional CA studies,

people in this community tend to articulate negations more strongly. The accumulation of single case

analyses like this study is expected to be a bridge between CA and English for Specific Purposes (ESP),

and to offer pedagogical implications for developing more authentic ESP courses and materials.

I. Introduction

Conversation Analysis (CA) views participants in conversation as mutually

orientating to, and collaborating in order to achieve, orderly and meaningful

communication (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008: 1). It pays detailed attention to the specific

sequential contexts of talk. Schegloff, Koshik, Jacoby, and Olsher (2002) argue that the

relationship between CA and applied linguistics is growing, and one of the areas of

applied linguistics that can benefit from CA is Language for Specific Purposes (LSP)

(p.17). Findings from CA of naturally-occurring talk have abundant implications for the

design of tasks and materials for English for Specific Purposes (ESP) education.

Nonetheless, the number of research articles dealing with spoken interaction in ESP is

very small (Bowels, 2006: 333; Richards, 2009: 71).

The present study aims to explore links between the CA tradition and ESP by

analyzing talk recorded at the Singapore branch of a Japanese construction company

with a CA perspective. Analyzing the single case with special focus on the use of

negations, the study attempts to examine how interactions in the workplace are

organized and ordered. Simultaneously, interactional features unique to the construction

industry are identified compared to other situations where English is used as a lingua

franca. Finally, pedagogical implications for practical ESP courses and materials are

presented.

II. CA, ESP and ELF

The most central assumption of CA, first put forward in pioneering research by

Harvey Sacks, is that ordinary talk is a highly organized, socially ordered phenomenon

(Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008:11). Conversation analysts have investigated how


11

participants in naturally-occurring talk interact cooperatively with one another. For

example, Sacks (1987) explains the preference for agreement, which is elaborated by

Drew (1994) as preferred actions such as acceptances are normally produced

unhesitatingly without delay, are delivered right at the start of the response

turnDispreferred actions are normally produced in variously mitigated or attenuated

forms (p.752). In a similar vein, Pomerants (1984)s overall features of disagreement

turns are summarized that Frequently disagreements, when stated, are formed as partial

agreements/partial disagreements; they are weak forms of disagreementdisagreement

components are frequently delayed within a turn or over a series of turns (p.65).

The settings for the conventional CA research vary from a suicide prevention hotline,

court trials, broadcast media, business organizations, to informal conversations between

friends or family members, but as Schegloff et al. (2002: 12) points out, most CA

research on institutional discourse is not explicitly concerned with NNSs (non-native

speakers). It was after Firth (1996) proposed the applicability of CA methodology to

talk-data among non-native speakers that the number of researchers who analyze

talk-data in English as a lingua franca1 (ELF) increased dramatically. The majority of

data sets in CA studies on ELF show that ELF talk is overtly consensus-oriented,

cooperative and mutually supportive (Seidlhofer, 2004:218). Meierkord (2000) also

stresses the cooperative nature of lingua franca communication. However, as Ehrenreich

(2009) argues, since not all of ELF is informal and consensual, more attention should be

paid to competitive talk (p.146) as often observed in the business field.

The present study analyzes the way employees in the Singapore branch of a

Japanese company interact with other non-native speakers of English. It especially

focuses on a single case of an online meeting, where conflicts or non-understanding are

often observed. Therefore, this study investigates an area not covered extensively yet by

ESP, CA and ELF researchers.

III. Methodology

1. Sources and data

The data were recorded at an overseas office of a Japanese construction company in

Singapore. The main participant is an architect in charge of a factory construction

project in Malaysia. He has visited the construction site several times, but basically

stays in the Singapore office designing the factory building and giving instructions to

local engineers in Malaysia at weekly online meetings. Using the online meeting system,

they can see one another, share a computer screen, keyboard and mouse control, and

draw and highlight on the screen. At the meetings, the architect checks how the factory

construction is progressing. If any problems are reported, he changes the design and

gives relevant instructions to the local staff. While the architect always chairs meetings,

his supervisor, another architect, occasionally joins him.


12

The data for the present study consist of four short conversations recorded on the

same day. Two are from an online meeting of two hours, and the other two are

conversations between the two architects and a Singaporean subcontractor who visited

them at the Singapore branch during the meeting.

2. Conversation analysis

2.1 Unmotivated looking

In this study, the recorded data are transcribed using a slightly adapted version of the

transcription conventions developed by Gail Jefferson (see Appendix). As Hatchby and

Wooffitt (2008) emphasize, the data are not necessarily approached with a particular

question in mind, because conversation analysts avoid having preconceptions about

what may be found in some set of transcribed recordings (unmotivated looking in

Sacks (1984)s term). Instead, I followed the research procedure in CA described by

Hatchby and Wooffitt (2008) as follows:

(a) locate a potentially interesting phenomenon in the data

(b) describe one particular occurrence formally, concentrating on its sequential

context

(c) return to the data to see if other instances of the phenomenon can be described in

terms of this account. (p.90)

Additionally, each extract in the study is analyzed in contrast with relevant findings

of previous CA research in similar phenomena.

2.2 Single case analysis

The data for the present study is from talk-in-interaction during one meeting, which

has led to adopting a single case analysis. Single case analysis is to look at a single

conversation, or section of one, in order to track in detail the various conversational

strategies and devices which inform and drive its production (Hatchby & Wooffitt,

2008:114). Hatchby and Wooffitt (2008) argue that this technique can be used to

discover how the order and organization of conversation operates in particular instances.

Richards (2009) exemplifies this argument by showing how a focus on just one

interactional feature (in his case, a meeting) can identify the local professional culture

and provide raw materials for ESP materials writers. The present study also intends that

the detail of CA transcription and analysis will eventually be incorporated into

classroom materials, especially those for future expatriates who work in the

construction industry.


13

IV. Analysis of data extracts

1. Not to let it pass

There are two features Firth (1996) presents concerning ELF interactions: let it

pass and not let it pass. The let it pass actions of the hearer is to let the unknown

or unclear action, word or utterance pass on the (common-sense) assumption that it

will either become clear or redundant as talk progresses(p.243), and notes these are

common actions among ELF users. Following this argument, Seidlhofer (2004)

maintains that ELF users adopt the let-it-pass principle as long as a certain threshold

of understanding is obtained (p.218). On the other hand, Firth (1996) also analyzes that

ELF users do not let pass potentially problematic features to maintain interactional

robustness. Extract 1 below is categorized in the latter, not to let pass attitude.

Extract 1

A1 (a Japanese architect) and A2 (A1s supervisor) are talking with S1 (a

Singaporean subcontractor) in person over a design drawing of the factory building.

