This chapter is the central part of the paper where the communicative characteristics of TT are analyzed from the perspective of discourse analysis. After investigating some important factors in the context of TT, I intend to concentrate on the communicative nature of TT; dominant speech acts used by the teacher; and the features of co-operative principles displayed in TT; The strategies of TT used in language teaching classroom are enquired from the analysis of middle schools’ English teaching classroom. And in what follows, I try to offer a discussion about the peculiarity of politeness in TT.
3.1. Communicative and Non-communicative Nature of Teacher Talk
Due to the peculiar context of TT, some part of TT is communicative and some non-communicative. The content language used in TT is non-communicative, including the language of the teaching tasks as prescribed in textbooks: reading them aloud in sentence order or paragraph-wise. The explanatory medium language is also non-communicative, which is used by the teacher to paraphrase words or sentences of texts; to illustrate grammar rules; to provide further information relating to texts. In contrast, the co-ordinative medium language used for class management is communicative when TT stretches to speeches for greetings, question delivery, comments, task switching, discipline regulation, homework, etc.
Additionally, Thornbury (1996) proposes that some respects of TT are communicative: (1) using questioning questions when the teacher has the purpose of communicating without knowing the answers to the questions beforehand; (2) delivering feedback judging on content instead of on form; (3) carrying out meaningful negotiation with learners; (4) adjusting, pausing and re-illustrating of TT. Thornbury (1996) suggests that some other respects of TT are non-communicative: (1) using much more displayed questions; (2) delivering feedback focusing on content; (3) repeating learners’ speech to ensure the whole class’s understanding; (4) adopting the continual discoursed pattern, i.e. initiation-response- feedback.
3.2. Institutional Contexts of Teacher Talk
3.2.1. Roles of Teacher
Teacher’s role is corresponding with the functions of TT. The role of being an instructor decides on non-communicative function of TT while only communicative function of TT can meet the demand of a teacher’s role as a participant in class interaction. So teacher’s role is another factor in TT#39;s institutional context.
In terms of teacher’s role, we all agree with this point that a teacher cannot simply be described as an “instructor” in class, whose major role is to pass on knowledge. There are many other roles a teacher plays such as classroom managers or an activity participant. According to Harmer (1983: 200-204), a language teacher’s potential roles will be:
A. As controller of everything that goes on in the classroom. He controls not only what students do, but when they speak and what language they use;
B. As manager, organizing the activities;
C. As assessor, giving feedback and advice, as well correcting and grading;
D. As participant (co-communicator) in an organized activity such as debate or role play;
E. As prompter to encourage students to participate or make suggestions about how to proceed in an activity;
F. As resource, that is a source of language and knowledge;
G. As instructor, actually teaching the new language points and training students in language kills.
It is quite obvious that a teacher plays multiple roles in class. Additionally, there are some more points worth noticing. Firstly, in communicative language teaching, the teacher is a facilitator of students whose role is less dominant than in a teacher-centered method (Widdowson, 1987). Secondly, the role of the teacher changes following the aims of the class. The teacher may function more as a controller if he is mainly doing presentation of new language points, whereas he is more of a resource or prompter or participant once a communicative activity starts. Thirdly, many things a teacher does in class may not belong to a single one role. The teacher may function as a prompter, an organizer, or a controller at the same time.
From the above we know that teachers’ roles are diverse and dynamic (Widdowson, 1987). Most importantly we come to realize that all the roles must be performed in TT and TT is embedded in teachers’ multiple roles. The quality of TT must be consistent with teacher’ role. For instance, as an organizer, it is advisable for the teacher to speak the instructions clearly and concisely, otherwise, students cannot carry out the tasks. As a prompter and participant, the teacher should stimulate and prompt students with questions or uttering clues rather than providing direct answers. In a word, to investigate the roles of a teacher may be the basis of the analysis of TT.
