0% found this document useful (0 votes)
573 views69 pages

Dli v17

Dialog on Language Instruction is an occasional internal publication of the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC) its primary function is to promote the exchange of professional information. The content does not necessarily reflect the official US Army position.
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
573 views69 pages

Dli v17

Dialog on Language Instruction is an occasional internal publication of the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC) its primary function is to promote the exchange of professional information. The content does not necessarily reflect the official US Army position.
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 69

1

Dialog

on

Language Instruction

2005

Volume 17 Numbers 1 & 2

Editor

Lidia Woytak

Copyeditor

Joseph Morgan

Editorial Advisors

Christine M. Campbell Gordon L. Jackson John Hedgcock

Defense Language Institute


Foreign Language Center
and
Presidio of Monterey
Dialog on Language Instruction
2005 · Volume 17 · Numbers 1 & 2

Dialog on Language Instruction is an occasional internal publication of the Defense


Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC) and part of its professional
development program. Its primary function is to promote the exchange of professional
information by increasing opportunities to share knowledge among DLIFLC faculty and
staff and by encouraging professional communication within the worldwide Defense
Foreign Language Program.

This publication presents professional information: The views expressed herein are
those of the authors, not the Department of Defense or its elements.The content does
not necessarily reflect the official US Army position and does not change or supersede
any information in official US Army publications. Dialog on Language Instruction
reserves the right to edit material to meet space constraints.

Further reproduction is not advisable. Whenever copyrighted materials are reproduced


in this publication, copyright release has ordinarily been obtained only for use in this
specific issue. Requests for reprints should be directed to the Institute.

Dialog on Language Instruction


Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center
ATTN: Lidia Woytak, Editor (AP-AJ)
Presidio of Monterey, CA 93944-5006
Telephone: (831) 242-5638
DSN: 878-5638
Fax: (831) 242-5850

To access Dialog on Language Instruction on the Internet, type

http://www.dliflc.edu/Academics/outside_ref_aj.html

Webmaster Natela Cuttter

Wordprocessing & Formatting AB Zachary Hodgens


A1C Stefan Lazaro

Cover design Barney Inada

Graphics Consultant Elaine Koppany


Dialog on Language Instruction

2005 Volume 17 Numbers 1 & 2

1 Improving Proficiency Through Learner-Centered Instruction


Umit Ferguson

9 The Articulatory Positions for the Korean Vowels


Dae Sok Lee

17 A Communicative Way of Teaching Structure: The Case of the


Pro-drop Feature in Persian/Farsi
Abolghasem Soheili Esfahani

35 Learning Management Systems Conference


Kiril Boyadjieff, Steve Koppany, and Megan Lee

Reports

45 Developing and Testing New Materials


Lidia Woytak

48 Engaging Students in Activities


Elena Patterson

51 Reflective Teaching: Input and Output Experience


A. Monim S. Mohamed

General Information

53 Index

59 Calendar of Events

63 Information for Contributors


Improving Proficiency through Learner-Centered Instruction

Dialog on Language Instruction


2005, Vol. 17, Nos. 1 & 2, pp. 1-7

Improving Proficiency through Learner-Centered Instruction


Umit Ferguson

As Liskin-Gasparro (1984) stated in the germinal text Teaching


for Proficiency, the Organizing Principle, proficiency is “the ability to
function effectively in the target language in real-life contexts” (Pg.12).
Those who teach for proficiency within a learner-centered context do not
view learning outcomes as dependent upon what the teacher presents but
perceive learning outcomes as an interactive result of what information is
presented and how the students process that information.
First, this article will present a short literature review. Next, it
will present the author’s reflections on learner-centered instruction and,
finally it will discuss a case study.

Literature Review

The key difference between learner-centered and traditional curriculum devel-


opment is that, in the former, the curriculum is a collaborative effort between teachers
and learners where learners are closely involved in the decision-making process regard-
ing the content of the curriculum and how it is taught, whereas in a curriculum based
on the traditional ends means model, a fixed series of steps is followed. Thus, in the
curriculum planning process proposed by Taba (1962), planning, implementation, and
evaluation objectives, materials, and methodology are made before there is any encoun-
ter between teacher and learner. (Nunan, The learner-centered curriculum, page 2).
Learning- centered classrooms are those in which learners are actively involved
in their own learning process (Nunan and Brindley 1986). A key aim of a learner-centered
curriculum is to assist learners to use the target language for communicative purposes
outside the classroom. It is also important to encourage students to make links between
classroom learning and outside language use and to stimulate them to use the language
as much as possible outside the classroom. Learner-centeredness in the learning process
should contain domain awareness (learners identify their own preferred learning styles
and strategies), involvement (learners make choices among a range of options), inter-
vention (learners modify and adapt tasks), and creation (learners create their own tasks)
or transcendence (learners become linguists or researchers) (Nunan, 1995).
A proficiency-oriented language curriculum is not one which sets out to teach
learners linguistic or communicative competence, but it is organized around particular
kinds of communicative tasks the learners need to master, and the skills and behaviors
needed to accomplish them. The goal of proficiency-based curriculum is not to provide
opportunities for the learners to acquire the target language, but to enable learners to
develop the skills needed to use language for specific purposes (Richards, 1985).
The learners’ classroom experiences include their overall goals and intentions,
their interests, their background and previous experiences, and their view of how and
what is going on in the class relates to their overall situation and out of classroom life.
The teacher’s view of what a learner is getting out of a lesson may be different from the
learner’s view. (Woods)

1
Umit Ferguson

As a language teacher for 23 years, I have experienced a wide range of students


who demonstrated different learning styles, interests and pacing needs. During those
years I experienced that every student had his or her own way of receiving and digest-
ing the knowledge they got from me. This experience taught me not to expect the same
results and successes from every student. The challenging part of my job, of course, was
in preparing suitable teaching plans, which would meet every student’s needs.
By designing my teaching activities to take into consideration my students’
different ways of understanding, their different learning styles, their different interests
and learning pace, I was able to make a difference in their success. I had a hard time
creating the connection between my students and myself until I began counseling them
and learnt what was really on their minds.
One could argue that it is difficult to guess another’s feelings and thoughts.
By opening communications with them you begin to build not only an understanding
of them but also a relationship with them. Being a teacher is being in relationship
with your students. To build this relationship of understanding, you should communi-
cate openly, be open to each other, and respect each other’s feelings and opinions. For
example, if your student tells you that he or she is frustrated when he or she does not
understand something you teach, that does not mean that you don’t teach her or him
well and you should not take it personally. Your student’s frustration shows that he or
she needs your help to solve the problem. As your students don’t know what to do and
how to handle their frustration, as a leader you should give him or her some suggestions
to solve his or her problem. I realized that counseling is the best way to understand what
is really going on with your student and help you to decide what kind of suggestions
and tools as learning strategies you can give your student to help him or her. Counseling
will guide you like a light to reach your student and build a strong connection and trust
between you and your student. Your student will feel that you are really ready to listen
to him or her and to help him or her, and will not feel that he or she is alone with his or
her long and challenging learning process. As soon as you build trust between yourself
and your student, you can expect quick improvements.
I believe that communication is a bridge between you and your student. I also
have experienced that encouragement allows your students to believe that everything is
possible with patience, commitment and faith in their success.

Reflections on Teacher Centered Instruction versus Learner Centered Instruction

Our students at the Defense Language Instititute Foreign Language Center are
coming from a behaviorist-oriented education system in which knowledge is gathered
in a curriculum guide, in a textbook or, in a teaching plan. Then, the teacher puts that
information into the heads of his or her students. Later, the teacher expects his or her
students to remember the acquired knowledge and, often to apply it in imaginary, instead
of in real life situations. The teacher rarely provides his or her students actual practice
in solving problems they will face in life. In this type of teacher-centered and fronted
instruction, most students acquire, understand, remember and apply passively- acquired
learning. The students adapt themselves to this paradigm and start becoming passive
receptors of partially understood information. They just believe in right answers to the
questions, they wait for their teacher’s instructions, for the correct stimulus or reaction
with the learned response but without thinking, judging, or commenting. The teacher
invites the students to expect an external reward and invites them to follow him or her
to do as he or she does. The teacher determines the sequence of information leading to
reformulated instructional outcomes. The teacher then wonders why the students are
often apathetic, why they do not think for themselves, why they fail to use what they
have been learning in one circumstance to solve problems in another circumstances,
why they are extrinsically motivated rather than self activated, and why the best students
can not often function independently and linguistically in the real world.
In this teacher-centered instruction the teacher focuses on the act of teaching,
objectives, methods, and evaluation, and not on the act of learning. The teacher thinks

2
Improving Proficiency through Learner-Centered Instruction

that he/she has taught well, but he/she does not think whether the students have learned
well or not. The teacher acts as if his/her students are not human beings with different
personalities, interests, and preferences, blaming them when they refuse to react
properly. The teacher sets the curriculum, makes the presentations, assigns readings and
exercises, and designs the tests. The students listen, study, practice and exhibit specified
behaviors. The teacher treats all students in the same way; when they do not all react in
the same way, the teacher blames their failures on their differences.
Our job as language teachers at DLIFLC is challenging because we help the
students who are accustomed to teacher-centered or fronted instruction to change the
way they are used to learning, give them opportunities to choose their own preferences,
help them to improve their level of proficiency and become independent, real-life
problem solvers. When I speak of proficiency, I am not referring to knowledge of a
language, which includes abstract, mental, and unobservable abilities. I am referring
to performance or observable and measurable behaviors. As you know, competence
refers to what we know about the rules of use and the rules of speaking a language, but
proficiency refers to how well we can use such rules in communication for real-world
tasks with reference to specific situations, settings, purposes, and activities.
As language teachers, we should set goals, which will relate to the teaching of
specific language skills and other goals, which will relate to the development of learning
skills. These goals will assist learner’s identifying their own preferred ways of learning,
developing skills needed to follow the curriculum, encouraging them to set their own
objectives, and realistic goals and, developing learner’s skills in self evaluation.
We can view our students as active processors of information who can develop
new and creative ways of both defining the stimulus and selecting an appropriate response,
who can set their goals, acquire and build information into cognitive structures, and
apply new ideas to varied problems in multiple settings and situations (Gardner, 1991).
Instead of thinking that there is only one correct answer and one single way to solve
problems, we can give our students the opportunity to be active meaning makers who
understand that there are multiple applications and ways to solve problems. If we can be
facilitators instead of being prime actors in the learning process, students can actively
create mental representations of external facts and personal patterns of understanding.
Learning is a process of active exploration, adaptation and meaning making.
Learning involves constructing individual meaning. The student does the learning, so
he/she is the active player in the learning process. The teacher is only a facilitator of the
student’s own learning. Of course, the new facts and information must be presented by the
teacher, however, the learner himself or herself must be allowed and encouraged to play
with the new knowledge, to make interconnections, see patterns, build understanding,
and actively apply and test understanding in multiple situations just as we do in the
proficiency level.
If we fail to promote our students active exploration of knowledge and idea-
making, we will inhibit their deeper understanding. If we do not facilitate our students
creating their own meanings, learning is not as meaningful. Learning really means to
become independent decision makers for different real-life situations.
If we fail to provide opportunities to use new ideas in practical applications, we
will force them to conclude that the learning process is essentially unrelated to the real
world. If we don’t facilitate our students in the acts of making their own meanings we
will teach them that learning is not meaningful, and we won’t be able to bring them to
the level of proficiency, which really means learning to be independent decision makers
for different real life situations.

3
Umit Ferguson

Moving away from a Teacher-Centered Curriculum and Instruction: A Case


Study

Background Information

My student was a successful Major with a lot of experience in taking over a


flying class as an instructor, working in the personnel department for the Air Force and
in solving problem situations. He came to DLIFLC to learn Turkish because he was
appointed to a responsible position that would require language proficiency mostly in
reading, listening, and speaking Turkish in Turkey.
In the course of class activities, counseling and interviewing him, I learned
more information about him. He studied Spanish when he was a student in high school,
but he did not like learning it. He found it difficult to learn a foreign language, because
of a lot of ambiguities, guesses, and taking risks. His major was math and science. In
college he studied economics and political science. He had a Masters in Economics. His
education was based on studying about rational subjects and solving problems with the
given options and solutions. It was easy for him to get the knowledge and go to a solu-
tion by using that given knowledge so he became a successful student. He did not have
to study hard because he learned everything at school. He did not have any particular
study habits or strategies. While learning Spanish at school, he could not correlate any
of the information about Spanish grammar with the grammar in his native language
because he did not have any idea about English grammar.
He started his second experience in learning another foreign language in
DLIFLC because of career motivations, but after his second and third week at school
he said that before he had never encountered a problem for which he could not find any
practical solution. He said that he learned Spanish in high school, but his early experi-
ence in learning a foreign language did not help him at all. He explained that Turkish
was a very different language which had a completely different word order than any
other European language and which had a sentence structure by conjugating the suffixes
one after the other. He felt frustrated because he had never felt failure and embarrass-
ment in a class before. He was a perfectionist, so he felt embarrassed when he could not
do well in class. Despite the fact that he was very successful at school and at work be-
fore, he felt trapped and stuck at learning Turkish, and he could not solve this problem.
He did not know how to handle his failure and his frustration.
After the eighth week of language learning he was not making good progress,
and he felt he was holding his classmates back with his endless questions in class. He
was in a class where students had a variety of language learning abilities. He started to
express his concern that he would not achieve the level of language he needed for his
profession and for the proficiency test at the end of his school year, because he did not
have the ability to learn languages. As his teacher, I felt a lot of increasing frustration
in him and lack of motivation during the last month and I wanted to find a solution for
his problem.

Diagnosis

I observed him during class activities. From the first weeks he had a lot of
trouble getting the big picture in reading and listening activities. He also had trouble in
understanding and correlating the forms in Turkish with the forms in English because of
his not being aware of the forms in his own language. When the curriculum followed
the textbook closely and the teacher gave all the instructions he worked steadily and
systematically. He readily performed the drills and exercises in the textbook and the
workbook but he felt uncomfortable when he was asked to participate in open-ended
questions, role-plays, summaries, or making up stories.
He became very upset when too many new words were introduced in an hour
lesson. He mistranslated the sentences, because he assumed that every English word

4
Improving Proficiency through Learner-Centered Instruction

would have a close equivalent in Turkish. He did not like any conversational risks in
Turkish, because he was worried about making mistakes or of taking too much time to
form the sentence in his mind perfectly before speaking.
He wrote each word on a flash card but he did not retain them after studying
them because he did not use them in sentences and learn them in context. He memorized
the words for short memory, but he thought that it was too much work to use them in
sentences.
He was an analytical, visual, close and sequential learner. He broke the whole,
the big picture, into component parts. He preferred to see the details and structure first,
although he had no grammatical foundation in his own language. He wanted to learn
why the sentence was formed in that way, instead of trying to get the information, what
the meaning of the sentence was more than its form. He liked to get the information in a
certain order in a predictable way to feel comfortable.
He concentrated on grammar details, because he wanted to be accurate. He did
not feel worried about taking risks, for making mistakes when he was asked to guess
the topic or the meaning or to use his own comments and ideas. He took notes, liked
pattern categories, and organization of information. He focused on concrete facts in an
organized step-by-step manner. He needed clarity, clearly-stated objectives and explicit
instructions. He was a task- or a product-oriented person, so he got the job done in a
certain way if it was assigned to him. He wanted to follow an externally provided order
of processing (curriculum, textbook, or teacher) and preferred to do one thing at a time.
He wanted to study rules, and then practiced applying them to examples, but after they
had been explained clearly to him. That’s why he liked having handouts about structures,
and examples about them given by the teachers. He was not willing to take risks and
learn from his errors because he wanted to be perfect with the help of his teachers’ tight
control on him. He was not able to handle spontaneity well, because he needed time to
process new material and information. He avoided more free flowing communicative
activities and compensatory strategies, such as summarizing and paraphrasing. He was
a visual learner, so he wants to see words and sentences or instructions on the board.
He was behind global type of learners, and did poorly on listening and speaking. He
experienced anxiety at having to perform in front of his classmates, because of his
efforts to be perfect.
In my interview with him I asked how his learning process was going, how
he felt in class, if he had any other strategy to study efficiently or not, how I could help
him, and so on. During the interview I tried to diagnose his problem by getting a lot of
information and data from him. After our interview I saw that he did not understand
English grammar that well, so he could not render learning Turkish, and he found
Turkish difficult to learn. He said he did not put in sufficient time and effort to study
efficiently, because he lost his motivation and he did not know what to do. He had no
particular way of studying or strategy for better learning. He knew that he had to listen
to a listening passage once all the way through, but he stopped at every word he did
not know, so he missed the rest of the text. He focused on individual words, but did not
focus on the words he knew.
He admitted he had to change that, but he had not done it yet. He said he forgot
the new words after memorizing them because he did not use them in sentences. He
thought that his weak area was speaking, but he did not practice Turkish outside class,
although there was a Turkish community living in Monterey and there were Turkish
officers in Navy School. He said he was aware that language learning involved taking
risks and making mistakes, but he was unable to stretch or be flexible outside of his
strong learning preferences.
Remedy

First of all, I tried to give him encouragement for his lack of self-confidence
and hope that there was always a solution. It is never too late to change things or make
them better. I told him we could bring him to the level he wanted to be, if he really

5
Umit Ferguson

wanted to learn Turkish well, tried hard, and trusted the ways and strategies I would
suggest. He said he wanted to try hard and learn it better. He did not give up, which was
a good start to change things. As he had not found his best way to learn and study before
we worked on choosing the strategies which would work for him. I wanted to use his
analytic type of learning process to build up his motivation and to demonstrate to him
that he really could do something, and that he could improve. For example, he liked
grammar forms and writing example sentences with the new forms he had learned. I told
him to write sentences with the new words he had learned and later I told him to write a
paragraph by using those words.
He started to link and associates his vocabulary and structure with information
he already knew. After a while, I asked him to translate a news item from English to
Turkish at home, underline the new words and find their synonyms for his classmates.
I asked him to present his article to his classmates and to be prepared to answer his
classmates’ questions. He felt more confident performing in front of others as he took his
time at home to prepare a perfect work as he decreased the chances of making a mistake
in front of the others. For listening, first, I told him to read an article from his textbook,
anything he liked, and record his reading on a cassette tape. I asked him to listen to
himself without looking at the text, his book closed. I wanted him to feel comfortable
to listening to his voice, instead of listening to a native speaker and not understanding
anything and feeling frustrated. I asked him to write what he listened to, summarizing
the text. Later, I gave him some strategies on how to listen efficiently and how to get
the broad meaning of the text. I told him not to stop at the words he did not know, but
go on listening to the end and to try to guess the meaning with the help of the words he
already knew.
I encouraged him to listen to Turkish CNN or Turkish TV, although it seemed
to be very difficult for him to understand, just to get used to getting an idea about the
topic. As he liked grammar forms a lot and he felt in safe with them, I used this to his
advantage. I gave him a diary and asked him to write about his day or weekend, using
the forms that he had learned so far. He enjoyed writing about his life. I also asked him
to read the texts and get the idea about the topic first, and then analyze the forms in the
text later.
I asked him to look at the word endings and write down the rule when that
ending was used and continue until he got through the text and compared his conclusions
about the grammar points with the textbook. I wanted him to see if he learned the form
or if he still needed more practice for his self-control. I also suggested creating dialogues
out of the reading texts, and finding someone, either his teacher or an advanced student
to help him to correct his dialogue. Later, I asked him to act out his dialogue with one of
his classmates by adding lots of gesturing and body movement for fun.
He was a dependant learner, so I tried to help him to become an independent
learner. For more speaking practice at home, I suggested he look at a previous chapter or
a known reading, or listening to text or a role play. I told him to turn the text over and turn
on his tape recorder. I told him to start speaking and speak for at least 2 minutes without
stopping. I suggested he force himself to speak longer each day. I advised him to find
some Turkish filling words, which would help him when he needed some time to think
while speaking fluently. Vocabulary learning was a big challenge for him. I suggested
for him to use the same flash cards for new words, but I told him to write a sentence
by using the new word on the other side of his flash card. I also suggested reading the
sentence and acting it out in any way he liked. I told him that the more dramas and
actions he added to it, the more he would remember it later. Whenever he studied words
from his flash cards, he would see the word in a sentence, and remembered the action he
did for it, so this would help him to retain the words.
He was worried about not understanding the information in class well, so I
suggested previewing lessons for the next day. Although he was an adult and knew what
his responsibilities were as a student, he needed the teacher’s control and leadership.
I checked his assignments and asked what he did for practice everyday. I never used
discouraging comments about his work while correcting his mistakes on his assignments.