1 A1: here we have a box gutter

2 A2: um huh

3 A1: and is your system mmmmm uh::::::::m working

4 S1: YES [yes

5 A1: [if we have the box gutter here

6 S1:(0.7) um I dont understand

7 you mean you have a downpipe

8 A1: (.) yeah here [is the downpipe=

9 S1: [yeah

The architects explain the design of a water discharge system to the subcontractor,

who is trying to win the contract for the system. Although they are talking using a visual

aid (the design drawing), S1 does not follow what A1 is talking about, and says I dont

understand in line 6. While there is a long pause and hesitation marker um, which

indicates delicacy in talk (Firth, 1996: 251), this is a fairly overt expression of

non-understanding. What is more, in line 7, S1 repairs A1s utterance without waiting

for A1 to self-repair, although the other-repair is somewhat downgraded by Ymean

plus a possible understanding of prior turn as well as rising intonation (Schegloff,

Jefferson & Sacks, 1977:368). The way S1 shows his non-understanding and repairs

A1s utterance is accountable, considering he is in the middle of an important business

negotiation and A1 and A2 are potential clients. However, A1 does not make S1s

other-initiated other-repair marked. After a micro pause to understand S1s correction,

A1 accepts it unmarked and continues his talk. There seems to be a consensus that


14

perceived problems in understanding must be dealt with immediately, rather than being

allowed to pass (Firth, 1996: 250) between A1 and S1. This phenomena to prioritize

efficiency of communication can be called the institutional need for economy in

Bowles (2006)s words. Examples of not letting it pass are presented in Tsuchiya

(2011), who also investigates interactions at meetings of construction company

employees in the South Asian contexts.

2. Just plain no

The use of no in professional situations has been highlighted by Seedhouse (1997)

and Richards (2009) because negative expressions require considerable sensitivity.

Richards (2009) shows that no occurs only in the context of disagreement about facts,

and professional disagreement are managed without recourse to no. In the present

study, however, no does appear in a professional situation:

Extract 2

A1 (a Japanese architect) and E1 (a Malaysian engineer) are discussing where to

arrange the doors in the building at an online meeting.

1 E1: this one this one ((showing a design problem on screen)

2 (1.8)

3 A1: yeah we can move the door

4 (0.9) ((clicking sound: A1 starts to make a modification on the shared

screen)

5 E1: oh

6 (2.0) ((A1 continues to draw on screen))

7 E1:canNOT because xxxxxxxx[xxx ((talking to other members in their native

language))

8 A1: [like this

In line 1, E1 uses the shared computer screen to explain how one door is blocking

another door on the actual construction site. A1, the architect in charge of design, says

he can change the design to solve the problem in line 2, and tries to modify the design

on the shared screen. E1 is a little surprised by the idea and responds oh in line5, thinks

only for a moment while A1 continues to draw, and loudly says cannot with an

emphasis on not in line 7 before A1 finishes drawing the modified design on screen.

After turning down A1s idea in such an abrupt way, E1 starts to discuss the matter with

his colleagues. Meanwhile, A1 does not respond to E1s reactions in lines 5 and 6 and

keeps drawing to show his idea in line 8.


15

What E1 did in Extract 2 seems to contradict Richards (2009)s argument that the

occurrence of no is exceptional where professional issues are at stake. Nonetheless,

the way A1 treats E1s plainly negative answer as unmarked shows that it is not

accountable in this situation.

Moreover, the most conspicuous example of plain no in the data for this study is as

follows:

Extract 3

S1 (a Singaporean subcontractor) asks A2 (A1s supervisor) about the previous

construction work A2 subcontracted to another subcontractor.

1 S1: Saito-san2 Im surprised that you you you allowed the factory to flow(.)

2 thats Im very surprised that=

3 A2:=no no no no (.) Im not saying (.) we I allowed for factory to flow

4 S1: uh

5 A2: I allowed to it overflow on the ground le[vel

6 S1: [on the ground level=

7 A2:=I dont allow overflow on top

8 S1: ok

9 A2:that means I do NOT ALLOW the overflow coming inside to the building

10 even in the ground floor

11 S1: its true rightyou you dont want that yeahumm

12 because [thatll be affecting uh many factories=

13 A2: [if you

14 A2: =yes of course=

15 S1: =yeah=

16 A2:=Im not gonna allow that

17 S1: yeah

S1 asks A2 about the previous construction work that had a problem in its water

discharge. As S1s repetition of you in line 1 shows his hesitation to bring it up, it is a

delicate issue that can affect A2s professional face. As soon as A2 finds what S1 is

talking about, A2 immediately interrupts A1 saying no four times in line 3. He uses

the subject we first but self-repaired it into I and continues to use I four

consecutive times, which shows A2 takes this incident as his sole responsibility. Then

he explains specifically what he did and he didnt in lines 5 and 7, and moves on to his

resolution not to let the same thing happen. He enunciates not allow loudly in line 9

and make it extra sure in line 16. The repeated no has a strong effect for S1 to realize

how important this issue is for A2.


16

V. Discussion

From analyses of Extracts 1 through 3, it can be assumed that in the case of this

workplace, expressing negative answers to interlocutors remarks is not unusual.

Negations appear a number of times, but they are unmarked and freely distributed

among participants. This may seem to deviate from conventional CA principals such as

self-repair predominates over other-repair (Schegloff et.al, 1977:361) as well as

results from ELF research where the cooperative and supportive nature is conspicuous,

but is rather a matter of degree. Participants in this study do use various forms of

mitigation such as long pauses, hesitation/delay markers such as uh, um and oh

before using negative forms, but the degree of articulation in expressing no is stronger

than that observed in other CA studies that focus on non-institutional conversations.

There are several possible reasons for this stronger articulation. First of all, in the

business situation, efficiency of communication is most important. While it is preferable

to save face with one another, disagreements have to be articulated immediately by

the listener (Grssel, 1991, cited by Wolfartsberger, 2011:173), because of the danger

that superficial consensus may well hide sources of trouble at a deeper level (House

1999, 2002, cited by Seidlhofer 2004:218). It is assumed that interlocutors in this study

make their communication efficient and robust without misunderstanding by not letting

it pass and plainly using negative forms. Considering all the participants in this study

work at construction sites and offices3 where safety is a crucial concern, and where

noise levels can interfere with comprehension (Handford & Matous, 2011),

communicative effectiveness is prioritized over politeness. Other possible reasons are

the power relationship4, cultural differences and gender differences in the workplace.

These are outside the scope of this study, but additional analysis of longer recording

data and retrospective interviews with the participants will further support the findings

of the study.