3.2.2. Two Focal Issues in Interactive Teacher Talk
(1)Teacher Question (TQ) in Teacher Talk
TQ plays the great part in TT and has direct influence on students in the language classrooms. Barnes (1969, 1976) looked into TQ in detail and divided TQ into four types:
(1) Factual questions, which is “what” questions;
(2) Reasoning questions, which is “how” or “why” questions;
(3) Open questions, which does not need reasoning;
(4)Communicative questions, which is used to control or influence students’ behavior and activities.
Barnes also divides the second type, reasoning questions, into two types: closed questions which have only one answer and it is fixed beforehand and open questions which allow more than one answer.
Kearsley (1976) presented further division of TQ based on some conversation data. Following Kearsley, Long and Sato (1983) divided TQ into two types. The first is echoic questions, which ensure students#39; understanding by repetition of TT The other is epistemic questions, which are used to get information, including referential questions and display questions. Referential questions are mainly used to seek information, while display questions are used to examine the known information to ensure students#39; learning. According to the analysis of Long and Sato, the difference between referential questions and display questions is similar to that between closed questions and open questions (1983). Referential questions are inclined to be like open questions and display questions like closed questions. However, sometimes referential questions may sound like closed questions and they are open questions in nature; at other times there may be display questions which seem to be closed questions rather than open questions in nature. Just as White took the following for example (1991):
T: How long have you worn glasses?
S: I have worn these glasses for about six years.
T: Very good. The same glasses?
The questions in the above example which are relevant to student#39;s own experiences and unknown to the teacher can be referential, but on other hand, these questions are also used to get students to practice the grammar structure, and can thus turn out to be display questions. Taking, into consideration that whether questions are referential or display; open or closed, is a relative matter, teachers should manage to design referential or open questions; or switch from display or closed questions to referential or open ones. Also it should be realized that it is of importance for teachers to focus on classroom communication (Wang Ymquan, 1999).
Another aspect of TQ is related to the nature of communication. Richard Cullen points out that teachers can attach the property of communicating to display or closed questions which are non-communicating outside class (1998). Below is my example to demonstrate Richard’s opinion:
T: Well, who can give me a name of a great writer in the English-speaking world?
S 1: Charles Dichens
T: Charles Dichens. OK. What novels are we studying from Charles Dichens this year?
S2: A Tale of Two Cities.
T: All right. We say that Dichens is a writer. Who can give me another name for the word “writer”... more specialized term for the word “writer”?
S3: Shakespeare.
T: Er...Um... That’s not what 1 want. Shakespeare is a great writer too, but I want…Yes?
S4: Novelist?
T: A novelist. Yes, that’s what I want. So we have the word “novel”. (Write on the blackboard) We say that A Tale of Two Cities is a...?
S5: Novel.
T: A novel. Right. And the writer of A Tale of Two Cities is a...?
S6: Novelist.
At first look, the above discourse seems to be non-communicating because display questions are used here, and the teaching aim to teach the new word “novelist”, is carried out by non-communicating means. However, the process of this teaching activity implies the nature of communication, and teacher’s feedback is focused on content rather than form.
From the above, we can draw the conclusion that enlarging the communicating aspects in class interaction is beneficial in developing students’ communicative competence and thus contributes to second language acquisition.
(2) Correction of Mistakes in Teacher Talk
The view teacher and students hold on ‘mistakes’ seems to determine what they do with mistakes, the correction of mistakes, and their learning of the language in general. A rather traditional view of mistakes will be that teachers consider mistakes to be an erring from students’ side which should be corrected immediately and exhaustively. They consider errors something to be avoided, something “wrong” or “bad”. Consequently, students learn from them that making mistakes is a necessary evil. With this viewpoint of mistakes, teachers tend to stress accuracy instead of on fluency. But a much more developmental view on of mistakes will be to treat mistakes as the development of language skills and learning steps (Julian Edge, 1989) to students and an inevitable part of learning. This is a very student-centered point of view and to teachers making mistakes sounds very normal and natural. The teacher’s role thus becomes more than just pointing out problems, but instead the teacher should encourage the students to enrich their language learning and take more learning steps. Correction of mistakes should therefore not aim at achieving perfect accuracy regardless of what ideas the students express, but on the contrary, correction of mistakes should be seen as giving information, feedback and support to the students’ learning, with full respect for the communication they have established. Once both teacher and students have acquired this attitude towards mistakes and correction, learning steps will truly be perceived as positive steps in the process of learning, and the rather negative attitude towards mistakes can hopefully be eliminated.