6
Improving Proficiency through Learner-Centered Instruction

I gave him encouraging words about his work and I made him believe in himself and
his improvement.
I followed his progress and checked his learning performance, and continued
to council him when he needed it.
After working closely with this student during the school year, he passed all
of his exams and he gained the confidence that he could communicate with anyone he
needed to, both at his work place and in the local Turkish community.
After having experiences in teaching a foreign language, English in my country
and my native language here in DLIFLC, I believe that language teachers should think
less about lecturing and more about the learning process for different individuals who
have different learning styles and who use the language they learn in different real life
situations. Language learning is life itself, and proficiency is adapting the information
given into the daily life situations.
I would like to finish with a saying; “What you sow, you reap”. We teachers
have a huge opportunity to work with whatever is given to us and bring forth growth
with our patience, knowledge, experience, and vision. Our job can be very challenging
but challenge is good for our own growth.

References

Liskin- Gasparro, J. E. (1984). The ACTFL proficiency guidelines: A historical perspec-


tive. In Theodore V. Higgs, Ed. Teaching for proficiency: The organizing prin-
ciple. The ACTFL Foreign Language Education Series, vol.15. Lincolnwood,
IL: National Textbook. 11-42.
Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centered curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Nunan, D., & Lamb, C. (1996). The self-directed teacher: Managing the learning proc-
ess. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (1995). Closing the gap between learning and instruction. TESOL Quarterly,
29(1), 133-158.
Nunan, D., & Brindley. G. (1986). The assessment of second language proficiency:
Issues and approaches. Adelaide, Australia: National Curriculum Resource
Center.
Richards, J. (1985). Planning For Proficiency. Prospect, 1 (2). (1988). Cambridge, Eng-
land: University Press.
Gardner, H (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should
teach. New York: Basic Books.
Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching: Beliefs, decision-making
and classroom practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York: Harcourt
Brace & World.
Watson, J. B & Thorndike, E. L. Behaviorism: Behavioral learning theory.

Author

UMIT FERGUSON, Salinas, CA. Writer/Teacher. Interests: Writing, teaching,


translating.

7
Articulatory Positions for the Korean Vowles

Dialog on Language Instruction


2005, Vol. 17, Nos. 1 & 2, pp. 9-15

The Articulatory Positions for the Korean Vowels


Dae Sok Lee
School of Asian Languages

In the first week of the 63-week Korean Basic Course at the Defense Language
Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC), one of the difficulties new
students encounter is sound discrimination. When the first eight vowels
are introduced, the students struggle with difficult foreign sounds and
instructors employ various teaching methods in order to teach students
correct vowel articulation. This article will highlight some of the difficulties
students experience in learning sound discrimination of the vowels and
provide the required articulatory positions of vocal organs to produce them.

Are Korean Vowels Identical to their Corresponding English Vowels in


Pronunciation?

Many foreign language learners, especially second-language learners, tend to


rely on their native languages in an attempt to easily facilitate their target language
acquisition. Students at DLIFLC are not exceptions, at least in their first few weeks.
They transcribe Korean vowels into their corresponding English alphabets, which is
detrimental to their learning process. Instructors employ various teaching methods in
order to help students learn the articulation of the Korean sounds, one of which provides
English transcripts under the Korean vowels. The following are some of the Korean
vowels with the English transcripts excerpted from a supplemental material:

ㅏ ㅓ ㅗ ㅜ ㅡ ㅣ
ah uh oh woo u i

In the above example, the English letter, “u,” is assigned under both “ㅓ” and
“ㅡ,” which are phonemes in the Korean language. Compare the following:

a. də1lda 덜다 “to subtract”


dü2lda 들다 “to lift, to cost”
b. dərəjuda 덜어주다 “to take out for someone”
dϋrəjuda 들어주다 “to comply with”
c. gənsahada 건사하다 “to manage”
gϋnsahada 근사하다 “to be approximate”

The above examples illustrate that the two vowel sounds contrast. Moreover,
the English vowel sound “u” is different from both “ㅓ” and “ㅡ” and the former is [+
rounded]3 and [+tense]4 while the latter, both [-rounded] and [-tense]. Consequently,
the position of articulation in the vocal organs for “u” differs from those of “ㅓ” and
“ㅡ.” Referring to the English transcripts on the previous page, the first three vowels are
rendered phonetically in English with an “h” and by placing an “h” following each of
these vowels, the pronunciations of these vowels are significantly affected. Obviously,
“a” differs from “ah” with regard to pronunciation. Ladefoged (1975) analyzes “h” as
“from an articulatory point of view it is simply the voiceless counterpart of the follow-
ing vowel.” In many environments, it is a consonant even when it precedes vowels:
“hot,” “honey,” “comprehend.”

9
Dae Sok Lee

Students who rely on the English transcripts under the Korean vowels would
transcribe the Korean words, [əməni] “어머니” “mother,” [ənə] “언어” “language,” and
[hangang] “한강” “Han River” as [uhmuhni], [uhnuh], and [hahngahng] respectively,
which are not even suitable English transcripts for Korean words, and therefore, “h”
should not be ignored as an informal English transcription. Even without “h,” “umuni,”
“unu,” and “hangang” are not yet close to Korean pronunciations. When students read
the English transcripts under the Korean vowels (and consonants), the instructors find
it difficult to discern what they are reading, as the students depend on their English
transcripts in order to exact in what they think is the proper pronunciation.

How Much Alike Is “Like”?

The Korean vowel “이” differs from the English counterpart, “i” in height, as
illustrated in KIU (The Korean Introductory Unit) which introduces the vowel as “이
like ee in feet,” which indicates that long vowels are normally higher than their shorter
counterparts. If we compare the two English vowels, “heed” and “hid,” it is easily no-
ticeable that the former is longer and tensed and therefore higher than the latter. In other
words, the English “i” is lower than “이”. Only the long vowel “ee” is like “이v” except
for its length, and in terms of articulatory positions in the vocal organs, it can be said
to share the same high-front category. However, the position of “i” is lower and more
centralized than “이.” More on this will follow.
The “like”method attempts to extract Korean sounds from their English
counterparts, but, in fact, it extracts English sounds for their Korean counterparts from
English words like “으 like oo in “book” and “어 like u in “sun.” In comparing the
two vowels, 으 in “으레” (habitually) and “oo” in “book,” the difference is readily
perceptible, at least for the native Korean: the former is higher than the latter in
articulation. In the acoustic analyses, “while Korean includes a high mid-back unround-
ed vowel /ɨ/5,English does not”(Ji Eun Kim and David J. Shilva 2003). In English u
in “sun” can be either [sən], [sʌn], or both depending on dialects. What if students
transcribe and pronounce [ʌmʌmi] for [əməni] “mother”? Between L1 and L2 vowels,
there are rarely exact phonetic similarities (Yang 1996). Again, in a narrow description,
not even one Korean vowel sound has an exact English counterpart.
Myŏngdo’s Korean maintains that “웨” and “외” as [we] are the same in
pronunciation as does the KIU, which analyzes the two vowels as “웨 semi-vowel w +
에 mid-front ur”and “외 [we] semi-vowel w + 에 mid-front ur,” and it rationalizes its
analysis as follows:

The distinction between (word missing -gillett) and 애 is being


lost among the young generation in standard Korean. Those older than
40 years of age still maintain the distinction but those younger than 40 do
not, particularly in casual speech.

KIU extracts two more English sounds by way of “like” (principle) : “애’” like
a in “add”and “에” like e in “end.” Its pronunciation guide describes, “왜” w + 애 and
“웨” w + 에.” and goes on to say ““외” and “웨” are pronounced the same.” The semi-
vowel, w, is excluded from the following discussion because both of the vowels share
said vowel sound. Compare the following:

a. [meda] 메다 “to carry something on one’s shoulder or back”


[mæda] 매다 “to tie”

b. [ge] 게 “a crab”
[gæ] 개 “a dog”

c. [beda] 베다 “to cut”


[bæda] 배다 “to conceive”

10
Articulatory Positions for the Korean Vowles

The examples above illustrate that the two vowels are distinctive as differ-
ent phonemes and even Myǒngdo’s Korean, in contradiction to its analysis above,
acknowledges that they are different vowels by placing “ㅔ” in the mid-front and “ㅐ”
in the low-front positions respectively in its Korean Sound System. The Korean /e/ cor-
responds to a phonetic value lower than English /e/ and higher than English /ɛ/, while
the Korean /ɛ/ is lower than the English /ɛ/ and higher than the English /ӕ/ (Ku 1998).
Languages change, but because of a regional or generational dialect, a phoneme cannot
be eliminated from a language nor merged with another one. If the low-front vowel
“애,” “æ” merged with the mid-front vowel,”에” “e,” there would be no distinction
between “네것” [negət] “your thing”(yours) and “내것,” [nӕgət], “my thing” (mine)
and only “네것” “yours” would remain for both “your” and “mine.” Moreover foreign
language institutes such as DLI do not teach generational dialects nor colloquialisms
but exclusively teach standard dialects.

Articulatory Positions for the Korean Vowels

Categorization of the Korean Vowels


As discussed earlier, most Korean vowels, if not all, are not identical to their
corresponding English vowels nor even to the phonetic signs of the IPA. Speaking
Korean describes the distinction as “… the position of the tongue for Korean vowels is
slightly higher than those corresponding English ones” and provides examples:

“ㅔ /e/ - the tense mid-front unrounded vowel /e/ is always short. It is


slightly higher than /e/ in English “let.”.” “ㅐ /ɛ/ the open (lax) low-
front unrounded vowel /ɛ/ in Korean is particularly either short or long.

It is slightly higher than /e/ in English “action”. The sound corresponding to /ɛ/
in English “action” does not exist.” and then presents its vowel chart:

Front Central Back


High: ㅣi ㅟ ü ㅡ ǔ ㅜ u
Mid: ㅔe ㅚ ӧ ㅓ ə ㅗ o
Low: ㅐɛ ㅏ a
Figure 1. Vowel Chart

This chart does not specify:

a. The distinction between the Korean vowel “이” and its


corresponding English vowel “i” in “hid.” The latter should be
placed lower than “이” a little centralized in the high-front position.
b. The distinction between “아” and “a,” which are placed in the
low-front and the low-central positions. The KIU describes the
two vowels as ““아” like “a” in “father.” Speaking Korean
analyzes the distinction of the two vowels as “아 /a/ the low-central
unrounded vowel, slightly higher than “a” in the English “arm.””
c. The difference between the high-front vowel and
the high-back as the former is higher than the latter.

The Korean vowel chart of Myŏngdo’s Korean is identical to that of the Speaking
Korean except for the vertical slanting line for the front vowels which illustrates a
biological phenomenon: as the front-vowels go down, the tongue also lowers its posi-
tion towards the lower and central positions.

11
Dae Sok Lee

Thus the mid-front vowel is closer to the mid-central than the high-front vowel
and the low-front vowel is closer to the low-central position than the mid-front vowel.
The following chart compensates for the shortcomings present in those of
Myŏngdo’s Korean and Speaking Korean:

Figure 2. Detailed Vowel Chart

This chart illustrates that

a. Even though both “이” and “우” are high vowels, the high-
front vowel “이” is higher than the high-back vowel “우.”
b. “이”is higher than “i” in “hid” because the former is [+tense] like “ee” in
“feet”and the latter, a lax vowel, which is normally lower and centralized.
c. The high-back vowel “우” is [+tense] and “으,” [-tense]
and therefore lower than the former and more centralized.
d. The distinction between “웨” and we ( semi-vowel + 에 ) and “외” wæ
(semi-vowel + 애) and the voicing of the former starts from the high-
back position and ends at the mid-front position and that of the latter
starts from the mid-back position and ends at the low-front position,
which elucidates that “e” in “we” and “æ” in “wæ” are distinctive.

It is a common practice that foreign language textbooks like the ones cited above
present the charts or descriptions of vowels and consonants which identify and catego-
rize phonemes. Ji Eun Kim and David J. Silva (2003) propose “awareness of phonemic
distinctions via listening and guided pronunciation exercises,” but the categorization of
phonemes alone cannot satisfy the “awareness of phonemic distinctions”

Articulation of the Korean Vowels


Vowels can be described in terms of three factors: (1) the height of the body of
the tongue; (2) the front-back positions of the tongue; (3) the degree of lip rounding.
For details see Figure 3. The numbers on this figure indicate the positions in the
sketch of the vocal organs where the vowels are articulated:

1. “이” Narrow the outgoing airstream by raising the front of the tongue all
the way towards the hard palate and the alveolar ridge.
2. “에” Lower the front of the tongue half way down from the position of
“이.”
3. “애” Lower the front of the tongue all the way down from the position
of “에.”

12
Articulatory Positions for the Korean Vowles

4. “우” Narrow the airstream by raising the back of the tongue towards the
soft palate with lip-rounding. The height of this vowel is approximately
the same as that of the mid front vowel.
5. “으” This is a lax and unrounded version of “우,” which is automatically
centralized.
6. “어” Lower the back of the tongue half way from the position of “우.”
7. “오” Lower the back of the tongue all the way down but it should not be
centralized.
8. “아” Lower the back of the tongue all the way down until it is
centralized.

Figure 3. Vocal Organs used in Vowel Ariculation

The articulatory positions of the vowels in the charts are based on the biological
function of the vocal organs. In order to lower the front of the tongue from the position
of the high-front vowel, “이” to articulate the mid-front vowel, “에,” the front of the
tongue and the jaw simultaneously lower themselves because the two movements are
inseparable. Again, in order to articulate the low-front vowel, the front of the tongue
goes down from the mid-front tongue position and so does the jaw. This condition is
present with the back vowels as well.

13
Dae Sok Lee

Application of the Charts and the Descriptions


In order to optimize the charts and the descriptions, the shapes (the curved lines)
of the tongue positions in the charts should be presented on the Smartboard or on an
over-head projector, so that students can visualize the shapes of the tongue and imi-
tate them. It is more effective to project one or two at a time for better focus. When
the shape of the tongue for “이” (#1), for example, is projected on the screen of the
Smartboard, students easily realize how close the front of the tongue is raised towards
the hard palate. It is more productive when accompanied by the shape for English, “i”
in “milk,” with which students can visualize the difference of the two vowels in height
even though both of the vowel sounds are categorized as high-front vowels. The projec-
tion will confirm that the English transcription of Korean vowel sounds is inaccurate
and not a practical alternative to eliciting correct vowel pronunciation.
The most formidable challenge students encounter in the course of learning the
Korean vowel sounds system is the discrimination of mid vowels and low vowels. As
there has been significant discussion on how to distinguish these vowel sounds (from
each other), the underlying problem is that these two groups of vowel sounds are acous-
tically similar.
Ji Eun Kim and David J Silva (2003) conclude that students’ awareness of the
relevant phonemic distinctions is raised both, via listening exercises via guided pronun-
ciation exercises. Up until this point, students would do listening and pronunciation
exercises in the classrooms but only via the “Repeat after me” method. Even students
who are in the final stages of their learning objectives are still unable differentiate the
distinctions between these two groups of vowels. In fact, they have created their own
terminology showcasing their inability to discriminate such sounds: “side O” and “bot-
tom O” for “어” and “오”respectively because to students the acoustic value of the two
vowels is simply “O” and when checking spellings, they ask, “Is it a side ‘O’ or a bottom
‘O’?” When the two shapes of the tongue positions of the vowels are projected, students
not only can compare the two vowels in height but also learn where and how the two
vowels are produced. It becomes more effective when accompanied by instructors’
model articulation for the vowels.
With the chart of the articulatory positions and the descriptions, students now
clearly understand instructors” instructions, such as “Raise your tongue position” and
“Lower the front of your tongue,” etc., with which not only instructors can correct stu-
dents” incorrect pronunciations but also students can correct themselves in terms of
what, how, and where by utilizing the charts presented conveniently on the viewing
screen.
Conclusion

The Korean vowels are different from their English counterparts in height More
specifically, the positions of the tongue for Korean vowels are generally higher than their
corresponding English ones and therefore the English transcription of Korean vowels is
apt to mislead students. If students are given English transcripts under the Korean vow-
els, not only do they read the English transcripts, but also, it tempts students, especially
frustrated ones, to rely on the English transcripts as a crutch. It is a common practice
that foreign language textbooks present the charts or the descriptions of articulatory
positions of the vowels of their target languages but they merely provide the identifi-
cation and the categorization of phonemes, which do not contribute to “awareness of
phonemes” The three factors: the height of the tongue, the front-back positions of the
tongue, and the degree of lip-rounding in the charts of the vocal organs and the descrip-
tions demonstrate the places and manners of the vowel articulation, with which not only
instructors are able to correct/adjust students’ incorrect pronunciations but also students
can correct their own flawed pronunciations as well.