As for pedagogical implications from the present study, ESP textbook designs and

classroom interactions can benefit from the present study. For example, the construction

company taken up in this study provides in-house English training for engineers.

Material writers and instructors for the course can revise commercial textbooks of

business English according to the actual talk-in-interactions in the industry. Furthermore,

instructors can introduce more competitive or contentious situations for more authentic

classroom activities.

VI. Conclusion

This study is an attempt to suggest that CA methodology can be usefully applied to

ESP studies. With close attention to the use of negations, it reveals unique features of

interactions in the construction industry: articulation of negative utterance to show

disagreement both on factual and professional issues. Efficiency and accuracy of


17

communication takes priority at business meetings. At the same time, however, the

participants in this study do use various means to mitigate dispreferred actions. In this

regard, the present study confirmed that professional conversations among non-native

speakers of English are as ordered and organized as seen in traditional CA studies.

The single case analysis is not intended to obtain generalized results but to offer

useful data for relevant ESP courses and materials. The present study focuses on the

construction industry in Southeast Asian contexts, but the same technique can be

adopted for other professional situations. In this way, the accumulation of single cases

like these should be a bridge (Schegloff, 2002) between the findings of CA research

and the content of ESP courses and materials.

Notes

1. ELF researchers have differing ideas about the definition of ELF on whether it

includes native speakers of English in the data. In this study, ELF means English used

only among non-native speakers.

2. A pseudonym is adopted here for the protection of personal information provided

for the study.

3. Although online meetings at the construction company are being held in the office,

people need to speak loudly because there are frequent disturbances of communication

due to noises caused by bad Internet connections.

4. In Extract 3, A2 does not use any hesitation markers or mitigation forms. This is

partly because there is a power relationship between A2 (client) and S1 (subcontractor).

At the same time, however, it should be noted that this is the case where the

interlocutors professionalism is more at stake than in Extracts 1 and 2.

References

Bowles, H. (2006). Bridging the gap between conversation analysis and ESP--- an

applied study of the opening sequences of NS and NNS service telephone calls.

English for Specific Purposes, 25, 332-357.

Drew, P. (1994). Conversation Analysis. In Asher, R.E. (Ed.). Encyclopedia of

Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon, 749-753.

Ehrenreich, S. (2009). English as a Lingua Franca in Multinational Corporations. In

Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E. (Eds.), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and

Findings (pp.126-151). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On lingua franca

English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 237-259.

Grssel, U. (1991). Sprachverhalten und Geschlecht: eine empirische Studiezu

geschlechtsspezifischem Sprachverhalten in Fernsehdiskussionen. Pfaffenweiler:

Centaurus-Verlag.


18

Handford, M. & Matous, P. (2011). Lexicogrammar in the international construction

industry: A corpus-based case study of Japanese-Hong-Kongese on-site

interactions in English. English for Specific Purposes,30, 87-100.

Hatchby, I. & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation Analysis.2nd

edition. Polity Press.

House, J. (1999). Misunderstanding in intercultural communication: interactions in

English as a lingua franca and the myth of mutual intelligibility. In Gnutzmann, C.

(Ed.), Teaching and learning English as a global language (pp.73-89). Tubingen:

Stauffenburg.

House, J. (2002). Pragmatic competence in lingua franca English. In Knapp, K. &

Meierkord, C. (Eds.). (pp.245-267). Lingua franca communication. Frankfurt:

Lang.

Meierkord, C. (2000). Interpreting successful lingua franca interaction. An analysis of

non-native-/non-native small talk conversation in English.

http://www.linguistik-online.de/1_00/MEIERKOR.HTM (accessed September 13,

2012)

Richards, K. (2009). Knowing When to No: Aspects of Alignment in Professional

Relationships. In Bowles, H. & Seedhouse, P. (Eds.), Conversation Analysis and

Language for Specific Purposes. 2nd

edition. Peter Lang.

Sacks, H.(1984). Notes on methodology. In Atkinson, J.M., and Heritage, J.(Eds.).

Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Sacks, H. (1987). On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in

Conversation. In Button, G. & Lee, J.R.E. (Eds.). Talk and Social Organisation.

Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 54-69.

Schegloff, E.A., Koshik, I., Jacoby, S. & Olsher, D.(2002). Conversation Analysis and

Applied Linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 3-31.

Seedhouse, P. (1997). The Case of the Missing No: The Relationship between

Pedagogy and Interaction. Language Learning, 47(3), 547-583.

Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca.

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209-239.

Tsuchiya, K. (2011). Not 'letting it pass' in an ELF business conversation in South Asia:

A time-aligned corpus based approach. The 1st Waseda ELF International

Workshop. Tokyo.

Wolfartsberger, A. (2011). ELF Business/Business ELF: Form and Function in

Simultaneous Speech. In Archibald, A., Cogo, A. & Jenkins, J. (Eds.). Latest

Trends in ELF Research (pp.163-184). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.


19

Appendix The transcription notations used in the present study are as follows: [ the point of overlap onset

= latching

(0.7) an interval between utterances

(.) a very short untimed pause

uh::: lengthening of the preceding sound

rising intonation word underlining indicates speaker emphasis

CAPITALS especially loud sounds relative to surrounding talk

utterances between degree sings are quieter than surrounding talk xxxxxx unintelligible speech ((actions)) non-verbal actions arrows in the left margin features of special interest


20

Article

A Proposed Set of Can-Do Statements for Technical English

Michihiro Hirai

Kanagawa University

Abstract: One of the problems facing both teachers and curriculum designers of technical English today

is the lack of a widely accepted framework for technical English with which curricula, teaching materials,

and assessment methodology for the scientific and engineering community should be aligned. As part of a

project promoted by the Institute for Professional English Communication (IPEC), the author has drafted

a preliminary set of Can-Do statements for Japanese scientists and engineers working, or expected to

work, in an international setting, in the hope that it will provide a starting point for the formation of an

engineering variant of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). While

gleaning ideas from a series of discussions held in an IPEC-sponsored forum on English education for

scientists and engineers, the author has primarily drawn upon his dual experience as a computer engineer

and a teacher of technical English.

keywords: framework of reference, CEFR, professional English, ESP, IPEC

I. Introduction

As Japan becomes increasingly integrated into the global framework of economy

and industry, English is gaining importance as the de-facto international language in

practically all aspects of our life including business, science and technology. Against

this backdrop, Japanese scientists and engineers are feeling mounting pressure to boost

their proficiency in technical English, as pointed out in various reports and articles (for

example, The Japan Times 2009, 2010). Compared with general-purpose English and

so-called Business English, however, technical English has traditionally not received

the attention it deserves from either the business community or academia, let alone the

general public.