Holding the developmental and student-centered point of view on mistakes and correction, the teacher may be challenged by how to put all this into practice in TT. Here two correcting strategies and three concrete skills are suggested according to the teaching aims.
First, if the teaching purpose is to get students talking on a subject rather than a grammar practice activity, and that is when fluency or communication matters much more accuracy, no correction is necessary just like the following example.
T: Do any of you have a pet at home? Ah...you have, Billy?
B: Yes, er I have dog at home. Very big dog! It is nice, but once bit me here.
T: Ouch, that must have hurt a lot.
B: Yes, very pain.
C: Yes, me too... er... have dog. It like my mum most.
T: Thank you, Carol. Who else has got a pet?
Given the fact that fluency is the focus, and that communication is taking place in a natural way, correction is to be avoided in this example.
Second, if correction is advisable and necessary, a good teacher will, as a rule, only correct the mistake when the student who made it has finished speaking and that is delayed correction (Julian Edge, 1989:24) which is a very important correcting strategy. Both teachers and students should learn that delayed correction is a prerequisite to establishing real communication and hence real learning and therefore a must.
Third, when correction becomes a necessity, three main correction skills will be considered (Julian Edge, 1989: 28-28) and they are self-correction, peer correction and teacher correction. And TT is certainly responsible for carrying out the task. The following examples are used to show the correction skills
Self-correction: illustrated here means that the student comes up with the correction all on his own. This type of correction is considered the best way to have mistakes corrected. The function of TT in this case is restricted to a mere hinting at the fact that a mistake has been made. This can be done by a questioning look, a turning of the head, a prolonged pause, or the uttering of some mumbling sounds as ‘Er’, ‘Mmmm’, ‘Ahum’, etc. The student will interpret these hints as an indication that something has gone wrong, and consequently try to identify and correct the mistake all on his own.
Peer correction: refers to the correction made by other students to help the student who made the mistake. A better way in asking others for assistance could be to repeat the question, to have another student repeat the first student#39;s utterance in the correct form. Naturally, the function of TT here is something like moderator. The teacher gives hints, and gives others the chance to speak if the student who made a mistake is unable to correct the mistake. Indeed, the teacher plays a very important role in first stimulating self-correction, and only then shifting to peer correction.
Teacher correction: only takes place at the time no other student seems to be able to correct the mistake if the student who made a mistake can correct it. In that case teacher correction seems to be the only possible way out.
Another commonly used skill to error correction that can be headed under teacher correction is “corrected repetition”. If a student makes a slip of the tongue, and errs, the teacher may not want to isolate that mistake, and at the same may not wish to let the mistake go by uncorrected. In cases like this, the teacher could comment on the content of what the student says, and repeat the students’ words, but in the mean time correct the error the student made. For example:
S: There are many people on the picture.
T: Right, there are indeed many people in this picture
In a word, different ways of correcting mistakes results from the mechanism underlying it from almost pure student-led to more teacher-assisted; TT plays a decisive role in the correction of mistakes.
3.3. Strategic Improvements of Teacher Talk
Investigating the amount, property, and delivery of teacher talk, we find that teachers speak: too much, which overshadows the students’ opportunity to speak; with little variation, which confines the students’ range of language contact and imitation; with bad timing, which dampens the students’ desires of speaking. So there is no doubt that teachers should reshape their speech, and there are three improved interacting strategies in the following.