14
Articulatory Positions for the Korean Vowles

Notes
1
is a symbol of IPA (International Phonetic Alphabets), which will be used throughout
this paper.
2
“ü” is like an umlaut in “schün”, “fun” in German, which is adapted here because
English lacks its equivalent phoneme.
3
is the Chomsky-Halle Feature System that indicates lip rounding for producing English,
“u”, “o”, etc..
4
is a tense vowel, which is produced with a deliberate, accurate, and maximally distinct
gesture that involves considerable mascular effect; a lax vowel is produced rapidly and
somewhat indistinctly.
5
/ɨ/ and /ü/ are interchangeably used here.

References

Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center. (1996). Korean in context.


Presidio of Monterey, California.
Ladeforged, P. (1975). A course in phonetics. University of California, Los Angeles,
California.
Kim, J. E. & Silva, D. J. (2003). An acoustically-based study of English-speaking learners
of Korean, The Korean Language in America, 8. The American Association of
Teachers of Korean, U.S.
Park, F. Y. (1984). Speaking Korean. Hollyn International Corp., New Jersey
Vandesande, A.V., (1991). Myŏngdo’s Korean. U-Shin Sa Publishing Co., Korea.
Yang, B. (1996). A comparative study of American English and Korean vowels produced
by male and female speakers. Journal of Phonetics, 24, 245-261.

Author

DAE SOK LEE, Professor, Korean School, Defense Language Institute Foreign Lan-
guage Center, Presidio of Monterey, CA 93944-5006; Interests: Korean lan-
guage teaching, pronunciation teaching.

15
A Communicative Way of Teaching Structure

Dialog on Language Instruction


2005, Vol. 17, Nos. 1 & 2, pp. 17-34

A Communicative Way of Teaching Structure: The Case of the pro-drop


feature in Persian/Farsi

Abolghasem Soheili Esfahani


Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center

This article addresses the issue of the pro-drop parameter, which


specifies that languages vary with respect to whether they allow the
deletion of pronouns in subject position. Persian / Farsi is a pro-drop
language in which pronouns drop in subject position because it has a
relatively rich agreement system. Nevertheless, an analysis of Persian
discourse structure demonstrates that the distribution of null subjects
vs lexical subjects is constrained not only by the inflectional system, but
also by discursive factors as well as authenticity criteria. This article
concludes with a set of interactive techniques for teaching Persian
subject pronouns to speakers of English so that they can understand
their form, meaning, and function.

Pro-drop Parameter

According to the Universal Grammar theory (Chomsky, 1981) the principles


of Universal Grammar (UG) involve a set of properties with certain parameters. The
pro-drop parameter is a parameter, which specifies that languages vary with respect to
whether they allow the deletion of pronouns such as I, you, he, etc. in subject position.
One group of languages, like Arabic Hebrew, Persian/Farsi, Spanish, Turkish, and Italian,
Onondaga (an American Indian language of the Iroquoian family [cited in Baker, 1988]),
allows the deletion of pronouns on grounds that their relatively rich agreement systems
provide the licensing conditions and identification conditions (cited in Radford,1990, p.
201), which determine the distribution and interpretation of the understood or implicit
pronouns. These languages are called pro-drop languages and exhibit the [+pro-drop]
value of the parameter. Other languages such as English, French, or German, always
require lexical subjects and represent the [- pro-drop] value of the parameter.
In the following table the sentence in English consists of an overt subject
pronoun and a verb without an agreement inflection, while its counterpart in the pro-drop
languages (except for Chinese and Japanese) contain a non-overt subject pronoun and
an agreement inflection that indicates the person and number features unambiguously.

17
Abolghasem Soheili Esfahani

1-Non-pro-drop language Pro-drop languages

pro sohbat mikon +am (Persian)

pro habl-o (Spanish)

pro parl-o (Italian)


I speak
*pro-speak pro ‘atakallam (Arabic)

pro konşuyor+um (Turkish)

pro shuo (Chinese)

pro hanashimasu (Japanese)

A closer inspection of a wide-ranging survey of so-called pro-drop languages


cross-linguistically reveals the fact that there is not a simple clear-cut distinction between
languages that can always drop pronominal subjects e.g., Spanish and languages that
never allow overt subject pronouns to be deleted e.g., English (Haegeman,1988).While in
Persian and Spanish the null subject is relatively free and licensed by the rich agreement
inflections, its distribution in Chinese and Japanese, (as cited in Haegeman, p.457), is
highly constrained by discursive factors. In some other languages such as German and
Scandinavian languages,(as cited in Haegeman, p.457) only null expletives are allowed.
The issues related to cross-linguistic pro-drop typology lie outside the scope of this
paper. Here our focus is on Persian which is a relatively free pro-drop language without
any restrictions on tense and person.
In the published literature on parametric syntax the phonologically null
pronominal subject has been designated as pro (small pro), which is not phonetically
realized but has the same syntactic and semantic properties as overt pronouns and
must be present in the syntactic configuration underlying the structure of the sentence.
This null subject has the feature combination of [- anaphor, + pronominal. As a way of
illustration, the missing subject such as, man ‘ I ‘ in an independent sentence as well as
matrix and subordinate clauses in Persian may be represented informally as:

1. pro xandid-am
pro laughed+1sg
‘I laughed.’
2. pro goft-am [ ke pro xandid-am]
pro said+1sing that pro laughed+1sg
‘I said that I laughed.’

18
A Communicative Way of Teaching Structure

In addition to personal pronouns, the expletive pronoun in ‘this’ is also


deleted:

3a. pro mohem ast [ ke pro farsi yad begirim ]


pro important is that pro Farsi learning take+1pl
‘It is important to learn Farsi.’
b. pro goft-am [ ke pro mohem ast farsi yad begirim]
pro said+1sg that pro important is Farsi learning take+1pl
‘I said that it is important to learn Farsi.’
(Notice that in Persian the expletive pronoun is a demonstrative.)

Although sentence (1) is a perfectly grammatical in which the finite verb


xand-id agrees in number and person with its null first person singular subject, there
exist certain pragmatic conditions under which the deletion of the pronoun will render
the sentence pragmatically inappropriate because it lacks an overt subject pronoun.
More specifically, [+ pro-drop] languages allow lexical pronouns to operate in subject
position, with certain discourse constraints. For instance, we cannot use sentence (1)
as a response to a wh-question like Who laughed? because specific wh-words require a
phrasal response which is grammatically well-formed and pragmatically felicitous.

4. # pro xandid-am

It is reasonable to attribute the infelicity of sentence (4), shown by the mark #,


to the fact that the subject pronoun is only overtly expressed under conditions where it
is emphasized or contrasted. According to Haegeman (p.452), pro by virtue of being a
null element can not be stressed.
In the previous part we put forward the hypothesis that Persian allows lexical
pronouns to occur under certain pragmatic conditions. As a reference to these conditions,
a traditional Persian grammarian named Khanlari (1994) argues that subject pronouns
are all deleted in Persian except for pragmatic purposes such as, emphasis, contrast,
salienc, disambiguation, etc. Moreover, he acrimoniously criticizes those translators
who translate books from European languages [+ pro-drop languages] and retain the
subject pronouns in their Persian renderings as they are used in the original languages.
Interpreted in the essential spirit of UG, the translators transfer the parameter value
of the source language to the parameter value of the target language (Persian). The
example Khanalri has selected to illustrate his point is:

5. jack az ruye sandali boland shod. U xaste bud. U beyad miavard


ke tamame shab naxofte bud. U arameshi jostju mikard.
Jack rose from his chair. He remembered that he had not slept the
whole night. So, he was trying to rest for a while.

Khanlari (p. 349) asserts that overuse of the pronoun u ‘he’ in the above passage
is an “awkward redundancy” and sounds counterintuitive to native speakers of Persian.
The core fact of Khanlari’s qualifying remark is that not only has a parameter value been
carried over from English to Persian in (5), but also the translation displays violations of
discourse constraints as well as authenticity criteria. Later in the paper, we will elaborate

19
Abolghasem Soheili Esfahani

on these concepts in the context of language pedagogy.


Along the same line of argument concerning pragmatic constraints, Weiman
and Succar (1985:32) remark that in Spanish verbal endings like –o, -amos, etc. are
sufficient to indicate ‘I’, ‘we’, etc. The pronouns are used for emphasis or clearness.
For a description of similar discourse constraints, see the pro-drop languages in Comrie
(1990).

First Language Acquisition

According to Radford (p. 20), the child’s early grammatical development is


traditionally divided into four main stages: prelinguistic , single- word , early multi-word,
and multi-word. The pre-linguistic stage specifies the period before the development
of the child’s first words; the single-word stage is the period during which children’s
utterances consist of single words in isolation; during the early multi-word stage children
begin to put two, three, or four words together to form productive syntactic structures;
the later multi-word stage is the period during which structures of five, six, or seven
words emerge.
As I (1988) have indicated, children acquiring Persian produce early multi-word
utterances around the age of 20 months. Their utterances emerge as simple propositions
in a general schematic form of subject+ N, with overt pronouns in subject position.
Towards the end of this period, they begin to acquire verbs and produce sentences
showing evidence of having set the pro-drop parameter in Persian. In addition, he
becomes aware of some, if not all, pragmatic conditions under which the use of subject
pronouns becomes an obligatory constituent of the sentence. These developmental
stages may be illustrated below:

6. man pool
I money
‘I money’

7. man pool dar-am


I money have+1sg
‘I have money.’

8. pro pool dar-am


pro money have+1sg
‘I have money.’

9a. Mum: ki tup-ra zad?


Who ball+ACC hit
‘Who hit the ball?’
9b. Child: man zad-am
I hit+1sg
It was I who hit it.’
What is of particular interest to notice, en passant, is the fact that in (8-b) the
over subject pronoun is used in a tonically stressed position that has emerged later in the
process.

20
A Communicative Way of Teaching Structure

Instead of using a stressed NP constituent as in (9-b), an adult speaker of Persian


may use an it-cleft construction conveying the same propositional content. Notice the
following conversational exchange:

10a. ki zendegiat-ra xarab kard?


who life+your+ACC messed-up did
‘Who messed up your life?’
10b. man xod-am bud-am ke kard-am
I self +1sg was+1sg that did+1g
‘It was I myself who did it.’

With reference to whether or not some discourse functions of syntax are


language-specific and constitute part of linguistic competence, Prince (1988) argues
that the use of it-cleft construction with respect to a particular discourse function in
English and its fairly literal counterparts in other languages such as, Yiddish, Russian,
are universally acknowledged as confirming the same underlying principles governing
the choice and syntactic form in relation to a particular discourse function and therefore
must be language- specific and must have been acquired with the language. Indeed, the it-
cleft construction in Persian is prima facie evidence that will lend a strong support to this
hypothesis. However, it would be necessary to make a distinction between micro-focus
construction such as an NP construction and a macro-focus-construction represented by
an it-cleft construction The first language acquisition data in (6-9) provides evidence
that certain universal principles are genetically prepared to emerge at a specific point in
the developmental stages of L1 acquisition. While a child uses a tonically stressed NP
constituent, and adult speaker uses its it-cleft analogue, which is, of course, syntactically
more complex and emerges later in the process. It seems hard to believe that the
topicalized subject pronoun in (9-b) has an unmistakably formulaic character about it
and is of the receptive schematic form memorized by the child. Empirically, the facts
seem to confirm the hypothesis that children acquire the micro-focus construction with
the language as part of their linguistic competence.

Acquisition of Pro-drop

Having presented a brief outline of the child acquisition of the pro-drop


parameter in Persian, we can now return to consider some issues associated with
acquiring the [+pro-drop] parameter by adult learners of Spanish, which shares the
same parameter value with Persian. The acquisition of the pro-drop parameter has been
studied by many researchers in the field. Phinney (1987) and Liceras (1988), inter alia,
have investigated the acquisition of Spanish (a pro-drop language) by speakers of a non-
pro-drop one. The overall results of their investigations, as summarized by Gass and
Schachter (1989), provide empirical support for the position that Spanish parameter has
an unmarked status. In other words, Spanish speakers learning English have to reset the
L1 unmarked option to the L2 marked parameter, and therefore more positive evidence
is required to reset it. Moreover, in the case of English speakers learning Spanish, the
pro-drop was well established both at the acceptance and the production level. Finally,
going from Spanish (L1 unmarked) to English (L2 marked) should be difficult on the
assumption that learning a marked value is empirically harder and requires additional

21
Abolghasem Soheili Esfahani

positive evidence to motivate it. On the contrary, going from English (L1 marked) to
Spanish (L2 unmarked) should be fairly easier.
Although the above-mentioned results suggest that it is easier to reset from
the English value of the parameter to the Spanish value, White (1989, p. 86) argues that
the [+pro-drop] parameter is marked based on the kind of evidence required to reset it.
It is absolutely clear that [- pro-drop] languages require lexical pronouns, while [+pro-
drop] languages allow both null and lexical pronouns. Now if [- pro-drop] is the initial,
unmarked value, it can be reset on the basis of simple positive evidence represented by
sentences with null subjects.
Since Persian is a pro-drop language with no restrictions on tense and person
(Soheili Esfahani 2000, p. 232) and requires both lexical and null subjects. This
observation gives evidence for articulating a similar postulate to that proposed by White
for Spanish and posit that Persian has a marked status too. Therefore, we subscribe to
the [+pro-drop] Marked Hypothesis that stipulates simple positive evidence is required
to switch to a marked value. This is in contrast to the [+pro-drop] Unmarked Hypothesis
that requires specific positive evidence to reset to a marked option.

Interlanguage

The term ‘interlanguage’ refers to “the interim grammars by second-language


learners on their way to the target language” (McLaughlin, 1986). One of the cognitive
processes involved in L2 is transfer via which L1 value is applied to the L2 value. For
instance, White (1985, 1986) has studied whether Spanish learners of English transfer
the L1 value of the pro-drop parameter to the L2 they are learning. The results show
that Spanish learners display discordant L2 acquisition patterns and accept sentences
with an implicit subject are more likely than the French learners who constituted the
control group in this study. This suggests that the value of Spanish has been carried
over to English. When the L1 is English and L2 is Persian, or one of the other pro-drop
languages, the student’s interlanguage can not give a clear picture of the adoption of the
inappropriate parameter value. The problem lies in the fact that pro-drop languages, as
noted before, use both null and lexical pronouns. Further empirical evidence consistent
with the above assumption comes from overuse of the first singular pronoun man ‘I’
by a student who is learning Persian at an intermediate level. We have selected the
data from this level because more advanced students have acquired a certain amount of
knowledge about L2. This knowledge may, mutatis mutandis, become a source of errors
(O’ Grady, et al., 1997), and provides a potentially rich source essential for the study
of interlanguage, its nature, and its relation to both the source language and the target
language.

22
A Communicative Way of Teaching Structure

11. man dar sale 1982 be donya


I in year 1982 to world
amadam. vaqti man 14 sale budam be
came when I 14 year was to
dabirestan raftam. man hich vaqt be daneshgah narafta pas
high school went I no time to university notgo then
man faqat diplom daram. hala man dar artesh hastam va sarbaz
I only diploma have now I in army am and soldier
hastam. man dar artes farsi yad migiram.
am I in army farsi learning take
I was born in 1982. When I was 14 years old, I went to high
school, I never attended university; therefore, I do not have a
high school diploma. Now I am in the Army as a soldier and
learn Persian.