In the fall of 2007, the Institute for Professional English Communication (IPEC), a

Tokyo-based non-profit organization which, as its name suggests, promotes professional

English communication, hosted a series of meetings focusing on the problems with

technical English education in Japan, inviting four teachers from tertiary educational

institutions, including the author. One of the most important outcomes of the meetings

was an awareness of the lack of a common framework for technical English with which

curricula, teaching materials, and assessment methodology for the scientific and

engineering community should be aligned. While this ad-hoc group suspended its

activities at the end of 2007, the author continued to work for a few more months on the

project and produced a preliminary set of Can-Do statements for technical English as a


21

draft proposal based on which a common framework for technical English education in

Japan could be developed in the future. (It is called preliminary in that it has not been

discussed, reviewed, or endorsed in any way at the meetings and has not been published

anywhere.)

This paper introduces the set of Can-Do statements for technical English

mentioned above, focusing on the thinking behind them and how they relate to the

Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) (Council of

Europe 2001).

II. Objectives

The primary objective of this set of Can-Do statements was to propose a common

scale of skills for the English used in science and engineering (generically called

technical English in this paper) with which curricula, teaching materials and

qualification testing in technical English would be aligned. The target audience was

assumed to consist primarily of (a) Japanese teachers and students of technical English,

(b) Japanese scientists and engineers, (c) personnel who need to evaluate Japanese

scientists and engineers ability to function in English in the workplace, (d) writers and

publishers of teaching materials and self-study books on technical English, and (e)

developers and administrators of tests to assess knowledge and skills in technical

English.

III. Main Considerations

In drafting this set of Can-Do statements, the author took the following into

consideration:

(a) The statements should be user-friendly for the target audience, who may not be

familiar with specialist terms (e.g., cohesive device) often used in the language

education community, let alone those specific to skill assessment.

(b) They should represent, and effectively discriminate between, the several typical

levels of ability of Japanese people to communicate in English in a technical

context.

(c) They should focus on competence in technical English, based on the belief that it

is substantially different from, and therefore almost independent of, general

English in terms of vocabulary and context as it calls for a significant level of

technical or scientific literacy.

(d) They should represent what is generally considered to be common or fundamental

to science and engineeringin other words what can be hypothetically termed the

greatest common denominator of science and engineering, which in itself is

extremely diverse by nature.


22

Point (a) above reflects the voice of most people in industry, who are non-specialists

in language education and hence are not necessarily interested in theoretical skill grids

for general English but are more concerned with discrimination between skill levels in

practical, everyday terms for job-oriented contexts. They tend to measure English skills

in terms of how effectively and effortlessly individuals can communicate with

foreigners, particularly native speakers of English, which is, after all, what matters

ultimately to them on the job. Therefore, they would find Can-Do statements more

practical and easier to understand if they are worded in terms of how well each

individual can communicate with foreigners.

Point (b) reflects the authors intuition that the communication ability of the

majority of Japanese scientists and engineers may not vary greatly on an international

scale such as the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR).

Furthermore, upon studyingalbeit cursorilythe CEFR, the author found most of its

level descriptors too general to provide crisp discrimination between levels in the target

audience, i.e., the technical English community. The author is particularly concerned

that if the CEFR does not discriminate between their skill levels well enough in

practical terms, then it may be worthwhile to consider developing a separate scale that

effectively reflects the typical distribution of communication skills of Japanese

scientists and engineers. For example, if one is to focus on the practical ability to

communicate with non-Japanese in the technical contexts discussed above, the highest

level (C2) of the CEFR might not be needed.

Point (c) is particularly important in Japan, where the teaching and learning

environments, e.g., teaching materials and teaching staff, for technical English and

general English are almost completely separate from each other and should therefore be

treated as two independent spheres. This leads to the assumption that the proposed set of

Can-Do statements would be used in conjunction with those for general English, instead

of being used as a self-standing set of Can-Do statements. In this regard, it would be

advisable to employ two sets of Can-Do statements as a package, one for technical and

the other for general English, which are thought to complement each other in practice,

just as the X-axis and the Y-axis in a two-dimensional Cartesian space would. For

example, if a qualification test for technical English is to be developed based on this set

of Can-Do statements, it would be designed to measure primarily technical English

competence, leaving the measurement of general English competence to a separate,

more appropriate general English test, and its scores should be used only as an indicator

of the test-takers knowledge of, and skills in, technical English. It is further assumed

that those in a position to evaluate the test-takers technical English competence would

always consider his/her results in two tests as a package, one in technical English based

on this set of Can-Do statements and the other based on one for general English.

As for Point (d), it would be practically impossible for any single teaching material


23

or test to cover all the possible fields of science and engineering, which are already

overwhelmingly diverse and are by nature evolving constantly. This fact gives rise to

the all-too-familiar question of how to define the scope of science and engineering,

particularly as it relates to how to evaluate technical English competence. For this

proposed set of Can-Do statements for technical English, the author has chosen as a

reference point, or common denominator, what is commonly taught at high schools in

the U.S. and secondary schools in the U.K. In other words, the author assumed that

Japanese scientists and engineers should have, before anything else, the same basic

technical knowledge as most of their counterparts in the U.S. and the U.K. This notion

of basic technical knowledge is introduced in this set of Can-Do statements as

language knowledge, which pertains to technical English vocabulary, and scientific

literacy, which pertains to knowledge of scientific facts and principles.

IV. Proposed Set of Can-Do Statements for Technical English for Japanese

The proposed set of Can-Do Statements for Technical English for Japanese consists

of a table of level descriptors and a table of level criteria. Altogether five levels are

defined, from Level 5 (highest in practical terms) to Level 1 (lowest), with an additional

supplementary level (Level 0) appended to accommodate all those who do not reach

Level 1. Each of these tables is subdivided into seven skill/knowledge areas: reading,

listening, speaking, writing, language knowledge, technical literacy, and overall. The

table of level descriptors lists the descriptors for all the levels and all the

skill/knowledge areas, while the table of level criteria lists the criteria to be used to

discriminate between each pair of adjacent levels.

Tables 1 through 4 are excerpts of the proposed set of Can-Do Statements for

Technical English for Japanese, representing the overall, language knowledge,

scientific literacy, and speaking skill/knowledge areas. Language knowledge

refers to knowledge of technical vocabulary in both the receptive and productive senses.