3.3.1. Repetition of Varied Teacher Talk
Learning demands strengthening. On the assumption that cognition happens successfully, reinforcement follows to store the cognition and guarantee recognition and creative reproduction. Such is the import of the varied instructional language.
No doubt this undertaking revokes the behaviorist view of habit-forming in language learning, and therefore awaits defense. It is widely believed that every level of society holds distinctively to its own expression, or jargon. Students’ target vocabulary should be pedagogically divided into two categories: recognition and production. Whether it is the subconscious former or the conscious latter, the formation traces heavily to the frequency of contact. If students are thrown from one environment into another and immersed in the environment of new communicative forms, their expressions are likely to be equipped with many new layers. Similarly, the students’ range of learning can be consolidated if they are provided with sufficient contact with teachers’ varied medium languages.
Accomplishing this undertaking needs teachers to be watchful in class. Varieties of expressive bits should be piecemealed regularly to students. Follow-ups are not seldom nor random. Above all, periodic repetitions of the varied medium languages crisscross the whole teaching schedule to clear up backlashes.
3.3.2. Timing of Teacher Talk
When the two preceding considerations are in the breech, a third ought to be at hand: when should teachers deliver their varied medium languages and how much time should they spend on the delivery? It is understandable for teachers to talk a lot in traditional teaching. But it is reasonable for students to speak more in the rationale of student-centered teaching. Hence, teacher’s speech time is spent in line with the students#39; needs of oral communication. Teachers no longer stick to their floor of speech. Turns of speech are switched to students now and then when students are prompted either internally or externally. Even when it is the teacher’s turn, they should be alert to stop short of it in order to let ss eager to speak take over.
When the privilege of speech is transferred back to students, precise timing is still needed including timing of correcting errors. Certainly there are errors in students’ speeches. The correction depends on factors such as “the type of error, the situation in which it was made, and the student who made it” (Tarone, 1989). Some of the errors are slips of the tongue. Some, attributable to carelessness, occur haphazardly. The correction of these errors should better be delayed till follow-up medium languages, in which teachers may repeat exactly the students’ speech but with emphatically corrected forms. It not only helps protect the face wants of students, but also may solicit correction and comparison among students. Those culturally erroneous expressions can be reversed after students have finished their talks in that such errors, even though serious, are not easy for students to spot and allows an elaboration in follow-ups. In short, interruption is impolite; obviously errors are tough to the teacher’s ear and mind. But they should be corrected all for the sake of soothing students’ communication.
3.3.3. Input of Understandable Teacher Talk
According to Krashen’s Language Input Theory, language input is the origin of language learning, and learners’ input must be understandable language, with the formulae:( i+l). (The letter ‘i’ shows learners’ present level)The formulae ‘i+1’ indicates language input should surpass learners’ present level (1985). In foreign language teaching, TT as almost the only source of learners’ language input should be ensured accurate, demonstrative and understandable. More important, TT should be adjusted to learners’ present level and even surpass the latter so as to contribute to foreign language acquisition.
4. Conclusion
4.1. Further Reflection on Teacher Talk
(1) The first thing for me to do is to reflect on the relation between TT and its context. It can be summarized like this: TT reflects its context; TT builds on its context; TT mediates its context. This paper, from the pragmatic and discoursed perspective, demonstrates adaptability between TT and classroom context.
(2) Secondly, it is worth more attention that application of communicative approach in foreign language teaching involves putting much emphasis on class communication, and this demands teacher should produce communicative TT and switch traditional class to effective communicative teaching so as to promote student’s second language acquisition. As for teacher’s interactive strategies, teachers should pay attention to the highlights of communicative nature of TT.
(4) Thirdly, having investigated the pragmatic and discoursed respects of TT as well as the concrete interactive strategies, I can say it is better and possible to investigate TT from the functional perspective.
Last but not the least, since it has been realized that the analysis of TT can be related closely to all the aspects of language study and language teaching, foreign language teachers may well broaden their researches on TT from new scientific and applicable perspectives rather than restrict TT to the field of teaching methodologies