In the above passage, which is skeletal autobiographical information, there are


five instances of overuse of the pronoun ‘I’. In a discourse context like this, a native
speaker of Persian would intuitively use the first pronoun as a focus of attention in the
first segment to introduce himself/herself and then uses null subjects that are referen-
tially bound as variables by the first salient focus in the first utterance. (For the sake
of expository consistence, we will use ‘utterance’ instead of sentence in dealing issues
related to discourse analysis.)
With respect to overuse of subject pronouns in a [+ drop-language] interlanguage
by students whose native language is [-pro-drop], White (1989, p. 86) argues that if
native speakers of a [-pro-drop] language use pronouns in their interlanguage, this does
not indicate that they have failed to reset the parameter. They may not have worked
out the precise constraints that govern the use of null versus lexical pronouns. We can
reinterpret White’s remark as implying that the learners of a pro-drop language will
develop a linguistic competence and become aware that the licensing and identification
conditions of null subjects are recoverable from the verbal inflections but may lack a
pragmatic competence to infer that (1) the same null subjects may be used to denote an
entity whose reference is recoverable from the context, and (2) overt subject pronouns
are used only and if only to denote whatever discourse constraints are at work. In other
words, there are good reasons to believe that learners of a pro-drop language use overt
pronouns free of discourse constraints on their identification in a discourse model. In
consequence, where pragmatic knowledge does not suffice to enable learners to use
null subjects pronouns they resort to their syntactic competence. Thus, it is worthwhile,
theoretically and pedagogically, at this point to raise a question as to why students
make discourse-level errors and show a conspicuous lack of success in working out the
discourse constraints involved in the context. In order to find an answer to this question,
we have to take an excursion into four areas: (1) the difference between core grammar
and peripheral grammar in terms of markedness, (2) duality in the parameter value of
Persian, (3) discourse structure, and (4) the issue of authenticity.
Unfortunately, these areas have not received the attention they deserve in
situations where Persian is taught as a foreign/second language The rest of the paper
will be an attempt to address these issues to the extent that they are crucially relevant
to resolving the pedagogical aspect of teaching the pro-drop parameter of Persian to
speakers of English, without elaborating on their theoretical concomitants or the

23
Abolghasem Soheili Esfahani

deductive consequences of the pro-drop parameter for the rest of the grammar, including
subject-verb inversion, and that- t effect, etc.
A partial answer to the questions raised above may be found in the theory of
markedness (Chomsky, 1981, 1986), which differentiates core grammar from peripheral
grammar. Core grammar is an instantiation of the principles and parameters that are part
of the child’s genetic endowment. Peripheral grammar is the set of marked elements and
constraints that are outside of core grammar and are exceptions or idiosyncratic features
of the language. The underlying assumption being that the rules of core grammar are
perceived to be unmarked (regular and frequent) and minimal exposure is required to
learn them because they are predicated on a principle of UG. In contrast, the rules of
peripheral grammar are thought to be marked (irregular and infrequent) and need to be
learned on the basis of positive evidence of their existence in that language.
However, the difference between core grammar and peripheral grammar in
terms of markedness is nor so straightforward. Based on L1 acquisition data as in (6-
9) and overuse of lexical pronouns as shown in (11), we may tentatively propose a
Two-pronged Value Hypothesis according to which the core grammar of Persian has
an initial, unmarked value which is associated with the null subject. This is the value
that the child learns with minimal exposure in the process of L1 acquisition. There is
another marked value of the parameter that is acquired later on the basis of specific
evidence concerning the discourse functions which, as we noted before, constitute part
of the child’s linguistic competence. There is no doubt that without the rules that govern
how we construct discourses of various kinds and the constraints they impose on our
communicative activities our language would be in a chaotic situation (Brown 1994).
In case our assumption is along the right lines, that leads us to the following
paradigm of learning the pro-drop parameter of Persian. English speakers learning
Persian as a foreign or second language will initially pick the unmarked [+ pro-drop]
value of the parameter. This is the value that generates sentences with pro in subject
position. On the other hand, the marked value is adopted on the basis of specific
evidence that would comprise of a set of observed structures illustrating the application
of discourse considerations In the absence of exclusive evidence for the marked value,
the leaner should encounter difficulty as predicted by Eckman’s Markedness Differential
Hypothesis (as cited in Mclaughlin, p. 89). On the basis of a comparison of the first
language and the target language, those areas of the target language that are marked than
in the first language will be difficult.

Discourse Structure

Discourse analysis, as defined by Van Lier (1995), involves the study of the
organization of language beyond the boundary of sentence or utterance level. Since
discourse analysis is a highly controversial issue in the entire field of linguistics and
denotes many fields (Prince,104), dealing with such an uncharted territory of rules
and principles governing discourse analysis lies beyond the scope of this paper, but an
important issue for the future research to address. What follows is an informal account
of basic rules and conditions governing discourse constraints in the spirit of Centering
Theory (as cited in Taboada, 2002) essential for understanding the functions and
referential properties of null and lexical pronouns as they occur in a discourse structure
in Persian.

24
A Communicative Way of Teaching Structure

Centering theory is primarily concerned with intersentential processes in


which each utterance contains a most salient entity, which is called the ‘center’ of the
utterance. This center represents the topic of the utterance. Furthermore, centers are
often associated with prominent structural positions. For instance, subject positions
are preferred locations of center over object or adverb positions. Thus, Centering is a
theory of focus of attention in the discourse, and its relation to the choice of referring
expressions. It provides rules and principles to explain how entities become focused as
the discourse proceeds and, more importantly, how transitions from one focus to the
next make the discourse coherent.
In a discourse context, there is a list of entities mentioned or evoked. First,
we have the forward-looking center the first member of which is the preferred center.
Second, there is the backward-looking center, which is the highest-ranked entity from
the previous utterance repeated in the current utterance. In addition to the centers, there
are different types of transitions, based on the relationship between the backward-
looking centers, and the relationship of the looking-backward centers and the preferred
centers of any given pair of utterances. Among others, CONTINUE is the transition in
which the backward-looking center and the first member of the looking-forward center
of the current utterance are the same.
With this brief theoretical outline which preserves the essential spirit of Centering
theory, while eschewing some accompanying technical complications introduction,
we will proceed to examine a written text and a dialogue in Persian to explore the
anaphora resolution strategies used by the write in the former and the speaker in the
latter. However, before embarking upon our discourse analysis, we have to familiarize
ourselves with a couple of differentiating Persian syntactic properties prerequisite for
understanding the discourse issues under consideration.
Persian is an SOV language. In this linear order the subject remains unmarked,
and tends to be also the topic and no affix is used to identify the topic. The direct object
takes the postposition –ra, and the finite verb agrees with its subject in person and number.
Another salient property of Persian is that it shows a propensity for anaphoric pronouns
rather than cataphoric pronouns for their productivity and referential transparency.
Compare (12, a and b):

12a. ali qazayash-ra xord va pro raft


Ali food+his+ACC ate and pro left
‘Ali ate his food and left.’
12b. pro xord qazayash-ra va ali raft.
pro ate food+his+ACC Ali left
‘Ali ate his food and left.’

Notice that in (12a) the null subject pro sequentially follows its antecedent
Ali in the first part of the sentence. In (12b), however, the null subject pronoun appears
before its antecedent which occurs in the last part of the sentence.
In a discourse context, one of the entities serves as a referent / antecedent to
which the pronoun refers. To figure out how anaphoric terms are linked to their referents
is a process called amphora resolution, as indicated in the following:

25
Abolghasem Soheili Esfahani

13. John is married.


14. He has two kids.

The antecedent of a pronoun may come in the same sentence, or in the preceding
sentence as in (14), or it may occur far back in other sentences as our text gets larger.
In this kind of discourse, we envisage discourse as a series of segments where each
segment is a stretch of discourse signaled by cue words or expressions such as, ok, by
the way, anyhow, etc. In each segment there is an object which is the prime candidate
for prononminal reference. Consider the following conversational exchange in which
the pronoun it in the last sentence refers anaphorically back to the word book in the first
sentence.

15. A: By the way, where should I put the book?


B: Let’s see. Put it on my desk.
A: When I came home I found out that it had been misplaced.

Now let us consider how an Iranian columnist describes R. Reagan, the late
president of the Unites States of America. The text is translated from a Persian journal,
with overt and null subject pronouns as used in the language.

16. R. Reagan had a sincere tone, - wrote English fast, -could


establish a good communicative relationship with his
addressee, - showed a wonderful mastery of words,- and mixed
his statements with irony---. He was wise and tactful.

In the above text, the author proceeds from establishing the NP expression
(R. Reagan), which can be construed as a salient focus of attention. The first utterance
is followed by a series of null subjects until we get to the last utterance. The transition
is achieved by switching to the overt pronoun I in the last utterance. More specifically,
the preferred center in the looking-forward list represents the looking-backward center,
where the highest- ranked entity from the first utterance is realized as an overt pronoun
in the current utterance.
The writer uses an overt subject in the last utterance for two reasons: (i) to
continue the same topic of the discourse and (ii), more importantly, to provide the
readers with specific characteristics of the president in this segment of the discourse.
Now, let us consider the dialogue.

26
A Communicative Way of Teaching Structure

17. Jones: dishab man va khanom va agha va khanome Tabrizi


raftim rasturane Khan Salar. Hame jur ghazaye Irani
dashtand. Man va khanom chelo kabab khordim, agha va
khanome Tabrizi chelo khoresh khordand. Namidanam chelo
khoresh chetor bud vali chelo kababeshan ali bud. Musik Irani
ham dashtand. Dekore rasturan kamelan Irani bud. Kheili
jalaeb bud. Yek shab ba shoma miravim anja.
Smith: Fekre khubi ast. Panj shanbe shab chetor ast?
Jones: Mamulan panj shanbe va jom’a xeili shulugh ast.
Shanbe barname darid?
Smith: na, barname nadaram.
Jones: Pas shanbe miravim.
Smith: besyar khub.

18. Jones: Last night my wife and I with Mr. and Mrs. Tabrizi went
to Khansalar restaurant.

They had all kinds of Iranian food. My wife and I had chelo
kebab. Mr. Tabrizi and his wife had chelo khoresh. I don’t
know how the chelo khoresh was, but their chelo kebab was
exellent. They also had Iranian music. The décor of the restaurant
was entirely Iranian. It was very interesting.We’ll go there with
you some night.

Smith: It is a good idea. How about Thursday night?


Jones: Usually it’s very crowded on Thursday and Friday. Do
you have any plans for Saturday night?
Smith: No. I don’t have any plans.
Jones: Then we’ll go on Saturday.
Smith: Very well.

The Persian situational dialog involves a situation, where two families went to a
restaurant for dinner. Initially, the speaker proceeds from using the first singular pronoun
man ‘I’ as a salient focus of attention in a conjunct to introduce his family and himself.
This segment of the discourse is followed by a null subject until we get to sentence
(3) in which the same pronoun is used for the purpose of comparing the two families
in terms of their food preference. From this location onward, the dialogue continues
with null subject pronouns as well as the pleonastic pronoun in ‘this’. Throughout the
whole dialogue, the null subject pronoun anaphorically refers back to the subject in the
first utterance. As for the relation of transition and the anaphoric term, pro marks the
coherent continuation of the discourse topic. Similar reports have been reported for a
corpus of dialogues in Spanish. (Taboada, p.181)
English, as noted before, is a non-pro-drop language with a SVO linear order
in which the structural configuration of the sentence is considered to correspond closely
to grammatical functions and to linear order. According to O’Grady et al. (p. 274), the
subject of the sentence tends to function as the topic without a special affix to identify

27
Abolghasem Soheili Esfahani

the topic, as opposed to some languages like Chinese which makes the topic by –wa.
The major difference between English and Persian with respect to discourse
structure may be attributed to the use of an overt pronoun as a focus of attention, or
it may serve the function of reaffirming the topic in the current utterance. (Suri and
McCoy,1993). While Persian uses an overt pronoun in a segment of discourse where a
constraint is at work, English uses an overt pronoun merely as a cue for topic continuity
(Almor, 2002). This difference is responsible for the discourse-level errors of English-
speaking students learning Persian. These errors are likely to persist until students learn
the discourse constraints and discourse mechanisms.
We can summarize the main points we have discussed regarding discourse
structure in Persian and English in the following terms. The parametric variation
between English and Persian with respect to their discourse structure may be attributed
to the difference between reference salience and anaphoric explicitness. While Persian
uses an overt pronoun in a segment of discourse when a constraint is at work, English
uses the same pronoun for topic continuity (Almor, 2002), or reaffirming the present
topic (Suri & McCoy, 1993). This difference is responsible for the discourse-level errors
of English-speaking students learning Persian. These errors are likely to persist until
students learn the underlying discourse structure and its full plan.
In addition to discourse problems, what is particularly problematic from our
point of view about the translation in (5) and the autobiographical sketch in (11) is that
they also show violations of issues related to authenticity. Although there may be no
global and absolute notion of authenticity (Harmer, 1989), we can safely assume that
overuse of subject pronouns in these texts does not reflect real use of language in the real
world by native speakers of Persian. As a consequence, raising students’ consciousness
(Larsen-Freeman, 2003) about the authentic criteria of a text comes into play that will
facilitate language acquisition in the sense of understanding the full range of expression
used in the target language. In accordance with Harmer’s proposal (p. 164), students
should be given ample practice in reading and listening to texts that aim for ‘semi-
authentic’ or ‘user authenticity’ that are appropriate to the current needs of the learners.
The reading of such texts will help them to acquire the necessary skills they will need
when they eventually come to tackle authentic materials in the real world.

Teaching Procedure

Having discussed the theoretical and pragmatic foundation of issues related to


the nature and function of null and overt subject pronouns in Persian, we are now ready to
consider a set of interactive techniques that provide students with positive evidence and,
particularly, specific positive evidence to use both null and lexical subjects in appropriate
contexts. By dint of the fact that [+ pro-drop] is an inherent parameter of Persian
grammar, its values should be taught at the basic ILR proficiency levels (1/1+), where
students are aware of basic cohesive features, namely, pronouns and verb inflections.
By resetting the [+pro-drop] parameter of Persian as early as possible, English-speaking
students will be able to speak and write Persian naturally and fluently without overusing
or possibly underusing lexical pronouns. The exercises here are designed in such way
as to focus on both fluency and accuracy as important goals to pursue communicative
language teaching.

28
A Communicative Way of Teaching Structure

The goal of the first activity is to make students at elementary proficiency


level visionary with respect to the syntactic and semantic relationships between overt
pronouns and their corresponding verbal endings.

Stage 1: Students are told that they are going to work in pairs, A and B.

Stage 2: The teacher will put simple sentences containing all pronouns on cards
appropriate for the students’ reading ability at this level, including simple narratives of
routine events and simple descriptions of people, places, or things.

Stage 3: Student A reads the sentence and discusses it with Student B to find the
correlation between lexical pronouns and verbal inflections.

Stage 4: A representative from each pair announces the result.

Stage 5: The pairs get together to come to a consensus

Stage 6: When the group has reached a decision, the teacher and the class can conduct a
feedback session to see what the pronouns and their verbal inflections are. (If the teacher
uses past tenses, he/she should give students a chance to discover for themselves that the
verbal inflection for the third singular person is a zero morpheme.)

Now students may put the results on a table, using a different color for each
pronoun. Some examples for this stage of activities may be given as follows:

19. man farsi yad migir-am


I Farsi learning take+1 sg
‘I am learning Fasi.

20. ma har shab dar manzel sham mixor-im


we every night in home dinner eat+ 1pl
‘We eat dinner at home every night.

This activity is a great fun and produces a lot communicative output. The goal
of the second activity is to make students interactive, that is, to make them react to
certain events producing simple propositions without overt pronouns. Pictures, films,
slides, photographs, and video clips may be used as a support for interactive techniques
in this activity.

Stage 1: Students are told they will work in pairs.

Stage 2: The teacher shows the pairs a picture of some people engaged in a particular
activity.

Stage 3: Each pair decides what the people are doing.

Stage 4: After a given time, the teacher asks a pair to read the sentence.

29
Abolghasem Soheili Esfahani

Stage 5: Other pairs can ask questions and challenge choices. Some representative
examples for this stage are

21. pro dar-and midav-and


pro have+3pl run+3pl
‘They are running.’

22. pro dar-ad qaza mixor-ad


pro have+3sing food eat+3sg
‘He/she is eating.’

This activity may present problems with forming present progressive tense. If
students form sentences using simple present tense as an alternative, the teacher should
accept them because the focus is on inflections..
The goal of the last activity is to make students creative in order use overt
pronouns under appropriate pragmatic conditions-emphasis, contrast, etc.

Stage 1: Students are told that they are going to work in small groups

Stage 2: The teacher may distribute some pictures of games, foods, fruits, items of
clothing, colors, etc.

Stage 3: Each student in the group picks what he / she likes and asks other members
whether or not they like the same thing.

Stage 4: When students have completed their conversations, the teacher leads a feedback
session by asking the students whether or not they like the same thing.
Some examples for students to ask their group members and for the teacher to ask the
class are:

23. man footbal dust dar-am, to chetor?


I football liking have+1sg you how?
‘I like footall, what about you?’

24. man angoor dust dar-am, to chetor?


I grapes liking have+1sg you how?
‘I like grapes, what about you?’

A suitable activity would be to divide the class into two equal groups and have
the members of the first group engaged in doing something such as, opening the door,
closing the window, etc. Then each member of the second group asks each member of
the firs group who did what. Some examples:

25. Ki dar-ra baz kard?


who door-ACC open made?
‘Who opened the door?’

30
A Communicative Way of Teaching Structure

26. man dar-ra baz kard-am


I door+ACC open made+1sg
‘ I open the door.’

27. u dar-ra baz kard


he/ she door+ACC open made
‘He / she opened the door.’

Alternative questions in pairs or small groups will work just as well for this purpose.

28. to bolantar az u hasti ya man?


you taller from he/she are or I?
‘Are you or I taller than him/ her?’
29. to kutahtar az u hasti ya man?
you shorter from he/she are or I?
‘Are you or I shorter than him/ her?’

This is an enjoyable activity and puts students in a realistic situation.


To teach other aspects of discourse constraints, it would be suitable to put
students in pairs, A and B. Student A should give student B brief autobiographical
information about age, education, marital status, etc. Student B does the same thing.
When the pairs have finished their conversations, each member gives his / her partner’s
information to the class. The teacher corrects the students’ discourse errors and puts
them on the SmartBoard. At this point students should familiarize themselves with
the discourse constraints that null and overt pronouns impose on their communicative
attempts.
The goal of the extra-class activity is to make students aware of the overall
functions of the pronouns in Persian. Students should look at an authentic text to write out
sentences with and without overt pronouns. The activities proposed here give students
an opportunity to integrate the four skills and classify their efforts in more meaningful
tasks according to the DLIFLC’s goal. which is to train linguists, assess their language
ability, and sustain their language ability for their post-DLI assignments.
Students should be able to justify the use of the firs singular pronoun man ’I’ in
the first and the last sentence in this authentic passage.

30. man dar yek xanevadeye motovaset be donya amadam. aqhle


tehran hastam.az haman
kudaki, mixastam dar jam’e doxtarha va zanha basham hamishe
be soraqe lavazeme
arayeshe madaram mirafatm va suratamra rangina mikardam.
hameye hamsen va salane man futbal bazi mikardand vali man
tennis dust midashtam.