The proposed set of Can-Do Statements for Technical English for Japanese thus

looks somewhat different from those in the CEFR and its Japanese versions such as

CEFR-J (Tono et al 2012). The major differences lie in the separation of technical

English from general English and the frequent reference to native speakers of English

or foreigners, which have resulted from the considerations discussed above,

particularly points (c) and (a), respectively. It should be noted further that the level

descriptors for technical English and general English should be taken together as two

independent yet complementary axes (or aspects) of technical English competence.

Another difference, which has arisen from point (b), is the absence of a level

corresponding to the CEFRs highest level (C2). Thus, Levels 5 (highest) to 1 (lowest)

in the proposed set correspond roughly to Levels C1/B2 to A1, while it remains to be

studied how closely these levels correspond between the two sets.


24

Table 1. Excerpt of Level Descriptors: Overall

Level 5 4 3 2

Ove

rall

In technical context, cancommunicate in English ascompetently and smoothly -with respect to all languageskills - as an educated nativespeaker of English with thesame level of technicalknowledge would.

In technical context, cancommunicate in English, withrespect to all language skills,with scientists and engineersof any nationality with nopractical problems affectingthe communication.

In technical context, cancomprehend, with few practicalproblems, what is visually oraurally communicated tohim/her.Can express in English, orallyand in writing, simple technicalcontent only to such anextent and in such a depth asforeigners with the same levelof technical knowledge wouldcomprehend at the minimumlevel.

In technical context, cancomprehend only at the basiclevel (not at the practical level)what is visually or aurallycommunicated to him/her.Can communicate in English,orally and in writing, at the dailyconversational level regardingnon-technical matters.Can express in English, orallyand in writing, simple technicalcontent only at such a limitedlevel that foreigners will find ithard to comprehend.

Table 2. Excerpt of Level Descriptors: Language Knowledge

Level 5 4 3 2

Lan

guag

ekn

ow

ledg

e

Has such a good mastery ofgeneral technical vocabularythat he/she can comprehendpractically all technical texts(except highly specializedpapers or articles) withoutconsulting a dictionary and alsocan use such vocabularyaccurately in productivecommunication.

Has a knowledge of generaltechnical vocabulary goodenough to enable him/her tocomprehend practically alltechnical texts (except highlyspecialized papers or articles),although needing occasionallyto consult a dictionary, andalso can use such vocabularyaccurately enough in practicalterms in productivecommunication.

Has an intermediate (morethan 50%) grasp of generaltechnical vocabulary that isrequired at a minimum inpractical terms.When trying to conveytechnical content to aforeigner, has some difficultyin communication because ofinadequate knowledge ofgeneral technical vocabulary.

Has a limited (more than 40%)grasp of general technicalvocabulary.When trying to conveytechnical content to aforeigner, has substantialdifficulty in communicationbecause of a lack of generaltechnical vocabulary.

Table 3. Excerpt of Level Descriptors: Scientific Literacy Level 5 4 3 2

Scie

ntific

litera

cy

Has a limited (more than 40%)grasp of the fundamentalknowledge of mathematics,science, and technology(engineering) that scientistsand engineers are supposed tohave.

Has a good (more than 60%) grasp of the fundamental knowledge of mathematics, science,and technology (engineering) that scientists and engineers are supposed to have.

Table 4. Excerpt of Level Descriptors: Speaking

Level 5 4 3 2

Spe

akin

g

Can discuss technicalmatters with native speakersof English as competently asthey do.Can deliver presentations ontechnical themes accuratelyand logically using naturalEnglish at the same speed asnative speakers of Englishwould, while employingappropriate rhetorical patternsand organizational structures.

Can discuss technicalmatters with native speakersof English practically withoutproblems (while occasionallyneeding some assistance).Can deliver presentations ontechnical themes, using Englishcorrect and concise enoughfor the audience tocomprehend.

Can orally explainunsophisticated technicalmatters without makingmistakes in English (whileoccasionally needing someassistance).

Can orally explain technicalmatters in fairly limited Englishat such a limited level thatforeigners will find it hard tocomprehend.


25

V. Conclusion

The author developed a proposed set of Can-Do statements for technical English for

Japanese that would be used primarily by the technical English community in Japan,

which operates practically independently of the general-purpose English community

and thus has its own objectives and priorities. One of the most significant features is the

assumption that this set of statements would serve as a scale of reference for technical

English only, which should be complemented by one for general English, since the two

should be regarded as practically independent of, yet complementary to, each other, just

like the X-axis and the Y-axis of a two-dimensional space. Another feature is that these

statements are written from the viewpoint of scientists, engineers, and their employers,

using expressions and references most relevant to them.

This proposed set of Can-Do statements for technical English, drafted in January

2008, reflects primarily the authors thinking, with some input from a small ad-hoc

committee that existed prior to that date. As it has not been critically reviewed nor

verified since then by any organizations or individuals, it should still be considered

preliminary. Future work should therefore include critical review and calibration by

stake-holders, collation with the CEFR and/or its Japanese versions, as well as trial and

evaluation in the field.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the members of IPECs ad-hoc committee on the

education of technical English in Japan for their discussion on issues in this area, which

contributed as general input to the present project.

References

The Japan Times (2009). Engineers must have English skills to succeed, The Japan

Times, October 5, 2009, pp. 8-9.

The Japan Times (2010). English education for engineers needs new framework,

methods, The Japan Times, March 31, 2010, p. 8.

Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:

Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Tono et al (2012). CEFR-J. CEFR-based framework for ELT in Japan (CEFR-J), Tokyo,

Japan. Retrieved August 10, 2012 from

http://www.tufs.ac.jp/ts/personal/tonolab/cefr-j/download.html


26

Article

Examining Authenticity and Motivation from an International

Perspective

Richard Pinner

Sophia University

Abstract: Authenticity is often seen as a desirable component in the content selected and adapted for

language learners. It has been shown that authentic materials are more motivating, even for low-level

learners, than inauthentic or contrived materials (Peacock, 1997). On the other hand whilst authentic

materials may potentially be more motivating for both students and teachers, these materials are not

always seen as suitable for language acquisition due to linguistic complexities. A further complication

arises when we ask exactly what constitutes the definition of authentic language learning materials. This

paper presents various definitions of authenticity and proposes that authenticity should be defined

according to a continuum rather than a single, fixed, definition. It goes on to advocate the use of authentic

materials as a way of making content more relevant and interesting to students, which is hypothesised to

lead to increased motivation, greater involvement, and hence better language acquisition overall. The

paper also discusses the value of ESP or subject-specific materials, advocating a primarily content-based

approach to language teaching.