Conclusion

According to Universal Grammar theory, languages share certain principles that


are invariable across languages and parameters, which vary from language to another

31
Abolghasem Soheili Esfahani

one such a parameter is the pro-drop parameter that divides languages into two groups
with respect to whether they allow the deletion of pronouns in subject position. Based
on theoretical considerations and empirical reasons with respect to first and second
language acquisition, we proposed a Two-pronged Parameter Value according to which
the pro-drop parameter of Persian has an unmarked value that is acquired with minimal
exposure and a marked value which requires specific positive evidence.
In addition the notion of duality in the Persian parameter value, this study
investigated the discourse structure of Persian in an informal fashion in the spirit of
Centering Theory. A comparison of overt subject pronouns between Persian and English
shows that while English by virtue of being a non-pro-drop language uses overt pronouns
to refer to the most salient referent as a cue for topic continuity, Persian uses null subjects
to mark the coherent continuation of the discourse topic In contrast, Persian uses overt
pronouns in contexts where discursive factors impose their constraints. In addition to
discourse cursives text authenticity also imposes its own constraints.
Pedagogical implications of this study are threefold in nature. (i) learning
language should be based on authentic instructional materials taken from a variety of
genres pertaining to the target language culture,(ii) the learning tasks involving these
materials should aim at equipping students with necessary skills and knowledge which
will enable them to understand how language works in a discourse model and how
to employ the materials for authentic purposes, and (iii) English-speaking learners of
Persian should be taught the principles underlying the discourse structure of the target
language as part of their pragmatic competence to be able to use null and overt subject
pronouns appropriately.
This study should raise questions for further research in teaching Persian to
English-speaking students and other non-pro-drop languages. In case learners show
inappropriate use of pronominal references in a discourse model, we need a more
extensive corpus of utterances to analyze in order to be able to make a fine distinction
between language transfer and discourse-based errors. For a more adequate account
conducting a more through analysis should be considered to characterize the nature of
discourse constraints and to establish principles governing the links between transition
type and pronoun choice in a discourse.
This study raises questions for further research teaching pro-drop language
to speakers of non-pro-drop languages. In case learners of a pro-drop language show
inappropriate pronominal use, we need to analyze more data in order to be able to make
a fine distinction between language transfer and discourse- level errors with respect to
lexical pronouns. Conducting a more through discourse analysis should be considered
to identify the nature of discourse constraints and to establish principles governing the
links between transition type and choice of pronoun in a pro-drop language.

References

Almor, A. (2000). Constraints and mechanisms in theories of anaphor. In M. Pickering,


C. Clifton, M. Crocker (Eds.), Architectures and mechanisms for language
processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baker, M. C. (1988). Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

32
A Communicative Way of Teaching Structure

Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language


pedagogy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dorderecht: Foris.
______________. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. New
York: Praeger.
Comrie, B. (Ed.). (1990). The World’s major languages. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Haegeman, L. (1998). Government and binding. Oxford: Blackwell.
Harmer, J. (1989). The practice of English teaching. London: Longman.
Khanlari, N. (1994). Persian grammar. Tehran: Tus.
Javanan International Weekly Magazine. 2004. Friday, June, 11, No. 838.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring.
Canada: Thomson, Heinle.
Larsen-Freeman, D., Gass, S. M. and Schachter, J. (Eds.) (1989.) Linguistic perspectives
on second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liceras, J. M. (1988). Syntax and stylistics: More on the pro-drop parameter. J.
Pankhurst, M. Sharwood-Smith, and P. van Buren, (Eds), Learnability and
second languages. Dordrecht,The Netherlands: Reidel.
Mclaughlin, B. (1989). Theories of second-language learning. New York: Edward
Arnold.
O Grady, et al. (1997). Contemporary linguistics: An introduction (3rd ed.). New York:
St. Martin’s Press.
Phinney, M. (1987). The pro-drop parameter in second language acquisition. In T. Roeper
and E. Williams, (Eds), Parameter setting., Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Reidel.
Prince, E. (1988). Discourse nalysis: A art of the linguistic competence. In F. Newmeyer
(Ed.) Linguistics: The Cambridge survey Vol-2. (pp.164-82). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Radford, A. (1990). Syntactic theory and the acquisition of English syntax. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
Soheili Esfahani, A. (1988). The acquisition of Persian. Unpublished Manuscript.
Seattle: The University of Washington.
______________. (2000). A Parametric grammar of Persian: The position of Persian
among the world’s languages. (in manuscript form). Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Suri, L. Z., & McCoy, K. F. (1993). Correcting discourse-level errors: Technical Report
No. 99-o2. University of Delaware.
Taboada, M. (2002). Centering and pronominal reference: In dialogue, in Spanish. In Bos,
Foster & Matheoson (Eds.), Procedings of the sixth workshop on the semantics
and pragmatics of dialogue (pp. 177-184). Edinburg, UK. (EDILOG, 4-6).
Van Lier, L. (1995). Introducing language awareness. London: Penguin.
Weiman, R. & Succar. O. A. (1985). Conversational Spanish. New York: Crown.
White, L. (1985). The pro-drop parameter in adult language acquisition. Language
Learning, 35, 47-62.
______________. (1986). Implications of parametric variation for adult langauge
acquisition: An investigation on the pro-drop parameter. In V. Cook (ed.)
Experimental approaches to second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.

33
Abolghasem Soheili Esfahani

______________. (1989). Universal grammar and second language acquisition.


Philadelphia: John Benjamin’s.

Author
ABOLGHASEM SOHEILI ESFAHANI, Assistant Professor, Persian Department, CE
Program, DoD Center, Fort Ord, 400 Gigling Street, Monterey, CA 93944-
5006. Specialization: Linguistics (theoretical and applied), Persian syntax, and
TEFL.

34
Learning Management Systems Conference

Learning Management Systems Conference

Kiril Boyadjieff, Steve Koppany, and Megan Lee


Curriculum Development Division

On March 15, 2005, the Curriculum Development Division (CD) of the Defense
Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC) organized the first Learning
Management System (LMS) Conference with the active participation and strong
support from Continuing Education (CE) and Evaluation & Standardization (ES). This
conference marks the beginning of the process of defining the specific DLIFLC needs
for obtaining a comprehensive LMS that will meet the present and future requirements
for curriculum development, teaching, studying, assessment and administration of
foreign language learning. The 25 attendees at the conference included representatives
from CDD, CE, ES, the Computer Technology Integration Office (CIO) and the Public
Affairs Office (PAO).
The LMS Conference was opened up by DLIFLC’s Vice Chancellor, Neil
Granoien, and Steve Koppany, CD’s Dean. In his welcoming remarks, Neil Granoien
stated that the new Joint Knowledge Office of the Department of Defense (DoD)
has tasked military training centers to meet the requirement that “everything talks to
everything else,” i.e., the need to address current and emerging DoD requirements
(DODD 1322.18 and DODI 1322.XX) for Sharable Content Object Reference Model
(SCORM)-conformant training materials.1
Steve Koppany addressed these DoD requirements by outlining the general
conference goals as: (1) raising awareness of the need for a suitable LMS, (2) establishing
a community of professionals and organizations as a network of support, and (3) gaining
a better understanding of the relevance of an LMS to the various aspects of the work
being performed at the Institute. He also noted that at this initial stage of development
as each unit defines its mission requirements, it is likely that there may be multiple LMS
solutions, rather than a “one-size-fits-all” approach.
Steve Koppany identified the specific tasks of the conference and its working
groups as preparing detailed recommendations outlining critical LMS aspects and
drafting recommendations for the implementation of one or more modern, multi-purpose
LMSs in support of the DLIFLC mission.

Background

According to some definitions, an LMS is an e-learning structure that allows


one to assign privileges, link learning resources, and modules to individual learners and
groups of learners, monitor individual and group performance, and collect and transfer
assessment data to the student management system for reporting and recording purposes.
However, most LMSs do not have the ability to generate instructional content.

1
Defense Acquisition Professionals.ppt

35
Boyadjieff, Koppany, and Lee

An LMS is also described as software that automates the administration of


training events. All LMSs manage the log-in and registration of users, manage course
catalogs, record data from learners, and provide reports to management. An LMS also
describes a wide range of applications that track student training, and may include
functions such as:

• Authoring
• Classroom management
• Competency management
• Knowledge management
• Certification or compliance training
• Personalization
• Mentoring
• Chat
• Discussion boards

A Content Management System (CMS), on the other hand, is used to design,


develop, and publish online materials. CMSs also assist educators to separate content
from presentation by utilizing a variety of models and templates. In this respect, the
Institute’s Learning Object Generator (LOG) is a powerful tool with applications in
foreign language education e-learning.
Many CMSs are used to store and subsequently find and retrieve large amounts
of data. CMSs work by indexing text, audio clips, images, etc., within a database. CMSs
often provide version control and check-in/check out capabilities. Using robust, built-in
search capabilities, users can quickly find a piece of content from within a data-base by
typing in keywords, the date the element was created, the name of the author, or other
search criteria. CMSs are often used to create information portals for organizations and
serve as the foundation for the practice of knowledge management. They can be used
to organize documents and media assets. For example, a news agency may use a CMS
to archive every story ever written for the paper. Likewise, they might use the CMS to
provide an extensive library of photographs that are reusable for future stories.
A Learning Content Management System (LCMS), is an environment where
developers can create, store, reuse, manage, and deliver learning content from a central
object repository, usually a database. LCMSs generally work with content that is based
on a learning object model. These systems usually have good search capabilities,
allowing developers to quickly find the text or media needed to build training content.
LCMSs often strive to achieve a separation of content – which is often tagged in XML
– from presentation. This allows many LCMSs to publish to a wide range of formats,
platforms, or devices such as print, Web, and even wireless information devices, such as
Palm and Windows CE hand-held, all from the same source material.
Koppany, in consultation with Granoien, has concluded that in the light of
current and foreseeable national security requirements, the rapidly expanding mission of
DLIFLC calls for immediate and energetic steps in implementing and utilizing a modern
LMS. In the initial stage of the conference preparation, Dean Koppany of CD received
strong interest in implementing an LMS from Dean Hoffman of ES and Dean Vezilich
of DLIFLC. This initiative also received critical support from Professor Earl Schelske,
a DLIFLC consultant from University of Minnesota.

36
Learning Management Systems Conference

Statement of the Need

The LMS conference continued with three fifteen-minute presentations from the
participating deans. In their briefings Steve Koppany, Mika Hoffman and Mike Vezilich
outlined their respective Division concerns and priorities as related to identifying and
using one or more LMSs to meet their needs.
Steve Koppany defined the requirements for implementing an LMS in terms of
the current projects of CD’s key projects. The LMS would pull together and manage the
core teaching programs of the DLIFLC, which are the resident basic language courses,
the intermediate and advanced Continuing Education courses, the country-specific
familiarization courses, the Web-based maintenance Global Language Online Support
System (GLOSS), and other special projects. His vision was augmented by Robert Lee,
a Sy Coleman contractor and the GLOSS technology coordinator, who pointed out that
a suitable LMS should serve as an umbrella structure in offering both resident and non-
resident instruction materials.
Mika Hoffman presented her preliminary research of the multi-faceted needs of
ES that could be met by the use of an appropriate CLMS. The specific needs of ES include
a content management system with discretionary publishing capabilities encompassing
test development, review processes, test materials and publishing capabilities. Specific
needs also require usability with translations, production by categories, combination and
recombination of test items, publishing in paper and computer formats, and formatting
different types of test items. The test developers in ES need a simple user interface for
entering data with the text editing in English and various foreign language character
sets combined in the same string. The interface must be able to display some parts of
the test while hiding others and track functions for various criteria such as IRL levels,
dialogue/monologue, etc. For publishing, the LMS should be able to export and import
selected date from other applications (MS Excel, MS Access, MS Word) and publish
in either paper or electronic format, query objects by test form and position, generate
overlap lists, publish different subsets of object information, and offer templates for test
creation. Finally, for access and storage, the requirements include limited shared access
across teams, security, and storage for large amounts of data with archiving and locking
capabilities.
The next speaker, Mike Vezilich, outlined the specific needs for an LMS to add
support to their mission of providing superior post-basic foreign language instruction
via resident and non-resident programs to approximately 25,000 DoD and other US
government personnel each year to assure full linguist mission readiness. The CE
Directorate, with a total current faculty of 54, includes four Divisions whose focus is on
developing curriculum and the distance learning programs.
In defining CE’s needs, Vezilich identified four critical areas:

1. Establishing a sufficient bandwidth


2. Making sure that a future LMS is SCORM-compliant
3. Defining LOG functions for LMS with granularity to allow
instructors to track critical success indicators
4. Establishing a Working Group with CD to meet regularly and
exchange experiences as related to GLOSS, LOG, FAM, etc.

37
Boyadjieff, Koppany, and Lee

Mike Vezilich underlined that a pressing challenge in Distance Learning is to


connect up to 50 sites at the same time to test the delivery of the materials. Managing
these outreaches is where the LMS is needed for tracking classes, materials and students
who are attending in mixed-level classes in distant places. Another area where an LMS
can be of great use is to deliver materials to measure success in these shorter courses
since the students in these field cannot rely on DLPTs or regular test programs.

Professor Schleske - What is an LMS?

Afterwards Steve Koppany introduced Professor Earl Schleske. Earl Schleske


began with some background information on SCORM. Content developed in a SCORM-
compliant LMS is storable, retrievable and interoperable among different vendor
platforms.
Prof. Schleske addressed the following areas in his presentation:

• SCORM-conformant LMS
• Security
• Bandwidth
• Authoring tools
• Backups

Earl Schleske made an analogy of an LMS to a public library. Registration,


repository, lessons, and metadata (information about the lesson) all have parallels to
library cards, bookshelves, books and card catalogs According to Prof. Schelske, a
SCORM-Conformant LMS should offer the following features:

• Interoperability at the learner’s level. Lessons created for one LMS


will run on other SCORM-conformant LMS platforms
• Easy to upload lessons, using SCORM standard file format
• Searchable lessons that can be retrieved with keywords to access lesson
metadata
• Common Data Model provided by SCORM with defined field names
called Data Model Elements used for learner tracking and performance
recording
• Access to full Data Model at learner’s level
• Custom programming to benefit the learner with the full functionality
of the Data Model; for example, with custom programming, a student
can resume a partially-completed lesson.

Earl Schelske then provided an overview of related areas such as security,


bandwidth, authoring tools, and backups. He pointed out that the system security could
be enhanced by utilizing a Central Authentication Hub. He advised that the bandwidth
should be sufficient to accommodate the current level of scalability. He also reported
on the latest LOG version, which offers both stand-alone and SCORM-conformant LO
output. Finally, he discussed the options of having a multiple servers for storage and
backup.

38
Learning Management Systems Conference

Break-Out Sessions

The conference continued with four break-out sessions.

Session 1 – Tracking Information. Facilitated by Dean Koppany, the group created lists
of specific information needed by DLI’s students, teachers, and administrators that an
LMS should provide.
In addition to using the language-learning content and activities, students need
to be able to access their assignments, grades, homework, bulletin board, and links, with
both local and global search capabilities. They need the tools to build and maintain their
student portfolios, and to keep track of student-to-teacher contacts, the progress of the
course, and the schedule of instruction.
In addition to these capabilities, instructors also need to have access to the
LOG and related materials, all discreet materials for creating customized lessons,
training materials, counseling tools, course objectives (FLOs) and assessment rubrics.
They need to be able to check on students’ assignments, homework, time on task, lesson
visits, individual student progress, test scores, DLPT and OPI information, as well as
build their own teaching portfolios.
Administrators have additional needs, such as tracking student and teacher
attendance, milestones, technical problems, enrollment requirements, professional
development, student and teacher feedback on programs, and be able to develop the
course catalog and plan matriculation, graduation and retention dates. The granularity
of the LMS, which is the ability to create detailed searches by keywords throughout all
levels of the system using detailed search capabilities, is also a key for administrators.
Additionally, the administration needs to track the availability and test schedules of their
certified language testers, as well as maintain access to teacher portfolios, including
accomplishments and projects.
This team also compiled a list of other foreign language professionals outside
of the DLI faculty, staff and students who might need to have access to certain aspects
of the traceable information, such as researchers, course development specialists, course
language project managers, test developers, DLIFLC and other unit commanders, and
the congressional liaison.

Session 2 – Metadata. Facilitated by Mr. Lee, this breakout group discussed the metadata
tracking capabilities that an LMS would need to have to satisfy the diverse DLI mission.
Metadata is defined as data about content. Mr. Lee brought up the question of what
sort of taxonomy and data tagging should be developed to identify our materials, their
unique components and their common components.
The group presented a basic SCORM model of how content pieces are pooled
together and then accessed by proper tagging of the metadata. The main categories
of the first and most general layer of tagging taxonomy include tagging each LO for
language, countries, regions, topical domains (military, society, environment, political,
etc.), sources (text, audio, video) and proficiency levels.
The range of commonality in all of DLIFLC’s products would be tagged in
the three major areas of language, proficiency level, and topical domains. Beyond that,
a custom tagging scheme is needed. Layer two would be tagged according to major
projects, such as GLOSS, Familiarization courses, and so on. The third level of tagging

39
Boyadjieff, Koppany, and Lee

would consist of a further breakdown to identify whether the content is a course, a


chapter, a unit, a lesson, or an activity. And finally, a fourth level tags the method of
delivery as Web-based, Personal Digital Assistant (PDA), Video Tele Training (VTT),
and other methods.
It is important to consider how the learning content and its metadata will be
used in the future, not just now, to create taxonomy to catalogue everything so that
the content and information can be used for a variety of needs. If every item is tagged
correctly, then, for example, an out-of-use test item could be used elsewhere for another
purpose. Another example would be learning styles. If learning styles are tagged on
every lesson now, even though we don’t presently use this parameter, someone may later
want to specifically search for it.

Session 3 – Content Management. Whether using an LMS or a CMS, this breakout


session, led by Major McNiel, established that the system should support DLIFLC’s
existing curricula, course structures and future, including paper, audio, Computer
Assisted Teaching (CAT), SCORM, and CORDRA. It should be able to adapt both
to what is online what is in the resident courses. It should provide access to audio,
computer-aided, and SCORM pieces, as well as have the ability to link to external data
sources.
These capabilities would give the system the needed flexibility for course
instantiation. Objects that are part of the core course material would be dynamically
updated both in the instructor and student materials. Each piece of the course would
be created on and taken from a template, so that when the course curriculum changes,
those specific components of the material could be easily updated. Also, supplementary
exercises could be created and incorporated at any point. At the end of each course, the
content could be re-evaluated and updated as needed, which would eliminate the need
to completely rewrite entire courses in the future.
Therefore, the LMS or CMS must be flexible. Scalability, the ability to grow
with future needs, is also a very important consideration.

Session 4 - Technical Issues. SFC Strohl facilitated the breakout group discussing the
technical issues of choosing an appropriate LMS. The group emphasized that technical
issues encompass every facet of the LMS. It should support many varied methods of
access to the language-learning system. Off-post facilities must meet Army network
standards for networking to the system. Also, delivering content to multiple locations
brings up the issue of how to connect and coordinate the system.
The group dealt with the question of session management, and whether the LMS
should simply be a tool for learners or if it should support a community of learners. If it
were used to support and sustain a community, there are various implications for what
constitutes a session. For network operations and management there are also military
and civilian interface issues of security to be considered regarding E-mail, locations,
tasks, attachments, FTP, backup bandwidth, and so on, requiring proper analysis and
architecture.
The desired technical system should address the overall needs, provide a
consistent method of use in the technical environment, be reasonably easy to use, and
work every time. Specifically, this system should include:

40
Learning Management Systems Conference

• Uniform method of file transfer


• Email directory without walls
• Seamless access / transitions between .mil and .org
• Effective requirements ordinances
• Comprehensive architectural review – think out into the future, not
just now
• Provide expert technical support personnel with present and future
needs in mind
• Build a unified architectural vision and institute a dynamic review
process that encompasses all of our needs, get the pieces into place,
and then, review it regularly.

Recommendations

The participants unanimously agreed that the utilization of a suitable LMS


will significantly enhance the Institute’s capabilities to discharge its resident and non-
resident mission responsibilities. At this stage, there may be multiple LMSs appropriate
for different units. The list of specific benefits includes, but is not limited to:

1. Enhance accountability by tracking critical success indicators


2. Provide an umbrella learning environment that students, teachers and
administrators can all use in an interactive way for the benefit of their
personalized needs
3. Improve statistical feedback on both teaching materials and course
delivery
4. Equip content developers with a new tool to monitor the effectiveness
of the produced materials
5. Render cost-effective course upgrades and modifications by utilizing
an integral LMS/CMS
6. Cultivate a sense of community in the learning environment
7. Assist the independent learner in a more accurate selection of
appropriate materials by the flexible use of metadata

A successful implementation of an LMS in combination with a virtual classroom,


however, will require a significant upgrading of the current bandwidth and its reliability.
The recommendation is that the “pipe” to the Internet should be at least 100 Mbps.
One Gbps should be the goal within the next 12 months to satisfy the expected level of
scalability.
An LMS will require a reconsideration of the current way DLI applies
security measures. Firewalls and Virtual Private Networks should play appropriate
roles to combine enhanced security measures with suitable levels of network access
and communications critical to the development and delivery of instructional and test
materials. The current approach of blocking many services such as file transfer, remote
desktop, conferencing software, etc. should be replaced by more imaginative and
technically sophisticated configurations promoting both security and effectiveness.

41
Boyadjieff, Koppany, and Lee

An LMS will also require the application of standards promoting SCORM-


compliance in all curriculum development efforts. In this respect, CD has already made
significant progress with our premiere authoring tool - the Learning Object Generator
(LOG). The latest LOG version allows the development of materials both as stand-
alone and LMS (SCORM-compliant) Learning Objects. We might also consider the
concept of a mobile, stand-alone LMS installed on hard-drives when teachers are on
MTT missions.

Conclusion

DLIFLC supports thousands of linguists by offering basic language courses,


refresher, sustainment and enhancement courses, and proficiency testing and evaluation
as the major aspects of our mission. In addition to the resident student body, our clients
are often in remote locations and in various time zones. LMS is critical to a teacher-led
instruction that spans time and distance. To remain in the forefront of foreign language
education, the Institute must vigorously pursue this opportunity and energetically engage
in the selection and implementation of a suitable LMS (or multiple solutions) that meets
our present and growing needs.

References

Army DL Support. Retrieved from: http://www.atsc.army.mil/itsd/imi/default.asp


Blackboard. Retrieved from http://www.blackboard.com.
Brown and the Academic ADL Co-Lab Staff. (2002) Making a Macromedia Flash MX
Learning Object SCORM-Conformant. Macromedia, San Francisco, CA
Cisco. E-Learning Glossary, (2001). http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/10/wwtraining/
elearning/pdf/elearn_glossary.pdf
Defense Acquisition Professionals.ppt. Retrieved from: http://www.adlnet.org/index.
cfm?fuseaction=PF9ProceedT
Draft SCORM Acquisition Guidelines for US Military. Vol.1, DODI 1322.18. Retrieved
from: http://www.jointadlcolab.org/resourcecenter.htm
Egan, D. Top 10 Purchasing Mistakes (and How to Avoid Them). Retrieved from: http://
www.learningcircuits.org/2002/mar2002/egan.html
Geocities: Scorm. Retrieved from http://www.geocities.com/11amonica/scorm.html#_
Toc36002796
Heins, J. and Regan B, (2002). Building Standards-Conformant, Accessible Learning
Objects with Macromedia Flash MX. Macromedia, Inc. San Francisco, CA
Rustici, M. Two Minute SCORM Overview for Developers. Retrieved from http://www.
adlnet.org/
Schleske, E. (2005). SCORM and Course Management Systems.ppt. University of
Minnesota
SCORM 2004 specifications. Retrieved from: http://www.adlnet.org
SCORM Overview. Retrieved from http://www.adlnet.org/indexcfm?fuseaction=scorm
abt
Scorm Overview. Retrieved from http://www.rhassociates.com/scorm.htm

42
Learning Management Systems Conference

Slosser, Steve and Susan Marshall. ADL PowerPoint: SCORM for Defense Acquisition
Professionals. Joint ADL Co-Lab Web CT E-Learning. Retrieved from: http://
www.webct.com

Authors

BOYADJIEFF, KIRIL, Associate Dean, Curriculum Development Division, Defense


Language Institute Foreign Language Center, Presidio of Monterey, CA
93944-5006. Specializations: Foreign language instruction and methodology,
curriculum and faculty development, computer technology with applications
in foreign language education, program management with emphasis on
technology.
KOPPANY, STEVEN, Dean, Curriculum Development Division, Defense Language
Institute Foreign Language Center, Presidio of Monterey, CA 93944-5006.
Specializations: Curriculum and faculty development, distance learning,
program management.
LEE, MEGAN, Assistant Professor, Curriculum Development Division, Defense
Language Institute Foreign Language Center, Presidio of Monterey, CA 93944-
5006. Specializations: Editing, copyrighting, technical writing, teaching.

43
TESOL Reports

TESOL REPORTS

Developing and Testing New Materials


Lidia Woytak
Academic Journals

This year a group of twenty some faculty and staff members from the Defense
Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC) took off for the unpredictable
April skies of San Antonio to participate at the 39th Annual TESOL Convention and
Exhibit. The DLIFLC folks went there to present, to learn, and to communicate in the
halls of a spectacularly designed modern convention center. On a run from presentation
to presentation, the attendees could hear a gamut of languages against the background
of calming tunes of never-ending river flow.
Outside the convention walls, the attendees could taste a variety of dishes served
in Spanish, Mexican, Native American, German, Polish, and Hungarian restaurants
along the riverwalk. These restaurants were just one attestation of multiethnic nature
of San Antonio inhabitants. These inhabitants and their predecessors have created such
national treasures as the Alamo (and four other Spanish missions), the Mexican Market,
San Fernando Cathedral, and the Modern Museum of Art.
At the convention, I had the opportunity to present Applied Language Learning
and Dialog on Language Instruction to the participants of the session titled “How to
Get Published in other Serial Publications in the Field of Applied Linguistics.” The
session was organized by the editors of TESOL Journals. About 30 editors were invited
to present their academic journals. Following editors’ presentation of the journals, the
participants had an opportunity to ask questions and subsequently to talk personally to
the editors.
Many participants expressed interest in Applied Language Learning and Dialog
on Language Instruction. They swiftly took complimentary copies of the journals.
Several people signed up on the journal mailing list. Others expressed interest in writing
an article for the journals.
In addition to my participation at the editors’ session, I attended several
sessions that were related to my work at DLIFLC. I found the sessions “Cognitive
Load Theory and TESOL Materials Development” and “Teacher Trainers Negotiating
Roles in Cyberspace” informative and relative to our work at Curriculum Development
Division.
“Cognitive Load Theory and TESOL Materials Development” was presented
by Gregory Anderson and Matt Kline of University of Southern California. Anderson
and Kline had begun their session by reviewing three types of memory; namely short-
term memory, working memory, and long-term memory. They pointed out that short-
term memory is limited to several bits of information, working memory is of larger
but of limited capacity, and long-term memory is permanent. The presenters stated that
working memory is engaged during learning process.
Both Anderson and Kline frequently referred to the findings of the founder
of cognitive load theory, J. Sweller, during their presentation. According to Sweller,
optimal learning occurs when the learner is exposed to a combinations of elements,
or schemas, rather than isolated elements. Schemas are “sophisticated structures that
permit us to perceive, think, and solve problems.” They constitute contents of long-term
memory; In other words, schemas are cognitive structures that make up the knowledge
base in every individual. They are acquired over a lifetime of learning, and may have
other schemas contained within themselves.
Kline stated that students process information contained in instructional
materials using working memory. If the materials contain the right amount of cognitive
load, the processed information is learned or acquired as a schema. If, on the other hand,
the materials contain too much of cognitive load, the information, or part of it, is lost.

45
Lidia Woytak and Eleine Patterson

Therefore for schema acquisition to take place “instruction should be designed to reduce
working memory load.”
As an example, they flashed a string of 10 digits. Next they asked the
participants to recall them. No one was able to recall them. Afterwards they flashed
10 digits again; this time they arranged ten digits in three chunks. Subsequently, when
asked to identify the chunked digits, some participants were able to recall them entirely
and others partially. Thus the participants experienced first hand that chunking promoted
acquisition.
Subsequently, Kline and Anderson recommended that course developers place
new related information in the same area rather than in different areas of the materials.
Such arrangement fosters focused attention and thus facilitates learning. On the other
hand, placing related materials in different areas splits learner’s attention. Split attention
increases the working memory load substantially and prevents learner from acquisition
of schemas.
To counter split attention problem, they enumerated ways of reducing cognitive
load of instructional materials. Specifically they asked the textbook writers to present a
rule first, followed by an example and next by an exercise. In this way learners would
avoid attention split and thus be able to focus attention fully on the learning task.
Subsequently they reviewed several poorly designed language exercises. One
exercise dealing with formation of past tense, for example, lacked presence of rule
above examples. Thus it unnecessary demanded more cognitive load than it would if
the rule was presented.
Afterwards they commented on an exercise that consisted of a list of numbered
words referring to city buildings in the top half of the page and a drawing of these
buildings in the bottom half of the page. Each building had a number on it in accordance
to its representation. The presenters commented that placing numbers on the buildings
rather than the actual names unnecessarily added up to the cognitive load of the learner
and thus impeded processing as well as acquisition of schemas.
As an example of a well-designed exercise, they presented the exercise on
spelling of –ing; this exercise contained four rules presented in a form of a chart. Each
rule was followed by two examples. Finally immediately following the rules and the
examples, the exercise was presented in the bottom part of the page. Again integration
of rules, examples, and the actual exercise at the same spot lowered learners cognitive
capacity.
Kline and Anderson added that learning is facilitated by visual and auditory
input. As good examples they cited history lessons from PBS Tapestry Series. They
also recommended inclusion of goal-free sessions in the curriculum. Such sessions they
pointed out, optimize acquisition. Finally they also advocated asking students open-
ended questions.
In summary both Anderson and Kline convinced the participants that every
bit of information, i.e., a word, a phrase, a picture in instructional materials adds to
learner’s cognitive load. Thus the message to course writers and designers was clear:

1. Do not overload learners with unnecessary information.


2. Arrange the essential information in an optimal spot.

I found the session titled “Teacher Trainers Negotiating Roles in Cyberspace”


by Martha Cunningham and Renee Jourdaneis also interesting and applicable to our
work at the Institute. During their presentations, Cunningham and Jourdaneis discussed
ways of helping students convert a face-to-face class to an online course.
Cunningham informed the audience that three instructors and 10 graduate
students participated in the workshop on online chatting. They were divided into three
chat rooms. Five chat meetings took place. The students were working towards MA in
computer-mediated instruction in ESL. As homework, they were assigned to view three
sites and comment on them.

46
TESOL Reports

During the workshop, they engaged in both synchronous and asynchronous


chatting. They quickly realized that during synchronous chatting they needed assistance
from a person with technological skills. They noted that, for some reason, asynchronous
chatting turned out more interesting comments from the students than the synchronous
one.
The presenters pointed out that the analysis of emails revealed that there were
differences between the ways students expressed themselves and the way the instructors
did. Two instructors (Kathi Bailey and Renee Jourdenais) were sending empowering
comments to the students. Renee Jourdenais emails revealed that she was trying to fit
in by switching from formal to casual style and specifically by switching from I to we.
Martha Cunningham, on the other hand, focused on cheering the class.
Analysis of student protocols further revealed a struggle with turn taking,
missing turns, and taking turns at inappropriate times. The students discovered that
they needed to establish chatting conventions. They also suggested that establishing an
online café would help.
I believe that a similar online workshop could be tried out during implementation
of a new set of instructional materials at one of the schools at DLIFLC. Such workshop
would give an additional opportunity for students, teachers, and course writers to
communicate about adequacy of new instructional materials. Also in my opinion, an
online café would further facilitate smooth transition of instructional materials from
writers’ desks into classrooms.

47
Lidia Woytak and Eleine Patterson

Engaging Students in Activities


Eleine Patterson
Curriculum Development Division

There were several presentations that remained in my memory and triggered


ideas in relation to what we are doing here at the Defense Language Institute Foreign
Language Center. One of such presentation was “Practicing Structured Long Turns
Using DVD Clips” by Ron Belisle and Anita Aden. The presenters demonstrated how
the scenes from popular movies can be used for developing speaking skills through
sustained dialogues.
The activity has two parts. In the first part, students work in pairs. One of the
students in each pair watches a silent segment of a movie, while the other one is not
looking at the screen. Student #1 describes to Student #2 what is happening on the
screen. It is up to a teacher to select a movie segment that would prompt students to
produce the language. The segment demonstrated by the presenters was full of action,
appearing in a chain of sequential events that made a nice story—a perfect example of
L2 (second language) narration. The events and the actions of the characters were rather
self-explanatory and did not provide much opportunity for interpretation. At the same
time, if a student did not know a concrete word, he or she could use circumlocution
- “talking around” something, usually by supplying a descriptive phrase in place of a
name. The activity could be modified by allowing Student #2 to interfere with Student
#1’s description and ask for clarifications as needed.
In the second part of the activity, students received a list of questions about the
movie segment. They compared their answers and discussed the discrepancies in the
information they received from their partners. After that, the class as a whole watched
the movie segment with the sound on. You can probably imagine all the excitement and
laughter caused by the scenes that were not very accurately described by students #1,
and very differently imagined by students #2.
Another presentation that appealed to my professional interests was a
presentation by Kris I. Lambert of Kapiolani Community College, Hawaii, “Crafting
Student Engagement in Learning”. The presentation focussed on the effective ways
of enhancing progress of slow students. Lambert shared with the audience classroom
procedures and practices that stimulate proactive student behavior.
The presentation focused on the concept of motivation and its key role in
language learning. According to Raymond Wlodkowski, of Antioch University, there
are six major factors that impact learner motivation: need, attitude, stimulation, affect,
competence and reinforcement. Wlodkowski states that needs and attitudes should be
considered as the lesson is introduced; stimulation and affect while the lesson is in
progress; and competence and reinforcement at the conclusion of the lesson. Out of
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Basic Human Needs the presenter elaborated on affiliation and
acceptance needs as the most pertinent to her students.

48
TESOL Reports

and practices that stimulate proactive student behavior.


The presentation focused on the concept of motivation and its key role in language
learning. According to Raymond Wlodkowski, at Antioch University, there are six
major factors that impact learner motivation: need, attitude, stimulation, affect,
competence and reinforcement. According to Wlodkowski, needs and attitudes should
be considered as the lesson is introduced; stimulation and affect while the lesson is in
progress; and competence and reinforcement at the conclusion of the lesson. Out of
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Basic Human Needs the presenter elaborated on affiliation and
acceptance needs as the most pertinent to her students.

To illustrate student learning and problem solving in her ESL classes Lambert
chose John Keller’s ARCR (attention, relevance, confidence and satisfaction) Model of
Strategies. For the purpose of this review I will quote attention and relevance strategies
only, as they were used by the presenter for developing teaching techniques to meet
students’ acceptance and affiliation needs.

Attention Strategies are “intended to draw the attention of the student


to the material being learned”
Variability - changing tone, movements, instructional format, medium,
layout and design of print material and instructional patterns (t-s, s-
s)
Participation – involving students in games, role-playing, simulations,
and other collaborative learning activities
Humor – using puns, jokes, humorous analogies
Inquiry – encouraging problem-solving, learner-selected topics,
projects and assignments
Incongruity and conflict – introducing contradictory facts, playing the
devils advocate
Concreteness – using visuals (photos, videos, graphs, tables, and
diagrams), anecdotes, and biographies.

49
Lidia Woytak and Eleine Patterson

Relevance strategies “are intended to assisting students in attaching


value to the learning task and in deepening the internalization of that
value. How the learning task is portrayed to the student rather than
impacting directly on the content itself”.
Experience - demonstrating how new learning will use existing skills;
relating current learning to prior experience, learner interests
Needs matching - capitalizing on the dynamics of achievement
and risk taking, power and affiliation; activities that give students
opportunities to exercise responsibility, authority influence and
provide opportunities for cooperative interaction
Present worth - explicitly stating the current value of instruction as
opposed to future value
Future usefulness - tying instructional goals to learner’s own future
activities
Modeling - demonstrating successful development of process/
procedure/outcome
Choice - allowing different methods to pursue work, organize work

For example, Lambert incorporates the variability factor in her classroom by


constructing and deconstructing working groups even within a single teaching hour.
This technique forces students out of their comfortable seats and makes them move
around, something they might not be used to in the past.
Lambert shared a few teaching techniques that meet students’ acceptance
and affiliation needs, like starting collaboration and group work early on in the course
and introducing activities that encourage students to learn about each other and about
themselves as individuals. Such activities maximize student-to-student interaction,
introduce metacognitive strategies and promote a sense of community within the
classroom.
Kris I. Lambert described an interesting paraphrasing technique that she
borrowed from Dr. Ted Plaister’s presentation at Hawaii TESOL. Using this technique,
sudents dissembled a sentence into its meaningful components and then reconstructed
it using synonyms or paraphrases. At the same time they focused on the relationship
between structure, usage, and meaning.
Among sharing other effective strategies and techniques, the presenter
encouraged teachers to use “the carrots” strategy by giving students extra points for
trying to communicate, for conducting outside research, for volunteering in class, for
helping out peers, and other activities.