. Introduction In the May 2012 meeting of the Kanto JACET ESP SIG, I gave a presentation

outlining current theory in the use of authentic materials to motivate students. A

definition of authenticity and of motivation was arrived at after a brief examination

of the literature, following which I gave some practical strategies for dealing with the

inevitable lexical and grammatical complications that arise from bringing

un-simplified authentic materials into the language classroom. During the presentation,

I also invited discussion and debate from the participants, which led to an interesting

number of additional questions and ideas for practical classroom tasks and management

strategies. In this paper, I will begin by addressing the problems with current definitions

of authenticity. I will then explain in greater detail the theoretical background of the

connection between authenticity and motivation, and propose that a continuum be used

in order to encompass the broadening array of contexts in which authentic materials are

used for language learning. Following which, I further elaborate the practical

implications for language teaching. First, in order to understand the interplay between

authenticity and motivation it is important establish what exactly is meant by the two

terms.

Japan Association of College English Teachers English for Specific Purposes Interest Group


27

II. Motivation Background and Definition

Like authenticity, motivation is a difficult term to define and yet it is used frequently

in the classroom and cited often in research literature. For some, motivation is the single

most important factor in determining the success of a learner to achieve their linguistic

goals (Drnyei, 1994; Drnyei and Ushioda, 2010; Gao and Lamb, 2011). With little

debate on the importance of motivation, it is no wonder that the research on motivation

in both educational psychology and second language acquisition enjoys a rich and

complex history. Ema Ushioda advocates a person-in-context view of motivation, which

is emergent from relations between real persons, with particular social identities, and

the unfolding cultural context of activity (2009, 215). For Ushioda, the individual

identity of the learner is essential in their motivation to learn the target language,

stressing the importance of allowing learners the autonomy required to speak as

themselves. The importance of autonomy in motivation has also been established for

many years, most notably in Deci and Ryans (1985) self-determination theory which

posits that autonomy, competence and relatedness are essential factors in the motivation

to learn a foreign language. Elsewhere, Ushioda noted that the notion of engaging our

students identities is something many experienced language teachers have intuitively

recognised as important (2011, 17) and explains that doing so is not new or surprising

but is in fact what many good teachers do instinctively. In breaking down and analysing

what it is that good teachers do to motivate their students, it might be possible to use

this information in teacher training programs and perhaps also to inform materials

design. However, I would like to point out here that this process of personal engagement

and encouraging students to use their own identities would be likely to rely heavily on

the type of materials being used or the content of the class. It is my view that by using

authentic materials it is much easier to motivate students and to encourage them to

engage with the materials, as long as students and teachers understand exactly what

constitutes as authenticity.

III. Authenticity Background and Definition

The term authenticity is used often in the and around the language classroom. It is

referred to both in practical terms as a methodologically sound component of language

learning materials and also it is frequently mentioned in the research literature, usually

in terms of its desirability and the way it can effect motivation and add value to what is

being taught. The use of authentic materials has been a relatively common place

occurrence in the language classroom for almost a hundred years (Gilmore 2007, 98).

Authenticity is also centrally important to ESP because of what Carver calls the

orientation toward purpose (1983, 133).

The learners are studying because they have actual or simulated purposes related to


28

the real world. Real world language performance is by definition authentic. It is

proposed that the only way in which learners can learn how to handle authentic

material is by exposure to such material. Further, it is proposed that such exposure

should be as extensive as possible, and should occur as early as possible. (Carver, 1983,

133)

However, Widdowson argues that some amount of contrivance is essential in order

to make authentic materials comprehensible to students. He advocates that [s]pecificity

is as much a matter of the process as the purpose of learning (1998, 13). Therefore,

although authenticity is desirable, indeed intrinsic to use Carvers words, to the ESP

classroom, it is nonetheless important to remember that the learners need some

assistance and moderation in order to deal with the material. Widdowson (1990, 44)

explains authenticity in terms of its relationship to learning aims and outcomes. He

refers to what he calls the means/ends equation and explains that students necessarily

need to learn authentic language because it stands to reason that they will have to

comprehend and make use of authentic language when they communicate beyond the

classroom situation, thus authentic language is a means to an ends. Widdowson defines

authenticity as natural language behaviour (45) and goes on to explain that he sees it

difficult to imagine a definition of authenticity which deviates from this. Despite

Widdowsons assertions, there are actually numerous definitions of authenticity which

have arisen over time from the research literature. Gilmore identifies eight

inter-related meanings from the literature, which are:

i. the language produced by native speakers for native speakers in a particular

language community

ii. the language produced by a real speaker/writer for a real audience, conveying a

real message

iii. the qualities bestowed on a text by the receiver, in that it is not seen as

something already in a text itself, but is how the reader/listener perceives it

iv. the interaction between students and teachers and is a personal process of

engagement

v. the types of task chosen

vi. the social situation of the classroom

vii. the relevance something has to assessment

viii. culture, and the ability to behave or think like a target language group in order

to be validated by themAdapted from Gilmore (2007, 98)

In order to visualise the interplay of these definitions I have developed a simplified

diagrammatic version.


29

It may be important to draw the readers attention at this point to the very first of

Gilmores definitions, which frames authenticity as deriving from the L1 or native

speaker realm. For a long time, this definition was the accepted and unchallenged norm.

Perhaps this is because it is only relatively recently, say in the past ten or twenty years,

that more precedence has been given to the voices of the international community who

speak and use English daily as their second language. Previously, the classic example

of authentic materials was to obtain a newspaper from the target-language culture and to

use that in class in some way, either for linguistic analysis or for a debate of some kind

around current affairs. Whilst newspapers certainly are authentic, they are not

necessarily the archetype of authenticity. Furthermore, newspapers force us to question

the concept which for a long time was the bedrock of authenticity, the idea of the L1

culture. In framing authenticity from the realm of the native speaker we automatically

presume that there exists some kind of target culture from which examples of authentic

language can be extracted and then presented, preserved and still with their authenticity

intact, to our learners. This falls under the definition of what Hung and Chen refer to as

extrapolation approaches, which they point out assumes similarity between abstracted

concepts and the actual phenomena (2007, 149). This foundation for the definition has

proved to be unstable now, because as it turns out we no longer reside in a world where

culture is clear cut and where samples of language can simply be picked like fruit from

the single tree of the target culture (see for example, Ushioda and Drnyei, 2009).

Pavlenko notes that cultures are increasingly homogenous in certain respects because

they "continually influence each other" (2002, 280) and therefore it can be difficult to

draw distinctions between one culture and another using such binary notions.