50
TESOL Reports

Reflective Teaching: Input and Output experience

A. Monim S. Mohamed
MEII, Department B.

I attended a workshop on Reflective Teaching held from June 13 to June 23,


2005, in Freedom Hall, Building 620 Middle School. It was administered and facilitated
by the Academic Specialist, Dr. Ali Cicedag.
The workshop was well-prepared, well-structured, and well-executed. I really
benefited a lot from the observational feedback, whether given by the facilitator, my
peers, or by the students themselves. Observation was the critical part in most of the
reflective activities. Supported by audiovisuals and directives from the facilitator, all
observations were followed by genuine and beneficial written and verbal critique. As
you know, observation and its subsequent feedback requires depth and insight to evaluate
the teacher’s talent and capability to teach. It also requires giving honest and realistic
critique of that teacher’s performance. All these issues are controversial in concept, but
to me the final result of the workshop was superb.
Most of us have been victimized by previous experiences, whether it be the way
we were raised at home or the way we were taught at schools. Those patterns of behavior
might have a direct impact on our perception of the world or on the ways we are acquiring
now to raise our children or teach our students. Such experiences, as psychologists have
pointed out, reflect in our attitude and behavior. We are sometimes arrogant in strongly
believing that we are on the right track, making the right decision and doing the right
thing. In the meantime, we deny giving anybody or even ourselves the opportunity to
check or recheck the validity or the effectiveness of our decisions and actions.
This workshop has given me an empirical experience through which I can en-
visage myself and make some self-corrections. It is as simple as that. Imagine yourself
standing in front of a mirror, and you discover that your outlooks reflect differently than
the ones you have in mind. Most likely you will start making some modifications to your
personal appearance, like trimming your mustache, combing your hair or straightening
your shirt collar, etc. This is exactly what Reflective Teaching is all about. We need to
see ourselves in the eyes of others and make use of their sound judgment in appraising
and correcting our way of teaching.
I used to speak a lot of English in the classroom, but based on the observations
and the positive feedback I received from my chairperson and the workshop team, I now
speak in the target language most of the time. I was also uncertain about my time fram-
ing and utilization, but now I learned how to adjust the ratios of time needed for class
activities. The student-focus approach has helped me a lot in giving more roles to the
students and bridge the gap between their learning needs and my teaching methodologies.
I am currently concentrating on getting the students involved in generating creative ideas
related to lessons’ tasks by incorporating the 1+ approach, whether in the classroom or
during homework activities. Such drills, as I learned in the workshop, will enhance the
schemata and challenge the students’ cognitive abilities.

51
Lidia Woytak and Eleine Patterson

However, so many other elements have also contributed to the success of this
workshop, especially those associated with the mission and objective of the DLIFLC,
and the plans for faculty development. All efforts for the enrichment to this workshop
contribute to other efforts exerted by other departments to achieve the ultimate goal of
increasing the proficiency levels of the students. Faculty members need to coordinate
with workshop organizers and be more aware of the latest development in Reflective
Teaching theory and practice. Such communication will improve the DLIFLC learn-
ing process and will benefit both the student and the teacher. It is indeed a revolution
against the beliefs we hold firmly about ourselves. We need to teach in a different way
if the students are not responsive to the current one. This is the way we can change and
develop for the better.

52
General Information
Index
Authors and Articles

Allard, Yoshimi. (1997). Significance of Output in Language Acquistion.12(1 & 2), p.


17.
Allsopp, Jeanette. (1995). Foreign Language Methodology in the Carribean: A Histori-
cal Survey. 11(1 & 2), p. 13.
Antokhin, Natalia. (2000). Error Treatment: Does It Help in Second Language Acquisi-
tion? 14(1 & 2), p. 7.
Arellano, Albert. (1992). Increasing Motivation by Peer Tutoring. 8(1 & 2), p. 77.
Arellano, Albert. (1991). Individual Coaching for Language Proficiency. 7(1), p. 55.
Asher, James. (1994). Imagination in Second Language Acquisition. 10(1), p. 19.
Atwell, Sabine. (1994). Teaching Listening: Lessons Drawn from Classroom Observa-
tion. 10(1), p. 59.
Barnwell, David. (1992). Foreign Language Teaching and Testing During World War
II. 8(1 & 2), p. 23.
Blackburn, James. (1995). Teaching Aspect in Beginning French Courses. 11(1 & 2),
p. 33.
Blackburn, James. (1999). Instructional Value of Voice in Elementary French. 13(1 &
2), p. 45.
Boussalhi, Abdelfattah, Cambacau, Pamela, & Ortenberg, Maria. (2004). Developing
Materials for Gloss: Principles, Content, and Instructional Technology. 16 (1
& 2). p. 25.
Boyadjieff, Kiril. (1995). Lessons Learned on Management of CAS Development. 11(1
& 2), p. 49.
Boyadjieff, Kiril. (1997). Applicability of Digital Video to Computerized Language
Learning. 12(1 & 2), p. 25.
Bueler, William. (1987). Trivial Pursuit as a Language-Learning Game. 4(2), p. 47.
Byrnes, Heidi. (1987). Teaching Reading in the Foreign Language Classroom. 4(2), p.
23.
Cicekdag, Mehmet Ali. (1995). Information-Gap Activities. 11(1 & 2), p. 59.
Cicekdag, Mehmet Ali. (1987). Cultural Distance and the Foreign Language Teach-
ing/Learning Process. 4(1), p. 15.
Cobb, Marina. (2004). Input Elaboration in Second and Foreign Language Acquisition.
16 (1 & 2). p. 13.
Cole, Charles. (1991). Helping Students Cope with Supplemental Materials: The Design
and Use of Learner Notebooks. 7 (1), p. 52.
Cole, Charles. (1989). Error Treatment in the Adult Foreign Language Classroom. 5(1),
p. 43.
Cucalón, Raul. (1992). Code-Switching and Its Role in the Chicano Population. 8(1 &
2), p. 55.
de Barros, Rene. (1987). Teaching Without Texts. 4(2), p. 43.
Dudney, Grazyna M. (2000). Supervisory Class Observation as a Teacher Development
Tool. 14(1 & 2), p. 17.
Dudney, Grazyna M. (1990). Sound Stories. 6(1 & 2), p. 102.
Dudney, Grazyna M. (1989). Communicative Vocabulary Review. 5(1), p. 66.
Dutertre, Ayca. (1999). Officers and Enlisted Personnel Success in Foreign Language
Learning in DLIFLC’s 25-Week Spanish Basic Program. 13(1 & 2), p. 117.
Eighannan, Alaa. (2004). Putting Principles of Interactive Language Teaching Into Your
Classroom Practice. 16 (1 & 2). p. 67.

53
El-Barouki, Foazi. (2000). Arabic as a Foreign language in the New Millennium: In-
tegrating language and Culture Through the Comprehension of Idioms. 14(1 &
2), p. 23.
El-Barouki, Foazi. (1997). How Arab Émigré Writers in America Kept Their Cultural
Roots. 12(1 & 2), p. 31.
Elghannam, Alaa. (1997). Peer Observation: Concepts and Practices. 12(1 & 2), p.
41.
El-Nady, Mamdouh. (2000). Drama as a Teaching Technique in the Second Language
Classroom. 14(1 & 2), p. 41.
El-Nady, Mamdouh. (1994). Teaching Culture through Language Analysis: Use of Pro-
nouns in the Egyptian Dialect. 10 (1), p. 69.
Erdener, Yildiray. (1987). Communicating with More Than Words. 4(1), p. 31.
Fakhhouri, Grace. (2004). Interaction in Group Work: Can It Enhance FL Acquisition?
16 (1 & 2). p. 1.
Feghali, Maksoud. (1989). Interactive Video Authoring in Teaching Foreign Languages.
5(1), p. 68.
Ford, Maria. (1995). The Power of Politeness around the World. 11(1 & 2), p. 1.
Fox, Lisette. (1999). Reflections on Culture. 13(1 & 2), p. 89.
Gale, Roderic. (1997). Computer Roles in Language Teaching and Learning: Let the
Dialog Expand–Robustly! 12 (1 & 2), p. 1.
Garrett, Nina. (1987). The Problem with Grammar: What Kind Can the Language
Learner Use? 4(1), p. 79.
Goroshko, Natalia. (1993). Four-Handed Instruction. 9(1), p. 49.
Iaremenko, Grigori. (2004). Conditionally Communicative Exercises. 16 (1 & 2). p.
41.
Kaneda, Yoshiko. (1999). An Experiment in Listening Material: Is Packaging More Im-
portant Than Its Content? 13 (1 & 2), p. 131.
Khoshaba, Matti Philliops. (2004). The Integrative Test of Arabic (IAT) 16 (1 & 2) p.
53.
Konderski, Stefan. (1990). “Eavesdropping” in Foreign Language Instruction. 6(1 &
2), p. 105.
Koppany, Steven. (1995). Computers and the Foreign Language Curriculum: Old Ques-
tions, New Horizons. 11(1 & 2), p. 55.
Kordecki, Ann. (1989). Dealing with Underachievers in a Classroom. 5(1), p. 63.
Krasner, Irene. (1999). The Role of Culture in Language Teaching. 13(1 & 2), p. 79.
Lett, John. (1987). Research at DLI. 4(1), p. 46.
Lett, John. (1989). Components of Language Proficiency. 5(1), p. 57.
Litvinenko, Elena. (2000). Scheduling Special Assistance. 14(1 & 2), p. 37.
Maly, Eugene. (1993). Task-Based Instruction: From the Teacher’s Perspective. 9(1),
p. 37.
Masliyah, Sadok. (1999). A Cross-Cultural Misunderstanding: The Case of the Arabic
Expression Inshallah, “If God Wills.” 13(1 & 2), p. 97.
Masliyah, Sadok. (1990). Student Opinions and Preferences for Error Treatment. 6(1
& 2), p. 27.
McDermott, James. (1999). Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages. 13(1 & 2), p.
27.
Nasr, Michel. (1993). Pioneers of Social Change. 9(1), p. 55.
Nicola, Michel. (1994). An Integrated Arabic Basic Course. 10(1), p. 27.
Nicola, Michel. (1991). Theories of Second Language Acquisition and of Physics. 7(1),
p. 17.
Nicola, Michel. (1990). Experimenting with the New Methods. 6(1 & 2), p. 61.
Nicola, Michel. (1989). The “Far Side” Treatment. 5(1), p. 72.
Orr, Joseph. (2000). Surviving Immersion. 14(1 & 2), p. 63.
Otto, Frank. (1987). Foreign Language Technology in the 21st Century. 4(1), p. 1.

54
Oxford-Carpenter, Rebecca. (1989). A New Taxonomy of Second Language Learning
Strategies. 5(1), p. 1.
Park, Bo Young. (2000). Out of the Korean Classroom: Trip to the Temple; Language
Exercises. 14(1 & 2), p. 69.
Poulin, Gerald. (1997). Applicability of Digital Video to Computerized Language Learn-
ing. 12(1 & 2), p. 25.
Rivers, Wilga. (1987). Comprehension and Production in Interactive Language Train-
ing. 4(1), p. 78.
Rowland, Howard. (1991). Diglossia in Arabic: The Phenomenon and Some Possible
Solutions. 7(1), p. 45.
Rowland, Howard. (1990). A Solution for DLI’s “Arabic Problem.” 6(1 & 2), p. 89.
Rubinstein, George. (1993). Foreign Language versus Second Language. 9(1), p. 23.
Sampson, Kenneth. (1999). Instilling Passion for Language: Strategies and Techniques.
13(1 & 2), p. 73.
Sedrak, nagib Z. (2000). Will Translation Replace Humans? 14(1 & 2), p. 31.
Shin, Ilsoon. (1997). The DLPT as a Learning Objective. 12(1 & 2), p. 29.
Shin, Ilsoon. (1991). The ILR Proficiency Interview. 7(1), p. 77.
Shin, Ilsoon. (1990). The Classroom Observation. 6(1 & 2), p. 107.
Slutsky, Leonid. (1993). Four-Handed Instruction. 9(1), p. 49.
Sparhawk, Carol. (1991). Teacher as Intensive Student: How it Feels. 7(1), p. 29.
Swaffar, Janet. (1990). Competing Paradigms in Adult Language. 6(1 & 2), p. 1.
Terdjman, Jean-Michel. (1991). Putting Meaning Before Form. 7(1), p. 39.
Terrell, Tracy. (1987). Avoiding Fossilization in Communicative Approaches. 4(2), p.
1.
Thompson, Irene. (1989). Some Implications of Reading Research for L2 Reading In-
struction. 5(1), p. 19.
Tuman, Walter. (1991). CALLware: Design, Development, and Distribution. 7(1), p. 1.
van Daalen, Margaret. (1999). Test Usefulness in Alternative Assessment. 13(1 & 2), p.
1.
van Daalen, Margaret. (1992). Adult Dialogue Journals in Dutch as a Foreign Lan-
guage. 8(1 & 2), p. 35.
White, Philip. (1997). The Role of Dictionaries in Language Learning. 12(1 & 2), p. 7.
Woytak, Lidia. (1997). Language for a Lifetime: 1997 Command Language Program
Manager Seminar. 12(1 & 2), p. 47.
Woytak, Lidia. (1999). Life of an Idea: DLIFLC Annual Program Review. 13(1 & 2), p.
135.
Woytak, Lidia. (1990). Guidelines for Presentations. 6(1 & 2), p. 75.

Woytak, Lidia. (1987). Goals and Objectives in Foreign Language Teaching. 4(1), p.
36.
Zeuge, Helma. (1990). German FLO Goes EIDS. 6(1 &2), p. 97.

Authors and Editors of Books

Bahat, Ester. (1991). Ha-’Ilton Ke-emtsa’I Lehora’at Safah Shniyah. 12(1 & 2), p. 57.
Reviewed by Masliyah, Sadok. (1997).
Hoffmeister, Gerhart and Tubach, Frederic. (1986). Germany: 2000 Years, Volume 3,
From the Nazi Era to the Present. 4(1), p. 82. Reviewed by Maier, Wofgang.
(1987).
Lauden, Edna & Weinbach, Liora. (1993). Multi-Dictionary, Hebrew From Scratch,
Arabic for Living. 11(1 & 2), p. 65. Reviewed by Masliyah, Sadok. (1995).
Lee, William W. & Owens, Diana L. (2000) Multimedia-Based Instructional Design.
16 (1 & 2). p. 71. Reviewed by Farahmand, Shoreh. (2004).
Mahnke, M. Kathleen. (1999). Grammar Links: A Theme-Based Course for Reference
and Practice. 16 (1 & 2). p. 72. Reviewed by Roemer, Ann E.

55
Mueller, Kurt. (1986). Language Competence: Implications for National Security. 4(2),
p. 62. Reviewed by Goodrick, John. (1987).
Nicola, Michel. (1985). A Thousand and One Nights. 4(2), p. 64. Reviewed by Nasr,
Michel. (1987).
Nydell, Margaret. (1991). From Modern Standard Arabic to the Iraqi Dialect, Levantine
Dialects, Maghrebi Dialects–Conversation Courses. 10(1), p. 75. Reviewed by
Rowland, Howard. (1994).
Pellisier, Sidney and Smith William. (1985). Bulletins–Premier Niveau: Sight Readings
in French. 4(1), p. 83. Reviewed by Moreno, Rejane. (1987).
Rixon, Shelagh. (1989). Developing Listening Skills. 8(1 & 2), p. 81. Reviewed by
Moravec, Eva. (1992).
Rost, Michael. (1991). Listening in Action. 8(1 & 2), p. 85. Reviewed by Smith, Robert.
(1992).
Rauch, Holger von & Trad, M. Sadek. (1998). Travel wise: Arabic. 14(1 & 2), p. 74.
reviewed by Rowland, Howard D. (2000).
Polish Individualized Instruction. 5(1), p. 75. Reviewed by Woytak, Lidia. (1989).
Watcyn-Jones, Peter. (1997). Pair Work 1. 13(1 & 2), p. 155. Reviewed by Allard,
Yoshimi. (1999).
Williams, F.C. & Wu,Yenna. (1999). Chinese: The Easy Way. 14(1 & 2), p. 73. Re-
viewed by Zhao, Jim Jielu. (2000).
Williams, F.C. & Wu,Yenna. (1999). Chinese: The Easy Way. 14(1 & 2), p. 73. Re-
viewed by Sun, Dawn Hsu Chao. (2004).
Zilkha, Avraham. (2000). Modern English-Hebrew Dictionary. 16 (1 & 2), p. 70. Re-
viewed by Masliyah, Sadok. (2004).