Gilmores definitions offer a useful opportunity to take stock of what exactly is

meant by the term authentic. Although the term is so often used in and around

language teaching and seen as important, unfortunately it is not always as


30

straightforward as it might initially appear. Gilmore provides a glimpse of the

frustrations involved in trying to gain a firm theoretical footing with the concept when

he asks whether the term has become too elusive to be useful (2007, 98). Fortunately,

Gilmore overcomes this difficulty by choosing to ground his enquiry based on

Morrows earlier definition, that authenticity is real language produced by a real

speaker or writer for a real audience and designed to convey a real message (1977, 13).

Gilmore, thus following Morrow, decides that this allows the criteria to be limited to

something objectifiable, therefore becoming more conceptually manageable. While it is

certainly useful to keep the definition grounded in tenable concepts, the definition of

authenticity is quickly unpinned again when the use of the word real is placed under

scrutiny. It seems to me that the term real, whilst certainly useful, is at the same time

still rather elusive. Distinctions have been drawn already between real language that

takes place outside the classroom and genuine language which is brought in from

outside and possibly adapted to suit the learning environment (Widdowson, 1990), yet

the term still seems to lack solidity.

For this reason, I prefer Tomlinson and Masuharas definition, which states that

authentic materials are designed not to transmit declarative knowledge about the target

language but rather to provide an experience of the language in use (2010, 400). In this

definition, a clearer concept is provided by explaining what is not authentic i.e.

language teaching which prioritises description over actual use. Tomlinson and

Masuharas description also adds a new term into the mix, the use of the word

experience. An experience is almost as hard to define as what is real. However, the

definition clearly places the emphasis on language as it is used and casts aside the

notion of breaking language down into compartmentalised rules. These rules of

language can be explained as declarative knowledge but they often do not reflect the

way language is actually used in its natural state. In this way, Tomlinson and

Masuharas definition places authenticity within a sociocultural context, prioritising the

use of language as a tool (to use the Vygotskyian term) through which some other

function is achieved. To put it simply, authentic language is language where something

other than language for its own sake is being discussed. Grammar drills and repetitive

explanations of the rules for forming correct sentences in the target language are not

authentic, whereas discussions about environmental issues or exchanges of other

information such as personal beliefs and opinions are authentic. This situates the use of

authentic materials in a content-based methodology, in which authenticity is gained by

authenticity of purpose (Coyle, Hood and Marsh, 2010), which bears much in

common with Carvers term orientation towards purpose (1983, 133).

In Tomlinson and Masuharas definition, authenticity is being used to refer mainly to

the materials (texts) being presented to the students. However, it may be more

illuminating to further separate the concept of authenticity so that it refers to one of


31

three distinct, yet overlapping and interacting areas: authentic texts, authentic tasks and

authentic language in use.

This idea builds on a distinction advocated in Pinner (2012), which explains that

authentic texts should be used in authentic ways. In order to achieve a greater

understanding of this relationship in practice, it might be helpful to consider the

following three types of task and the way they utilise authentic materials.

Example A: The teacher brings an English language newspaper to class and

has students read the text and underline every instance of the present perfect aspect or

passive tense, and then asks them to copy each sentence out into their notebooks.

Example B: The teacher uses an inauthentic text from a published course

book which was contrived specifically to practise reported speech and then discusses

other ways in which the speakers from the text could have said the same thing in a

different way.

Example C: The teacher asks students to use the internet to research about

their favourite celebrity or hero and then create a short presentation in English to the

rest of the class about that person.

During the presentation form of this paper, delegates were asked to number the

above items 1-3 depending on which they felt to be the most authentic. Two of the

twelve participants chose Example B as the most authentic, with the remaining ten

choosing Example C. Although these results are by no means conclusive and were not

carried out as formally collected empirical data, they do fall under the category of

observed or reported data and therefore may still be valuable as a preliminary indicator.

The majority of participants (83%) opted for Example C as being the most authentic

type of task and none chose Example A. Despite the fact that Example A uses the


32

aforementioned classic authentic text - the L1 newspaper, it was not chosen by any

participants. From this, it can be inferred that authenticity is not purely just about the

materials but rather about the task and the language production from the students. It also

should be pointed out that Example C clearly involves a greater amount of autonomy

and personal engagement with the task than the other two, because students are asked to

choose their own focus and to carry out research. It seems no great conceptual leap to

infer that the most authentic of these examples would also be the most motivating. This

is in agreement with the findings of MacDonald, Badger and White (2000), who

conducted research with ESP students and found that the authentic materials which

allowed learner interaction and related to the learners personally were more conducive

for language learning. Again, this bears similarities with Ushiodas (2009)

person-in-context view of motivation. For this reason, I would like to propose that

authenticity ought not to be defined in terms of a single target culture or the origin of

the text used.

Authenticity needs to be redefined in a way that takes into account the degrees of

involvement and levels of personal engagement that will result from the task used, in

other words us[ing] authentic materials in authentic ways (Pinner, 2012, 118). In

order to help teachers gauge the relevance of authentic materials and predict the level of

student engagement, the concept of authenticity also needs to take account of learner

contexts. Therefore I have developed an authenticity continuum which aims to take into

account the various degrees of authenticity and the contexts in which they are used. IV.

IV. The Authenticity Continuum

In order to address the difficulties of overlapping cultures, classroom contexts and

real contexts whilst at the same time accommodating the distinction between authentic

texts, tasks and language in use, I have devised a continuum which can be used to

evaluate authenticity from multiple dimensions.

Classroom

Reality

TLU Community User


33

The vertical lines represent relevance to the user or the Target Language Use (TLU)

community (Bachman and Palmer, 1996). The horizontal lines represent the context in

which the language is used. Using this continuum, materials, tasks and language in use

can be evaluated according to relevance and context of use without the danger of relying

on a pre-defined notion of culture or of falling back into practices that utilise

extrapolation approaches. It is hoped that this continuum will also allow further

emphasis to be placed on materials which are relevant to the students, thus allowing for

a more personal engagement and potentially leading to greater motivation and autonomy.

This is what Ushioda advocates in her person-in-context view of motivation, namely

that students should be encouraged to speak as themselves (2011).

With a working definition of authenticity in place and a further distinction between

authenticity as it relates to three separate instances where language is used in the

classroom it is hoped that the term has gained a more concrete base from which to

launch a deeper analysis of its relationship to motivation.

By approaching authenticity as it fits into a continuum, almost any classroom

material or interaction can be measured to see how it relates to the different areas of

authenticity. For example, a Graded Reader which has been abridged for a particular

level might not be seen as authentic under previous definitions of authenticity, in that it

exists specifically for language learning purposes. However, Graded Readers would

certainly count as authentic in that they provide an experience of the language and do

not focus specifically on declarative knowledge. If a student has selected the Graded

Reader themselves or it is relevant or of interest to them, Graded Readers would score

highly on the User section of the spectrum, although they might fare less well on

Community and Reality because they have been abridged and may bear only a slight

resemblance to the original text.

In ESP contexts, the continuum can be used to evaluate materials which have a

strong relevance to the specific purpose or the content of the class, even if such

materials have been necessarily adapted or modified to increase their suitability as

learning materials. This is especially useful in ESP contexts where learners have

specific requirements of the content they learn to match the context in which they intend

to use the language. Namely, the orientation towards purpose (Carver, 1983) means

that for ESP classrooms, it is vital that any definition of authenticity takes into account

the needs of the user and the context in which learning takes place.

V. Conclusion

The main point of this paper was to establish that authentic language and authentic

materials are not the sole domain of the native speaker and that by educating learners

(and indeed other teachers) that this is so, authenticity can have an empowering effect

on speakers. In addition, I intended to demonstrate that the link between authenticity


34

and motivation is not merely conceptual but in fact very real when authenticity is

viewed as a process of personal engagement, following Ushiodas (2009)

person-in-context definition and taking into account the learners own identity.

Authentic materials need not be a source of confusion for students or teachers if they

are defined in a way which does not place an overemphasis on the L1 community. It is

also important that teachers deal with authentic materials properly and integrate them

into the class and scheme of work effectively. Authentic materials are not the sole

domain of advanced learners and they are a useful way to motivate students and make

the classroom content more engaging and relevant for them. I would advocate the use of

authentic materials to supplement course-books and even as the basis for an entire ESP

course because of the rich opportunities and positive effects they can have on the

classroom and on the learners experience of learning the target language.

References

Bachman, L.F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language Testing in Practice. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Carver, D. (1983). Some propositions about ESP. The ESP Journal 2 (2), 131-137.

Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and Language Integrated Learning.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human

behaviour. New York: Plenum.

Drnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2010). Teaching and Researching Motivation (2nd ed.).

Essex: Longman Pearson.

Drnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and Motivating in the Foreign Language Classroom.

The Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 273-284.

Gao, X., & Lamb, T. (2011). Exploring links between identity, motivation and autonomy.

In G. Murray, X. Gao, & T. Lamb (Eds.), Identity, Motivation and Autonomy in

Language Learning (pp. 1-8). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Gilmore, A. (2007). Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign language learning.

Language Teaching, 40, 97-118.

Hung, D., & Chen, D.V. (2007). Context-process authenticity in learning: implications

for identity enculturation and boundary crossing. Education Technology Research

Development, 55 (2), 147-167.

MacDonald, M., Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). The real thing?: authenticity and

academic listening. English for Specific Purposes, 19 (3), 253-267.

Morrow, K. (1977). Authentic texts and ESP. In S. Holden (Ed.), English for Specific

Purposes (pp. 13-17). London: Modern English Publications.

Pavlenko, A. (2002). Poststructuralist Approaches to the Study of Social Factors in

Second Language Learning and Use. In V. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 User


35

(pp. 277-302). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Peacock, M. (1997). The effect of authentic materials on the motivation of EFL learners.

ELT Journal, 5 (12), 144-156.

Pinner, R. S. (2012). Unlocking Literature through CLIL: Authentic materials and tasks

to promote cultural and historical understanding. In Y. Watanabe, M. Ikeda, & S.

Izumi (Eds.), CLIL: New Challenges in Foreign Language Education. Vol. 2 (pp.

91-129). Tokyo: Sophia University Press.

Tomlinson, B. & Masuhara, H. (2010). Research for Materials Development in

Language Learning. London: Continuum.

Ushioda, E. & Drnyei, Z. (2009). Motivation, Language Identities and the L2 Self: A

Theoretical Overview. In Z. Drnyei, & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language

identity and the L2 self (pp. 1-8). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Ushioda, E. (2009). A person-in-context relational view of emergent motivation, self

and identity. In Z. Drnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity

and the L2 self (pp. 215-228). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Ushioda, E. (2011). Motivating learners to speak as themselves. In G. Murray, X. Gao,

& T. Lamb (Eds.), Identity, Motivation and Autonomy in Language Learning (pp.

11-25). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Widdowson, H. G. (1990). Aspects of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.


36

Article

Survey of Communication with Foreign Parents of Children in

Nursery Schools

Abstract: This questionnaire study revealed aspects of nursery school teacher communication with

foreign parents of nursery schoolchildren. More than 60% of participating nursery school teachers

responded that they had experienced difficulties in communicating with foreign parents of nursery

schoolchildren. Fewer than half of the participating nursery schools reported readiness to accept

children of foreign parents. Only eight nursery schools positively sought to accept children of foreign

parents. Results show that the more that nursery school teachers regarded English as necessary for

themselves, the more they positively sought to accept children of foreign parents.

I.

English for Specific Purposes(ESP)

(2000, p.197

1960

ESP

ESP

, 2000)

Brown, 1994; Richards, 2001ESP

3

(2000)

2005p.21

1990


37

6

ESP

ESP

(2006)2009b, 2011 ESP

2009a

(2012) 219,856

7,447

ESP

.

1.

2010 10 11 22

81 18

2.

2 3

4

5

6 7

8

9

10

10

3.

17

( 1)


38

1

17

1

0

2 2

14 618 8

2

14 1

6 1

6 1

5 1

3 1

1 1

1 1

3

1 3

3

17

1

4

12

6

4

( 4)

12 5


39

5 5

5

11

8

2

0

0

4

6

2

6

7 6

2

8

7

9

8


40

6

8

3

1

0

0

2

2

7

4

3

8

1

1

8

2

6

7

3

20

23


41

10 9

9

3

6

3

3

3


42

(2)

8 9

10

10

8 9 8 10 9 10 r

= .63 (p < .01)

10

8 9 10

8

9 .16

10 .09 .63**

**p < .01

6


43

ESP

23

2012). 23

http://www.city.ota.gunma.jp/005gyosei/0020-001kikaku-kikaku/toukei23.html

(2009a). English

for Specific Purposes ESP JALT Journal, 31(2), 65-86.

(2009b).ESP

Annual Report of JACET-SIG on ESP, Volume 11, 22-30.

(2011). English for Specific Purposes(ESP)

Annual Report of JACET-SIG on ESP, Volume 13, 2-9.

(2005).ESP

(2000).ESP.

(2006). ESP

231-14.

Brown, J.D. (1994). Elements of Language Curriculum, Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Richards, J. C. (2001).Curriculum Development in Language Teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge

University P

JACET SIGonESP AnnualReport Vol14

Documents

Transcript of JACET SIGonESP AnnualReport Vol14