Authors of Conference Reports

Allard,Yoshimi and Lee Robert. (1999). ACTFL Conference Attendance Highest Ever.
13(1 & 2), p. 153.
Armstrong, Marianne. (1987). Social Conventions in the Foreign Language Classroom
(ACTFL Conference Presentation).4(1), p. 55.
Atwell, Ssbine. (1995). Teacher Education and Curriculum at TESOL. 11(1 & 2), p.
75.
Campbell, Christine. (1991). DLI at ACTFL. 7(1), p. 69.
Cicekdag, Mehmet Ali. (1994). ACTFL ’93–A Personal View. 10(1), p. 77.
El-Barouki, Foazi. (1987). Social Conventions in the Foreign Language Classroom
(ACTFL Conference Presentation). 4(1), p. 55.
Hammoud, Salah-Dine. (1993). ACTFL ’92 Impressions. 9(1), p. 59.
Hurtt, Meei-Jin. (1997). Chinese Teachers’ Workshop. 12(1 & 2), p. 37.
Koppany, Steven. (1991). DLI at ACTFL. 7(1), p. 69.
Koppany, Steven. (1987). Real-Life in the Classroom (ACTFL Workshop Report). 4(1),
p. 71.
Lee, Alice. (1987). Social Conventions in the Foreign Language Classroom (ACTFL
Conference Presentation). 4(1), p. 55.
Ludgate, Brigitta. (1991). DLI at ACTFL. 7(1), p. 69.
Ortiz, Jose. (1991). DLI at ACTFL. 7(1), p. 69.
Tabuse, Motoko. (1987). Social Conventions in the Foreign Language Classroom
(ACTFL Conference Presentation). 4(1), p. 55.
Tovar, Deanna. (1991). Teacher Education at TESOL ’90. 7(1), p. 57.
Tovar, Deanna. (1987). Coming of Age (TESOL Conference Report). 4(2), p. 53.
van Daalen, Margaret. (1990). Second Language Research Forum Conference Report:
Multidisciplinary Perspectives. 6(1 & 2), p. 109.
Woytak, Lidia. (1991). Report from ACTFL. 7(1), p. 66.
Woytak, Lidia. (2000). Language Enhancement: The 1999 Worldwide Language Olym-
pics and the 1999 Command Language Program Seminar. 14(1 & 2), p. 49.

56
Editorials

Clifford, Ray. (1987). Guest Editorial. 4(2), p. iii.


Hutchinson, Joseph. (1987). Editorial. 4(1), p. iii.
Panetta, Leon. (1987). Letter from Congressman Panetta. 4(1), p. 88.
Sampson, Kenneth L. (2000). Values for the New Millennium. 14(1 & 2), p. 1.
Interviewees

Di Donato, Robert. (1994). Interviewed by Woytak, Lidia. 10(1), p. 1.


Rivers, Wilga. (1993). Interviewed by Woytak, Lidia. 9(1), p. 1.
Rohrer, Josef. (1992). Interviewed by Woytak Lidia 8(1 & 2), p. 1.
Gagné, Robert. (1987). Interviewed by Woytak, Lidia. 4(2), p. 36.

Correspondence

Molan, Peter. (1994). A Reply to Michel Nicola’s “An Integrated Arabic Basic Course.”
10(1), p. 43.
Nicola, Michel. (1994). Response to Peter D. Molan’s Reply. 10(1), p. 55.

Announcements

Broz, James. (1989). Foreign Language Foundation Moves from Concept to Reality.
5(1), p. 79.
Woytak, Lidia. (1990). Obituary: James W. Dodge. 6(1 & 2), p. 73.

57
Calendar of Events

General Information

Calendar of Events*

2005

Modern Language Association (MLA), 27–30 December, Washington, DC. Contact:


MLA, 10 Astor Place, New York, NY 10003-6981; Fax (212) 477-9863,
Email: convention@mla.org Web: www.mla.org
American Association of Teachers of Slavic and Eastern European Languages
(AATSEEL) and American Council of Teachers of Russian, 27–30
December, Washington, DC. Contact: AATSEEL, Kathleen E. Dillon,
Executive Director, PO Box 7039, Berkeley, CA 94707-2306; Email:
aatseel@earthlink.net Web: www.aatseel.org
International Association of Teachers of Czech (IATC–NAATC), 27–30 December,
Washington, DC. Contact: Hana Píchová, Executive Officer, Slavic
Languages and Literatures, University of Texas at Austin, PO Box 7217,
Austin, TX 78713-7217; Email: pichova@mail.utexas.edu Web: www.
language.brown.edu/NAATC/index.html

2006

Southern Conference on Language Teaching (SCOLT), 16–18 February, Orlando,


FL. Contact: Lynne McClendon, Executive Director, SCOLT, 165 Lazy
Laurel Chase, Roswell, GA 30076; (770) 992-1256, Fax (770) 992-3464,
Email: lynnemcc@mindspring.com Web: www.valdosta.edu/scolt
Georgetown University Roundtable on Linguistics, 3–5 March, Washington DC.
Contact: Kendall King, Department of Linguistics, Georgetown University,
Box 571051, 37th and O Streets, NW, Washington, DC 20057-1051; (202)
687-5956, Email: Natalie Schilling-Estes, Email: ns3@georgetown.edu
Central States Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 9–11 March,
Chicago, IL. Contact: Patrick T. Raven, Executive Director, CSCTFL, PO
Box 251, Milwaukee, WI 53201-0251; (414) 405-4645, Fax (414) 276-4650,
Email: CSCTFL@aol.com Web: www.centralstates.cc
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), 15–19 March,
Tampa Bay, FL. Contact: TESOL, 700 S. Washington Street, Suite 200,
Alexandria, VA 22314; (703) 836-0774, Fax (703) 836-7864, Email:
conventions@tesol.org Web: www.tesol.org
Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (NECTFL), 30
March–2 April, New York City . Contact: Northeast Conference, Dickinson
College, PO Box 1773, Carlisle, PA 17013-2896; (717) 245-1977, Fax (717)
245-1976, Email: nectfl@dickinson.edu Web: www.nectfl.org
Southwest Conference on Language Teaching (SWCOLT), 6–8 April, Phoenix, AZ.
Contact: Audrey Cournia, Executive Director, SWCOLT, 1348 Coachman
Dr. Sparks, NV 89434; (775) 358-6943, Fax (775) 358-1605, Email:
CourniaAudrey@cs.com Web: www.swcolt.org

59
* Courtesy of The Modern Language Journal (University of Wisconsin)
Dialog on Language Instruction

Association for Asian Studies (AAS), 6–9 April, San Francisco, CA. Contact: AAS,
1021 East Huron St., Ann Arbor, MI 48104; (734) 665-2490; Fax (734) 665-
3801, Email:annmtg@aasianst.org Web: www.aasianst.org
American Educational Research Association (AERA), 8–12 April, San Francisco,
CA. Contact: AERA, 1230 17th St., NW, Washington, DC 20036-3078; (202)
223-9485, Fax (202) 775-1824 Web: www.aera.net
International Conference on English Instruction and Assessment, 22–23 April,
Taiwan. Contact: Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, National
Chung Cheng University, 168 University Rd., Min-Hsiung Chia-Yi,
621, Taiwan, R.O.C.; ++ 886-5-2721108, Fax ++886-5-2720495, Email:
admada@ccu.edu.tw Web: http://www.ccunix.ccu.edu.tw/~fllcccu/
National Council of Less Commonly Taught Languages (NCOLCTL), 27–30
April, Madison, WI. Contact: NCOLCTL, 4231 Humanities Building, 455
N. Park Street, Madison, WI 53706; (608) 265-7903, Fax (608) 265-7904,
Email: ncolctl@mailplus.wisc.edu
International Reading Association (IRA), 30 April–4 May, Chicago, IL. Contact:
International Reading Association, Headquarters Office, 800 Barksdale Rd.,
PO Box 8139, Newark, DE 19714-8139; (302) 731-1600, Fax: (302) 731-
1057, Web: www.reading.org
Language Acquisition and Bilingualism, 4–7 May, Toronto, Canada. Contact:
Conference, 234 Behavioural Sciences Building, York University, 4700 Keele
Street, Toronto, ON, Canada, M3J 1P3; Email: labconf@yorku.ca Web: http://
www.psych.yorku.ca/labconference/index.html
Computer-Assisted Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO), 16–20 May,
Honolulu, HI. Contact: CALICO, Southwest Texas State University, 214
Centennial Hall, 601 University Drive, San Marcos, TX 78666; (512) 245-
1417, Fax (512) 245-9089, Email: info@calico.org Web: www.calico.org
American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL), 17–20 June, Montreal,
Canada. Contact: AAAL, 3416 Primm Lane, Birmingham, AL 35216; (205)
824-7700, Fax (205) 823-2760, Email: aaaloffice@aaal.org Web: www.aaal.
org
Language Testing Research Colloquium (LTRC), 29 June – 1 July, Melbourne,
Australia. Contact: Email: ltrc2006-info@unimelb.edu.au Web: www.
languages.unimelb.edu.au/ltrc2006
American Association of Teachers of French (AATF), 5–8 July, Milwaukee, WI.
Contact: Jayne Abrate, AATF, Mailcode 4510, Southern Illinois University,
Carbondale, IL 62901-4510; (618) 453-5731, Fax (618) 453-5733, Email:
abrate@siu.edu Web: www.frenchteachers.org
EUROCALL, 4–7 September, Granada, Spain. Contact: Tony Harris, Email:
tharris@ugr.es Web: www.eurocall-languages.org/index.html
European Second Language Association (EUROSLA), 13–16 September, Istanbul,
Turkey. Contact: Web: www.eurosla2006.boun.edu.tr/
American Translators Association (ATA), 2–5 November, New Orleans, LA.
Contact: ATA, 225 Reinekers Lane, Suite 590, Alexandria, VA 22314; (703)
683-6100, Fax (703) 683-6122, Email: conference@atanet.org Web: www.
atanet.org

60
Calendar of Events

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), 17–19


November, Nashville, TN. Contact: ACTFL, 700 S. Washington St., Suite
210, Alexandria, VA 22314; (703) 894-2900, Fax (703) 894-2905, Email:
headquarters@actfl.org Web: www.actfl.org
American Association of Teachers of German (AATG), 17–19 November,
Nashville, TN. Contact: AATG, 112 Haddontowne Court #104, Cherry Hill,
NJ 08034; (856) 795-5553, Fax (856) 795-9398, Email: headquarters@aatg.
org Web: www.aatg.org
Chinese Language Teachers Association (CLTA), 17–19 November, Nashville, TN.
Contact: CLTA Headquarters, Cynthia Ning, Center for Chinese Studies,
Moore Hall #416, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822; (808) 956-
2692, Fax (808) 956-2682, Email: cyndy@hawaii.edu Web: clta.osu.edu
National Network for Early Language Learning (NNELL), 17–19 November,
Nashville, TN. Contact: Mary Lynn Redmond, NNELL, PO Box 7266, A2A
Tribble Hall, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC 27109; Email:
nnell@wfu.edu Web: www.nnell.org
American Association of Teachers of Turkic Languages (AATT), 17–20 November,
Boston, MA. Contact: Erika H. Gilson, 110 Jones Hall, Princeton University,
Princeton, NJ 08544-1008; Email: ehgilson@princeton.edu Web: www.
princeton.edu/~turkish/aatt/

2007

Central States Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 8–10 March,


Kansas City, MO. Contact: Patrick T. Raven, Executive Director, CSCTFL,
PO Box 251, Milwaukee, WI 53201-0251; (414) 405-4645, Fax (414) 276-
4650, Email: CSCTFL@aol.com Web: www.centralstates.cc
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), 21–24 March,
Seattle, WA. Contact: TESOL, 700 S. Washington Street, Suite 200,
Alexandria, VA 22314; (703) 836-0774, Fax (703) 836-7864, Email:
conventions@tesol.org Web: www.tesol.org
Association for Asian Studies (AAS), 22–25 March, Boston, MA. Contact: AAS,
1021 East Huron St., Ann Arbor, MI 48104; (734) 665-2490; Fax (734) 665-
3801, Email:annmtg@aasianst.org Web: www.aasianst.org
American Educational Research Association (AERA), 9–13 April, Chicago, IL.
Contact: AERA, 1230 17th St., NW, Washington, DC 20036-3078; (202) 223-
9485, Fax: (202) 775-1824 Web: www.aera.net
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), 16–18
November, San Antonio, TX. Contact: ACTFL, 700 S. Washington St., Suite
210, Alexandria, VA 22314; (703) 894-2900, Fax (703) 894-2905, Email:
headquarters@actfl.org Web: www.actfl.org

61
Information for Contributors
Purpose

The purpose of this internal publication is to increase and share professional knowledge
among DLIFLC faculty and staff, as well as to promote professional communication
within the Defense Foreign Language Program.

Submission of Manuscripts

The success of Dialog on Language Instruction depends on your cooperation and


support. Dialog on Language Instruction accepts only original manuscripts with the
understanding that they have not been submitted for publication elsewhere. All materials
submitted for publication should conform to the Publications Manual of the American
Psychological Association (4th Ed., 1994), available from the American Psychological
Association, P. O. Box 2710, Hyattsville, MD 20784.

We encourage you to submit a previously unpublished manuscript, a review,


a description of innovative classroom activities, a news item, or even a comment on
language instruction. Express your ideas on all aspects of language instruction including
teaching, learning, and research. Present your findings on language teaching, learning,
classroom strategies and techniques, and applied research.

Articles

Manuscripts should not exceed 20 double-spaced pages. Divide your manuscript into
the following sections:
• Abstract
• Introduction
• Organizing Construct
Point 1
Point 2
Point 3
• Discussion
• Conclusion
• Appendices
• Notes
• References
• Acknowledgments
• Author

63
Abstract

Provide a brief overview of your manuscript in 75 to 100 words. First, identify the topic of your
manuscript in one sentence. Next state the purpose and the scope of your manuscript in a couple
of sentences. Next name the sources used, for example personal observation, published books
and articles. Finally, state your conclusion in the last sentence of the abstract.

Introduction

Describe the purpose of the manuscript. Relate it to the content of the recently, within the last two
to three years, published literature. Describe work that had a direct impact on your study. Avoid
general references. Cite only pertinent research findings and relevant methodological issues.
Provide the logical continuity between previous and present work. Identify the main issues of
your study. Point out the implications of your study.

Organizing Construct

Divide this part into subsections. Focus each subsection on a specific issue identified
in the introduction. In each subsection, identify the issue, describe it, and present your
finding.

Discussion

Respond to the following questions guide: (1) What I have contributed here? (2)
How has my study helped to resolve the original problem? (3) What conclusions and
theoretical implications can I draw from my study?

Conclusion

Summarize your findings.

References
The list of references should be submitted on a separate page of the manuscript with
the centered heading: References. The entries should be arranged alphabetically
by surnames of authors. The sample list of references below illustrates format for
bibliographic entries:

Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1974). Errors and strategies in child second language
acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 16(1), 93-95.
Harris, D. P. (1969). Testing English as a second language. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

64
Reference citations in the text of the manuscript should include the name of the author
of the work cited, the date of the work, and when quoting, the page numbers on which
the material that is being quoted originally appeared, e.g.,
(Jones, 2001, pp. 235-238). All works cited in the manuscript must appear in the list of
references, and conversely, all works included in the list of references must be cited in
the manuscript.

Notes

They should be used for substantive information only, and they should be numbered
serially throughout the manuscript. Subsequently, they all should be listed on a separate
page titled Notes.

Faculty Exchange

This section provides an opportunity for faculty to share ideas through brief articles
up to two double-spaced pages on innovative classroom practices, such as suggestions
on communicative activities, team teaching, use of media and realia, and adaptation of
authentic materials. Each sample of a model classroom activity should state the purpose,
provide instructions and, if applicable, give supporting texts or illustrations.

Reviews

Manuscripts should not exceed two double-spaced pages. Reviews of textbooks,


scholarly works related to foreign language education, dictionaries, tests, computer
software, video tapes, and other non-print materials will be considered for publication.
Both positive and negative aspects of the work(s) being considered should be pointed
out. The review should give a clear but brief statement of the works contents and a
critical assessment of contribution to the profession. Quotations should be kept short.
Do not use footnotes. Reviews that are merely descriptive will not be accepted for
publication.

News and Views

Manuscripts should not exceed one double-spaced page. Items related to language
instruction such as reports on conferences, official trips, official visitors, special events,
new instructional techniques, training aids or materials, research findings, news items,
etc., will be considered for publication.

65
Specifications for Manuscripts

Manuscripts should be typed on 8.5 x 11 in. paper, double-spaced, with margins of about
1.25 in. on all four sides. All pages should be numbered consecutively. Each manuscript
should be submitted in three copies. The first page should include only the title and
the text. It is recommended that passages orquotations in foreign languages be glossed
or summarized. Authors are advised to prepare a note pertaining to their professional
status. An author’s name, position, department, school, address (if outside of DLIFLC),
and interests would be identified in the note. An example of such a note is presented
below:

Author
JANE C. DOE, Assistant Professor, Foreign Language Education, University of
America, 226 N. Madison St., Madison, WI 55306. Specializations: foreign
language acquisition, curriculum studies.

Specifications for Floppy Disks

Where feasible, manuscripts are preferred on 3.5” disk. Manuscript produced on DOS
or Macintosh systems should be formatted as MS-DOS file on a double density disk, if
possible. MS Word files are preferred.

When mailing a floppy disk, please enclose the following:

1. Word processing software used:

2. Disk is formatted as: double___ high density___

3. Remarks:

Review Process

Each manuscript will be evaluated anonymously by at least two foreign language


educators. To assure anonymity, authors should not put their names on submitted
manuscripts, but should include a 3 x 5 in. card listing the title of the manuscript,
author’s name, department/division, and telephone number.
Each author will be informed of the evaluation results. In general, a manuscript will
be accepted for publication if two anonymous readers recommend acceptance, and, by
the same token, manuscripts not recommended by the readers for publication will be
rejected. In cases in which one reader recommends acceptance, and the second one,
rejection—a third reader will be asked to review the manuscript.

66
Accepted Manuscripts

A manuscript accepted for publication may be accepted “as is” or may require certain
revisions which may target the need to consider other sources, or to elaborate on a
certain point; or, finally, may address such minor details as a typo or a lack of citation. In
the latter case, the author is asked to revise it and subsequently the editor checks whether
the author complied thoroughly with the guidance

Rejected Manuscripts

Manuscripts are rejected due to such major flaws as:

• inappropriate/unsuitable topic for DLIFLC


• lack of purpose
• lack of organization
• poor quality of writing
• lack of applicability to instruction

The editor duly informs the author that the manuscript is unacceptable for publication.
Normally this finding ends the revision process.

In some cases, an author whose manuscript was already rejected decides to revise the
manuscript thoroughly and to resubmit it for publication. Since the quality of the version
is unpredictable, no promises can be issued to the author regarding publication.
Correspondence

Submit your correspondence and manuscripts to Dialog on Language Instruction, ATTN:


ATFL-CD-AJ (Editor), Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center, Presidio
of Monterey, CA 93944-5006.

67
68
Notes
Dialog on Language Instruction 2005 Volume 17 Numbers 1 & 2

Dialog on Language Instruction


Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center
Presidio of Monterey
Monterey, CA 93944-5006

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy