Applied

Language
Learning

Lidia Woytak
Editor

Joseph Morgan
Copyeditor

Volume 14 Number 1
 Applied Language Learning
PB 65-04-01

The mission of Professional Bulletin 65, Applied Language Learning (US

ISSN 1041-679X and ISSN 1041-6791 for the online version), is to provide a
forum for the exchange of ideas and information on instructional methods and
techniques, curriculum and materials development, assessment of needs within
the profession, testing and evaluation, and implications and applications of
research from related fields such as linguistics, education, communications,
psychology, and the social sciences.

Applied Language Learning, published semiannually by the Defense Language

Institute Foreign Language Center and Presidio of Monterey, 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. Applied Language Learning
reserves the right to edit material.

JOEL B. HUDSON
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
TO THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

PETER J. SCHOOMAKER
GENERAL
UNITED STATES ARMY
CHIEF OF STAFF
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
authors.
Availability
To access Applied Language Learning on the Internet type:

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

Additionally, you may obtain the journal on microfilm from ERIC Clearinghouse on
Language and Linguistics, Center for Applied Linguistics, 1118 22nd Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20037.

Bulk-rate postage is paid at DLIFLC. The basis of official distribution is one copy per
training instructor and one per five military linguists.

Postmaster
Send change-of-address information to:
Applied Language Learning
Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center
Presidio of Monterey, CA 93944-5006

United Parcel Customers

Location is:
Applied Language Learning
Bldg. 518, Room 7 (Tin Barn)
Presidio of Monterey, CA 93944-5006
Readers

Contact Editor, Dr. Woytak (ATFL-CD-AJ), Applied Language Learning

Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center
Presidio of Monterey, CA 93944-5006
E-mail: aj@monterey.army.mil
Telephone: (831) 242-5638 DSN: 768-5638
Fax: (831) 242-5850

Webmasters Natela Cutter

PFC Joshua Graves

Cover Design Barney Inada

Al Macks

Graphics Consultant Elaine Koppany

 Applied Language Learning

Volume 14 Number 1
Articles

1 Japanese Classroom Behavior: A Micro-Analysis of Self-Reports

Versus Classroom Observations, with Implications for
Language Teachers
Mariko T. Bohn

37 Learning Linguistic Politeness

Andrew Sangpil Byon

63 Error Correction as a Cultural Phenomenon

Richard McGarry

83 The Effects of Notetaking, Lecture length, and Topic on a Computer-

Based Test of ESL Listening Comprehension
Patricia L. Carrell, Patricia A. Dunkel, and Pamela Mollaun

Reviews

107 Nihongo Shokyu Dokkai Yomikata + Kakikata: Reading and Writing

in Japanese for Beginners.........................................Mutsumi Hirai

108 Tema-betsu Chukyu Kara Manabu Nihongo.........Hisako Yamashita

News and Views

111 National Language Conference Results

General Information

113 ALL Index

121 Calendar of Events
127 Information for Contributors
From the Editor

Reviewers for Applied Language Learning

The individuals listed below served as reviewers of manuscripts submit-

ted to Applied Language Learning in 2004. We express our gratitude for
expert service to:

Stephen Butler J. Ward Keesling

Defense Language Institute Defense Language Institute
Foreign Language Center Foreign Language Center
Christine M. Campbell Gordon Jackson
Defense Language Institute Defense Language Institute
Foreign Language Center Foreign Language Center
John B. Carroll Renee Jourdenais
University of North Carolina Monterey Institute of
Marianne Celce-Murcia International Studies
University of California James F. Lee
Los Angeles University of Indiana
Ray T. Clifford Ronald P. Leow
Defense Language Institute Georgetown University
Foreign Language Center Paul Nation
Tracey M. Derwing Victoria University of
University of Alberta Wellington
Edmonton Thomas Parry
Dan Douglas Defense Language Institute
Iowa State University Foreign Language Center
Donald Fischer Wilga Rivers
University of New Mexico Harvard University
Robert C. Gardner David J. Shook
University of Western Ontario Georgia Institute of
Luba Grant Technology
Defense Language Institute Richard Sparks
Foreign Language Center College of Mount Saint Joseph
Evelyn Hatch Leo Van Lier
University of California Monterey Institute of
Los Angeles International Studies
John S. Hedgcock Swathi Vanniarajan
Monterey Institute of San Jose State University
International Studies Maryann Weber
Eli Hinkel Missouri Southern State
Seattle University College
 Japanese Classroom Behavior

Applied Language Learning

2004, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 1-35

Japanese Classroom Behavior

A Micro-Analysis of Self-Reports Versus Classroom Observations -
with Implications for Language Teachers

Mariko T. Bohn
Stanford University

This article examines the influence of Japanese cultural

values, beliefs, and educational style on Japanese students
learning English as a second language in an American
classroom. In contrast to the Japanese students' high mo-
tivation to learn English, their classroom behavior and
roles reflect their own cultural perspectives rather than
the teacher's expectations based on the behavior and roles
of American students.
Through a questionnaire and class observations,
a paradox was identified. Most of the Japanese students
supported voluntarily asking and answering questions;
however, their learning style of being quiet prevented their
active participation.
This paper shows that it is important for English-
learning Japanese students to become aware not only of
their own cultural values and beliefs, but also of the target
language's cultural values and beliefs in order to achieve
effective learning. Similarly, understanding the student's
culture is an important first step for teachers in effectively
communicating with the student, since cultural factors in-
fluence students' motivation and achievement. Teacher’s
awareness of cultural differences fosters effective language
instruction.

Playing a game such as baseball requires each team to abide by a

common set of rules. For example, baseball in Japan and in the United States
follows the same set of rules, and players can move from one country to the
next while participating in each other's games. However, intercultural commu-
nication, especially in the classroom, is different. Each country, Japan and the
United States, has its own set of rules based on its own culture. Díaz-Rico and
Weed (1995) indicate that:

a culture involves both observable behaviors and intangibles such

as beliefs and values, rhythms, rules, and roles. Culture is the filter
through which people see the world . . . the judgments that make
any action right or wrong for its members (pp. 193-194).

1
Mariko T. Bohn

The present study was conducted in order to see how Japanese cul-
tural rules influence Japanese students' participation in an ESL classroom. An
intensive English program at a state university was the site of this study. This
program has the responsibility of teaching English to international students,
the largest group of students coming from Asian countries. The program has
two goals: first, to provide the academic English skills necessary for interna-
tional students to enter college; and second, to provide English skills which
can be used both in the United States and in foreign countries.
Many instructors in the program indicate that the Japanese students
are very quiet and do not express themselves in class. Through this researcher's
experience and discussions with other Japanese students, this phenomenon
is also true for many Japanese students in classes in the regular university and
has become one of the stereotypes of Japanese students at the school. Based
on the American concept of active class participation, these Japanese stu-
dents may be judged inferior by their instructors and other students. Most of
the Japanese students in the intensive English program brought their cultural
values with them when they came to study English in the United States. They
acquired little American culture while studying English in Japan. The only
American culture they might have observed in Japan was from American mov-
ies or from associating with American people living in Japan, depending on the
friendliness of Americans. However, much of the culture from American movies
represents the movie producer's views and is not very accurate for everyday
Americans.
In order to understand Japanese students' behavior in the classroom,
it is important to understand the background and culture of these students,
their learning style in Japan, and how these factors influence the shaping of
their participation in the classroom.
Three aspects of the background of these students are considered:
(1) the Japanese hierarchical educational system; (2) Japanese social status in
interpersonal relationships and the emphasis on harmony, and (3) the impor-
tance of nonverbal communication to the Japanese. How these factors affect
the educational development of Japanese students in the U.S. classroom has
been assessed through class observation and a questionnaire distributed to
the students.
The goal of this study is to inform intensive English program teachers
and their students of salient differences between Japanese and American cul-
tural values and how these differences influence student participation in the
American classroom. The results of this study will also help American stu-
dents adjust to the Japanese way of class participation when studying in
Japan. Likewise, this study will help Japanese students pay attention to their
own culture and understand differences in communicative behavior in class-
room interaction from U.S. culture. Finally, this study will encourage Japanese
students to become gradually accustomed to the American way of class
participation in order to enjoy and learn more from their classes.
The limiting aspect of this study was the number of students, twenty-
one participants, contained in the study groups. This number was sufficient to

2
 Japanese Classroom Behavior

provide initial answers to the study questions, but I encourage that a similar
study be repeated with additional students to verify the findings presented in
this paper.

Review of the Literature

Past research has shown that many Japanese students have diffi-
culty adjusting to the American way of communication in the classroom. When
Japanese students enter the American classroom environment, they often feel
frustrated and confused because they find different cultural values, beliefs,
and student roles for classroom behavior (Rockelman, 1994; Kurita, 1994;
Robbins, 1994). They find that American teachers have expectations of their
students which are different from those encountered in Japan. Therefore, it is
important to know the blueprint of Japanese students' cultural behaviors and
attitudes that they carry into their American classrooms.
Previous researchers have enumerated three major aspects of the
background of Japanese students:

o Japanese attitudes toward education

o Japanese social relations
o The importance of Japanese nonverbal communication

Japanese Attitudes Towards Education

Reischauer (1977) points out that Confucian ethics and formal school-
ing, which were derived from China and spread throughout East Asia (Korea
and Vietnam as well as Japan), had a great influence on the Japanese educa-
tional system and on students' attitudes towards their teachers. Boss (1983)
states that Confucian ethics taught respect for older people, especially for the
ones having higher status, such as teachers. Asian students show respect, do
not use or ask for too much openness, and avoid confronting or embarrassing
their teachers. Nakane (1970) states that the higher honorific term sensei
(teacher) is used for teachers, showing that Japanese students expect a formal
relationship with their teachers. Students know that in the social order they are
considered subordinate and their teachers are considered superior.
Confucian ethics also influence Japanese moral discipline. Rohlen
(1983) states that the loyalty and obedience of subordinates to superiors is
one of the highest moral virtues. Kiefer (1974) indicates that there are two
features of the Japanese system of education which present rather striking
differences from the United States system. The first is the relative emphasis on
moral discipline and the second is the entrance examination system, usually
referred to as shiken jigoku (examination hell). Moral discipline is nurtured
during early school years, focusing on group harmony, respecting teachers
and discouraging independence. Independently, Japanese students must study
very hard to pass entrance examinations to high-status schools which lead to
good employment opportunities.

3
Mariko T. Bohn

Moral discipline is also stressed through the use of school rules in

elementary and secondary education. Naito (1994) states that Japanese stu-
dents are expected to consider other people's feelings and to form close inter-
personal relationships in order to further group harmony through school edu-
cation. Accordingly, Japanese schools have many school rules. Naito's study
shows that 80% of elementary schools have 10 to 49 explicit rules, and junior
high schools even more, 30 to 69. The rules vary from general principles to
specific rules, including such general principles as "caring for each other" and
such specific rules as "students should knock on the door before entering a
teacher's room." These principles and rules are presented to students through
notices on the walls of classrooms and pamphlets. The students perceive that
they must obey in order to be considered good students and to avoid trouble.
Japanese students view the rules as part of their belief that "you should not
hurt another person's mind." They obey the rules because the teacher's mind
should not be hurt by students who do not obey the rules. However, Naito
(1994) points out that, while school discipline remains important, students
have now begun to place a higher value on personal happiness. Moral disci-
pline and commitment to relationships are starting to be rejected by the younger
generation.
Group loyalty is another important aspect brought to school by chil-
dren. Duke (1986) claims that in the Japanese school system, group loyalty is
present on the very first day that Japanese young children enter school. The
Japanese style of the kumi or han (group or class) system represents the
beginning of the formal process of group training in order to achieve the
ultimate goal, group harmony. For this aspect of moral discipline, each indi-
vidual must possess a spirit of perseverance, diligence, and conscientious-
ness.
An important characteristic of the Japanese educational system, as
mentioned earlier, is the entrance examination. Kiefer (1974) points out that the
entrance examination, generally starting in junior high school, is an important
feature of the Japanese educational system since success for the future de-
pends on gaining an education from the most prestigious institutions in the
country. Graduating from a highly ranked university assures the graduate of an
opportunity to work for the best and strongest companies in the country. The
path to a high-ranked university is controlled by the entrance examination
process, which identifies the schools the student can attend. Passing the
entrance examinations to gain entrance to the better schools motivates parents
to encourage, even force their children to study in order to pass. Passing and
failing is related to the parents' "saving or losing face."
Kiefer (1974) states that in contrast to the Japanese system the Ameri-
can educational system emphasizes classroom competition among students.
Though the Japanese entrance examination involves competition in an imper-
sonal setting, it takes place outside of the classroom setting. The American
classroom often resembles a competitive arena, whereas the Japanese class-
room resembles the training ground of a single team learning how to play the
game of life cooperatively.

4
 Japanese Classroom Behavior

The traditional method of English language learning in Japan in-

volves a continual process of memorization, repetition, drilling, and testing, as
reported by Reischauer (1977) and Duke (1986). A high degree of literacy in
reading and writing is emphasized in order for students to be able to answer
complex grammar questions. Rockelman (1994) reports that taking notes and
listening carefully to what the teacher says or writes on the blackboard is a
crucial ingredient of students' learning style. As a result of the strong empha-
sis on reading and writing, verbal communication is excluded from the curricu-
lum. Comprehension skills and critical thinking are also emphasized less. Classes
are totally teacher-centered and the students are seated in conventional class-
room rows with little interaction and speaking between the students and their
teacher.
According to Thorpe's (1991) finding, "Japanese students are very
reluctant to speak in front of other students unless they are sure that they will
not make any mistakes" (as cited in Kurita, 1994: p. 61). Conversely, Andersen
and Powell (1991) report that in the United States a teacher may consider
knowledge important, with lively class discussions playing an important role
in developing that knowledge. It is common for American teachers and their
students to interact regularly in their joint pursuit of knowledge.
Rohlen (l983) reports that the exam-oriented Japanese students are
not expected to "find themselves" through a process of choice, experimenta-
tion, and individual discovery. The good student is obedient, patient, perse-
vering, and diligent. In contrast, Duke (1986) reports that American teachers
expect their students to have creativity, originality, and personality in the class-
room. Phillips (1983) points out that teachers in American elementary schools
often encourage students' interaction with their teachers as part of the Ameri-
can style of learning. Díaz-Rico and Weed (1995) report that in American class-
rooms the individual is paramount, which often results in students' competi-
tion with each other. Students are routinely expected to answer the teacher's
questions, express their opinions voluntarily, and actively participate in class
discussions.

Japanese Social Relations

Japanese society is extremely homogeneous and more group-oriented
than American society. Conversely, American society has a much greater eth-
nic diversity and places a much higher value on individualism (Clancy, 1986).
Stewart and Bennett (1991) point out that the Japanese place a greater empha-
sis on understanding and sharing the general attitudes of others. They indi-
cate that stress is placed on human relations among the members of a social
nexus rather than on single individuals.
Japanese people follow the ethics of location in achieving interper-
sonal harmony in location-shared groups (Nakane, 1970). These location-shared
groups are built into a situational "frame"-a locality, an institution, or a
particular relationship. Essentially, Japanese people establish a special rela-
tionship among individuals found in a location (home, school, business, etc.)
a relationship which binds them together emotionally and socially. In

5
Mariko T. Bohn

comparison, American communication plays an important part in helping Ameri-

cans construct an American identity that values independence, while Japa-
nese communication helps Japanese construct a Japanese identity that relies
on interdependence (Yamada, 1997). Wa (harmony) is emphasized in the group.
As Yamada notes, hitonami (behave as other people behave) morality is
likewise constructed from a concept of other-centered ethics and guides the
Japanese in interdependent situations, tying them to conformity. The Japa-
nese proverb Deru kugi wa utareru (nails that stick out get hammered back in)
reflects the Japanese tendency to avoid emphasizing individuality and stand-
ing out in different situations.
Reischauer (1977) also points out that the group-oriented Japanese
tend to suppress individual self-expression. Yamada (1992) notes that the Japa-
nese typically reveal their honne (true feelings or intention) to the members of
the same group; however, they reveal only their tatemae (socially accepted
views) to the members of a different group suppressing their own emotional
feelings.
La Barre (1962) states that Japanese 'face' "is more concerned with the
status of self; it is a tenser affair and so frequently hides basic aggressiveness,
so a better term for Japanese 'face' might almost be 'mask' " (p. 335).
The structure of amae (depending upon and presuming upon an-
other person's benevolence) among Japanese was articulated by Doi (1974).
According to Doi, amae represents the Japanese perception of interdepen-
dence and is a key concept for understanding the Japanese personality. Origi-
nally, amae derived from a child playing like a baby with his/her mother. Amae
is also seen in a variety of relationships throughout Japanese society, includ-
ing within the family, among friends, and within the company. Befu (1983)
points out that the group-oriented Japanese have unique social institutions
with a predominantly hierarchical alignment of members, bonded by the con-
cept of amae.
According to Clancy (1986) and McDaniel (1994), the interdependent
relationship of amae between the mother and the child fosters empathy and
nonverbal communication. Clancy's study (1986) shows that young Japanese
children gain sensitivity for the feelings of others through their mothers' direc-
tives. At the same time, De Vos (1974) states that young Japanese children are
raised to regard poor performance or slipshod behavior as unacceptable be-
haviors which cannot be tolerated. It brings shame (haji ) to themselves and to
their families. Children are taught to be sensitive and not to lose "face." Japa-
nese personality patterns, constructed to avoid losing face, may lead to a
society which avoids failure and maintains a strong need for recognition and
success (Clancy, 1986).
Within this homogeneous, interdependent, and high-context cultural
situation, Azuma (1980) notes that "verbal expression among the Japanese is
context-dependent, indirect, rich in connotation, and evasive in denotation"
(cited in Clancy, 1986, p. 213). In contrast, Condon (1984) notes that American
culture has low reliance on context and high trust in words (cited in Stewart
and Bennett, 1991, p. 157). Clancy likewise explains that the Japanese have a

6
 Japanese Classroom Behavior

set of cultural values that emphasizes empathy over explicit verbal communica-
tion.
These Japanese cultural values affect communication between Japa-
nese and Americans, as noted by Nakabayashi and Nagao (1994). Their study
of the communicative competence of the Japanese, as observed by American
students, shows that the Japanese pay attention, show interest with a smile,
appear friendly, and listen very carefully. However, American students report
that Japanese students use few gestures and do not join in activities with
them. Nakabayashi and Nagao explain that the Japanese tend to discriminate
between in-group and out-group members. The Japanese like to settle down in
one place, and it is difficult for them to establish a close human relationship
with out-group members. Even though American students in Japan tried to
establish a close friendship, they were viewed as the out-group and the Japa-
nese treated them as visiting guests.
Nakabayashi and Nagao's study also shows that, in contrast to the
communication style of Americans in which speakers always try to learn more
about their partners by using a direct verbal strategy, the Japanese prefer to
use indirect, vague, and informal expressions. Yamada (1997) notes that:

the goal in American communication is for each individual to

speak up for him/herself, and to express messages in as
explicit a manner as possible. In contrast, the goal in Japa-
nese communication is for members of a group to depend on
each other to talk about shared experiences, and to express
messages in as implicit style as possible
(p. 4).

Implicit communication, such as the use of indirectness and vague-

ness, are perceived as being polite among the Japanese. In contrast to Ameri-
cans, who take pride in being straightforward and in saying what they mean,
the Japanese make extensive use of go-betweens to avoid confrontations and
maintain group solidarity, and they are sensitive to others' reactions. For
example, Americans will say "no" even when the others in the group oppose
that position. In contrast, the Japanese tend to avoid saying "no" in an explicit
manner (Reischauer, 1977). Yamada (1997) explains that the Japanese, with
their in-group, other-centered philosophy, say "yes", or "no" to support the
group rather than to express their own opinion.
Brown and Levinson (1978, as cited in Scollon & Scollon, 1983) cat-
egorize as "solidarity politeness" that which emphasizes low distance and a
low degree of power relationship, and as "deference politeness" that which
emphasizes greater distance and a higher degree of power between the
interactants. According to Brown and Levinson's model, Japanese students
use solidarity politeness to in-group members for harmony and conformity and
use deference politeness to their teachers, since the relationship between a
teacher and a student is formal and hierarchical. With in-group members, Japa-
nese students are quite talkative and cohesive; however, with out-group or

7
Mariko T. Bohn

higher status people, they are quite taciturn and keep their distance. Brown
and Levinson state that "taciturnity reflects an assumption of deference po-
liteness and volubility reflects an assumption of solidarity" (as cited in Scollon
& Scollon, 1983, p. 8).
As Brown and Levinson claim, teachers in the United States use
solidarity politeness strategies emphasizing equality. However, Japanese stu-
dents use deference politeness strategies emphasizing respect for their teach-
ers. This different use of politeness strategies produces different assumptions
and expectations between teachers and their students, often resulting in mis-
communication and misunderstanding.
Barnlund's survey (1975) showed that:

The Japanese were perceived as "reserved," "formal," "si-

lent," "evasive," "serious," and "dependent" by American
college students and the Americans were perceived as
"frank," "self-assertive," "informal," and "talkative" by Japa-
nese students (p. 437).

Importance of Japanese Nonverbal Communication

Nonverbal communication plays an important role in communication
patterns and also reflects Japanese cultural values (McDaniel, 1993; Clancy,
1986; Condon, 1974; Morsbach, 1988; and Hattori, 1987). McDaniel and Condon
claim that it is crucial to understand nonverbal behavior in intercultural com-
munication and describe nine specific Japanese nonverbal behaviors: a. kine-
sics (body language), b. eye behavior and facial expressions, c. proxemic be-
havior, d. haptics (touch), e. appearance, f. space and time, g. olfactics (smell),
h. paralanguage (vocalics), and i. silence. As Hall (1981) notes, "Considered a
high context culture, the Japanese place a significant degree of reliance on
nonverbal activities and much is left to the receiver's interpretation" (cited in
McDaniel, 1993, p. 5). Clancy (1986) states that "the Japanese have little faith in
verbal expression and when verbal communication does enter in, it will often
be inexplicit and indirect" (p. 214).
Of the nine nonverbal behaviors, five in particular are seen exten-
sively in the American classroom environment. They are:

o Kinesics. Cohen (1991) and Ishii (1975) point out that the
Japanese are more relaxed and expressive within their group (in-group); how-
ever, within a different group (out-group) they restrain their use of body lan-
guage (cited in McDaniel, 1993, p. 11). March (1990) states that "In public, it is
quite common to see both Japanese men and women sitting quietly and unob-
trusively, with hands folded" (cited in McDaniel, 1993, p.11). McDaniel (1993)
explains that the Japanese self-restraint of body movement in public or with
the out-group is derived from their attempt to avoid attention and to maintain
situational harmony.

8
 Japanese Classroom Behavior

Sherman (1989) reports that three gestures are used by the Japanese,
usually unconsciously, which

indicate awkwardness, hesitation, dismay or predicament or

embarrassment: (1) inhaling air audibly through clenched
teeth, (2) scratching the back of one's head, (3) and hitting
one's open palm lightly against the forehead (p. 13).

o Eye Behavior and Facial Expressions. Sweeney, Cottle, and

Kobayahsi's (1980) cross-cultural comparison of American and Japanese emo-
tional facial expressions showed that American females scored higher than did
American males, Japanese females scored slightly lower than did American
males, and Japanese males attained the lowest score. These results suggest
that the Japanese do not evince a great deal of emotion through facial expres-
sions.
Hattori (1987) says that in Japanese culture the amount of gaze is very
slight during a conversation, since prolonged eye contact is considered rude,
especially to a higher-status person. The Japanese are taught to avert their
gaze and to look at a person's throat area as polite behavior. In contrast, in
American culture students show respect to teachers by looking at them di-
rectly when the teachers talk to the students.
The smile is a universally positive gesture. However, Sherman (1989)
reports that smiling is also used by the Japanese when another person might
frown. The smiling expression is used as a kind of etiquette or politeness.
Sherman states that it is important to the Japanese not to express emotions
which might upset social harmony. The smile is also used to protect privacy.
For example, when a teacher asked the Japanese students whether they under-
stood what was just taught, even though the students did not understand,
they simply smiled. The students did not want to be embarrassed themselves
or to embarrass the teacher by not understanding what was taught.

o Proxemic Behavior. McDaniel (1993) indicates that the Japa-

nese attitude toward personal space differs between in-group and out-group
situations. In an uncrowded out-group environment the Japanese keep a larger
personal distance with an unfamiliar or a higher-status person. With in-group
members, personal distance is dramatically reduced.
o Paralanguage. Hall (1981) reports that "A hissing sound,
made by sharply sucking in one's breath between the teeth, usually connotes
embarrassment or consternation" (cited in McDaniel, 1993, p. 21). Yamada
(1997) indicates that the Japanese frequently have a certain type of vocaliza-
tion, aizuchi (back-channel). Aizuchi such as ee (yes), ah soo (I see) and soo
desune (that's true) are used by the hearer to indicate that the hearer has
listened carefully to the speaker and indicates "I'm following you" or "I'm
listening to you." Aizuchi does not always mean agreement with what was
said. It can also be used to let the speaker know that what was said is under-
stood.

9
Mariko T. Bohn

o Silence. Buruma (1985), Cohen (1991), Hall and Hall (1990),

Ishii (1975), and Lebra (1976) all report that silence is considered a virtue as
well as a sign of respectability and trustworthiness, as reported by McDaniel
(1993). Rockelman (1994) reports that in Japanese culture there is a belief that
intuitive or feeling communication is the most effective form of communica-
tion. Rockelman also states that silence in the classroom is deemed much safer
than speaking and taking the risk of offending or disagreeing with the teacher.

McDaniel (1993) and Morsbach (1988) report that silence hides one's
real feelings and is used to tactfully signal disagreement, non-acceptance or an
uncomfortable dilemma. Common Japanese proverbs such as Kuchi wa
wazawai no moto (the mouth is the source of calamity) and Iwanu ga hana (to
say nothing is a flower 'beauty') demonstrates that the Japanese are concerned
with saying the wrong thing. However, Yamada (1997) says that in the western
world, speech is increasingly associated with culture, and silence is treated as
unsociable.
Locastro (1990) points out that in general the Japanese have great
difficulty engaging in conversation with native and nonnative speakers of
English. Busch (1982) presents the hypothesis that in countries where intro-
version levels are high, such as Japan, "cultural and social barriers prevent a
person from going out and getting input in the second language" (cited in
Kurita, 1994, p. 57).
Research Questions

Japanese students bring their cultural and social values with them
when they study English in the American classroom. As shown by Doi (1974)
and Nakane (1970), the Japanese have a unique cultural background, and the
American and Japanese ways of communication are quite different. The fol-
lowing questions are addressed by this study:

1. What are the Japanese students' interaction patterns in the English

as a Second Language (ESL) classroom?
2. Do traditional learning methods, the memorization and repetition
used to develop high literacy (reading and writing), bring benefits to Japanese
students?
3. What aspects of Japanese cultural values, beliefs, and attitudes
inhibit Japanese students' interaction in the ESL classroom?
4. Are there any mismatches between "teacher" and "student" as-
sumptions regarding verbal interaction in the ESL classroom?

Method

Participants and Setting

The data were collected from two different ESL classes at San José
State University (SJSU), and from one ESL class at Cabrillo College. The first

10
 Japanese Classroom Behavior

SJSU class consisted of a special ESL class of fifteen Japanese students. Two
class sessions were visited, a grammar class and the other a conversation
class, both taught by different faculty members. The class observations were
set one week before the students were to finish their program. This class was
part of a special program organized by the International Farmers Aid Associa-
tion. All fifteen Japanese students were engaged in agriculture and had had
little opportunity to study English after they graduated from their Japanese
high school. The English program was part of their U.S. curriculum and was
planned to strengthen their English language ability. The fifteen Japanese
students, five females and ten males, ranged in age from twenty-one to twenty-
four. They had been studying English at San José State University for nine
months.
The second SJSU group was a regular ESL class of twelve students;
four were Japanese, three females and one male, with ages ranging from twenty-
one to twenty-seven, and the other eight were Taiwanese, Korean, Vietnamese,
Thai, and Mexican. They have been studying English in this program for one
to two years. Two class sessions were visited, a grammar class and a conversa-
tion class. The visitation took place during the ninth and tenth weeks of the
semester.
The Cabrillo College ESL class was a regular ESL class of seventeen
students; two were Japanese female students with ages of nineteen and twenty-
six, and the other fifteen students were Mexican, Chinese, Cambodian, Russian
and Thai. The visitation took place during the twelfth week of the semester.

Data Collection
The purpose of using two different types of Japanese groups-a class
of all Japanese students (identified as a special ESL class) and two classes with
Japanese students mixed with students from other countries (identified as
regular ESL classes)-was to study Japanese students' interactions with class-
mates and with their teachers in both in-group and out-group situations. All
fifteen students in the special ESL class traveled together, ate together, and
used the same language outside of the classroom (as observed during the
break), thus becoming a cohesive group.
Two of the four students in the SJSU regular ESL class, one male and
one female, were absent during both the grammar and conversation classes;
thus only two of the female students were observed. However, all four com-
pleted the questionnaire.

Questionnaire
A questionnaire, which included a Japanese translation to assure
accurate responses, was provided to each student to be completed after the
class was finished. The questionnaire consisted of two parts: Part 1-back-
ground information asking each student's age, college major in Japan, and
main purpose for studying English; and Part 2-twelve questions in such areas
as the student's cultural background, interactions with the teacher, and partici-
pation in group discussion. The responses from both regular ESL classes,

11
Mariko T. Bohn

SJSU and Cabrillo College, were combined in the analysis of data. The ques-
tionnaire used is included in the Appendix.

Class Observation
All class observations were conducted from a corner of the class-
room. The researcher took notes instead of using a recording device. The
focus of the class observations was:

o students' learning styles in the classroom

o students' interactions with their teachers
o students' interactions with each other
o students' nonverbal behaviors.

Data Analysis
The questionnaire was analyzed by tabulating the data from all the
Japanese students in both the special ESL and regular ESL classes. A total of
twenty-one questionnaires were analyzed, fifteen from the SJSU special ESL
class, four from the SJSU regular ESL class and two from the Cabrillo College
regular ESL class. The observation was analyzed by combining the common
classroom behaviors of the Japanese students in all classes, focusing on the
four research questions of this study. The results of the questionnaire and
observations were then analyzed to identify similarities and differences in the
two bodies of data.
Next, the questionnaire and observation data were divided into the
special ESL and regular ESL classes and male and female students. The results
were analyzed to identify similarities and differences between the two groups
of students and between the male and female students.
The final section of this report looks at the data in terms of the four
research questions presented for the study. This section brings together the
data from the study, the literature review, and an analysis of the data.

Results

The questionnaire consisted of twelve objective questions plus two

subjective questions. As noted earlier, the first section, Part 1, identified the
students' age and other pertinent information. A copy of the questionnaire,
which contains Parts 2 and 3, appears in the Appendix. Part 2 consists of
twelve objective questions for student response. Part 3 consists of two
open-ended questions regarding approval and disapproval of teacher perfor-
mance. In Part 3, one student left the approved section blank, and three stu-
dents left the disapproved section blank.
Part 1 - Student Age and Pertinent Information

o Age. All fifteen students in the special ESL class were in the 21 - 24
age group. The six students in the regular ESL class varied from 19 - 27, provid-
ing both extremes for the group. As a result, the ages ranged from 19 - 27, with

12
 Japanese Classroom Behavior

23 years being the median age, and 22.68 the mean age.
o College Major in Japan. The special ESL students were engaged
in an agricultural curriculum in Japan. Their majors included International Ag-
riculture (5), Agricultural Technology (4), Agricultural Economics (2), Environ-
mental Study (1), Orchard Horticulture (1), Landscaping Planning (1), and Ag-
ricultural Civil Engineering (1). For the regular ESL students, three was directly
out of high school, and there was one major in each of art history, accounting,
and economics.
o Main Purpose for Studying English. In the special ESL class six
students were studying English as part of their curriculum (International Farm-
ers Aid Association ESL Program), four students were developing general
English language skills, three wanted to live in the United States, and two were
learning about American culture. Three students in the regular ESL class were
planning to enter an American university, and three were developing English
language skills.

Part 2 - Student Questionnaire

Table 1. Questionnaire (Part 2)

Total Data: Special and Regular ESL Students

Q uestion Response (Percentage of Total in Parentheses)

Created
Yes No a. b. c.
Ans.

1 - - 13(62%) 8(38%) - -

2 - - 1(5%) 13(62%) 5(32%) 2(10%)

3 - - 5(24%) 5(24%) 11(52%) -

4 - - 6(29%) 2(10%) 13(61%) -

5 - - 18(85%) 2(10%) 1(5%) -

6 - - 5(24%) 15(71%) 1(5%) -

7 - - 13(62%) 8(38%) - -

8 - - 7(33%) 1(5%) 13(62%) -

9 15(71%) 6(29%) - 5(83%) 1(17%) -

10 11(52%) 10(48%) 2(20%) 2(20%) 6(60%) -

11 - - 11(52%) 1(5%) 9(43%) -

12 - - 20(95%) 1(5%) - -

13
Mariko T. Bohn

Special Characteristics:

o Two students did not like any of the three possible responses to
Question 2 and created their own response. It is reported as a "Created An-
swer."
o Questions 9 and 10 first asked a "Yes" or "No" question. Only
those responding with "No" were asked to make a choice of three responses..

The responses which received an answer of over 50% are considered

significant for this study. In Table 1, each question has one answer with more
than 50% of the responses. The Japanese in both groups were reasonably
consistent in their responses.
In response to Question #1, "What is your preferred method of class-
room interaction?", thirteen (62%) answered "To voluntarily ask and answer
questions at any time." Question #2 asked "When the teacher directs a ques-
tion to you, how do you feel?" thirteen (62%) answered, "This is a great
chance for me to use English." The response to these two questions disagrees
with both Thorpe (1991) and Yamada's (1997) statements that the Japanese
tend to avoid standing out and speaking in front of others.
Question #3 states, "When the teacher asks you a question and you
don't have the answer, what will you do?" Eleven students (52%) indicated, "I
will clearly say, I don't know." This answer also seems to be in contrast to the
findings of Yamada (1997), who stated that implicit communication such as the
use of indirectness and vagueness is perceived as being polite.
Question #4 asks, "When you come late to class, what will you do, or
what will you say to the teacher?" Thirteen (61%) answered, "I will say 'I am
sorry that I am late,' and then sit down." This answer expresses the politeness
and respect of Japanese students toward the teacher. Question #5 asks, "What
do you think about placing the chairs in a semicircle or circle?" Eighteen (85%)
stated, "I am quite comfortable and this is a good chance to interact with other
students." This seating arrangement is in contrast to the traditional Japanese
style of learning, which is teacher-centered with students seated in conven-
tional classroom rows with minimal interactions.
Questions #6, #7, and #8 cover student responses to questions. Ques-
tion 6 asks, "Do you interact with the teacher after the class is finished?"
Fifteen (71%) answered "No, I ask questions only during the class." Question
#7 asks, "Do you participate in group class discussion?" with thirteen (62%)
students answering, "I only answer a question when someone asks me." Ques-
tion #8 asks, "Do you talk to other students while the teacher is lecturing or
teaching the class?" Thirteen (62%) responded, "When a student asks me, I
will answer - but not more than that." Questions #6 and #8 support the finding
reported by Boss (1983) that Asian students show respect and do not use or
ask for too much openness with the teacher.
Questions #9 and #10 are directed to asking or answering questions
during the class. Both questions first required a "Yes" or a "No" response.
Students answering "No" were asked to select a multiple-choice response.

14
 Japanese Classroom Behavior

Question #9 asked, "Do you ask questions of the teacher during the class?"
Fifteen (71%) said "Yes." Question #10 asked, "When the teacher asks a ques-
tion to the entire class, do you volunteer an answer to the question?" Eleven
(52%) answered "Yes." Question #11 asks, "When the instructor makes a
mistake in the classroom, what will you do?" Eleven (52%) answered, "I don't
need to correct the mistake since other students will." This answer relates to
Doi's (1974) concept of amae, "depends upon and presumes upon another
person's benevolence."
Question #12 asks, "When the teacher has direct eye contact with
you, how do you feel?" Twenty (95%) answered "I don't mind." This answer is
in contrast to Hattori (1987) who states that prolonged direct eye contact in
Japanese is considered rude, especially to a higher-status person.

Table 2. Questionnaire (Part 2):

Responses Divided by Special and Regular ESL Students

Q uestion Response (Percentage Total on Second Line

Created
Yes No a. b. c.
Ans.

1 Spec. ESL/Reg. ESL 9/4 6/2 - -

43/19(%) 29/9(%) - -

2 - - 1/0 9/4 3/2 2/0

5/0(%) 43/20(%) 14/9(%) 9/0(%)

3 - - 5/0 3/2 7/4 -

24/0(%) 14/9(%) 33/20(%)

4 - - 0/6 2/0 13/0 -

0/29(%) 9/0(%) 62/0(%)

5 - - 14/4 1/1 0/1 -

66/19(%) 5/5(%) 0/5(%)

6 - - 4/1 11/4 0/1 -

19/5(%) 52/19(%) 0/5(%)

7 - - 8/5 7/1 - -

38/24(%) 33/5(%)

8 - - 6/1 0/1 9/4 -

28/5(%) 0/5(%) 43/19(%)

9 11/4 4/2 - 3/2 1/0 -

52/19(%) 19/10(%) 50/33(%) 17/0(%)

15
Mariko T. Bohn

10 10/1 5/5 2/0 0/2 3/3 -

47/5(%) 24/24(%) 20/0(%) 0/20(%) 30/30(%)

11 - - 8/3 1/0 6/3 -

38/14(%) 5/0(%) 29/14(%)

12 - - 15/5 0/1 - -

71/24(%) 0/5(%)

In Question #2, two male students' created answers to the question,

"When the teacher directs a question to you, how do you feel?" They an-
swered, "To find an answer which causes other students to laugh." This re-
sponse shows the value of strong interpersonal relationships among the group
of fifteen Japanese students.
The students' answers to Question #4 and Question #10 revealed a
difference between the special and regular ESL students. Question #4, which
read, "When you come late to class, what will you do, or what will you say to
the teacher?" all six regular ESL Japanese students answered, "I will sit down
in the chair near the corner of the room without saying anything because I
don't want to disturb the class." None of the special ESL students provided
this answer. The special ESL students reported being polite to the teacher and
apologizing to the teacher, but the regular ESL students were also worried
about the students from other countries and did not want to disturb either the
students or the teacher.
To Question # 10, which asks, "When the teacher asks a question to
the entire class, do you volunteer an answer to the question?" five of the six
regular ESL students answered "No" while the majority of the special ESL
students said "Yes." "No" shows the Japanese characteristic of avoiding stand-
ing out in the classroom and possibly giving an incorrect answer.

Table 3. Questionnaire (Part 2)

Responses Divided by Male and Female Students

Question Reponse (Percentage of Total on Second Line)

Yes No a. b. c. Created Ans.

1 Male/Female 7/6 4/4 - -

33/29(%) 19/19(%) - -

16
 Japanese Classroom Behavior

2 - - 1/0 6/7 2/3 2/0

5/0(%) 28/33(%) 10/14(%) 10/0(%)

3 - - 5/0 2/3 4/7 -

24/0(%) 10/14(%) 19/33(%)

4 - - 1/5 1/1 9/4 -

5/23(%) 5/5(%) 43/19(%)

5 - - 9/9 1/1 1/0 -

42.5/42.5(%) 5/5(%) 5/0(%)

6 - - 3/2 7/8 1/0 -

14/10(%) 33/38(%) 5/0(%)

7 - - 7/6 4/4 - -

33/29(%) 19/19(%)

8 - - 5/2 1/0 5/8 -

24/9(%) 5/0(%) 24/38(%)

9 8/7 3/3 - 2/3 1/0 -

38/34(%) 14/14(%) 33/50(%) 17/0(%)

10 6/5 5/5 1/1 1/1 3/3 -

28/24(%) 24/24(%) 10/10(%) 10/10(%) 30/30(%)

11 - - 5/6 1/0 5/4 -

24/28(%) 5/0(%) 24/19(%)

12 - - 10/0 1/0 - -

48/48(%) 4/0(%)

The students' answers to Question #3 showed differences between

the male and female students. The question asked was, "When the teacher
asks you a question and you don't have the answer, what will you do?" While
45% of the male students answered the question with the response, "I'll ask the
person next to me for the answer," none of the female students provided this
response. This represents male cohesiveness with in-group members which
will later be revealed in the class observations.

Part 3 -Open Ended Questions

The last part of the student questionnaire contained two open-ended
questions, Questions 13 and 14. The first question asked students to identify
"What kind of teacher's behavior makes you feel comfortable in class?"

17
Mariko T. Bohn

Students' responses were broken into two categories for analysis. Some of the
nineteen students identified more than one behavior that they preferred to see
the teacher perform, providing a total of 28 responses. Only one student left
this section blank.

Question 13

N umber of Responses (Total

Teachers Attitude
Percentage in Parenthesis)

Has patience 5 (17%)

Is smiling/friendly 4 (14%)

Is active 3 (11%)

Uses positive thinking 3 (11%)

Uses humor 2 (7%)

Cheers up students 2 (7%)

Pays attention to all students 2 (7%)

Teaching Style

Teaches details 4 (14%)

In class, speaks of Japanese

1 (4%)
culture, customs and food

Esplains until students understand 1 (4%)

Is always helpful to students 1 (4%)

28 (100%)

The second question asked the students "What kind of teacher's

behavior makes you feel uncomfortable in class?" There were seventeen re-
sponses; four students left this section blank.

Question 14

N umber of Responses (Total

Teacher's Attitude
Percentage in Parenthesis)

Ignores lower level students 2 (12%)

Does not smile 1 (6%)

Is lazy 1 (6%)

Is not strict 1 (6%)

18
 Japanese Classroom Behavior

Teaching Styles

Does not consider student's

4 (24%)
comprehension

Worries about schedule 3 (17%)

Speaks too fast 3 (17%)

Favors one student, ignores others 1 (6%)

Does not remember student's name 1 (6%)

17 (100%)

Class Observation

Class observations of both the special and regular ESL classes follow:

Prior to Class

o Before the class started, the special ESL students were very noisy,
both sexes talking to each other in Japanese in a friendly and cordial manner.
The students were not separated by gender and they interacted and helped
each other. In contrast, the two SJSU and the two Cabrillo College regular ESL,
female students sat separately and had no conversation in Japanese. Instead,
three of the four students interacted in English with students from other coun-
tries. The fourth student sat quietly without any interaction with other stu-
dents.

Learning Styles of the Japanese Students in Both Groups

o All of the Japanese students sat with their heads down listening to
the lecture and waiting for directions from the teacher.
o Most of the Japanese students copied everything the teacher
wrote on the blackboard, but never took notes on what the teacher was saying.
o Most of the Japanese students brought an English / Japanese
dictionary. Whenever they saw an unfamiliar word in the textbook or printed
materials, they looked up the definition in Japanese.

Nonverbal Behaviors

o Whenever the Japanese students in both classes agreed with the

teacher or other students' answer, they used nonverbal behavior - nodding
many times for a "yes" response. When they did use a verbal response of
"yes," they said "yes-yes-yes." Whenever the students disagreed, they only
shook their heads and did not use a verbal response. In the regular ESL class
there were students from different cultures: Taiwanese, Korean, Vietnamese,
Thai, and Mexican. These students used a lot of gestures, but nodded much

19
Mariko T. Bohn

less frequently than the Japanese students.

o Aizuchi (back-channel), such as ah soo (I see) and ee (yes) were
changed to English "I see," "yes," and "hmmm." Although the linguistic form
was changed, the use of Aizuchi did not change and was often used with
Japanese students nodding their heads in interactions with both teachers and
other students. Students from other cultures in the regular ESL class also used
back-channels, but less often and with less nodding than the Japanese stu-
dents.
o Whenever the special ESL class teacher talked or directed a ques-
tion to the students, most of the students would first look at the teacher, but
then gradually turn their eyes to a different location to avoid continuing direct
eye contact with the teacher. Whenever the teacher did not look directly at a
student, most of the students continued looking at the teacher. Only one of the
SJSU regular ESL Japanese female students maintained direct eye contact
whenever the teacher talked directly to her. The other three Japanese female
students looked at the teacher for a short period of time and then looked down
at their notebook while the teacher was talking.
o The five male and two female students in the special ESL class
yawned a number of times during class. The boys would also grab and scratch
their heads. Two of the male students looked sleepy, held their hands to their
chest, and closed their eyes. When the teacher then called on each of them,
one looked around and asked other students for the answer. The other one
smiled the answer away and said nothing. During the middle of both the gram-
mar and the conversation classes, some of the special ESL class students
started chattering and teasing each other in Japanese. In the SJSU regular ESL
class, the Japanese female student, who sat quietly prior to class, brushed her
hair with her hands and took off and put on her glasses a couple of times. She
seldom smiled. A couple of the special ESL class male students and three of
the four regular ESL class, female students leaned back against their chairs and
stretched their arms and hands forward a couple of times. This action did not
happen with the special ESL class,female students and one of the regular ESL
female students.
o When the students were looking for an answer, they looked at the
ceiling and then took a long pause (sometimes as long as a minute). Some of
the special ESL class male students put their elbows on the table and sup-
ported their chins with their hands during these long pauses. Some said "hmmm"
and then folded their arms and sat there thinking. Some of the time, the teacher
did not wait for the answer and went on to another student with the question.
o Many of the Japanese students used fillers such as "uh," "ah," and
"um" with a long pause between the filler and the other words. This was
especially true of the male students.

Interaction with Teachers

o When the special ESL class teacher asked whether the students
understood the answer to a question, the Japanese students smiled and an-

20
 Japanese Classroom Behavior

swered "yes." However, when they tried to write that answer in their notebook,
they couldn't. They asked others what the answer should be.
o Most of the students in both the special and regular ESL classes
did not ask any questions whenever the teacher asked, "Are there any ques-
tions?" However, one SJSU regular ESL class Japanese female student volun-
tarily asked about vocabulary words which she did not understand. She tried
to participate in the class discussion. Also, one special ESL class male student
asked the teacher a question a couple of times in the conversation and gram-
mar course. Whenever he asked a question, he raised his hand and said
"Teacher."
o During class breaks of ten minutes, the special ESL class students,
both males and females, showed the teacher pictures which they had taken on
farms in the United States. When the students talked to the teacher during the
break period, the students kept a distance equal to two persons away from the
teacher.
o The two Cabrillo College regular ESL class female students did not
interact with their teacher during class breaks. Each of them left with a different
group of students from the class.

Interaction with Other Students

o In interactions with the other students, most of the special ESL

class students maintained direct eye contact with each other. The special ESL
class chairs were placed close together and the standing distance between
each of the students was very small, without any consideration for gender. The
active Japanese female student in the SJSU regular ESL class sat very close to
the Taiwanese male student. In contrast, the quiet Japanese student in the
same class sat more than a person away from any other students. She avoided
direct eye contact with other students and looked at the other person's hands
or notebook. She never turned her body to face her partner but only turned her
head. The two ESL female students at Cabrillo College did not sit together, but
sat with other students. They maintained direct eye contact and sat close to
these students.
o One Japanese male student in the special ESL conversation class,
when asked to read a paragraph, found unfamiliar words and asked for help in
Japanese from other students in the class. Other male students, when asked a
question by the teacher, also sought the answers from other classmates. This
did not happen with the female students.
o The active, female student in the SJSU regular ESL class and one
female student from Cabrillo College were very helpful to the other students,
assisting them with answers in the classroom.
o Students took long pauses between turns in the classroom. There
was no overlapping or interrupting by other students whenever someone was
talking to the teacher.

21
Mariko T. Bohn

Discussion

The results revealed several points which are worth noting. They
indicate that some students did not always respond as predicted by the litera-
ture. First, the literature indicates that Japanese students are very quiet, with
little interaction with each other or with the teacher in the classroom. However,
the special ESL class students were chattering and teasing each other in Japa-
nese during the classes. According to the literature, this behavior indicates a
lack of respect for the teacher. Likewise, many special ESL students wanted to
interact and enjoy conversation with their teacher during the break time.
Second, the statements of Thorpe (1991) and Yamada (1997) indicat-
ing that the Japanese tend to avoid standing out and speaking in front of
others were not always supported. Two of the special ESL class male students
created an answer to Question #2 that was designed to make the class laugh.
The active female student in the SJSU regular ESL class voluntarily partici-
pated in the class by asking the teacher about unfamiliar words. In addition,
she helped other students who were not Japanese and did not understand the
instructions. This student never hesitated to have direct eye contact with the
teacher, contrary to what the literature reports. She might have adapted herself
to American culture, since she lived with two native English speakers and had
minimal contact with other Japanese students, in contrast to the special ESL
class students who came as a group and spent most of their time with group
members. This result suggests that associating with English speakers in daily
life is important both to gain English language skills and to acquire knowledge
of American culture.
Research questions #1 and #4 are related and are presented together
in this discussion. Research Question 1 asks "What are the Japanese stu-
dents' interaction patterns in the English as a Second Language (ESL) class-
room?" Research Question 4 asks "Are there any mismatches between
"teacher" and "student" assumptions regarding verbal interaction in the ESL
classroom?"
The classroom observation report described that most of the stu-
dents in both the special and regular ESL classes rarely volunteered to ask or
answer questions. However, in the questionnaire Question #1 "What is your
preferred method of classroom interaction?" most students answered "To vol-
untarily ask and answer questions at any time." Question #9 asked, "Do you
ask questions of the teacher during the class?" and Question #10 asked, "When
the teacher asks a question to the entire class, do you volunteer an answer to
the question?" Fifteen (71%) and eleven (52%) answered these questions with
"Yes," respectively. However, in the observation this did not happen. A couple
of male Japanese students did ask a few questions in the class, but whenever
they asked questions, they raised their hands and said "Teacher." Also, they
asked "What" and "When" questions but not "Why" or "How" questions
that require reasoning and comprehension skills. Otherwise, they participated
when called upon but did not volunteer.

22
 Japanese Classroom Behavior

There was no interruption by the Japanese students in class. It is

common among American students to interrupt and compete for the floor,
sometimes voicing opinions contrary to a previous answer. This style, "a com-
petitive style" as named by Tannen (1990), was never seen among the Japa-
nese students. Tannen called the Japanese style of long pauses and taking
turns in an organized manner the "cooperative style," which is part of the
communicative competence of Japanese. Accordingly, there is a mismatch be-
tween the Japanese and American conversational style in the classroom. This
relates to the mismatch between teachers' and students' assumptions about
interaction in the classroom as addressed in Research Question 4. The Japa-
nese cooperative style may not always work in the American classroom since
it reflects harmony and a high value on interpersonal relationships, both im-
portant in Japanese culture. The special ESL class students showed strong
cohesiveness and used amae (depends upon and presumes upon another
person's benevolence) as they interacted among themselves. Based on the
observations, the special ESL students and three of the four female students in
the regular ESL class often talked to students sitting next to them. As the
literature has shown, Japanese students are quite talkative and cohesive with
in-group members. These three female students of the regular ESL class estab-
lished a special relationship in the classroom setting even though the other
students were not Japanese. This finding is supported by Nakane (1970), who
indicates that location-shared groups are built into a situational "frame." The
answers to Question #10 demonstrated amae among the students who ex-
pected other students to answer the question for them.
Research Question 2 asks "Do traditional learning methods, the memo-
rization and repetition used to develop high literacy (reading and writing),
bring benefits to Japanese students?" In response to questionnaire Question
#2, "When the teacher directs a question to you, how do you feel?" thirteen
students answered "This is a great chance for me to use English." In the class
observation, they answered the teacher's questions of "What is that person's
name" or "What is he / she doing" with a simple phrase. However, they hesi-
tated to answer questions which asked for reasons, requiring comprehension
skills and critical thinking, since the traditional method of learning English in
Japan focuses on memorization, repetition, drilling, and testing. Although these
latter questions provided an opportunity for the Japanese students to use
English in an effective manner, their English skills may not have reached that
point and they were not accustomed to these types of questions.
Language learning in Japan does not focus on comprehension skills
or discussion among teachers and students. Accordingly, these Japanese stu-
dents were not accustomed to the American style of instruction and learning.
Also, their traditional class participation would be to attend class regularly, be
quiet, and answer when the teacher called on them. If the Japanese students
had experienced extended American classroom participation and instruction,
the results might have been different.
They had brought a Japanese learning style to the American class-
room. They were accustomed to a teacher-centered learning style at their school

23
Mariko T. Bohn

in Japan, which included listening to the teacher, taking notes, and not
interacting with the teacher and other students. In addition, the questionnaire
showed that certain unconscious Japanese cultural factors, such as amae,
were used by the students in presuming that another student would answer a
question for them. Harmony was present in the special ESL class. When the
male students could not answer a question, they often asked the help of other
students in the class, and the class members indeed tried to help each other.
Whenever the students wanted to interact in the classroom, they used Japa-
nese instead of English to communicate. These factors, plus poor performance
related to losing face, unconsciously hindered their active class participation.
However, in their questionnaires students indicated that they desired to vol-
untarily ask and answer questions at any time and to use English in their
answers to the teacher.
Research Question # 3 asks "What aspects of Japanese cultural
values, beliefs, and attitudes inhibit Japanese students' interaction in the ESL
classroom?" The quiet female student in the SJSU regular ESL class was an
example of the description provided by the literature on Japanese students
(Rockelman, 1994); (Nakabayashi & Nagao, 1994); (McDaniel, 1993); and
(Hattori, 1987). She sat quietly and mostly kept her head down, and she inter-
acted with her teachers only when they called on her. During break time she
never talked to either the teacher or the other students, and she kept a distance
between herself and her partner student during paired discussion. This behav-
ior indicated that, for her, the classmates were out-group members.
The problems the student faced in the situation described above, the
cooperative conversational style reflecting the Japanese cultural value of amae
that emphasizes group harmony, and the behavior of the quiet student all
respond to Research Question #3. It is very helpful for Japanese students if
their teachers understand their culture and learning styles and discuss the
differences between their culture and American culture and how it may affect
their learning. The students need to know what the teacher expects of them to
improve their English and to understand American culture and learning styles.
This information includes knowing the appropriate classroom language for
asking and responding, offering and expressing opinions, and agreeing and
disagreeing, as well as understanding classroom expectations, roles, and cus-
toms. If the situation has mixed students, such as in the regular ESL class, it is
difficult for the teacher to know the cultures of all the students in the class.
However, the teacher can include in the curriculum a discussion of the stu-
dents' individual cultures and the learning style which will be used in the
English language class. Similarly, Fujiwara (1994), Kiji and Kiji (1994), Fujita
(1994), Seelye (1976), and Wallerstein (1983) all state that both the teacher and
the second language learners need to recognize cultural differences and that
the teacher needs to inform the students of appropriate American educational
customs.
The students responded to Question #6, which asked, "Do you
interact with the teacher after the class is finished," with 15 (71%) students
indicating, "No, I ask questions only during the class." This response con-

24
 Japanese Classroom Behavior

flicted with the observation, which showed that many of the special ESL
students and the active female in the SJSU regular ESL class spoke to the
teacher during the class break. Japanese students expect a formal relationship
with their teachers in Japan, avoiding interaction with them. In the Japanese
social order, teachers are considered superior and students are considered
subordinate, thereby requiring students to show modesty and respect to their
teachers. While this attitude of no interaction was observed during class time,
the Japanese students were quite willing to talk to their teachers during break
time.
According to Question #13, many Japanese students felt comfortable
with the teacher's friendly, active, and humorous style in class. This type of
behavior contrasts with the more formal Japanese teacher's behavior. Since the
special and regular ESL students had been in America for more than six months,
they might have had a chance to associate with American people and experi-
ence Americans' friendliness and frankness. Therefore, the students may have
expected a less formal style of association with their teachers during break time
since they were in America.
In Question #12 which asked, "When the teacher has direct eye con-
tact with you, how do you feel?" twenty (95%) of the students responded, "I
don't mind." However, during the observation, only the active female student
from the SJSU regular ESL class maintained direct eye contact while the teacher
was talking to her. All of the special ESL class students and three of the regular
ESL class student first looked at the teacher and then looked at different loca-
tions. This is unconscious behavior. Even though the students reported not
minding direct eye contact, their accustomed behavior led them to avoid direct
eye contact with the teacher.
In addition, certain nonverbal behaviors should be noted. Students
often used head nodding for a "yes" response and aizuchi (back-channel) to
both the teacher and the other students in the class. When students did use
the response of "yes", they said "yes-yes-yes." This type of Japanese re-
sponse indicated that they were listening closely and paying attention. It also
indicated high involvement in the classroom, but with a different communica-
tion style. In contrast, for American students, high involvement and participa-
tion involves taking turns and voluntarily asking questions or providing opin-
ions. One problem that the Japanese students had was their proficiency in
English. They could not use English as well as they could use Japanese, and
this problem was coupled with the different learning styles of Japanese schools.
The Japanese students rarely interrupted the turn of another student
and took longer pauses between taking turns. There was no overlapping or
interrupting by other Japanese students whenever someone was talking to the
teacher. When the students were looking for an answer to a question raised by
the teacher, they looked at the ceiling and then took a long pause before
answering. Also, many Japanese students used fillers such as "uh," "ah," and
"um" with a long pause between the filler and the next word. This behavior
might relate to the cultural value of silence. There are cultural differences in the
attitudes toward silence between the United States and Japan. Many English

25
Mariko T. Bohn

speakers avoid silence, emphasize simultaneous speech during conversation,

and use overlapping and competition for taking turns. In Japan, silence is
considered a virtue, and the Japanese tend to use longer pauses and avoid
overlapping in conversation to show respect for other people.
Some Japanese students leaned back against their chairs and stretched
their arms and hands forward a couple of times. This action might have indi-
cated that they were bored or tired, since it never happened during the begin-
ning part of the class. Likewise, some male students scratched their heads.
This might indicate that they didn't understand the question or that the ques-
tion was very difficult for them. This behavior is quite common among Japa-
nese students as an expression of their frustration.
Another common behavior among the Japanese students was "smil-
ing." Question #3 asked, "When the teacher asks you a question and you
don't have the answer, what will you do?" Five (24%) of the students re-
sponded "I will not say anything since I don't know the answer." In the class
observation, some of the special ESL class male students smiled at the teacher
when she asked a question, but they didn't respond. Also, when the teacher
wanted feedback on whether the student understood or not, the student would
smile at the teacher without saying "yes." However, this smiling did not mean
that the student understood. Sherman (1989) reports that a smile is used by
Japanese as a means to protect privacy and also that smiling serves as a kind
of etiquette or politeness. Even though the students did not understand, they
would simply smile so that they would not be embarrassed by not understand-
ing what the teacher had said. The Japanese students also smiled because
they did not want the teacher to be disappointed.
It is quite helpful for Japanese students if their teachers understand
this nonverbal behavior, as the students are unconsciously giving their teach-
ers signs expressing their feelings. If the teachers understand the signs, they
can adjust their teaching style, change to group activities from the lecture
style, or ask questions of the individual students. It is helpful for teachers to
recheck information by asking questions or making students write the answer.
It is also quite helpful to Japanese students to have instruction gradu-
ally shift from the Japanese style to the American style of learning. This means
that in the beginning part of the class, the interactional patterns of the class-
room can have the teacher initiating the conversation by asking questions of
each student. Gradually, the teacher can switch to whole-class discussion.
Over the course of time, this procedure will inform the students of the Ameri-
can style of class participation and bridge the gap between the Japanese and
American style of learning. Japanese students are accustomed to the group
system in order to achieve the ultimate goal of group harmony. Therefore, it is
beneficial for Japanese students to have many group activities. Group compe-
tition may also improve their learning skills.
It is important for Japanese students to pay attention to their own
cultural values, beliefs, and attitudes, and to learn American cultural values
through the teacher's instruction and discussion. It is also important for them
to pay attention to their nonverbal behavior, unconsciously performed in daily

26
 Japanese Classroom Behavior

communication, and to compare the differences between their own and

American students' nonverbal behavior. Group activity and observation of
nonverbal behavior will provide a great opportunity for Japanese students to
participate and develop knowledge of the American style of classroom learn-
ing.
Likewise, it is important for American students studying in Japan to
learn Japanese culture and the Japanese method of instruction as presented in
this study. It would be a good idea for them to attend a Japanese grammar class
which uses a teacher-centered lecture style, as well as to associate with Japa-
nese students and discuss with them the differences between Japanese and
American culture. It is also important for them to practice simultaneous aizuchi
and to take longer pauses to avoid overlapping in order to communicate with
Japanese people more effectively.

Conclusion

Each country has its own set of cultural values, beliefs and attitudes.
It is important for both teachers and students in special and regular ESL class
to be aware of cultural differences and different learning styles. To understand
the student's culture is an important first step in effectively communicating
with the student since cultural factors influence student's motivation and
achievement in the classroom.
This study is a starting point for understanding Japanese students in
ESL classrooms. It is hard to generalize the findings since the number of Japa-
nese students in the three classes is small. However, it is noteworthy to show
that both the special and regular Japanese ESL students faced a paradox. They
desired to voluntarily ask and answer questions at any time and use English in
responding to the teacher's questions. However, in opposition was their ac-
customed Japanese learning style and Japanese cultural values, which hin-
dered their active classroom participation. This paradox emerged in a number
of different ways.
First, the questionnaire showed that they wanted to voluntarily an-
swer and ask questions at any time and that, whenever the teacher directed a
question to them, they felt that this was a great chance for them to use English.
However, the observation showed that they seldom asked questions of the
teacher and seldom voluntarily answered the teacher's questions. They fol-
lowed the Japanese learning style of being quiet and attentive without inter-
acting with the teacher during the class; instead, they interacted with each
other in Japanese.
Second, the questionnaire showed that most of the students reported
not interacting with the teacher, but asking questions only during the class.
Observation showed, however, that the students enjoyed interacting with the
teacher during the break period, sharing pictures and information from their
trips.
Third, the questionnaire addressed the students' feeling toward the
teacher's having direct eye contact with them. The majority answered that they

27
Mariko T. Bohn

did not mind the teacher having direct eye contact. However, observation
showed that most students gradually turned their eyes away to avoid
continuing direct eye contact with the teacher.
These examples demonstrate that the Japanese students might have both the
knowledge and desire to follow the American learning style and student roles in the
classroom. However, it was difficult to shift from the Japanese traditional passive
learning style to the American active class-participation style.
Even though the Japanese students desired to learn through class
discussions, they relied on their previously learned practices in the classroom.
It is, therefore, important for language teachers to make Japanese students
aware of the differences between the Japanese and American learning style as
well as the differences between the two cultures. It will benefit both teachers
and students greatly to discuss these differences during the beginning part of
the course in order to avoid misunderstanding and miscommunication.
A mismatch of the role perceptions of the teacher and the student can
easily occur. How can the teacher and the student avoid this mismatch? What
is the teacher's role in encouraging Japanese students to participate actively in
the classroom? One way to solve this problem might be to establish small
group activities in the classroom. The teacher may ask each group of interna-
tional students to present aspects of their background, such as their individual
culture, society, family, and personal history. This information should include
their sociocultural systems, such as customs, different holidays and celebra-
tions, and noticeable behavioral patterns. The activity will help both the teacher
and the students to get to know each other well, as well as develop interper-
sonal relations through sharing their ideas, opinions, attitudes, and feelings.
Japanese students are not accustomed to interacting with the entire class and
following the American style of active classroom participation. A small-group
activity will give them the opportunity to express readily what they want to say
in English. They do not need to worry so much about making mistakes, which
relate to shame, nor do they need to worry about standing out, which they
believe will destroy harmony in the group. It is also a great way to establish an
in-group situation since Japanese students are comfortable and talkative within
in-group settings.
The teacher can work with each group to show American cultural
patterns and how they might complement or contrast with the group's cultural
patterns. Gradually, the teacher can present the American style of classroom
participation to the students. Finally, each group can present their cultural
classroom patterns to the entire class. This activity will help each class under-
stand the culture of the different students in the class, encourage class partici-
pation, and introduce the students to the American style of instruction. This
process will also help students reduce their anxiety since the topic will be their
own background and culture, an area they know well and for which they have
their own schemata. In this process, the teacher can encourage each student to
participate actively in the whole class. The teacher and the students must
cooperate and work together so that the students can improve their English
ability and the teacher can develop effective teaching skills.

28
 Japanese Classroom Behavior

How do Japanese students motivate themselves to participate

actively in the classroom? It is necessary for Japanese students to develop
awareness of themselves as learners. Making mistakes is a necessary and
important learning process. It helps students to have social interaction outside
of the classroom. To associate and interact with native English speakers, like
the active female student from the SJSU regular ESL class did, contributes to
the learning process and helps the student gain knowledge of American cul-
ture. Other activities can include working as a volunteer in community activi-
ties or joining campus social and service clubs.
As a basis for classroom group activities, the teacher can encourage
group harmony and cooperation among the members of the group to help them
avoid standing out. Working in groups is very comfortable for Japanese stu-
dents. Likewise, group competition may help develop higher achievement for
students. Understanding this concept will also help American students plan-
ning to study in Japan. They need to recognize that they will need to learn as
part of a group rather than building on their individuality. Emphasizing indi-
viduality and standing out in the classroom are considered selfish among the
Japanese.
It is also important for newcomers to understand the Japanese hierar-
chical system. The teacher is considered to be at a higher level than the stu-
dents, thus creating a formal relationship between students and teachers. Be-
ing too informal to the instructor is considered rude. It is important to under-
stand Japanese nonverbal behavior in order to be able to show formality in
respecting teachers.
An appropriate course plan needs to be designed to help Japanese
students understand American learning styles and recognize the differences
and the relationship between Japanese and American cultures. Such a course
could be offered in Japan to students planning to study in the United States.
This course would help prepare students for studying English as well as study-
ing other subjects in regular American classrooms. The course should con-
sider both cultures so that the students can learn how to adapt themselves to
American culture with minimum anxiety.
For future research, both classroom observations and questionnaires
need to be used with Japanese students who are in regular university class-
rooms with native English speakers. How Japanese students participate and
interact with both their teachers and classmates needs to be studied and
analyzed. Inamoto (1987) states that Japanese are not free of an inferiority
complex towards Americans derived from their historical background. The Japa-
nese may take a negative, hesitating, and modest attitude toward Americans
for historical reasons (as cited in Nakabayashi and Nagao, 1994; p. 103). The
special and regular ESL classes, the research group for this paper, had no
native English speakers present. The active Japanese female student in the
SJSU regular ESL class and one female student from Cabrillo College helped
other students who were from other Asian countries. Since the Japanese
economy is stronger than that of other Asian countries, did this factor influ-
ence her behavior? Another area for further research might focus on gender

29
Mariko T. Bohn

differences among Japanese students studying English in the United States.

Whether and how they show gender differences in interaction with their teach-
ers and classmates should be studied and analyzed. These studies can con-
tribute to a more sophisticated understanding of the factors influencing the
behavior of Japanese students in U.S. classrooms.

References

Andersen, J. F., & Powell, R. (1991). Intercultural communication and the class-
room. In Samovar, L. & Porter, R. (Eds.), Intercultural communication:
A reader sixth edition (pp. 208-222). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub-
lishing Company.
Azuma, H., Hess, R.D., Kashigawa, K., & Conroy, M. (1980). Maternal control
strategies and the child's cognitive development: a cross-cultural para-
dox and its interpretation. Paper presented at the International Con-
gress of Psychology, Leipzig.
Barnlund, D. C. (1975). Communicative styles in two cultures: Japan and the
United States. In Kendon, A., Harris, R. M., & Ritchie, M. (Eds.),
World anthropology: Organization of behavior in face-to-face inter-
action (pp. 427-456). Chicago: Mouton Publishers.
Befu, Harumi. (1983). Internationalization of Japan and nihon bunkaron. In
Befu, H. & Mannari, H. (Eds.), The challenge of Japan's international-
ization: Organization and culture (pp. 232-266). Japan: Kwansei Gakuin
University.
Boss, R. S. (1983). The influence of cultural values on classroom behaviors of
adult Vietnamese refugees. College Park, MD. (ERIC Document Re-
production Service No. ED 227 342).
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: politeness
phenomenon. In Goody, E. (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strate-
gies in social interaction. Cambridge University Press.
Buruma, I. (1985). A Japanese mirror. New York: Penguin Books.
Busch, D. (1982). Introversion-extraversion and the EFL proficiency of Japa-
nese students. Language Learning, 32, 109-132.
Clancy, P. M. (1986). The acquisition of communicative style in Japanese. In
Shieffelin, B. and Ochs, E. (Eds.), Language socialization across cul-
tures (pp. 213-250). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, R. (1991). Negotiating across cultures. Washington, D.C.: United States
Institute of Peace.
Condon, J. C. (1974). The values approach to cultural patterns of communica-
tion. In Condon, J. C. & Saito, M. (Eds.), Intercultural encounters with
Japan: Communication-contact and conflict (pp. 132-152). Tokyo,
Japan: The Simul Press.
Condon, J. C. (1984). With Respect to the Japanese: A Guide for Americans.
Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
De Vos, George. (1974). The relation of guilt toward parents to achievement and
arranged marriage among the Japanese. In Lebra, T. S. & Lebra, W. P.

30
 Japanese Classroom Behavior

(Eds.), Japanese culture and behavior: Selected readings (pp. 117-

141). Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii.
Díaz-Rico, L. T. & Weed, K. Z. (1995). The cross-cultural, language, and aca-
demic development handbook: A complete k-12 reference guide.
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Doi, Takeo. (1974). A key concept of understanding Japanese personality struc-
ture. In Lebra, T. S. & Lebra, W. P. (Eds.), Japanese culture and behav-
ior: Selected readings (pp. 145-154). Honolulu: The University Press
of Hawaii.
Duke, Benjamin. (1986). The Japanese school: Lessons for industrial America.
New York: Praeger Publishers.
Fujita, Kiyotada. (1994). Cultural aspects of "Oral communication A" textbooks.
In Kitao, Kenji (Ed.), Culture and communication (pp. 152-167). Kyoto,
Japan: The JALT Kansai conference. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 381 833).
Fujiwara, Barbara. (1994). Giving cultural concepts depth and vitality. In Kitao,
Kenji (Ed.), Culture and communication (pp. 152-167). Kyoto, Japan:
The JALT Kansai conference. (ERIC Document Reproduction Ser-
vice No. ED 381 833).
Hall, E. T. (1981). Beyond culture. New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday.
Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R. (1990). Hidden differences: Doing business with the
Japanese. New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday.
Hattori, Takahiko. (1987). A study of nonverbal intercultural communication
between Japanese and Americans-focusing on the use of the eyes.
JALT journal, 8, 109-118. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 283 398).
Inamoto, N. (1987). Nihonjin tai Amerikajin. Tokyo: Waseda Daigaku Shuppambu.
Ishii, S. (1975). Characteristics of Japanese nonverbal communicative behav-
ior. Occasional papers in speech. Honolulu, HI: Department of Speech,
University of Hawaii.
Kiefer, C. W. (1974). The psychological interdependence of family, school, and
bureaucracy in Japan. In Lebra, T. & Lebra, W. (Eds.), Japanese cul-
ture and behavior: Selected readings (pp. 342-356). Honolulu: Uni-
versity Press of Hawaii.
Kiji, Maidy Giber & Kiji, Yasuharu. (1994). Cross-cultural training in the class-
room. In Kitao, Kenji (Ed.), Culture and communication (pp. 152-167).
Kyoto, Japan: The JALT Kansai conference. (ERIC Document Repro-
duction Service No. ED 381 833).
Kurita, Y. (1994). A study of Japanese students' problems in a communicative
ESL classroom: The pedagogical implications for Japanese students.
The CATESOL Journal 7(2), 57-71.
La Barre, Weston. (1962). Some observations on character structure in the
orient. In Silberman, B. S. (Ed.), Japanese character and culture: A
book of selected readings (pp. 325-359). Tucson, Arizona: The Uni-
versity of Arizona Press.

31
Mariko T. Bohn

Lebra, T. S. (1976). Japanese patterns of behavior. Honolulu, HI: University of

Hawaii.
Locastro, V. (1990). The English in Japanese university entrance examinations:
A sociocultural analysis. World Englishes, 9, 343-354.
March, R. M. (1990). The Japanese negotiator: Subtlety and strategy beyond
western logic. New York: Kondansha. (original work published 1989)
McDaniel, E. R. (1993). Japanese non-verbal behavior: A review and critique of
literature. Miami Beach, FL: The Annual Meeting of the Speech Com-
munication. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 367 014).
Morsbach, Helmut. (1988). The importance of silence and stillness in Japanese
nonverbal communication: A cross-cultural approach. In Poyatos F.
(Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives in nonverbal communication (pp.
201-215). Lewiston, NY: C. J. Hogrefe.
Naito, Takashi (1994). A survey of research on moral development in Japan.
Cross-cultural research, 28 (1), 40-57.
Nakabayashi, M. & Nagao, M. (1994). The communication competence of
Japanese observed by American students staying in Japan. In Kitao,
K. (Ed.), Culture and communication (pp. 99-112). Kyoto, Japan: The
JALT Kansai conference. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 381 833).
Nakane, Chie. (1970). Japanese society. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: Uni-
versity of California Press.
Phillips, Susan U. (1983). The invisible culture: Communication in the class-
room on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. New York: Longman.
[A comparison of Indian and Anglo communication behavior in class-
room interaction, pp. 95-125].
Reischauer, E. O. (1977). The Japanese today: Change and continuity. London:
The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Robbins, Jill. (1994). How can learning strategies instruction improve oral com-
munication skills of Japanese students? In Kitao, Kenji (Ed.), Culture
and communication (pp. 152-167). Kyoto, Japan: The JALT Kansai
conference. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 381 833).
Rockelman, John. (1994). Role expectations of Japanese EFL students. In Kitao,
Kenji (Ed.), Culture and communication (pp. 141-151). Kyoto, Japan:
The JALT Kansai conference. (ERIC Document Reproduction Ser-
vice No. ED 381 833).
Rohlen, T. P. (1983). Japan's high schools. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA:
University of California Press.
Scollon, Ron, & Scollon, Suzanne B. K. (1983). Face in interethnic communica-
tion. In Jack Richards, & Richard Schmidt (Eds.), Language and com-
munication.
Seelye, Ned H. (1976). Teaching culture: Strategies for foreign language educa-
tors. Skokie, Illinois: National Textbook Company.
Sherman, J. L. (1989). Japan: Body language and etiquette as a means of inter-
cultural communication. Ann Arbor, MI: paper presented at the 8th
annual Eastern Michigan University conference on languages and

32
 Japanese Classroom Behavior

communications for world business and the professions. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED 324 837).
Stewart, E. C. & Bennett, M. J. (1991). American cultural patterns: A cross-
cultural perspective. Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press, Inc.
Sweeney, M. A., Cottle, W. C., & Kobayashi, M. J. (1980). Nonverbal
communication: A cross-cultural comparison of American and Japa-
nese counseling students. Journal of counseling psychology, 27 (2),
150-156.
Tannen, Deborah. (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men in con-
versation. New York: Ballantine Books.
Thorpe, D. (1991). Confused encounters: Differing expectations in the EAP
classroom. ELT Journal, 45, 108-118.
Wallerstein, Nina. (1983). Language and culture in conflict: Problems posing in
the ESL classroom. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Pub.
Co.
Yamada, Haru. (1992). American and Japanese business discourse: A compari-
son of interactional styles. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corpora-
tion.
Yamada, Haru. (1997). Different game, different rules: Why Americans and
Japanese misunderstand each other. New York: Oxford University
Press.

Appendix

Questionnaire - This questionnaire was presented to students in both

English and Japanese.

Part 1
Age:_________________ Male / Female (Circle One)
College Major in Japan:_______________________________________
Main Purpose for Studying English:______________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

Part 2
Instructions: Please circle only the best answer.

1. What is your preferred method of classroom interaction?

a. To voluntarily ask and answer questions at any time.
b. To answer the teacher's question when the teacher calls
on me.
c. Only to listen and not to answer questions.
2. When the teacher directs a question to you, how do you feel?
a. I wonder why the teacher asked me?
b. This is a great chance for me to use English.
c. If I give the wrong answer, I will be very ashamed.

33
Mariko T. Bohn

3. When the teacher asks you a question and you don't have the
answer, what will you do?
a. I'll ask the person next to me for the answer.
b. I will not say anything since I don't know the answer.
c. I will clearly say, 'I don't know.'
4. When you come late to class, what will you do, or what will you
say to the teacher?
a. I will sit down in the chair near the corner of the room
without saying anything because I don't want to disturb
the class.
b. I will explain to the instructor why I was late and then sit
down in the chair.
c. I will say 'I am sorry that I am late,' and then sit down.
5. What do you think about placing the chairs in a semi-circle or
circle?
a. I am quite comfortable and this is a good chance to
interact with other students.
b. I am not comfortable but the teacher wants it this way, so I
will follow the teacher.
c. I am very ashamed because I feel like everyone is watch
ing me.
6. Do you interact with the teacher after the class is finished?
a. Yes, very much.
b. No, I ask questions only during the class.
c. No. We should respect the teacher and not bother the
teacher after class.
7. Do you participate in group class discussions?
a. I only answer a question when someone asks me.
b. I express my opinions on most topics.
c. Normally, I am not comfortable with participating in class
discussion.
8. Do you talk to other students while the teacher is lecturing or
teaching the class?
a. Yes, I often talk to students sitting next to me.
b. It is quite rude to the instructor, so I never do.
c. When a student asks me, I will answer - but not more than
that.
9. Do you ask questions of the teacher during the class? Yes or No
(Circle one).
For the person who said no, what is your reason?
a. It is rude to ask questions of the teacher.
b. I am ashamed because I might ask an inappropriate
question.
c. I don't want to stand out in the class.
10. When the teacher asks a question to the entire class, do you
volunteer an answer to the question? Yes or No (Circle one).

34
 Japanese Classroom Behavior

For the person who said no, what is your reason?

a. I would be very ashamed if my answer were wrong.
b. I don't want to stand out in the class.
c. I don't need to answer the question since other students
can answer.
11. When the instructor makes a mistake in the classroom, what will
you do?
a. I don't need to correct the mistake since other students
q will.
b. I never correct the teacher's mistake because it would be
rude to the teacher.
c. Voluntarily, I tell the instructor that he/she made a mistake.
12. When the teacher has direct eye contact with you, how do you
feel?
a. I don't mind.
b. I am uncomfortable.
c. It is rude to look at the teacher's eyes, so I will look
elsewhere
13. What kind of teacher's behavior makes you feel comfortable in
class?
14. What kind of teacher's behavior makes you feel uncomfortable in
class?

Author

MARIKO T. BOHN, Graduate Fellow, Ph.D. Program, Asian Languages De-

partment, Stanford University, Main Quad Building 50, Stanford, CA
94305-2034. Email: mbohn@stanford.edu On leave as faculty member
in teaching Japanese, Cabrillo College. Research Intersts: Social lin-
guistics, language, and gender.

35
 Learning Linguistic Politeness

Applied Language Learning

2004, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 37-62

Learning Linguistic Politeness

Andrew Sangpil Byon

University at Albany
State University of New York

American KFL (Korean as a foreign language) students'

communicative success depends to a large extent on their
ability to express interpersonal meanings with target-lan-
guage resources. However, information regarding how KFL
students acquire, or fail to learn linguistic politeness
through classroom learning is scarce. The nature of this
study is cross-sectional. In addition, rather than directly
examining the effects of particular approaches to instruc-
tion, the focus is on the observation of second year KFL
students' pragmatic ability, resulting from previous class-
room language learning.
The goal of this article is twofold: (a) to investi-
gate the second-year KFL students' pragmatic judgment of
an appropriate speech act, and (b) to discuss pedagogical
implications based on the findings. Overall, the study found
that the KFL students got 73.3% correct responses. In ad-
dition, the study identified five reasons for the wrong re-
sponses. Moreover, as possible factors influencing the stu-
dents' assessment ability, this study identified the possible
effects of negative transfer from their L1 sociopragmatic
aspect: the egalitarian value system and the directness of
American English (Sohn, 1986; Byon, 2001). Furthermore,
the study identified the KFL instructors' lack of awareness
regarding the needs of teaching KFL pragmatic elements
and the grammar-oriented instructional goals of current
KFL curriculum as two factors that need to be readdressed
in order to enhance current KFL pragmatic teaching.

Rationale

Language has two functions: (1) to convey referential contents of the

message such as knowledge and information, and (2) to express the social
indexical meanings of the message (e.g., social meanings such as who we are,
what we are doing, and how we feel toward the addressee and the events). The
linguistic elements employed for the second function of language have been
associated with the term 'linguistic politeness' (Sohn, 1999) or 'indexicality'

@ 2004, Andrew Sangpil Byon 37

Andrew Sangpil Byon

(Och, 1988; Duranti, 1997). According to Sohn (1999), many studies on linguis-
tic politeness have identified two types of politeness: discernment and
volitional. The function of discernment politeness is to index social meanings
involved in contexts such as speakers' attitudes toward the addressee or refer-
ent (e.g., politeness, respect, and humility), as well as social variables involved
in interactions (e.g., age, seniority, rank, gender, and education background).
Discernment politeness use is controlled by the cultural norms of the society,
and often it is realized in the form of honorifics.
For example, Korean honorifics, rich in morphological variation, be-
long to discernment politeness, and they function to establish and maintain
human relationships through their complicated honorific elements (e.g., speech
levels, honorific suffix, vocatives, euphemistic words, and various discourse
sentence-ending particles). The Koreans use honorific suffixes and euphemis-
tic words to indicate respect toward an addressee, someone who holds a higher
social status. In addition, they use humble person pronoun forms such as ce
'first person singular' and cehuy 'first person plural' to indicate humility. More-
over, Koreans use various speech levels to indicate politeness, intimacy, and
formality level of discourse during interaction, and various discourse-sen-
tence ending particles as hedges to reduce the illocutionary force and/or di-
rectness level of their utterance.
The following examples illustrate the social indexing function of Ko-
rean honorifics.1

1a. Ecey wuli moim-ey wa-cwu( )-ese komawe-ss-e

Yesterday our meeting-to come-give( )-so thank-PST-INT
'I appreciated that you came to our meeting yesterday.'

1b. Ecey cehuy moim-ey wa cwu-si-ese komawe-ss-supnita

Yesterday our meeting-to come-give-SH-so thank-PST-INT.
'I appreciated that you came to our meeting yesterday.'

The above two examples are speech acts of gratitude. The referential meanings
of the examples are the same; however, their social meanings are different. For
example, in (1a), the use of the plain first person pronoun, wuli, the absence of
the honorific suffix -(u)si, and the use of an intimate speech level -e indicate
that the speaker is likely to address a person either who has equal (=power) or
lower status (-power), whom he/she knows well (-distance). The example in
(1a) can be rude, if such an expression is used by a lower person (e.g., a college
student) in a formal situation to a higher-status person (e.g., professor) be-
cause the utterance lacks the proper honorific elements.
To make (1a) socially appropriate in a +power situation, one should
change the wuli first person plural genitive pronoun to the cehuy humble first
plural genitive pronoun as shown in (1b). In addition, one should affix the
honorific suffix -(u)si to the gerundive verb cwuese (giving [me]) to cwusiese
transforming it into an honorific verb, and use the deferential speech level
sentence-ending supnita to change komawe-ss (thanked [you]) to komawess-

38
 Learning Linguistic Politeness

supnita, in deferential speech level. The above examples illustrate how the use
of honorifics in the Korean language function as a social indexer. In addition, it
shows how an utterance is said is more important than what is said during the
social interaction. Moreover, in the case of Korean, as pragmatic information is
frequently embedded in the morphological rules, it is more salient. Along with
Korean language, only a few languages such as Japanese and Javanese have
such sophisticated systematic honorifics. The use of honorifics poses most
daunting challenges to American KFL learners in that such sophisticated sys-
tematic linguistic coding of discernment politeness is not present in their L1,
English.
Meanwhile, the volitional politeness is conspicuous both in English
and Korean. Volitional politeness is to save one's face (Brown & Levinson,
1987), and it is influenced by interactive speech act situations. Brown &
Levinson's (1987) adopt Goffman's (1967) concept of 'face' as 'a loan from
society,' upon which they conceptualize two types of faces: 'negative face,'
desires to be free from other people's intervention, and 'positive face,' desires
to be accepted by others.2 Based on universal assumption that people use
linguistic politeness strategies to satisfy these 'faces' in interaction, Brown &
Levinson develop a model of politeness, in which again they distinguish two
types of politeness strategies: (a) positive, which attends to the hearer's posi-
tive face, and (b) negative, which attends to the hearer's negative face.
Their notion of 'face' wants and politeness are based on assumption
that certain communicative acts are innately 'face-threatening acts (FTA)', thus
needs to be counterbalanced by an appropriate amount of politeness. All speech
acts are involved in FTA. For example, speech acts such as requests, orders,
suggestions, advice, gratitude, and accepting offers are threatening 'negative
face'. On the other hand, the speech acts such as apologies and accepting
compliments threaten 'positive face'.
Because speech acts are FTA, the speaker has the choice to perform
the act or not to perform it. If the speaker decides to perform an act, he or she
may need to deploy some sort of politeness strategy to reduce the seriousness
of FTA effects. The act can be either 'off-record' (e.g., performed in such a way
that it can be ignored by the addressee) or 'on-record.' On-record acts can be
either 'baldly on record' (by using direct speech acts such as 'give me the
pencil') or can involve 'face-saving activity.' If the speaker decides to perform a
face-saving activity, he or she can adopt either a negative strategy (e.g., Would
you mind lending your pencil to me?) or a positive strategy (e.g., My friend!
Let me use your pencil, OK?).
The directness level of speech act is associated with volitional polite-
ness. According to Brown & Levinson, those who were in some way less
powerful than the addressee are likely to use indirect politeness strategies
(e.g., negative politeness as a social strategy), whereas using direct strategies
(e.g., positive politeness) is a sign of social closeness. They assert that people
tend to use a high-numbered of indirect politeness strategies in a society
where high 'Distance' dominates (e.g., England). On the other hand, in those
societies where low Distance dominates in public and Power is minimized,

39
Andrew Sangpil Byon

people tend to use more of direct politeness strategies. In addition, Brown &
Levinson discuss that power, distance, and the degree of imposition are the
most important social variables determining the politeness of speech act per-
formance. The amount of politeness can be measured through a computation
of Weightiness = Distance + Power + Degree of imposition. Relative power
may be given more weight than distance in a more hierarchical or vertical
society such as Korean and Japanese culture, whereas relative distance may
be more weighted in an egalitarian society such as American culture.
In sum, according to Brown & Levinson's view, 'face' wants motivate
politeness, thereby it is volitional. However, beside 'face' wants, 'normative
orientations' often motivate politeness (e.g., via honorifics) in Korean society.
For example, the desire to index social relationships rather than to save one's
face also motivates politeness in Korean culture. In Korean society, the use of
politeness in interaction is not always strategic, but also normative.
So far, we have discussed discernment and volitional politeness in
understanding Korean linguistic politeness. However, the aforementioned two
types of politeness are not sufficient in order to perceive and produce Korean
linguistic politeness successfully. For example, one must also be aware of
cognitive values orientations of the Korean language and culture such as
hierarchism, collectivism, and indirectness in engaging in Korean linguistic
politeness. Sohn (1986) asserts that neither pragmatic principles of Brown &
Levinson's face-saving view (1978), nor that of Grice's (1975) can explain,

Why Americans treat everyone more or less equally in

speech acts, whereas Koreans are overly helpful and cour-
teous to some people but act with no regard for others; why
an angry American tends to upgrade address terms, as from
"John" to "Mr. John Smith" when addressing someone with
whom he is angry, whereas an angry Korean tends to down-
grade address terms and speech level; why unlike Ameri-
cans, Koreans cannot use a second person pronoun when
addressing a social superior; and why American adults most
commonly use nicknames like "Bob" and "Liz" while Korean
adults most frequently use the deferential speech style for
smooth daily social interaction. (p. 444)

Sohn (1986) further argues that Koreans and Americans have distinc-
tively different cognitive cultures, underlying intercultural communication be-
tween Americans and Koreans.3 He asserts that Americans are, relatively
speaking, more egalitarian, individualistic, direct, practical, and rationalistic
than Koreans, and Koreans are more hierarchical, collectivistic, indirect, for-
malistic, and emotionalistic than Americans. Moreover, Byon investigates how
these values are reflected in the Korean speech act of request (2002) and
refusal (2003).

40
 Learning Linguistic Politeness

Learning to interpret and use Korean linguistic politeness is a

daunting task for KFL students for at least two reasons. First, students must
learn the effects of social constraints, bound by Korean cultural and social
norms (e.g., cognitive value orientations), on the use of Korean honorifics, and
perception of various aspects of volitional politeness such as directness level
of Korean speech acts. For example, the use of relevant linguistic politeness
(e.g., honorifics) is essential for the +power situation. However, in different
social contexts such as -power situations, where the speaker has a higher
status because of his/her age, or seniority compared to that of the hearer, the
use of honorific elements must be suppressed to make the utterance socially
appropriate. The use of honorifics in inappropriate contexts (e.g., -power situ-
ation) makes speakers' utterance sound cynical or even sarcastic to hearers.
Second, honorific elements such as appropriate speech level, euphe-
mistic words, and honorific suffix normally co-occur to produce a polite utter-
ance in the given context (+power). Consequently, KFL students must learn to
collocate several honorific elements to produce certain social meanings. In
other words, in order to speak and interpret Korean linguistic politeness, KFL
students must know what social role they play in a given context and what is
the normative anticipation of that role in Korean society; and they must know
that certain linguistic features collocate in a certain speech level.
Then, how do KFL students learn to use such a difficult honorific
system? According to Gumperz (1996), the use of contextualization conven-
tions (e.g., honorifics) can be learned primarily through gradual and long-term
socialization in the family, among friends, and institutional environments. Cook
(2001) further adds that learning linguistic politeness via socialization is diffi-
cult because the process is typically unconscious, and often the use of con-
ventions are inherently ambiguous because they are context-dependent (e.g.,
the complex effects of social constraints on contextual language use). In the
reality of KFL students' learning, whose primary source of socialization de-
pends on less than five hours of KFL language instruction every week, KFL
students' opportunities for learning linguistic politeness through socialization
are very much limited in classrooms. Despite the importance of linguistic po-
liteness in KFL learning, the number of research findings regarding how KFL
students acquire, or fail to acquire linguistic politeness through KFL class-
room learning is scarce.

Research Issues

The goal of this paper is to investigate second-year American KFL

students' pragmatic ability to assess an appropriate speech act (perceiving
socio-culturally appropriate request forms) in three different situations, after
three and a half semesters of typical foreign language instruction at the univer-
sity level. The nature of this study is cross-sectional. In addition, rather than
directly examining the effects of particular approaches to instruction, the focus
here is on the observation of second year KFL students' pragmatic ability,
resulting from previous classroom language learning. I attempt to measure the

41
Andrew Sangpil Byon

students' pragmatic competence by examining their ability to assess appropri-

ate request because the ability to produce and perceive speech acts appropri-
ately is one way to assess KFL students' pragmatic learning process.
I chose the speech act of request as means to measure KFL students'
pragmatic competence for two reasons. First, requests are a "face-threatening
act (FTA)" (Brown & Levinson, 1987), which calls for considerable cultural and
linguistic expertise on the part of the student. Moreover, requests differ cross-
culturally and linguistically in that they require a higher level of appropriate-
ness for their successful completion; very often, they are realized by means of
clearly identifiable formulae. Second, non-native speakers such as American
KFL students are likely to encounter problems in handling this particular speech
act properly in Korean (Byon, 2001). The consequence of inappropriate re-
quests by American KFL students may evoke rude or awkward impressions in
the eyes of Korean native speakers. This can lead to misunderstanding, caused
by the KFL students' lack of knowledge in relation to mitigating strategies and
devices in Korean, which in turn may lead to "pragmatic failure" (Thomas,
1983). In the speech act of request, I focus on the students' pragmatic
awareness when using the following three Korean honorifics: (1) speech lev-
els: the use of plain, intimate, polite, and deferential, (2) the use of honorific
suffix -(u)si, and (3) the use of euphemistic verbs such as tulita the humble
verb of cwuta [to give].4 These honorific elements are assumed to be covered
in the previous three semesters of Korean (e.g., Korean 101 through 201).
The data for this study is elicited from individual interviews with 30
Korean 202 KFL students. The interview consisted of a listening task (10
minutes) and reflection (5 minutes). In the listening task, a student is asked to
listen to three request situations, followed by four choices of request. Then,
the student is asked to assess the most appropriate request form for each
situation. After the listening task, the student is asked to provide reasons for
his/her selection of the particular request form.
The contribution of this study is at least threefold. First, investiga-
tion of the second year KFL students' ability to assess an appropriate speech
act will help KFL teachers evaluate the KFL students' Korean linguistic polite-
ness learning. The results will suggest what needs to be reconsidered and re-
evaluated in the KFL curriculum in order to enhance students' pragmatic learn-
ing. Second, studies on KFL pedagogy have focused on learning vocabularies
and grammatical points, whereas the studies that investigate learning prag-
matic aspects such as the use of speech acts have often been ignored. It is my
hope that the findings of this study will stimulate KFL teachers and research-
ers' interests in conducting further KFL pragmatic learning research.
The research questions are threefold. First, are KFL students able to
distinguish an appropriate request form among inappropriate request forms?
Second, what factors influence their success or failure in recognizing such
stylistic differences? Third, what are pedagogical implications of this study?

42
 Learning Linguistic Politeness

Method

Participants

The subjects of this study were 30 KFL students of Korean 202 classes:
19 from the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor (Spring 2002) and 11 from
State University of New York at Albany (Spring 2003). Subjects consisted of 15
heritage learners and 15 non-heritage students.5 The heritage learners were
mostly from NY, and they were either born in the States or came to the States as
infants. The non-heritage learners consisted of five White Americans, seven
Korean adoptees, and one third-generation Korean descendant, and two Chi-
nese Americans.6 Nineteen were female students, and 11 were male.
The instructors of these two courses, consisting of one female and
one male, agreed to participate in this study. They were all native speakers of
Korean, who were raised in Korea, and received their B.A. and M.A. from a
Korean university. The female instructor of the University of Michigan had
been teaching KFL for six years, and the male instructor from the University at
Albany for five years. The instructors also participated in this study, and
provided the native speakers' response. In addition, in order to shed light on
possible sources for the subjects' judgments, they were interviewed after the
task results were obtained. I interviewed the Korean instructors in my office in
a friendly atmosphere, and the following two questions were used as a guide-
line during the interview.

1. Do you teach the elements of Korean linguistic polite-

ness (e.g., the use of the honorific suffix -(u)si, speech lev-
els, and the use of euphemistic verbs) in class?
2. Do you teach socio-pragmatic aspects of the Korean
language (e.g., the effects of social constraints on the use of
appropriate speech acts)?7

Procedure

The data collection procedure consisted of a listening task and a

student reflection report. The detailed procedure is as follows. First, a subject
is asked to listen to a sequence of three audio-taped situations, each followed
by four choices of requests. After listening to each situation, the subject is
prompted to listen to four audio-taped possible request forms, which are played
three times, and then to judge the most appropriate request among the four
choices in each given context. The appropriateness of the requests should be
judged by the subject according to the referential content of the message,
social meaning (e.g., politeness via the use of appropriate honorific elements),
and pragmatic meaning (e.g., directness). After the listening task, the subject is
asked to provide the reason that he/she chose the particular response.

43
Andrew Sangpil Byon

Materials

Situations in the questionnaire were constructed to evaluate KFL

learners' ability to assess the appropriate speech act of request. In order to
choose the right act, learners must understand the honorifics elements (related
to discernment politeness), as well as aspects of directness level of speech
acts (associated with volitional politeness).
The situations in this study aim to investigate the systematic varia-
tion of the social factors: Power and Distance, which had both been shown to
be significant variables in determining speech performance (Blum-Kulka, House
and Kasper, 1989; Brown & Levinson, 1987). The power variable is treated as
a trinary value where the hearer was either of lower status (-power), interlocu-
tors were of equal status (=power), or the hearer was of higher status (+power).
In addition, the distance variable may be treated as a binary value so that
interlocutors either knew each other (-distance) or did not know each other
(+distance). However, for ease of exposition, this study narrowed down the
above six combinations into the following three situations: (+power, -dis-
tance), (=power, -distance), and (-power, -distance). Table 1 below presents the
social constraints embedded in three situations. These role relationships re-
flect common occurrences in the daily life of college students.

Table 1. Social Constraints Embedded In The Scenario

Situation Power (Social Status) Familiarity (Social Distance)

1. Professor S <H Familiar

2. Best Friend S=H Familiar

3. Roommate (junior) S >H Familiar

Among the possible four request forms, there is only one appropriate
form and the three inappropriate forms, judged by the native speakers of Ko-
rean.8 Can KFL students make a pragmatic judgment similar to that of Korean
native speakers? This investigation offers a good opportunity to investigate
KFL students' ability to focus on social meaning as indexed by the honorific
elements.
Now, let us see how these politeness constructs (honorifics elements
and directness levels) are embedded in each situation. The following are the
texts that were read to the students three times.

Situation 1 (+P, -D)

You are very much interested in auditing a class taught by Professor
Kim. You already have taken two classes from Professor Kim, and you KNOW
him personally. So you decide to ask this professor's permission to audit. What
would you say to get this professor to allow you to audit this class?

44
 Learning Linguistic Politeness

Choice 1

1. Sensayng-nim, annyeng ha-sey-yo?

Teacher-HT Well do-SH-POL?
'Professor, how are you?'

2. Sensayng-nim-i ipen hakki-ey kaluchinun

Teacher-HT-NM this semester-at teaching

swuep-ul tutko siph-ese mwule polyeko wa-ss-eyo.

class-AC take want-so ask see come-PST-POL.
'I came here to ask (for your permission) because I want to take a class
taught by you this semester.'

3. Cinan hakki sensayng-nim-uy

Last semester teacher-HT-GN

swuep-i nemwu caymi iss-ess-ko manhun kes-ul paywul swu-ka iss-ess-

eyo.
class-NM very interesting PST-and much things-AC learn can-NM
PST-POL.
'Last semester, your class was very interesting, and I was able to learn
much.'

4. Sensayng-nim kkok tutkosiph-eyo. Tutkey hay cwu-lkeci-yo?

Teacher-HT certainly take want-POL. Take do give-will-POL.
'Professor, I really want to take it. You will let me take it, right?'

Choice 2

1. Sensayng-nim, annyeng ha-sy-ess-supni-kka?

Teacher- HT Well do-SH-PST-DEF-Q?
'Professor, How are you? '

2. Sensayng-nim-kkeyse ipen hakki-ey kaluchi-si-nun swuep-ul tutko

Teacher-HT-NM this semester-at teaching-SH class-AC take

siph-ese yeccwue polyeko wa-ss-supnita.

want-so ask (EU) see come-PST-DEF.
'I came here to ask (for your permission) because I want to take a class
taught by you this semester.'

3. Cinan hakki sensayng-nim swuep-i nemwu caymi iss-ess-ko

Last semester teacher-HT class-NM very interesting-PST-and

manhun kes-ul paywul swu-ka iss-ess-supnita.

45
Andrew Sangpil Byon

Much things-AC learn can-NM PST-DEF.

'Last semester, your class was very interesting, and I was able to learn
much.'

4. Sensayng-nim, kkok tutko siph-supnita.

Teacher- HT, certainly take want-DEF.
'Professor, I really want to take it.'

5. Tutkey hay cwu-si-l swu issu-si-keyss-supni-kka?

Take do give-SH can SH-intention-DEF-Q?
'Will you be able to let me take it?'

Choice 3

1. Sensayng-nim, annyeng-ha-sey-yo?
Teacher-HT Well do-SH-POL?
'Professor, How are you?'

2. Ipen hakki-ey sensayng-nim-kkeyse kaluchi-si-nun swuep-ul tutko

this semester-at teacher-HT NM(hon.) teaching SH class-AC take

siph-ese yeccwue polyeko wa-ss-nuntey-yo.

want-so ask(EU) see come-PST-hedge-POL.
'I came here to ask (for your permission) because I want to take a class
taught by you this semester (hedge)…'

3. Cinan hakki sensayng-nim swuep-i nemwu caymi iss-ess-ko

Last semester teacher-HT class-NM very interesting PST-and

manhun kes-ul paywul swu-ka iss-ess-ketun-yo…

much thing-AC learn can-NM PST-hedge-POL.
'It is because your class last semester was very interesting, and I was able
to learn much (hedge)…'

4. Sensayng-nim, kkok tutko siph-untey…tutkey hay cwu-si-lkeci-yo?

Teacher-HT certainly take want-hedge…take do give-SH-will-POL?
'Professor, I really want to take it (hedge)… You will let me take it right?'

Choice 4

1. Annyeng-ha-sey-yo? Ipen hakki sensayng-nim-kkeye kaluchi-si-nun

swuep-ul tutko siph-eyo.
Well do-SH-POL? This semester teacher-HT-NM teaching-SH class-
AC take want-POL.
'How are you? I want to take a class taught by you this semester. '

46
 Learning Linguistic Politeness

2. Cey-ka i swuep-ey kwansim-i manh-ayo. Kulayse com tutkey hay

cwu-sey-yo.
I-NM this class-at interest-NM a lot-POL. So little take do give-
SH-POL.
'I am really interested in this class. So, please let me take it.'

KFL learners must understand the honorifics or 'conventionality' of

linguistic politeness expressions, as well as differences in the directness. Na-
tive speakers confirmed that Choice 3 is the most appropriate choice for this
situation, whereas the other three choices are inappropriate.
Let us first examine why other choices are inappropriate. Choice 1
sounds inappropriate because of the absence of the honorific suffix -(u)si. It is
conventional to use the honorific suffix in addressing a person with higher
status such as one's professor, regardless of familiarity. The absence of the
suffix in the expression makes the speaker sound very rude. Choice 2 is awk-
ward because of the deferential speech level -supnita, whose usage is re-
stricted to a formal setting. In this private conversation setting, the use of
informal polite speech level -yo is conventional. They also judged Choice 4
inappropriate because it sounds too direct and thus impolite for this situation.
Indirectness is one of the cognitive value orientations of Korean language and
culture (Sohn, 1986). Despite the close social distance between the speaker
and the hearer, the use of indirect strategies is normative in Korean in this
particular situation, where a student makes a request to his/her professor. Such
interpretation supports Byon's argument (2001) that power is a more dominant
social factor in comparison to distance, and Sohn's proposal (1986) that hier-
archism and indirectness are two cognitive value orientations of Korean. At
last, Choice 3 is the most appropriate in that it contains all the necessary
elements of honorifics: the right speech level: polite speech level -yo, the use
of honorific suffix -(u)si, the use of euphemistic verb yeccwupta 'to ask (humble
verb)', and appropriate indirectness level, expressed by the use of hedge -
untey.

Situation 2 (=P, -D)

Because of the stomach flu, you were absent from last Friday's his-
tory class. So you decide to borrow your INTIMATE classmate's notes to
catch up with the rest of the class. What would you say to get this friend to
lend you notes for the class you missed?

Choice 1

1. Cinan swuep-ey apha-se mos ka-ss-ta. Swuep note-lul pilliko siph-ta.

Last class-at sick-so can't go-PST-PLN. Class note-AC borrow want-
PLN.
'I could not come to the last lecture for I was sick. I want to borrow your
notes.'

47
Andrew Sangpil Byon

2. Note-lul pillye-to twa-y?

Note-AC borrow-though become?
'Is it okay that I borrow then?'

Choice 2

1. Cinan kumyoil-ey aphu-sye-se swuep note-lul mos ha-sye-ss-e.

Last Friday-on sick-SH-so class note-AC can't take-SH-PST-INT.
'I could not take notes for I was sick last Friday.'

2. Note-lul pillye tulye ung?

Note-AC lend-give (EU) Okay?
'Lend me your notes (for someone)? Okay?'

Choice 3

1. Cinan kumyoil-ey apha-se swuep note-lul mos hay-ss-eyo.

Last Friday-on sick so class note-AC can't do-PST-POL.
'I could not take notes last Friday for I was sick.'

2. Note-lul pillye cwu-sey-yo.. Ney?

Note-AC lend give-SH-POL Yes?
'Please lend me your notes. Yes?'

Choice 4

1. Cinan kumyoil-ey apha-se swuep note-lul mos hay-ss-e.

Last Friday-on sick so class note-AC can't do-PST-INT.
'I could not take notes last Friday for I was sick.'

2. Note-lul com pillye cwul-lay, ung?

Note-AC little lend (me) give-will Okay?
'Will you lend me your notes? Okay?'

In this situation (=P, -D), the use of intimate speech level is the most
acceptable. In addition, the use of any honorific elements such as honorific
suffix, and euphemistic words is not normative. Korean native speakers picked
Choice 4 as the most appropriate for this situation and judged all other choices
inappropriate. Choice 1 sounds awkward for its plain verb ending -ta. The plain
speech level ta, which is the lowest speech level in Korean language is used by
any speaker, in general, to any child, and between intimate adult friends whose
friendship began in childhood. On the other hand, the intimate speech level is
used by close friends whose friendship began in adolescence (Sohn, 1999).
Considering that the speakers in the situations are college friends, native speak-
ers of Korean judged Choice 1 inappropriate for it sounds too blunt. Choice 2

48
 Learning Linguistic Politeness

is incorrect because of the use of the honorific suffix -(u)si, and the use of the
wrong humble verb tulita. Choice 3 is again inappropriate because of the polite
speech level. At last, Choice 4 is the best choice in that it has the most conven-
tional speech level without any honorific elements.9

Situation 3 (-P, -D)

Your roommate is your best friend's younger sibling, who is your high
school junior. Your computer is out of order because of a virus, but you have a
paper due tomorrow. You decide to ask your ROOMMATE whether you can
use his computer tonight. What would you say to get your roommate to do this
favor for you?

Choice 1

1. Nayil kkaci swukcey-ka iss-nuntey cey computer-ka kocang-i na-ss-

eyo.
Tomorrow until homework-NM have-but my computer-NM broken-NM
occur-PST-POL.
'I have homework due tomorrow, but my computer is out of order.'

2. Mian ha-ciman twusikan-man pillye cwu-sey-yo.

Sorry do-but two hours-only lend give-SH-POL.
'I am sorry but please lend it to me (only) for two hours. Please?'

Choice 2

1. Nayil kkaci swukcey-ka iss-usi-ntey cey computer-ka kocang-i na-sy-

ess-e.
Tomorrow until homework-NM have-SH-but my computer-NM broken-
NM occur-SH-PST-INT.
'I have homework due tomorrow, but my computer is out of order.'

2. Mian ha-ntey twusikan-man ssu-si-ko siph-e. Ung?

Sorry do-but two hours-only use-SH-and want-INT. Okay?
'I am sorry but, I want to use it for (only) two hours. Okay?'

Choice 3

1. Nayil kkaci swukcey-ka iss-nuntey computer-ka kocang-i na-ss-e.

Tomorrow until homework-NM have-but computer-NM broken-NM occur-
PST-INT.
'I have homework due tomorrow, but my computer is out of order.'
2. Mian ha-ciman twusikan-man pillye cwul-lay, ung?
Sorry do but two hours-only lend give-INT. Okay?
'I am sorry but will you lend it to me (only) for two hours? Okay?'

49
Andrew Sangpil Byon

Choice 4

1. Nayil kkaci swukcey-ka iss-nuntey nauy computer-ka kocang-i na-ss-

ta.
Tomorrow until homework-NM have-but my computer-NM broken-NM
occur-PST-PLN.
'I have homework due tomorrow, but my computer is out of order.'

2. Kulayse neuy computer-ka philyo-ha-ta. Computer-lul pilliko siph-ta.

So your computer-NM need-do-PLN. Computer-AC borrow want-PLN.
'So, I need your computer. I want to borrow your computer.'

3. Computer-lul com sse-to tway?

Computer-AC little use-though become?
'Is it okay that I use it (for a little while)?'

Similar to Situation 2, the use of intimate speech level is normative in

(-P, -D) situation. In addition, the use of any honorific element, such as honor-
ific suffix, and euphemistic verbs, is inappropriate. Korean native speakers
excluded Choice 1 (for its polite speech level), and Choice 2 (for the use of the
honorific suffix). They judged Choice 4 less appropriate than Choice 3 in that
the use of the intimate speech level in Choice 3 sounds more natural than the
use of plain speech level in Choice 4.

Results

Overall Performances

Table 2 shows the number of correct responses. A total 30 subjects

participated in this study. Each subject had to pick one correct response from
three situations, which yielded 90 possible answers (30 subjects x 3 ques-
tions).10

Table 2. The Number of Correct Responses

Situation N umber of Q uestions N umber of C orrect Answers

O ne 30 19
Two 30 22
Three 30 25

Total 90 66

(N = raw score)

50
 Learning Linguistic Politeness

Overall, the KFL students, both heritage and non-heritage students,

got 73.3% correct responses (66 out of 90 possible answers). In addition,
Situation 1 was the most difficult question for both groups in that they scored
63.3% (19 out of 30 possible answers), and Situation 3 was the easiest in that
they scored 83.3% (25 out of 30 possible answers).

Analysis of Each Situation

Situation 1
In this situation, a student makes a request to a professor (+P, -D)
whom he/she knows personally, and Choice 3 is the right response.

Table 3. Distribution of Choices in Situation 1

Choice 1 Choice 2 Choice 3 Choice 4 Total

5 6 19 0 30
16 . 7 % 20% 63.3% 0.0% 100%

As Table 3 shows, 19 students (63.3%) picked the right response,

Choice 3. They reported that they judged Choice 1 was wrong for the absence
of -(u)si, the honorific suffix, and Choice 2 was inappropriate for the use of the
deferential polite ending in this informal context. Moreover, they assessed
Choice 4 was inappropriate for it sounded too direct. On the other hand, six
students (20.0%) picked the wrong response: Choice 2. According to their self-
reflection report, they picked Choice 2 because they thought that the deferen-
tial level sounded more polite than the polite level. In addition, five students
(16.7%) picked Choice 1, perceiving that the use of the honorific suffix -(u)si is
unnecessary because of the intimacy between the speaker and the hearer.
Egalitarianism has been discussed as one of the main characteristics of Ameri-
can English in previous studies (Sohn, 1986; Byon, 2001). The students' selec-
tion of Choice 1 may be attributed to negative transfer from their L1
sociopragmatic aspect: the egalitarian value system of English. In all, based on
the analysis, it turned out that the students recognized that direct expressions
would be inappropriate in this particular context (e.g., none picked Choice 4).
On the other hand, some found the use of different speech levels perplexing
(e.g., in the selection of Choice 3).

Situation 2
In this situation, a speaker makes a request to his/her intimate class-
mate (=P, -D), and the right response is Choice 4.

51
Andrew Sangpil Byon

Table 4. Distribution of Choices in Situation 2

Choice 1 Choice 2 Choice 3 Choice 4 Total

1 7 0 22 30
3.3% 23.3% 0.0% 73.3% 100%

As shown in Table 4, 22 students (73.3%) picked Choice 4, the correct

response. They reported that they recognized Choice 1 was inappropriate in
that the plain verb ending -ta sounded strange in this context; Choice 2 was
incorrect on an account of the wrongly used honorific suffix and the euphemis-
tic verb, pillye tulye; and Choice 3 was again awkward because the polite verb
ending -yo did not suit this context. On the other hand, seven students (23.3%)
picked the wrong response, Choice 2: they reported that they could not com-
prehend the euphemistic verbs in listening, and wrongly thought that the use
of honorific suffix would render the request polite even in addressing a close
friend.

Situation 3
In this situation, a speaker makes a request to an intimate roommate (-
P, -D), and Choice 3 is the right response.

Table 5. Distribution of Choices in Situation 3

Choice 1 Choice 2 Choice 3 Choice 4 Total

0 0 25 5 30
0.0% 0.0% 83.3% 16.7% 100%

As Table 5 shows, 25 students (83.3%) picked the right response:

Choice 3. In addition, five students (16.7 %) chose a wrong response: Choice 4.
They perceived both Choice 3 and 4 were acceptable at first, but regarded
Choice 4 more appropriate in that the referential message of Choice 4 was
clearer than Choice 3. For example, compare Choice 3 and 4:

Choice 3
I have homework due tomorrow, but my computer is out of order.
I am sorry but will you lend it to me only for two hours? Will you?

52
 Learning Linguistic Politeness

Choice 4
I have homework due tomorrow, but my computer is out of order.
So, I need your computer. I want to borrow your computer. May I use it
please?

Choice 4 has two more additional referential messages than Choice 3:

"I need your computer, and I want to borrow your computer." They perceived
the illocutionary force of Choice 4 more straightforward than Choice 3 and
judged that the direct request is more appropriate in this context (-P, -D). Such
a finding is reminiscent of Byon's finding (2001): the American English native
speakers were more direct than the Korean native speakers in producing the
speech act of request. For example, in coinciding with Grice's (1975) coopera-
tive principles, American English native speakers preferred 'clarity' over 'indi-
rectness' in realizing the act of request (Byon, 2001).11 Consequently, the
judgments made by the four non-heritage students may be the result of nega-
tive transfer from L1 culture: directness of American English (Sohn, 1986; Byon,
2001).
Discussion

Reasons for Wrong Responses

The sum of wrong responses of students was 24 (out of 90 possible

responses). Table 6 shows the reasons for choosing wrong responses.

Table 6. Reasons For Choosing Wrong Responses

Reason for Choosing Wrong Responses Number

Difficulty in recognizing the euphemistic verbs 7

Misjudged the use of appropriate speech levels 6
Failure in using the honorific suffix in addressing an intimate professor 5
Different perception regarding directness level in speech act 5
Don't know 1

Total 24

Out of 24 wrong responses, 23 responses were based on the follow-

ing reasons. First, the most common reason was the difficulty in recognizing
the euphemistic verb (e.g., yeccwupta [to ask (humble)] and tulita [to give
(humble)]): 7 errors (in Situation 2). The second reason was the misjudgment in
the use of appropriate speech level: 6 students thought that the deferential
level is more polite than polite level even in informal contexts (Situation 1). The
third reason was the failure in using the honorific suffix in addressing an
intimate professor: they thought that the use of honorific suffix addressing an
intimate professor was unnecessary. The fourth reason was the different per-

53
Andrew Sangpil Byon

ception regarding directness level of speech act: they regarded the more straight-
forward the request appropriate when addressing an intimate junior (-P, -D).

The Effects of Instruction

According to the instructors, the use of the honorific suffix -(u)si and
the use of deferential, polite, intimate, and plain speech levels are covered in
the first year of Korean language education (by the end of 102 level). However,
202 level students, who are assumed to have learned all of the aforementioned
elements, had 24 errors out of 90 possible answers (26.7% inaccuracy). This
raised the questions regarding the effects of instruction. In order to shed light
on possible sources for the students' misjudgments, I interviewed the instruc-
tors, and the following two questions were used as a guideline during the
interview.

1. Do you teach the elements of Korean linguistic politeness

(e.g., the use of the honorific suffix -(u)si, speech levels, and
the use of euphemistic verbs) in class?
2. Do you teach socio-pragmatic (volitional politeness) as-
pects of the Korean language (e.g., directness level and the
effects of social constraints on the use of appropriate speech
acts)?

First, both instructors were unanimously surprised that some stu-

dents picked wrong responses due to the difficulty in recognizing euphemistic
verbs and the misjudgment of the appropriate use of speech level. The instruc-
tors commented that the prototypical uses of the honorific suffix and all four
speech levels (plain, intimate, polite, and deferential) were introduced in the
textbooks of the 101 and 102 levels and were mentioned throughout the text-
books of 201 and 202 whenever relevant discussions appeared.12 For this
reason, they assumed that most students would not have problems in perceiv-
ing a correct speech level, and they did not lecture the explicit pragmatic func-
tions of the honorific suffix, the speech level and the use of euphemistic words
in their current 202 classes.
For the questions whether they teach volitional aspects of the Ko-
rean language (e.g., the directness and the effects of social constraints on the
use of appropriate speech acts), the instructors also reported that they did not
really take their pedagogical importance seriously, and normally do not pro-
vide explicit instruction regarding the socio-pragmatic aspects of speech acts.
Both instructors acknowledged that teaching socio-pragmatic issues have
been largely ignored on the account that their current KFL curriculum, and
their current KFL instructional objectives and teaching materials are designed
to focus on grammatical teaching rather than communication oriented
teaching. Although they realize the importance of teaching pragmatic elements,
in practical terms, it is difficult to teach these elements to the students because
the amounts of grammatical points to teach within a semester is already so
immense that there is really no time to spend on teaching and learning prag-

54
 Learning Linguistic Politeness

matic aspects of the Korean language.

However, according to Kasper and Rose (2001), teaching pragmatic
elements is beneficial to second and foreign language students. In addition,
previous studies (Beebe and Takahashi, 1989a, 1989b; Olshtain and Cohen,
1990) have supported that teaching speech acts is essential. This study sug-
gests that as the first step to enhance pragmatic language teaching in KFL
education, it is crucial to raise the KFL instructors and curriculum designers'
awareness in teaching socio-pragmatic elements of the Korean language use.
Cook (2001) discusses that the enhancement of instructors' pragmatic,
sociolinguistic and discoursal knowledge of the target language and culture is
the key to effective pragmatic language teaching. According to Cook (2001:
100), in order to enhance pragmatic language learning, "the instructor needs to
analyze the social context of the teaching materials and fully understand prag-
matic function of linguistic forms and what exactly constitutes 'framing' or
expectation structure that surrounds an utterance."

Conclusion

Pedagogical Implications

This study investigated the second-year American KFL students'

pragmatic judgment of an appropriate speech act. Overall, the KFL students
achieved 73.3% accuracy. In addition, the study identified five reasons for the
wrong responses: (a) difficulty in recognizing the euphemistic verbs;
(b) misjudgment in the use of appropriate speech levels, (c) failure in using the
honorific suffix when addressing an intimate professor; (d) different percep-
tion regarding directness level in speech acts; and (e) lack of knowledge re-
garding Korean honorifics. Moreover, as possible factors influencing the stu-
dents' assessment ability, this study identified the possible effects of negative
transfer from their L1 socio-pragmatic aspect: the egalitarian value system and
the directness of American English (Sohn, 1986; Byon, 2001). Furthermore,
based on the interview results of the instructors, the study identified the KFL
instructors' lack of awareness regarding the needs of teaching KFL pragmatic
elements and the grammar-oriented instructional goals of current KFL curricu-
lum as two factors that need to be readdressed in order to enhance current KFL
pragmatic teaching.
Pedagogical implications of this study's findings are at least three-
fold. The first finding is related to 'what to teach.' The finding highlights the
explicit instruction of three aspects of the Korean linguistic politeness: honor-
ifics (discernment politeness), directness level of speech acts (volitional po-
liteness) and the cognitive value orientations of Korean language underlying
Korean linguistic politeness behaviors. Explicit instruction on Korean honorif-
ics should be strengthened even in the intermediate Korean class. In addition,
contextual factors (e.g., social variables such as power and distance) are
essential in using the Korean honorifics, thus teaching honorifics through
Korean FTA speech acts such as requests and refusal is beneficial. Another

55
Andrew Sangpil Byon

practical suggestion is to teach students the cognitive value orientations of

American English and Korean (Sohn, 1986). Understanding the differences
between the underlying cognitive value orientations of American English and
Korean, students can better relate these value differences to the aspects of
volitional politeness, such as the directness level of speech acts and the role of
social variables (e.g., power and distance) affecting speech act performances.
The second implication is related to 'how to teach' linguistic polite-
ness through classroom activities. I support a view that students learn Korean
linguistic politeness most effectively only when they can make sense of what
is being taught.13 In other words, simple memorialization of some linguistic
features of Korean honorifics and/or cognitive value orientations of the Ko-
rean language in order to simply do well in a test without personalizing the
contents will never sustain successful learning outcomes. I suggest the fol-
lowing three principles in planning instruction:

1. An emphasis on learning the Korean linguistic politeness

to communicate through interaction in Korean.
2. The employment of authentic texts as much as possible in
learning Korean linguistic politeness situations.
3. An attempt to link classroom language learning (the hon-
orifics) with language activation outside the classroom.

First, the instructional opportunities that stress learning through in-

teraction include role-play and interview assignments. For example,
role-playing assignments allow learners to take active roles as interlocutors in
plausible socio-cultural situations, such as reaching agreement, expressing
disagreement or agreement with others, making requests or apologies, and
making or accepting compliments. Further, it helps the students practice strate-
gic competence such as topic control, turn-taking behaviors, and repairing
communication breakdown. During the process, the students will learn socio-
culturally appropriate attitudes and behavior relevant to Korean honorifics. In
addition, interview assignments are effective in that the learners have to inter-
view other KFL teachers, in which they have to use the linguistic politeness
during the assignment, thereby experiencing Korean inter-personal relation-
ships in an authentic context.14
Second, the use of authentic material is essential in the instructional
design of Korean linguistic politeness.15 Choi (1978) indicates that the acqui-
sition of honorific usage is largely a matter of family education and practice.
Choi's statement highlights the significance of authentic learning contexts and
materials for teaching the honorifics. One practical application is the use of
multi-media materials, such as television dramas, and commercials. For ex-
ample, after watching dramas or commercials, teachers can lead class discus-
sions regarding which socio-linguistic elements (e.g., social variables such as
power, distance, and gender) elicit which politeness features (e.g., speech
levels) in interlocutors' utterances, and the volitional politeness strategies
(e.g., directness level), embedded in the contents. The use of multi-media au-

56
 Learning Linguistic Politeness

dio-visual materials is particularly useful in that it teaches not only linguistic

politeness but also non-verbal communicative behaviors, such as gestures
and eye contact between interlocutors.
Third, it is important for students to link classroom language learning
(the honorifics) with language activation outside the classroom. This idea is
closely related to the value of "community" of the 5 C's of the National Stan-
dard (Standards for foreign language learning: Preparing for the 21st century,
1996, p.9).16

5.1. Students use the language both within and beyond the
school setting.
5.2 Students show evidence of becoming life-long learners
by using the language for personal enjoyment and enrich-
ment."

Because of its linguistic complexity along with socio-pragmatic con-

straints, learning Korean linguistic politeness will never be effective unless the
learners extend their knowledge beyond the school setting. One practical peda-
gogical application is to encourage students to explore their own favorite
Korean dramas or pop-songs, urge language exchange opportunities with na-
tive Korean speakers through e-mail, and provide them with information re-
garding educational and career opportunities in Korea. In addition, activities
should help learners be aware of the significance of the learning points so that
learners can personalize the value of learning in a broader cultural context. In
short, such an approach will stimulate the students' motivation and help them
make sense of what is being taught, which in turn expedites the process of
learning.

Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research

The application of this study is at least twofold. First, this investiga-

tion of the second year KFL students' ability to assess an appropriate speech
act can help KFL teachers evaluate the students' Korean honorifics learning.
The results suggest what needs to be reconsidered and reevaluated in the KFL
curriculum in order to enhance students' pragmatic learning. Second, studies
on KFL pedagogy have focused on learning vocabularies and grammatical
points, whereas the studies that investigate learning pragmatic aspects, such
as the use of speech acts, have often been ignored. Consequently, it is hoped
that the findings of this study stimulate KFL teachers and researchers' inter-
ests in conducting further KFL pragmatic learning research.
This study raises questions for further research. First, since the popu-
lation of KFL students in U.S. college settings is small, it was not possible to
obtain a large sample size to conduct advanced statistical analyses. The gen-
eral KFL learners' population should be further investigated through the use of
advanced statistical methods. Second, this study systematically examined the
effects of only two social variables (i.e., power and distance) on the Korean

57
Andrew Sangpil Byon

speech act of request. Future research should investigate other possible social
variables, such as the degree of imposition of request. Third, conducting a
similar investigation, using other pragmatic ability assessment tools, such as a
written task, should be considered in future studies to see the full picture of the
students' pragmatic assessment ability. Fourth, Cook (2001) asserts that inte-
grative motivation is helpful in noticing pragmatic features that have been
instructed. Future studies should obtain more detailed information from the
participants regarding the reason they are studying Korean, their attitudes
toward Korean people and heritage, and their socio-cultural knowledge. Fifth,
a future study should investigate the relative effects of different instructional
approaches (e.g., role play, and conversational drills), since our ultimate goal is
to teach KFL students both grammatical as well as socio-pragmatic compe-
tence of the Korean language more effectively.

Notes

1
The Yale romanization system is used to transcribe the Korean utter-
ances in this paper. In addition, The following abbreviations are used to label
the linguistic terms employed in this paper:

AC Accusative particle
DEF Deferential speech level
EU Euphemistic verbs
GN Genitive particle
HT Honorific title
INT Intimate speech level or suffix
NM Nominative case particle
PLN Plain speech level or suffix
POL Polite speech level, suffix, or particle
PST Past tense and perfect aspect suffix
SH Subject honorific suffix

2
According to Goffman, 'face' is an individual's most personal belong-
ing but it is only 'on loan' from society; and every member of society tends to
behave in such a way so as to establish and maintain both her/his own 'face'
and that of the other members.
3
In discussion of contrastive cognitive value orientations between
Americans and Koreans, Sohn (1986) notes that it is impossible to statistically
measure the value of society because it varies with time, space, and social
class; and, his assertion regarding the value of society is strictly based on
relative terms, as they are deduced from the members' general communicative
patterns.
4
There has been disagamber of levels that should be recognized and
on the hierarchical order of those levels shown below. Some scholars pro-
posed six levels (Martin, 1964; Sohn, 1988, 1994) or five (H. Lee, 1970) or four
(Hwang, 1975), or two (Suh, 1984). Despite the disagreement, it is the six-level
58
 Learning Linguistic Politeness

system of sentence enders (Sohn, 1994, p. 8) that receives the most support.
For the analysis of the speech levels, Sohn's (1994) categorization is used in
this investigation:

Declarative Interrogative Imperative Propositive

Speech level

Deferential -sup-ni-t a -sup-ni-k k a -sup-si-o -sup-si-t a

Polite -e.yo -e.yo -e.yo -e.yo

Blunt -o -o

Familiar -ney -na/-nunk a -k ey -sey

Intimate -e -e -e -e

Plain -t a -ni/-nya -la -ca

Originally, 26 heritage students (18 from the University of Michigan,

and 8 from SUNY-Albany) participated in the project. However, the data of
only 15 participants out of 26 was randomly chosen for the sake of comparison
with non-heritage students.
6
The distinction of heritage and non-heritage students was made
based upon the students' family, education, and living experience backgrounds.
Participants, who have acquired the Korean language naturally from their fam-
ily members and others in their Korean-American community, were considered
heritage students. On the other hand, participants who never had exposure to
either Korean language or culture except through KFL classrooms were
identified as non-heritage students.
7
According to Leech (1983) and Thomas (1983), sociopragmatics re-
fers to the social perceptions underlying participants' interpretation and per-
formance of communicative action.
8
As Korean native speakers, the two instructors of second-year Ko-
rean participated in this study, and picked the most appropriate request form
for each situation with rationale for the selection.
9
The use of honorific elements does not render utterance always
polite in that they must be used according to its social norms. For example, the
use of honorific elements inappropriately to a person (=P and/or -P) makes his/
her utterance sound jovial, and even sarcastic.
10
The total number of subjects who got the correct response is equiva-
lent to the total number of correct answers because each situation has only
one possible answer.
11
Maxim of Manner: to avoid obscurity and ambiguity.
12
The textbook used at SUNY-Albany was Integrated Korean, pub-
lished by the University of Hawaii Press, and the book used at the University
of Michigan was College Korean, published by the University of California Press.

59
Andrew Sangpil Byon
13
However, it should be noted that there is no absolute or definitive
answer in relation to how to teach Korean linguistic politeness effectively. It is
because each learner, teacher and even learning environment are all different
individually, which in turn makes it impossible to devise a single most effective
teaching and learning approach.
14
KFL teachers should always remember that they should not treat
Korean language as the only object of instruction, much the same way as
autonomous linguists regard the syntactic structure as the most interesting
object of inquiry. KFL teachers should have the attitude that language is one
manifestation of a cultural complex. Cultural materials, in whatever format,
whether presented by students or by the teacher, should be incorporated into
classroom teaching in order to provide implicit exposure. The general cultural
background, which the students bring to the classroom from their source cul-
ture, should be respected so that the students will feel open to accepting
cultural differences in a non-threatening learning environment.
15
Here, I define the term 'material' to refer to anything which is used by
teachers or learners to facilitate the learning process of Korean language (e.g.,
the honorifics).
16
The standards define five goals for foreign language learning, i.e.,
Communication, Cultures, Connections, Comparisons, and Communities, which
should serve as guides for language educators when developing classroom
activities for their students.

References

Author. (1996). Standards for foreign language learning: Preparing for the
21st century. Yonkers, NY: National Standards in Foreign Language
Education Project.
Beebe, L., & Takahashi, T. (1989a). Do you have a bag? Social status and
patterned variation in second language acquisition. In S. Gass, C.
Madden, D. Preston, & L. Selinker (Eds.), Variation in second lan-
guage acquisition (pp. 103-125). Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Mat-
ters.
Beebe, L., & Takahashi, T. (1989b). Sociolinguistic variation in face-threaten-
ing speech acts: Chastisement and disagreement. In M. Eisenstein
(Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studies in second lan-
guage variation (pp. 199-218). New York: Plenum Press.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.) (1989). Cross-cultural pragmat-
ics: Requests and apologies, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness
phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed), Questions and Politeness: Strate-
gies in Social Interaction [Cambridge Papers in Social Anthropology
8] , (pp. 56-289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language
use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

60
 Learning Linguistic Politeness

Byon, A. (2001). The communicative act of requests: Interlanguage features of

American KFL learners. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii at
Manoa.
Byon, A. (2002). Pragmalinguistic features of KFL learners in the speech act of
requests. Korean Linguistics, 11, 151-182.
Byon, A. (2003). The Korean speech act of refusals: Sociopragmatic analysis.
The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea, 11 (1), 131-149.
Choi, Y. P. (1978). Aspects in the development of communicative competence
with reference to the Korean deference system. Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign
Cook, H. (2001). Why can't students of JFL distinguish polite from impolite
speech styles? In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in lan-
guage teaching (pp. 80-102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face to face behavior. NY:
Garden City.
Grice, H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole and Morgan (Eds.), Syntax
and semantics (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
Gumperz, J. (1996). The linguistic and cultural relativity of conversational infer-
ence. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic rela-
tivity (pp. 374-406). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hwang, J. R. (1975). Role of sociolinguistics in foreign language education
with reference to Korean and English terms of address and levels of
deference. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas,
Austin.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (Eds.) (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. NY: Longman.
Lee, H. (1970). A study of Korean syntax. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Brown University.
Martin, S. (1964). Speech levels in Japan and Korea. In D. Hymes (Ed.), Lan-
guage in culture and society: A reader in linguistics and anthropol-
ogy (pp. 407-415). New York: Harper & Row.
Ochs, E. (1988). Culture and language development. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. (1990). The learning of complex speech act behavior.
TESL Canada Journal, 7, 45-65.
Sohn, H-M. (1986). Linguistic expeditions. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Com-
pany.
Sohn, H-M. (1988). Linguistic devices of Korean politeness. In E. Baek (Ed.),
Papers from the Sixth International Conference on Korean linguis-
tics (pp. 655-669). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.
Sohn, H-M. (1994). Korean: Descriptive grammars. London: Routledge.
Sohn, H-M. (1999). The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

61
Andrew Sangpil Byon

Suh, J. S. (1984). Studies of politeness. Seoul: Hanshin.

Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91-
112.

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Professor Eli Hinkel and Professor Thomas S. Parry

for their comments. I, of course, am solely responsible for all the errors that may
remain.
Author

ANDREW SANGPIL BYON, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, East Asian Studies

Department HU-210, University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, NY 12222.
Email: abyon@albany.edu. Specializations: Koreaan applied linguis-
tics, foreign language pedagogy (KFL), interlanguage pragmatics.

62
 Error Correction

Applied Language Learning

2004, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 63-82

Error Correction as a Cultural Phenomenon

Richard McGarry
Appalachian State University

This study examines the pedagogical and pragmatic mo-

tives behind error correction both in classroom contexts
and in everyday conversation among native Spanish-speak-
ing English teachers in Costa Rica. Survey and interview
data are analyzed and discussed in terms of participants’
attitudes toward correction of errors in L1 and L2 in vari-
ous contexts. I argue that error correction is not only a
matter of pedagogy, but rather, at its heart, is a by-product
of the cultural notion of “beneficio,” an act of benefit on
the part of one interlocutor toward another.

This study was prompted by intercultural teaching experiences in

Costa Rica. While living and teaching in Costa Rica, I noticed that my Costa
Rican colleagues rarely hesitated to correct an interlocutor’s language errors,
mine included, in both classroom and social settings. Interestingly, I discov-
ered that Costa Rican teachers did not hesitate to correct even a fellow native-
speaker interlocutor’s Spanish on certain occasions. This phenomenon was
striking in that it has been my observation that fewer of my American col-
leagues overtly correct the speech (pronunciation & grammar) of a non-native
interlocutor unless there is a severe breakdown in communication or unless
the non-native interlocutor specifically requests correction. If correction is
warranted, I have found that my American colleagues will commonly correct
language errors indirectly by modeling correct language at the end of the non-
native interlocutor’s discourse.
In this study, I argue that the reason for this seeming focus on error
correction goes beyond the usual pedagogical explanations that error correc-
tion is a vestige of classroom practice. Rather, at its heart, I understand that
error correction is a combination of pedagogy and a manifestation of cultural
identity. Specifically, error correction is intimately tied in with the cultural
notion of “beneficio” (defined below).

Literature Review

When first exposed to this phenomenon, I considered error correc-

tion merely to be a pedagogical strategy. I originally believed that overt error
correction techniques, termed “reactive focus on form” by Ellis et al. (2001),
have been used for many years in Costa Rica, and is still being taught as a
pedagogical technique in teacher-training programs. Further, I assumed that

© 2004, Richard McGarry 63

Richard McGarry

predominant among these techniques is one in which teachers immediately

correct malformed language as soon as the error is made. However, I found this
not to be the case. Teacher training at Costa Rica’s leading teacher-training
center, the Centro de Investigación de Docencia en Educación (CIDE) at the
Universidad Nacional, reflects the latest trends in second language teaching
methodologies, including context- and content-based and communicative/prag-
matic approaches to language teaching. In the second language curriculum of
CIDE, teachers are instructed to correct errors both, in Ellis’ (2001) terms, pre-
emptively and reactively. When errors are corrected reactively, teachers usu-
ally correct through modeling techniques where teachers will mirror the with
the correct structure or lexical item. (Hilda Fonseca and Sonya Vargas, personal
interview ). Overt, reactive error correction techniques, wherein errors are cor-
rected with the appropriate “correct” form as soon as they are made, are rarely
discussed in the context of the teacher-training curriculum except for review-
ing historical methodologies or when discussing specific errors in second
language acquisition. Indeed, the data from this study show that teachers,
while giving explicit form correction on occasion, usually favor such implicit
correction techniques as modeling/recitation or elicitation/questioning (cf.
James, 1998, Lyster & Ranta, 1997, Lyster, 1998, Oliver, 2000). Therefore, al-
though second language pedagogy plays an important role in a teacher’s
decision to overtly or covertly correct errors at the point at which the error is
made or closely thereafter, pedagogy alone cannot sufficiently explain the
divergence in the degree of reactive error correction used by Costa Rican
teachers. What, then, prompts Costa Rican teachers to overtly correct errors,
even correcting the Spanish errors of their native-speaker counterparts?

Costa Rican Culture

To answer this question, we must look at Costa Rican culture in gen-

eral, and specifically to the cultural construct of Costa Rican society,
“beneficio”. Costa Rican culture is an interesting and unique admixture of
collective and individualist values (Biesanz et al., 1998). Nowhere is this col-
lective orientation more noticeable than in the family unit. For Costa Ricans,
family is the central focus of their world. It serves as the primary social organi-
zation from whence they derive meaning and value in life. “Most Costa Ricans
remain very strongly oriented around traditional values based on respect for
oneself and others, tolerance being one of their most characteristic traits. The
cornerstone of society is still the family and the village community. Social life
centers on the home and family. Bonds are so strong that sons and daughters
do not see a need to leave the home until they marry,” and rarely consider
living away from the home village (www.infocostarica.com). Barbosa (1999)
argues that Costa Ricans value “the interdependence of people, particularly
family, an established hierarchical structure, and the belief that human beings
need higher assistance and the importance of cultivating interpersonal rela-
tionships.”

64
 Error Correction

Within this society, so intimately rooted in the primacy of the family,

is the notion of progress. Costa Rican history and its place of prominence
among nations in Central America, enable Costa Rica to sustain this mixture of
values. Costa Rican view their country as the “shining star” of Central America.
They pride themselves on having no military. Likewise, education is highly
valued as a way to improve society. “While much of Latin America was founded
by the conquistador culture of fifteenth century Spain and Portugal, Costa
Rica was largely founded by nineteenth and twentieth century Europeans
who had already experienced republican revolutions at home, and who were
democrats, not aristocrats, at heart” (www.learnaboutcultures.com). Reflect-
ing this history, Costa Rican culture views itself on the continual road to social
progress.
It is within the scope of this confluence of collective and individualist
values, that the notion of “beneficio” is established. A “beneficio” is an act
(linguistic or otherwise) given to the benefit of another person with the ex-
pressed greater goal of benefiting the society at large. The art of “beneficio”
carries with it two inherent cultural assumptions. First, beneficio is rooted in a
collectivist society where family is the cornerstone. Second, “beneficio” is
based on the assumption that anything which benefits an individual also ben-
efits the collective society. My hypothesis is that, in addition to pedagogical
considerations, error correction is used to benefit one’s fellow citizen. It may
be part and parcel of the “saludo,” a linguistic recognition of friendship and
implicitly establishes the parameters of communication including permission
to correct errors in speech. Correction is viewed as helping the interlocutor
improve him or herself. It is this admixture of culture and pedagogy that this
study addresses.

Method

The methodology for this study consisted of a language-attitude

survey and a set of interviews (Appendices A & B). The language-attitude
survey was comprised of three sets of questions: 1) personal information, such
as nationality, age, gender, educational levels taught, years of educational
service; 2) attitudes toward error correction in the classroom and in everyday
conversation; 3) attitudes toward language learning. The survey consisted of
twelve multiple choice questions using a Likert Scale. The goal of the lan-
guage-attitude survey was to discover if there were any differences in the
participants’ approach to error correction in the classroom as opposed to ev-
eryday conversation and if there was any correlation between the respon-
dents’ views about error correction and their attitudes toward the efficacy of
learning and/or using a particular language in particular contexts. If it can be
shown that language correction in everyday conversation is important, and
correlates with the importance of correcting errors in the classroom, it may be
possible to identify the various factors contributing to the respondents’ atti-
tudes toward error correction. Namely, in what contexts is correcting errors in
everyday conversation viewed as an extension of classroom pedagogy, and in

65
Richard McGarry

what contexts is error correction viewed as a part of a larger cultural notion? To

what extent are both of these notions in force at the same time?
The survey was given to 32 English instructors teaching at varying
levels in Costa Rican schools, colleges and specialized training institutes.
Twenty-nine of the participants were Costa Rican nationals, one was a Colom-
bian national, one a Cuban, and one a Chilean. Participants were mostly fe-
male, reflecting the higher percentage of women teaching English in Costa
Rica. Most of the participants were under the age of fifty, were relatively
balanced in terms of years of experience, and grade-level experience (note: the
grade-level experience figure reflects teachers who have taught at one or more
levels) (Table 1).
The survey data was analyzed in two ways: numerically- raw totals
and percentages, and statistically-distribution, and median. Further, the data
were analyzed holistically, comparing raw totals and percentages for each ques-
tion without regard for demographics. The results are discussed below. The
data were controlled demographically for age and years of experience. How-
ever, the average deviation among control factors compared with the total
average deviation was not wide enough to be statistically relevant.

Table 1. Demographics

Gender Males Females

9 23

Age 20- 29 30- 39 40- 49 50- 59

13 11 6 2

Years of
0- 4 years 5- 9 years 10- 14 years 15+ years
Teaching
11 9 5 7
Experience

Grade- level Primary Secondary University Adult

Experience 9 19 10 Education
14

66
 Error Correction

Second, a group of six Costa Rican teacher-trainers and program

administrators were interviewed as to their attitudes toward the importance of
error correction as a pedagogical process, their attitudes toward error correc-
tion in everyday conversation, and the purpose of error correction (Table 2).
The interviews were designed to discover what error correction techniques are
taught in CIDE’s teacher-training programs well as the teacher-trainer/adminis-
trators’ attitudes toward error correction as language-learning pedagogy.
Moreover, the goal of conducting the interviews was to identify other factors
which might precipitate error correction in their training, teaching and every-
day lives. To what extent is error correction motivated by pedagogy, or a
combination of pedagogy and beneficio?

Table 2. Interview Participants

Institution
Name Title

CIDE University
Professor of Educational
Dr Gilberto Garro Garita of Costa Rica
Administration

CIDE
MA Enriqueta Zúñiga Director, Masters Program

CIDE
MA Hilda Fonseca Professor, EFL

CIDE
MA Sonya Vargas Brown Professor, EFL

Dean and Professor of CIDE

Dr. Miguel Gutierrez
Curriculum and Instruction

CIDE
MA ANA Bonilla Professor, EFL

Results and Discussion

General Trends

Although a small sampling, the data reveal some interesting trends

which merit further investigation with a larger data sample. The numerical and
percentage data in Table 3 (and charted in Table 4) indicate general agreement
with the initial hypothesis: error correction is viewed as being important in
both classroom and everyday contexts. Further, the data reveal that this sam-
pling of Costa Rican teachers view learning a second language, whether it be
Costa Ricans learning English or Americans learning Spanish, as very

67
Richard McGarry

important for reasons that will be discussed below. Although the raw numbers
argue for general agreement across questions, the average and median data
reveal more neutrality toward error correction in everyday conversation (Table
3). The statistical averages of responses to questions regarding the impor-
tance of correcting a Costa Rican’s English grammar and pronunciation are
3.16 and 3.22 respectively (3 being neutral).

Table 3. Language Attitudes-Numerical Data

Survey SA SA A A N N D D SD SD
N=
Q uestion # % # % # % # % # %

1- Correcting English grammar in 0 . 19 0.72 0.03 0.03 0.03

32
English classroom 6 23 1 1 1
2- Correcting English 32 0.22 0.66 0.06 0.03 0.03
pronunciation in English
classroom 7 21 2 1 1
3- Costa Rican speaking 32 0.09 0.38 0.16 0.34 0.03
English- Correcting grammar in
everyday Conversation 3 12 5 11 1
4- Costa Rican speaking 32 0.09 0.38 0.22 0.28 0.03
English- Correcting
pronunciation in everyday
Conversation 3 12 7 3 1
5- American Speaking Spanish- 32 0 . 13 0.38 0.19 0.28 0.03
Correcting grammar in everyday
conversation 4 12 6 9 1
6- American speaking Spanish- 32 0.13 0.38 0.16 0.28 0.03
Correcting pronunciation in
everyday conversation 4 12 6 9 1
7- Costa Rican speaking 32 0.03 0.53 0.13 0.22 0.09
Spanish- Correcting grammar in
everday conversation 1 17 4 7 3
8- Costa Rican speaking 32 0.06 0.50 0.13 0.22 0.09
Spanish- Correcting
pronunciation in everyday
conversation 2 16 4 7 3
9- Importance for non- native 32 0.41 0.41 0.03 0.03 0
speakers to speak Spanish in
Costa Rica 13 17 1 1 0
10- Importance of Costa Ricans 32 0.47 0.41 0 0 0
to learn English 15 17 0 0 0
11- Importance of non- native 32 0.50 0.50 0 0 0
speakers to speak English in the
U.S.A. 16 16 0 0 0
12- Importance for people in the 32 0.28 0.63 0.09 0 0
U.S.A. to learn Spanish 9 20 3 0 0

The average of responses to questions regarding the importance of

correcting an American’s Spanish grammar and pronunciation are somewhat

68
 Error Correction

higher at 3.3 and 3.44 respectively. The averages are a bit lower for questions
about the importance of correcting a Costa Rican’s Spanish grammar and pro-
nunciation (3.19 and 3.22 respectively). These averages point to fact that,
while slightly more respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the questions,
the teachers were split on whether it is appropriate to overtly correct language
errors in everyday conversation. This conclusion is supported by the average
deviation of responses to questions 3-8 (questions pertaining to everyday
conversation). While the standard deviation on questions pertaining to error
correction in classroom contexts and questions pertaining to attitudes toward
learning and speaking a second language ranged from .4 to .6, the average
deviation for questions regarding error correction in everyday conversation
was near 1.0 which indicated that teacher responses were more widely variant.
This discrepancy can be explained by the fact that more respondents agreed
with questions pertaining to error correction in the classroom than agreed with
other questions regarding error correction in everyday conversation. More
respondents strongly disagreed, and fewer respondents were neutral in their
attitudes toward correcting the Spanish errors of their countrymen. These two
questions evoked stronger feelings than those regarding corrections in an L2.

Questions Regarding Language Attitudes (Questions 9-12)

Importance of Speaking an L2 (Questions 9 & 11)

There was wide agreement that it is important for non-native speakers
to speak Spanish in Costa Rica for a variety of reasons (30 strongly agreed or
agreed, 1 disagreed, 1 was neutral). First, Costa Ricans place great pride in the
variety of Spanish spoken in the country and the country’s comfortable learn-
ing environment. One respondent indicated that the Costa Rican dialect of
Spanish, “is a good Spanish and it provides a friendly environment for learning
the new language.” A second factor is mere survival. “They (the non-native
speaker) are in a different country. They have to defend themselves.”
In like fashion, there was unanimous agreement that non-native speak-
ers should speak English in the United States. The assumption here is that
English is the Lingua Franca of the United States. By speaking English in its
natural environment, the non-native speaker is both adapting to the target
cultural milieu and improving him or herself by acquiring new knowledge and a
new skill.

Importance of Learning an L2 (Questions 10 & 12)

The salient reason for Costa Ricans learning English and for Ameri-
cans to learn Spanish is globalization and shifting demographics. For Costa
Ricans, a knowledge of English means greater competitiveness in the labor
market. Moreover, the respondents agreed that English proficiency is impor-
tant for greater access to technological advances. One respondent stated,
“Nowadays, everybody has to know English. It is the universal language.
Everything is in English, internet, music. Wherever you go in the world there
will be people who speak English. Here in Costa Rica, English is required for

69
Richard McGarry

many jobs because there are a lot of American tourists who visit the country.”
Likewise, the teacher participants believed it was equally important for Ameri-
cans to learn Spanish. One respondent summed it up best,

It’s important because the Spanish community is very big

and it’s getting bigger. I remember once people were dis-
cussing whether or not to translate specific propaganda to
Spanish. This was for elections. I think about the relation
between employers and employees. There are lots of em-
ployees who don’t speak the language, but they must work
in the States. Besides that, it’s important for the globaliza-
tion process.

This general agreement that second languages are important to learn

and use within the context of the host culture correspond with the data demon-
strating general agreement that error correction is important in classroom and
everyday contexts. One can conclude then that the degree to which language
learning and L2 use is deemed important will have a direct influence on the
degree to which error correction, in both the classroom and in everyday con-
versation, is deemed important. In other words, measured against the impor-
tance of learning and using the L2 is a heightened requirement for proficiency
and accuracy in the L2. The correlation between the importance of learning
and using an L2 in the host country and its relationship to using that L2
accurately is illustrated in Figure 1 below.

Average-All Data
5

4
Agreement Scale

2 Average

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Survey Questions

Figure 1. Average Mean Value of Responses

Questions Regarding Pedagogy (Questions 1 & 2)

To the questions, “It is important to correct the English grammar of

my students in class when they make a mistake,” and “It is important to correct
the English pronunciation of my students in class when they make a mistake,”

70
 Error Correction

29 teachers responded that the correction of grammar is important in the

classroom, 28 indicated that correction of pronunciation is important. Only 2
respondents countered that they disagreed or strongly disagreed with the
statement that correction of errors in the classroom is important. Participants
gave a variety of reasons for this, “it is a part of the learning process.” “Be-
cause they will remember the correct way.” “When they are in the classroom,
our duty is to teach them everything, not only grammar. It’s better for them to
know the correct pronunciation of a word.” Although a large percentage of
teachers believe correction is important, when to employ correction strategies
varied widely. Some correct immediately. One participant indicated, “If we
don’t correct that at the moment, it will be hard to do it later.” Other partici-
pants believed that he/she should wait until after the students finishes his/her
discourse. While others believe that error correction should be done only
when it is necessary, when there are serious breaches of understanding.
The interviewed teacher participants also indicated the methods they
use to focus on form. Some participants enable the students to use self-
correction strategies. “It’s very important to do it with students who [are] at
beginning levels, but it is important to provide students with self-correction
techniques so students are autonomous learners.” Another participant of-
fered, “I will offer the students two options and [encourage them to] choose.
[For example, I will say] “I’m Miss Armando.” [Did I say] “Miss” or “Mr.
Armando”? So, he corrects himself.” Other teachers employ other indirect
correction strategies. “[I will correct the student] after presentations or before
finishing the class.” Another teacher indicated that she corrects “by a gesture
or any strategy they can check and say again the word or phrase. It’s not given
directly.”
The interview data confirm and support the results of the survey.
Teacher-training professionals unanimously agreed that error correction is an
important component of pedagogy, while disagreeing over the particular tech-
niques of correction. While four of the six use (and teach) indirect techniques
such as modeling and elicitation, two interviewees indicated that correction
should be covert at the precise point where the correction is made. Professor
Sonya Vargas Brown stated, “I think of it (error correction) as part of the
(language) construction process. I look at myself as the mediator between
students’ previous knowledge and the target objective. We learn from our
mistakes.” Dean Miguel Gutierrez of CIDE best sums up the view that the
pedagogy of error correction should be employed to encourage learning,

It should be used in a constructive and timely way. To do

otherwise leads to hindering the language learning process.
We should not forget that particularly in the process of learn-
ing a foreign language, we should encourage our students
to communicate. If they are able to communicate their needs
and thoughts and make themselves understood, the objec-
tive is accomplished and the learners feel motivated. The
error correction conducted in a constructive and timely

71
Richard McGarry

fashion will help in accomplishing the other objective, to

speak and write correctly.

The data tell us that, in the classroom, it is generally important that

both grammar and pronunciation be corrected. Correction improves both
fluency and accuracy. Correction is not made immediately following every
language misstep. Rather, correction tends to be most frequently made when
there the misstep interferes with communication. In cases of misstep, correc-
tion tends to be indirect through modeling and the recitation of the correct
form or giving students a variety of choices and asking the student to self-
correct. Some teachers interviewed and surveyed indicated that they use
these correction techniques as a regular component of their pedagogy.

Questions Regarding Everyday Conversation (Questions 3-8)

The data gathered from these questions indicate a more neutral posi-
tion regarding the efficacy of error correction. A series of questions were
included concerning participants’ attitudes of correcting the grammar and pro-
nunciation of Americans and their fellow Costa Ricans in both non-native
(NNS) and native-speaking (NS) contexts.

Costa Ricans Speaking English (Questions 3 & 4)

Fifteen respondents indicated that they either strongly agreed or
agreed that it was important to correct a Costa Rican’s English grammar and
pronunciation in everyday conversation. By contrast, twelve teachers strongly
disagreed or disagreed with the statement that it was important to correct a
speaker’s English grammar in everyday conversation (10 said that they strongly
disagreed or disagreed with correction a person’s pronunciation). Five re-
spondents were neutral in question 3, seven in question 4.
Of the respondents agreeing, one gave the overt explanation, point-
ing to “beneficio” as a factor in correction. The teacher said, “Yes, if you want
to help him.” Those in disagreement indicated that correction would not be
appropriate for both cultural and pedagogical reasons. One teacher said that
correction “can be very embarrassing for the person.” Another responded, “I
don’t think so because he is trying to communicate, and even though he makes
mistakes, we don’t have to interrupt.” One teacher gave a response which
reflected his/her notion of proper pedagogy. “You are allowed to correct a
student when it is absolutely necessary.” While another stated, “If it is a
mistake that affects the whole structure I think we can correct him or her
indirectly.”
Teachers who were neutral said if they were able to comprehend the
discourse, correction was not necessary. However, the teachers indicated that
if they were asked to correct a speaker’s English, they would not hesitate to do
so.
There may be many reasons for the disparity of responses. One
explanation can be attributable to pedagogy. The role of the language teacher

72
 Error Correction

is to correct language errors, and, consequently, participants view their role as

English teachers as one of enabling competence and accuracy in English as an
L2. By contrast, the teacher respondents appeared to distinguish between
reactive correction as a classroom practice and reactive correction as a practice
in conversation. In conversation, the role of the interlocutors is different.
There is a dissolution of teacher-student roles. Therefore, error correction as
a teaching tool is inappropriate, unless the interlocutors understand that the
correction of errors is performed to effect “beneficio,” to help or aid the inter-
locutor.

Americans Speaking Spanish (Questions 5 & 6)

To these questions, there was stronger agreement that errors in Span-
ish should be corrected (16-strongly agreed or agreed for grammar correction,
19 strongly agreed or agreed for pronunciation correction). Ten respondents
strongly disagreed or disagreed that correction of Spanish grammar and pro-
nunciation were important. Five were neutral.
Interestingly, the teacher participants appeared to assume that the
American interlocutor is a student learning Spanish in Costa Rica. In that case,
the teachers reflected the view that students should take complete advantage
of the native Spanish-speaking context. “He has to take advantage if he is in
Costa Rica.” Teachers would correct in order to help with students’ fluency
and accuracy. As one respondent stated, “the person is trying to acquire a L2.
So, it is important for him to be corrected [at] the moment because otherwise he
won’t know the correct way.” Another response reflects the expectation of
accuracy on the part of Costa Rican interlocutors, “People expect to be as
closest [sic] as possible.” “I expect the person to improve his/her perfor-
mance.” Yet another response reflects the assumption that American inter-
locutors tend not to focus on grammatical accuracy nor pronunciation, “Ameri-
cans rarely care about their mistakes in Spanish but we have to let them see
that it is incorrect.”
Those who disagreed indicated that correction would both unneces-
sarily embarrass the American interlocutor and break the flow of discourse.
“They are speaking freely and it’s not fair to correct them frequently.” Many
respondents indicated that any corrections would be covert. “Only one thing,
if correction takes place it needs to be subtle so that it doesn’t make him/her
feel bad.

Costa Ricans Speaking Spanish (Questions 7 & 8)

Almost 2 to 1, teachers agree that it is important to correct the Span-
ish of other Costa Ricans (18 strongly agree or agree for both grammar and
pronunciation; 10 strongly disagree or disagree for grammar correction (10 for
correction of pronunciation); 4 neutral for both questions. These results are
interesting in that it is more important to correct errors in an interlocutor’s
native language than in an interlocutor’s second language. Here, pedagogy
does not appear a determinant in error correction. Rather, the decision to
correct an error depends upon the relationship between the interlocutors. As

73
Richard McGarry

one participant stated, “it depends on the relation between listener and speaker.
If the person is a relative or friend you tend to correct that person. But if you
don’t know the person, you don’t do it.” Age and power distance also appear
to be important mitigating factors in error correction. Interview respondents
almost unanimously indicated that they correct their children and
grandchildren the most, then other members of their immediate and close ex-
tended family, followed by their close friends. Interviewees also acknowl-
edged that they sometimes correct the language mistakes of people on their
immediate staff in work situations. Acquaintances and strangers are rarely
corrected. These results seem to coincide with the literature on Costa Rican
culture where the notion of “beneficio” is strongest inside the family unit.

Conclusion

In terms of the pedagogy of error correction, the data indicate that

error correction is an important part of the classroom pedagogy. Teachers are
aware of and, for the most part, practice a combination of modeling/recitation,
elicitation/questioning, and direct correction techniques. Fluency and accu-
racy are important goals for language learning. This pedagogical significance
is carried over to some extent in everyday conversation with non-native speak-
ers of Spanish. Correction in everyday conversation, whether it be Costa
Ricans (NNSE) speaking English or Americans (NNSS) speaking Spanish, is
viewed as an extension of the classroom, enabling non-native speakers to
improve their language skills.
Second, and interestingly, the data point to other factors precipitat-
ing error correction, especially Costa Ricans correcting their compatriots’ Span-
ish (NSS). Among these factors are: a strong sense of pride in the native
language, the notion that error correction is used to enable individual and
societal improvement, and error correction enhancing opportunities and suc-
cess in the business world. Correcting the Spanish errors of Costa Ricans,
although employed in limited circumstances with family and close friends,
appears to be motivated by factors separate from pedagogy, a desire on the
part of the friend or family member to benefit, aid, help the other thereby
helping the culture at large. Here, the notion of “beneficio” may be strongest.
Finally, as a result of this study, I have come to view the request of
non-native English speaking students and colleagues for error correction as
having a dual role. First, there is awareness that teacher feedback is of vital
importance in the learning process. Second, I am aware that these students
and colleagues are, in a great sense, sanctioning my admission into their “circle
of beneficio,” that any corrective advice given will be received not as criticism
but as a means whereby they can improve their proficiency. The insights and
confusions about language error correction indicate that there are ways of
correction that might be interpreted as “beneficio” by some, while others might
interpret the correction as critical or rude.

74
 Error Correction

Appendices

Appendix A

Language Attitude Survey

Please circle the category most representative of you.

Nationality: Costa Rican United States

Other-please identify____________

Gender: M F

Age: 20-29 30-39 40-49 50 and older

Years of experience teaching language: 0-4 5-9 10-14 15 and above

Grade level taught: Primary Secondary University Adult Education

Please circle the statement which most closely represents your answer for
each question. The abbreviations represent the following statements:
SA Strongly Agree
A Agree
N Neutral (No opinion)
D Disagree
SD Strongly Disagree

1. It is important to correct the English grammar of my students in class

when they make a mistake.
SA A N D SD

Comments:
_______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

2. It is important to correct the English pronunciation of my students in

class when they make a mistake.
SA A N D SD

Comments:
______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

3. When a Costa Rican speaks English in everyday conversation, it is

important to correct that person’s English grammar when they make a

75
Richard McGarry

mistake.
SA A N D SD

Comments:
______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

4. When a Costa Rican speaks English in everyday conversation, it is

important to correct that person’s English pronunciation when they make a
mistake.
SA A N D SD

Comments:
_______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

5. When an American speaks Spanish in everyday conversation it is

important to correct that person’s Spanish grammar when they make a
mistake.
SA A N D SD

Comments:
______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

6. When a American speaks Spanish in everyday conversation, it is

important to correct that person’s Spanish pronunciation when they make a
mistake.
SA A N D SD

Comments:
_______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

7. When a Costa Rican speaks Spanish in everyday conversation, it is

important to correct that person’s Spanish grammar when they make a
mistake.
SA A N D SD

Comments:
_______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

8. When a Costa Rican speaks Spanish in everyday conversation, it is

important to correct that person’s Spanish pronunciation when they make a
mistake.

76
 Error Correction

SA A N D SD

Comments:
_______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

9. It is important for non-native speakers of Spanish to speak Spanish in

Costa Rica.
SA A N D SD

Comments:
______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

10. It is important for Costa Ricans to learn English.

SA A N D SD

Comments:
______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

11. It is important for non-native speakers of English to speak English in the

United States.
SA A N D SD

Comments:
_______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

12. It is important for people in the United States to learn Spanish.

SA A N D SD

Comments:
______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

Appendix B

Error Correction as Cultural Phenomenon

Interview Questions

Interviewees
Gilberto Garro Garita, School Administrator and Professor of
Educational Administration, UNA. Enriqueta Zuniga,

77
Richard McGarry

Director of the Maestria Programs-CIDE-UNA. Miguel A.

Gutiérrez, Dean CIDE-UNA. Hilda Fonseca, Professor,
Maestria in Learning English, CIDE-UNA. Sonya Vargas-
Brown, Professor, Maestria in Learning English, CIDE-UNA.
Ana Bonilla, English Teacher.
Date: March & April, 2001

1. How important is error correction in your teaching?

a. To me, error correction is the essence of teaching, no

matter if that action occurs in the classroom or in any infor-
mal conversation.
b. Correction is an important part of the learning and teach-
ing process. It is part of the knowledge construction. Must
be in a natural way.
c. Too important.
d. I do not stress correction at all as I teach. I see errors/
mistakes as part of the learning process. Then, I decide to
correct them (in an indirect way) only when communication
is completely affected by them.
e. At this level, I make it a point to correct or ask questions
of unclear (ideas/thoughts). I usually repeat the correct
word or phrase and say nothing.
f. I do not correct my students right away. But I repeat the
correct sentence again.

2. How important is error correction in your everyday life?

a. In terms of learning another language, error correction is

extremely important. In general, error correction is important
in any type of learning process.
b. I think that it is important we learn out of own mistakes. It
will be wonderful if we could correct them and learn from it.
c. Too important.
d. Again, I fell this need of correcting mistakes in others
only when I hear a misconception, but first I am ready to
listen to the speaker’s point of view. Maybe then miscon-
ceptions can be corrected.
e. It is important in a comfortable way. I try to explain my
point of view and try to understand others. I just repeat the
corrected form and explain why.
f. So important because I can improve pronunciation &
spelling. I can be understood.

78
 Error Correction

3. What is the purpose of correcting language errors in everyday conversa-

tion?
a. The purpose is to take conscious of our mistakes with the
objective of avoiding them in the future.
b. Help the other learn from their mistakes.
c. Continuous improvement of our command of the lan-
guage and communication skills.
d. Possibly, to make people aware of them and overcome
misconceptions( or mispronouncing) in new situations where
communication can be affected.
e. Students and I must listen carefully to correct English
speakers in order to improve our English.
f. The purpose is to have students improve their learning
process.

4. Other than your students, who do you correct most often?

a. As a natural consequence of parenthood, I most often

correct my children. I also do the same in the work environ-
ment with people on my staff.
b. My friends, my relatives, people who I care (about).
c. My children and close friends.
d. My children and husband, but I am very careful with co-
workers or people that are not very close to me.
e. My grandson.
f. My two sons using the correct verbs: the present tense,
“s” in verbs.

5. When in the conversation do you correct them?

a. I usually wait for a pause and try to relate my observation

to my own experiences learning the English language.
b. It depends. If we are alone could be after the error was
made. If we are in a class or group, I take notes and then call
the student to talk to him/her.
c. At the end.
d. Only when they say a “barbarism.” But I try to make it in
an indirect way. (example: Oh! You mean…).
e. If and when there’s a chance or when they (whoever) pay
attention to me.
f. I let my students finish, then I repeat the correct sentence.

79
Richard McGarry

6. What can you tell me about error correction as a pedagogical technique?

a. As I said in the answer to the first question, error correc-

tion is the essence of teaching. Therefore, this pedagogical
technique is most effective when the error is fresh. How-
ever, it will always be a good pedagogical technique, de-
pending on the interest of the learner.
b. I do not think about error correction as a pedagogical
technique. I think of it as a part of the construction process.
I look at myself as a mediator between student previous
knowledge and the target objective. We learn from our mis-
takes.
c. Error correction, when appropriately used, is an important
teaching technique in helping others improve their command
of the language. However, it should be used in a construc-
tive and timely way. To do otherwise leads to hindering the
language learning process. We should not forget that par-
ticularly in the process of learning a foreign language, we
should encourage our students to communicate. If they are
able to communicate their needs and thoughts and make
themselves understood, the objective is accomplished and
the learners feel motivated. The error correction conducted
in a constructive and timely fashion will help in accomplish-
ing the other objective, to speak and write correctly.
d. I emphasize in my courses that we, as teachers and pro-
fessionals, should learn techniques, rather tactics to deal
with correction in ways that do not affect the students’ af-
fective filter and disposition in the classroom.
e. It should not interrupt students’ thought. Repetition and
clarification is good. When the error is generalized (com-
mon to the group), I take a few minutes to explain.
f. Some students feel unhappy or embarrassed but they need
to improve.

7. How do you resolve the conflict between immediate error correction and
the modeling approach where the stream of conversation is not interrupted?

a. I do not see any conflict between the two techniques,

because it is just a matter of opportunity or circumstances.
b. Depends on the situation. In a formal situation I will be
aware and determine which approach must be used in each
case.
c. By doing the error correction at the end. Because if we
constantly interrupt the students they will lose fluency and
feel threatened, frustrated and disappointed.

80
 Error Correction

d. I would never interrupt a conversation. I think I’m con-

cerned about the negative effect of direct correction. I may
correct, but I usually do it at the end, and in different indirect
ways (by paraphrasing, asking, etc.).
e. I don’t correct immediately-I model when I can.
f. What I do is to let them finish and retell-or redo it again.

8. What are your expectations about native speakers of English correcting

errors in your English?

a. Based on past experiences, I would hope that native

speakers of English would be slightly more aggressive in
making corrections.
b. I will love it. I do not have problems accepting that. I
always could do better, that includes language learning.
c. I have no problem with that, for I believe that to the extent
it is done constructively and timely, they are helping me
improve my command of the language and my communica-
tion skills.
d. I expect them to correct me in such a way that I do not feel
ashamed or, I believe, in such a way that I do not feel hurt or
embarrassed (especially in front of others).
e. I appreciate them.
f. I think it is the excellent way to practice, learn and acquire
language.

References

Barbosa, G. (1999). ¡Hola! ¡Que Tal! San José: Asesorías en Administración

Educativa.
Biesanz, M., Biesanz, R., Biesanz, K., (1999). The Ticos: Culture and social
change in Costa Rica. San Jose: Lynn Rienner Press.
Ellis, R., Basturkman, H. & Loewen, S. (2001). Preemptive focus on form in the
ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 407-432.
James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use. London: Longman.
Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in rela-
tion to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Lan-
guage Learning, 48, 183-218.
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotia-
tion of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Lan-
guage Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and
pairwork. Language Learning, 50, 119-151.
www.learnaboutcultures.com/countries/CostaRica.htm.
www.infocostarcia.com/culture/identity.html.

81
Richard McGarry

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Carter Hammett-McGarry for her invaluable con-

tent suggestions and editorial assistance. Her guidance from the beginning of
this study enabled me to focus on the strengths and challenges of this study
with greater clarity. Further, I thank my colleague, Nancy DeLargy, and the
following students in Appalachian State University’s Program in TESL for their
thorough reading of the paper: Morgan Vassey, Shirley Wiseman. Finally, I
wish to thank the cogent and helpful comments of the referee for this paper.

Author

RICHARD G. MCGARRY, Director of APPELI and Associate Professor of Lin-

guistics and ESL, Department of Foreign Languages & Literatures,
Appalachian State University, 519 Sanford Hall, Boone, North Caro-
lina 28608. Specializations: applied grammar, language acquisition,
sociolinguistics, neurolinguistics, language pedagogy.

82
 Effects of Notetaking on Listening Comprehension

Applied Language Learning

2004, Vol. 14, No. 1 , pp. 83-105

The Effects of Notetaking, Lecture Length, and Topic on a

Computer-Based Test of ESL Listening Comprehension*1

Patricia L. Carrell and Patricia A. Dunkel

Georgia State University

Pamela Mollaun
Educational Testing Service

With the goal of improving the reliability and validity of

tests of English as a foreign language, in particular with
respect to the question of whether to allow notetaking on
EFL/ESL computer-based listening comprehension tests,
the present study examined the effects on ESL listening
comprehension of notetaking (allowed or disallowed) in
relation to lecture length (minitalks of 2.5 or 5 minutes)
and topic (arts/humanities or physical sciences). A lis-
tener-aptitude variable, overall English listening compre-
hension proficiency, was also examined. Two hundred and
thirty-four ESL students took tests of computer-based (CB)
listening comprehension and the listening comprehension
section of a disclosed paper-and-pencil TOEFL. Results of
the post-listening comprehension assessment revealed: (1)
interaction between notetaking and topic: on arts/humani-
ties topics listeners performed least well when no notetak-
ing was allowed, better when notetaking was allowed, and
about the same on physical science topics whether noteta-
king was allowed or disallowed; (2) interaction between
notetaking and lecture length: on short lectures listeners
performed better when notetaking was allowed, less well
when notetaking was not allowed, and about the same on
longer lectures whether notetaking was allowed or not.
No statistically significant differences in the pattern of re-
sults were found when overall English listening compre-
hension proficiency was factored into the 2 (notetaking) X
2 (lecture length) X 2 (topic) ANOVA-R model. Results of
the study have implications for allowing notetaking on
computer-based testing of listening comprehension, espe-
cially the computer-based TOEFL.

*Reprinted by permission of Educational Testing Service, the copyright

owner. 83
Carrell, Dunkel, and Mollaun

Introduction and Literature Review

Taking notes while listening to a lecture is widely accepted as a useful

strategy for augmenting student attention to and retention of academic dis-
course. Notetaking is generally viewed as facilitative of the process of learn-
ing and remembering lecture material (Clerehan, 1995; Crawford, 1925 a, b, c;
Dunkel, 1988a; Dunkel & Davy, 1989; Kiewra, 1987; McKenna, 1987; Palmatier
& Bennet, 1974). Empirical investigations of the facilitating effects of notetak-
ing with native speakers have yielded conflicting results (Aiken, Thomas &
Shennum, 1975; Crawford 1925a; DiVesta & Grey, 1972; Dunkel, 1985; Kiewra,
et al., 1991). Hartley and Davies (1978) summarized a number of empirical
studies and determined that about half (17 of 35) the studies supported en-
hancement of recall as a function of notetaking.
Scholarship on the topic of English lecture listening and notetaking
by nonnative speakers has been approached from a variety of perspectives.
Some of the scholarship has been non-empircal, non-experimental treatises
based on reviews of the then-extant literature. For example, Dunkel (1988a)
reviewed previous L1 research concerning learning from lectures as a function
of L1 notetaking, and then highlighted the dearth of related L2 research. She
concluded by outlining accepted axioms of good notetaking, noting that, while
the guidelines were drawn from the L1 literature and were, therefore, developed
with L1 notetakers in mind, they seemed not only to be relevant to L2 learners,
but might also provide the basis for further L2 lecture listening and notetaking
research.
Other scholarship on the topic of English lecture listening and noteta-
king by nonnative speakers has been empirical, but not experimental. For
example, Benson’s (1989) ethnographic case study of an ESL student’s listen-
ing activities in a U.S. university academic class was based on the student’s
class notebooks as well as on interviews and lecture recordings. Benson
concluded that “rather than being preoccupied with the acquisition of new
facts” (p. 421), the student was “engaged in a variety of processes relating
both to the material and to the teacher” (p. 421). According to Benson, these
processes included trying to identify with the teacher’s point of view, as well
as coping with the reduction of incoming linguistic data and making connec-
tions with already familiar concepts. Drawing from two different discourse
analysis traditions, Hansen (1994) described an approach to discourse analy-
sis (how to identify major topics, subtopics, and minor points in a lecture) and
suggested that the topic hierarchy resulting from such an analysis can be used
to evaluate the qualitative completeness and correctness of students’ lecture
notes.
Other scholarship has been both empirical and experimental, but has
not directly addressed the types of research questions addressed in the cur-
rent study. Dunkel and Davy’s (1989) empirical study investigated both Ameri-
can and international students’ perceptions about the value and practice of
notetaking, but did not relate those perceptions to performance in either noteta-
king itself or any related listening comprehension task.

84
 Effects of Notetaking on Listening Comprehension

Several studies have examined notetaking practices and notetaking

strategies of L2 students in testing settings (Cushing, 1991a, 1991b; Dunkel,
1988b). Dunkel (1988b) examined the relationships between various aspects of
the lecture notes of L1 and L2 students who had viewed a videotaped lecture
and then took a postlecture multiple-choice retention test covering general
concepts as well as facts and details from the lecture. Cushing (1991a) exam-
ined the relationship between academic status (graduate, undergraduate or
extension), language proficiency (higher vs lower proficiency levels), and vari-
ous aspects of the notes L2 students took during an ESL placement examina-
tion at UCLA. In a follow-up study, Cushing (1991b) provided a qualitative
analysis of those same notes and concluded with a list of characteristics of
“good notes.”
Other empirical studies have examined the relationship between L2
students’ notes and the lectures they listen to in their chosen fields of study.
Olsen and Huckin (1990) investigated “learning” by nonnative English-learn-
ing engineering students by examining summaries (i.e., notes) taken while
listening to a 16- minute videotaped lecture and by conducting interviews with
the students. They found that students who were “information-driven” rather
than “point-driven” were more concerned with “the facts” and kept missing
the main issues in the lectures. By contrast, the point-driven listeners at-
tempted to distinguish clearly between main and subordinate points, and dem-
onstrated an effort to interpret the “speaker’s presumed intention” (p. 33).
King (1994) similarly reported research into notetaking by nonnative English-
learning engineering students, with the dual focus of exploring the relation-
ship between the visual and verbal aspects of the lecture, and the notes made
by overseas students with respect to the visual-verbal distinction. Clerehan
(1995) examined the notes taken by L2 business students during a 50-minute
commercial law lecture. She found that the L2 students omitted much of the
macrostructure or hierarchical structure of the lecture from their notes.
However, the L2 research most relevant to the present study has
empirically investigated the question of whether notetaking per se has an
effect on English lecture listening comprehension (Chaudron, Cook & Loschky,
1988; Chaudron, Loschky & Cook, 1994; Dunkel, 1985; Dunkel, Mishra & Ber-
liner, 1989; Hale & Courtney, 1994; Liu, 2001). This research has yielded con-
flicting results with respect to the relationship between notetaking and English
lecture listening performance. Dunkel’s seminal study (1985; see also Dunkel,
Mishra & Berliner, 1989) examined the effects of the “act” of notetaking (the
encoding function of notetaking) on ESL listening comprehension test perfor-
mance. Students were not allowed to review their notes before or during the
test. That study failed to find a positive effect of notetaking on ESL listeners’
comprehension/recognition of information (as measured by multiple choice
questions) presented in a 22-minute English minilecture. However, Dunkel
found a sizeable “memory” effect: listeners with high short-term memory abil-
ity accurately recalled significantly more lecture concepts and details than did
listeners with low short-term memory ability. Level of English proficiency was
also found to have a positive effect on comprehension and test performance.

85
Carrell, Dunkel, and Mollaun

Native speakers of English (higher proficiency listeners) outperformed nonna-

tive speakers of English (lower proficiency listeners) in recognizing concepts
and details presented in the lecture, whether or not they took notes.
Chaudron, Cook and Loschky (1988; see also Chaudron, Loschky, &
Cook, 1994) examined the effects of the external storage function of notetaking
(i.e., taking notes and then either keeping or not keeping the notes during
testing) on L2 students’ recall of lecture information. Their results showed, on
both multiple choice and close listening comprehension measures, no favor-
able role for keeping or not keeping notes in students’ short term recall suc-
cess. However, they found complex relationships between various measures
of lecture note quality and successful recall.
Liu (2001) examined the encoding versus the encoding and external
storage functions of L2 lecture listening notetaking. The study utilized three
groups of Chinese EFL learners: one group listening to a lecture with no noteta-
king; a second group listening to the lecture with notetaking allowed, but
being precluded from reviewing the notes (the encoding function of notetak-
ing alone); and a third group listening to the lecture with notetaking allowed
and being allowed to review the notes afterwards (the encoding and external
storage functions). All three groups were evaluated on immediate and delayed
performance on general and specific multiple choice test items. Results showed
significant effects for the review of notes (the external storage function of
notetaking) on recognition of specific information at both testing times, but
non significant effects on recognition of general information at both testing
times.
Hale and Courtney (1994) specifically examined notetaking in the
context of the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). Utilizing a
research design that allowed notetaking, disallowed notetaking and urged
notetaking (students were allowed to keep their notes before them while an-
swering test questions), Hale and Courtney found no significant effect for
allowing notetaking, and a negative effect of being urged to take notes. Hale
and Courtney speculate that failure to find a notetaking effect may have been
affected by the relatively short length of the minitalks in their study (less than
2 minutes) and the types of comprehension questions which did not query
about facts and details.
A final study relevant to the current research is that of Freedle and
Kostin (1999). Although this study does not deal with notetaking, it examined
the relationship between the ease/difficulty of TOEFL listening items and a
number of text variables, one of which included the topical effects of subject
matter. In an ex-post facto correlational analysis of 337 listening comprehen-
sion items associated with 69 minitalks, they found complex topical effects.
Freedle and Kostin suggest that, instead of relying on examination of accrued
TOEFL data, additional empirical work should be conducted to clarify how text
variables such as topic affect listener performance on the TOEFL minitalks.
Given the intuitive belief held by college students (and lecturers alike)
that notetaking promotes lecture learning, listeners (e.g., TOEFL and other test
takers) place great value on the ability to take notes during lecture (or minitalk)

86
 Effects of Notetaking on Listening Comprehension

presentations. Not being allowed to take notes during the TOEFL minitalks
seems to concern many TOEFL test takers (personal communication with Gor-
don Hale of Educational Testing Service, March, 1993) regardless of the fact
that research has not been able unequivocally to show that notetaking per se
has a facilitative effect on ESL lecture listening comprehension, in general, and
TOEFL minitalk listening comprehension, in particular. Thus, within the con-
text of the broad goal of improving the reliability and validity of tests of English
as a foreign or second language, but, in particular, with respect to the question
of whether or not to allow notetaking on EFL/ESL computer-based listening
comprehension tests, it seemed time to reexamine the issue of notetaking and
second language listening comprehension within the context of (1) lengthier
minitalks being considered for use in the TOEFL 2000, and (2) the computer-
based (CB) testing environment. Also, given the Hale and Courtney (1994)
speculation, it seemed important to include minitalk length as a variable: shorter,
representing the current length of the TOEFL minitalks, approximately 2 min-
utes; and longer, representing the effect of doubling the present minitalk length.
Moreover, again given the Hale and Courtney speculation, we also wanted to
include comprehension questions which queried other than general gist or
main idea information, and which did so in other than a multiple-choice format.
In addition, given the Freedle and Kostin (1999) results, we also wanted to
determine whether topic interacts with the effects of notetaking and lecture
length. Finally, although the present study focused primarily on the three main
factors of notetaking (allowed or disallowed), lecture length (shorter or longer)
and topic (arts/humanities or physical sciences), we also included as a second-
ary factor a learner-aptitude variable previously found to be relevant to noteta-
king (Dunkel, 1985), namely general listening comprehension proficiency.

Research Questions

Four primary research questions were addressed in this study:

1. Is listening comprehension, as measured by the percent

correct score on a computer-based test, affected by the op-
portunity to take and use notes?
2. Is listening comprehension, as measured by the percent
correct score on a computer-based test, affected by the
length (2.5 versus 5 minutes) of the minitalk used to present
the content?
3. Is listening comprehension, as measured by the percent
correct score on a computer-based test, affected by the topic
(arts/humanities versus physical sciences) of the minitalk?
4. Are there interactions among notetaking, lecture length,
and topic which affect listening comprehension, as mea-
sured by percent correct score on a computer-based test?

87
Carrell, Dunkel, and Mollaun

A secondary research question was addressed in the study:

What effect does general English listening proficiency (as

measured by the paper-and-pencil TOEFL) have on the an-
swers to the primary research questions above?

Method
Participants

Data from a total of 234 participants are included in the study. Of the
234, 139 were males, 88 females. Participants were international students study-
ing ESL at five participating institutions: Brigham Young University in Provo,
Utah (BYU); Indiana University in Bloomington (IU); Southern Illinois Univer-
sity in Carbondale (SIUC); the University of Arizona in Tucson (UAZ); and the
University of Southern California, in Los Angeles (USC). Participants were
considered representative of the typical TOEFL test-taking population in terms
of their biographical data as well as in terms of their general levels of English
proficiency as measured by the Institutional TOEFL listening comprehension
section (range = 31-66, M = 48.61, SD = 6.21). They represented various re-
gions of the world, various native language backgrounds, and various pro-
posed fields of study. All available and willing participants enrolled in ESL
and/or IEP courses at each institution were solicited by coordinators at the
participating institutions; participants were randomly assigned to conditions.

Materials and Procedures

Participants were tested in two distinct sessions, with a maximum time

of two weeks and a minimum time of one hour between sessions. Each session
lasted between one hour and one hour and 15 minutes.

Materials administered in the first session consisted of an informed

consent form, a biodata questionnaire, and the listening comprehension sec-
tion of a disclosed, institutional, paper-and-pencil TOEFL. Materials adminis-
tered in the second session consisted of the computer-based test designed for
this study and a debriefing questionnaire (not reported here).

Listening Comprehension Test and Institutional Paper-and-Pencil TOEFL

In order to establish initial listening comprehension proficiency lev-
els, participants were administered a disclosed form of the listening compre-
hension component of the TOEFL. The listening section has three parts: In
Part A, examinees listen to 30 brief conversations; Parts B and C consist of 5
longer conversations or monologues.

Computer-based Test of Listening Comprehension

Eight listening comprehension stimuli (lectures), with six to eight re-
lated items per stimulus, were designed for the study. The stimuli were modeled

88
 Effects of Notetaking on Listening Comprehension

on the minitalks currently used in the computer-based TOEFL.

Lecture Length. Four stimuli were “short,” similar in length to the current
TOEFL minitalk. These short talks averaged 2 ½ minutes (ranging from 2' 19"
to 2' 45"; 365 to 422 words). Four stimuli were “long,” twice the length of the
short talks. These long talks averaged 5 1/4 minutes (ranging from 5' 07" to 5'
29"; 748 to 848 words).

Topic. The study was limited to two content/topic categories to keep the
study manageable logistically, including both the number of participants and
the length of the test for any individual participant. The two major content
categories of the current computer-based TOEFL deemed to be the most differ-
ent or distinct from each other were included: arts/humanities and physical
sciences. Four lectures (two long and two short) were based on topics in the
Arts/ Humanities category, and four (two long and two short) in the Physical
Science category. Topics in the Arts/Humanities included the following: a
comparison of features of the Renaissance, Baroque, and Neo-Classical styles
of art (hereafter Baroque) (long); a discussion of the Dada movement in 20th
century abstract art (hereafter Dada) (long); analyzing works of art in terms of
visual elements (hereafter Form) (short); a description of techniques used in
printmaking, the basic process, creating multiples, the difference between re-
lief and intaglia (hereafter Prints) (short). Topics in the Physical Sciences
category included: factors that lead to irregular land surface formations, land
subsidence, karst topography (hereafter Karst) (long); causes of erosion to
desert land forms (hereafter Deserts) (long); an explanation for recent changes
in Louisiana wetlands (hereafter Wetlands) (short); a discussion of hydroelec-
tricity as an alternative energy source, how it works, its limitations and advan-
tages (hereafter Hydro) (short).

Item Type. Each of the eight sets included a Main Idea (MI) item type (as in the
current computer-based TOEFL). Because the current TOEFL does not test
facts or details that might be easily forgotten without notetaking, the specifica-
tions for testing details were broadened to include three types of detail ques-
tions which could now be investigated with notetaking as a variable in the
study. The three types added were: supporting information (SI), details (D),
and minor details (MD). SI items tested broader concepts related to the main
idea, generally requiring integration of information presented in the talk, either
explicitly or implicitly. D items tested key points in the talk, presented with
some redundancy. MD items tested specific details, such as names and dates,
presented with limited redundancy.

Information Type. As in the current computer-based TOEFL, items tested

information explicitly mentioned in the talk (EX) and that not explicitly men-
tioned (NEX), but implied and intended to be inferred.

89
Carrell, Dunkel, and Mollaun

Table 1. Computer-based Test Format -Items

Short Sets--Six Items

Item Type Information Type Response Type

MI NEX MC

SI NEX or EX MC

D EX MC

D EX O/M or MSMC

D EX CR

MD EX MC

Long Sets--Eight Items (Six as abov e and two as below)

SI NEX MC

MD EX C

Key:ItemType:MI=mainidea;SI=supportinginformation;D=detail;MC=minordetail.InformationType:EX=explicitly
mentioned;NEX=notexplicitlymentioned,butimplied.ResponseType:MC=multiple-choice;O/M=order/match;MSMC
=multiple-selectionmultiple-choice;CR=constructedresponse.

Response Type. The selected-response item types included in the study were
similar to those in the current computer-based TOEFL: multiple-choice items
(MC), order/match items (O/M), and multiple-selection multiple-choice (MSMC).
Visual response items were not included in the study since it had been decided
that no content visuals were to be used in the talks. In addition to the MC, O/
M and MSMC selected-response items, the study included a
constructed-response (CR) item type. These responses were limited to one
word or a short phrase, which participants typed into a box on the screen.

Number of Items. Each short lecture was followed by 6 items (five

selected-response and one constructed-response). Each long lecture was
followed by 8 items (six selected-response and two constructed-response).
See Table 1 for the item distribution across the short and long lectures.

90
 Effects of Notetaking on Listening Comprehension

Administration Procedures. The computer-based test served as the testing

environment. Before beginning the test, participants were required to work
through a brief set of tutorials, providing information on how to use the com-
puter. The tutorial included general information about the test format, how to
adjust the volume, how to answer the questions, and several practice items.
During oral presentation of the lecture, to establish setting, a context
visual containing no information related to the content of the talk appeared on
the screen, depicting a professor and several students in a classroom setting.
Each participant listened to four talks (two short and two long) and
answered the related 28 items. The listening material was presented only once.
Participants were allowed to take notes during two of the talks (one long and
one short) and were not permitted to take notes during the other two talks (one
long and one short). The items were presented both orally and printed on the
screen. To respond, participants were required to click on the correct answer
choice (multiple-choice items), click and move options to the appropriately
marked space (order/matching items), or to type in a short answer
(constructed-response items). Participants were informed that they would not
be penalized for spelling or grammar errors on the constructed response items.
(N.B. A spelling close enough to make a word recognizable was accepted: e.g.,
“renasance,” “runessance,” “renissance,” and “rennascence” were all accepted
as spellings for “Renaissance.” However, a gross misspelling which rendered
the word unrecognizable or rendered it in a different form was not accepted:
e.g., “renacentism,” “renacissm,” “renainess,” and “renasentist” were unac-
ceptable as spellings for “Renaissance.”)
Specific instructions were given before each pair of talks regarding
notetaking. That is, immediately before the pair of lectures (one long and one
short) on which notetaking was permitted, participants received instructions
that they could take notes; immediately before the pair of lectures (one long
and one short) on which no notetaking was permitted, participants received
instructions that they could not take notes. Test administrators distributed
and collected the paper used for notetaking at appropriate times for each par-
ticipant.
Participants were given a total of 30 minutes to answer all 28 ques-
tions (excluding time spent listening to the lectures). Participants comfortably
answered questions within the total allotted time.
In total, there were 16 different forms of the computer test. Forms 1-8
were on the content category of Arts and Humanities; forms 9-16 were on the
content category of Physical Science. On forms 1-4 and 9-12, notetaking was
permitted on the first two lectures, but not on the last two lectures. On forms
5-8 and 13-16 notetaking was permitted on the last two lectures, but not on the
first two lectures. Forms 1, 5, 9 and 13 had lectures in the order: short, long,
short, long; forms 2, 6, 10 and 14 had the lectures in the order: long, short,
short, long; forms 3, 7, 11 and 15 had the lectures in the order: short, long, long,
short; forms 4, 8, 12 and 16 had the lectures in the order: long, short, long,

91
Carrell, Dunkel, and Mollaun

short. Participants were randomly assigned to forms at each test site. Computer
instructions informed participants to raise their hands and receive notetaking
paper when they were beginning to work on a section notetaking paper when
they were beginning a section on which notetaking was allowed. Computer
instructions informed participants to raise their hands to receive notetaking
paper when they were beginning a section on which notetaking was allowed.
Computer instructions also informed participants to raise their hands when
they finished those lectures so that the notetaking paper could be collected
before they continued on sections on which no notetaking was permitted.
The computer test was administered in computer laboratories of the
five participating universities. Aggregate percent correct scores (across all
item types, information types and response types) on each of the
computer-based sub-tests were used in the statistical analyses.

Data Analyses

To address the primary research questions, the data were analyzed by

a 2 (notetaking) x 2 (length) x 2 (topic) analysis of variance with repeated
measures (ANOVA-R) for two factors. The between subjects factor was the
topic of the mini-talk.2 Topics were classified into two main categories, arts/
humanities and physical sciences. The within subjects factors were length of
the minitalk and notetaking status. The minitalks were classified as either
being short (approximately 2.5 minutes) or long (approximately 5 minutes) in
duration. The two levels of notetaking included listening with notetaking
allowed and listening with notetaking disallowed. When notetaking was al-
lowed, the participants were subsequently allowed to use their notes when
completing the short test following the mini-talk. The results of both main and
interaction effects are reported. Separate error terms were used in the simple
effects analyses (Maxwell & Delaney, 1990). An alpha level of p < .05 was used
to determine statistical significance.
To address the secondary research question, the data were analyzed
by incorporating the additional learner-aptitude variable into the model de-
scribed above. The factor was included in the analysis as a between subjects
factor, using a median split to form two groups for the variable: those with
scores at or above the median, and those with scores below the median.

Results

Statistically significant main effects were found for notetaking and

length. In addition, statistically significant interaction effects were also found
for notetaking and topic, and notetaking and length. (See Table 2).

92
 Effects of Notetaking on Listening Comprehension

Table 2. Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance of the Effects of Notetaking,

Lecture Length, and Topic on Percent Correct Scores

Source MS df F Et a Squared

Between Subjects

Topic 2778.33 1 2.60 0.012

Error 1066.96 211

Within Subjects

N otetaking 3291.57 1 9.91** 0.045

N otetaking x Topic 18 3 2 . 2 6 1 5.52* 0.025

Error 332.02 211

Length 3905.82 1 15.02*** 0.066

Length x Topic 505.32 1 1.94 0.009

Error 260.06 211 0.148

N otes x Length 7993.69 1 36.63***

N otes x Length x Topic 393.92 1 1. 8 1 0.008

Error 218.23 211

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

The cell means and standard deviations are reported in Tables 3 and 4.

Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations (Percent Correct Score) for

Notetaking Status and Lecture Length by Topic

Topic NS NL NNS NNL

Mean 44.25 36.73 32.60 34.62

Arts/Humanities
(N =113)
SD 25.37 20.20 21.29 19.62

Mean 48.83 34.50 39.33 4 1. 0 0

Physical Sciences
(N =100)
SD 22.30 19.87 25.02 18.56

Mean 45.93 35.68 35.76 37.62

Total
(N =213)
SD 23.99 20.03 23.30 19 . 3 5

Key: NS = notetaking allowed, short lecture; NL = notetaking allowed, long

lecture; NNS = no notetaking allowed, short lecture; NNL = no notetaking
allowed, long lecture.

93
Carrell, Dunkel, and Mollaun

Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations for the Main Effects of Topic,
Notetaking Status, and Lecture Length

Ef f ect Mean SD N

Not et a king St a t us (w)*

Not et a king Allowed 4 0 .8 1 18.88 213

Not et a king Disa llowed 3 6 .6 9 18.72 213

Lengt h of Mini-t a lk (w)

Shor t 4 0 .8 5 20.13 213

Long 3 6 .6 5 16.22 213

Topic (b)

Ar t s & Huma nit ies 3 7 .0 5 16.73 113

P hysica l Sciences 40.67 15.87 100

*(w )= within subjects factor, (b) = between subjects factor

Interaction of Notetaking and Topic
The results of the posthoc analysis of the interaction between
notetaking and topic are reported in Table 5. See also Figure 1.

Table 5. Means, Standard Deviations, and ANOVA-R Results for the Simple
Main Effects Analysis for the Notetaking and Topic Interaction

Et a N ot et ak ing
Topic Source MS df F Mean SD
Squared St at us

N ote-
2671.94 1 15 . 8 1* * * .124 Allowed 40.49 20.28
Arts & taking
Humani-
ties
Error 168.96 112 Disallowed 33.61 17.81

N ote-
50.00 1 .31 .003 Allowed 41.17 17.25
taking
Physical
Sciences

Error 16 2 . 6 7 99 Disallowed 40.17 19.2

***p<.001

94
 Effects of Notetaking on Listening Comprehension

Figure 1 depicts the interaction between notetaking and topic.

Notetaking allowed Notetaking disallowed

Figure 1. Means of the Percent Correct Scores for Interaction Between

Notetaking and Topic.

Thus, students taking the arts and humanities topics scored signifi-
cantly higher when notetaking was allowed versus when it was not allowed.
However, students taking the physical sciences topics performed no differ-
ently when they were allowed to take notes and when they were not.

Interaction of Notetaking and Length

The results of the posthoc analysis of the interaction between noteta-
king and length of minitalk are reported in Table 6. See also Figure 2.
Table 6. Means, Standard Deviations and Anova-R Results for the Simple
Main Effects Analysis for the Interaction between Notetaking and Lecture
Length.

Minit alk Et a Not et ak ing

Source MS df F Mean SD
Lengt h Squared St at us

Notetaking
Short Notetaking 11019.82 1 35.74*** .144 45.93 23.99
allowed

Notetaking
Error 308.35 212 35.76 23.30
disallowed

Notetaking
Long Notetaking 399.43 1 1.60 .007 35.68 20.03
allowed

Notetaking
Error 249.81 212 37.62 19.35
disallowed

95
Carrell, Dunkel, and Mollaun

Figure 2. Means of the Percent Correct Scores for Interaction Between

Notetaking and Topic

Notetaking allowed Notetaking disallowed

Figure 2 depicts the interaction between notetaking and length of minitalk.

Thus, on the short minitalks, students did statistically significantly

better when they were allowed to take notes versus when they were not al-
lowed to take notes. On the long minitalks, there was no statistically
significant difference when notetaking was allowed or disallowed.
Secondary Analysis with Overall Listening Comprehension Proficiency
Added to the Basic Model
The secondary analysis was conducted in order to examine the addi-
tional effects of overall English listening comprehension proficiency on test
performance. The additional factor, based upon a median split of the scores on
the listening comprehension section of the paper-and-pencil institutional
TOEFL, was entered into the 2 (notetaking) x 2 (lecture length) x 2 (topic) basic
model used for the primary analysis. The pattern of results was examined for
similarities with the results for primary analysis.

96
 Effects of Notetaking on Listening Comprehension

Table 7. Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance of the Effects of Notetaking,

Lecture Length, Topic and Overall English Listening Comprehension Profi-
ciency on Percent Correct Scores

Et a
Source MS df F Squar-
ed

Between Subjects

Topic 1985.79 1 2.73 .013

TO EFL Group 68627.79 1 94.44*** .316

Topic x TO EFL Group 271.16 1 .37 .002

Error 726.67 204

Within Subjects

N otetaking 3239.58 1 9.93** .046

N otetaking x Topic 1326.55 1 4.07* .020

N otetaking x TO EFL
424.14 1 1.30 .006
Group

N otetaking x Topic x
1026.58 1 3.15 .015
TO EFL Group

Error 326.37 204

Length 3440.95 1 13.44*** .062

Length x Topic 380.53 1 1.49 .007

Length x TO EFL Group 1281.34 1 5.00 .024

Length x Topic x TO EFL

176.07 1 .69 .003
Group

Error 256.09 204

N otetaking x Length 7464.83 1 33.69*** . 14 2

N otetaking x Length x
351.19 1 1.59 .008
Topic

N otetaking x Length x
.00 1 .00 .000
TO EFL Group

N otetaking x Length x
270.15 1 1.22 .006
Topic x TO EFL Group

Error 221.58 204

When English listening comprehension proficiency (as measured by

the listening comprehension section of the paper-and-pencil TOEFL) was added
to the basic model, resulting in a 2 (notetaking) x 2 (stimulus length) x 2 (topic)
x 2 (English listening comprehension) model, the results were those reported in
Table 7.
The significant main effect for TOEFL group shows, not surprisingly,
that those scoring at or above the median (49) on the listening comprehension
section of the paper-and-pencil TOEFL outperformed those scoring below the
median. The other results were similar to those reported for the primary

97
Carrell, Dunkel, and Mollaun

analysis with significant main effects for notetaking and length of minitalk, as
well as significant interaction effects for notetaking by topic and notetaking by
length of minitalk. In addition, the interaction between length of minitalk and
TOEFL median group was found to be significant. This effect was examined by
analyzing simple main effects. For students with TOEFL listening comprehen-
sion scores below the median score, there was very little difference between
the mean percent correct scores for the long minitalk (M = 27.29, SD = 12.72)
and the short minitalk (M= 29.34, SD = 14.60). However, for students with
TOEFL listening comprehension scores at or above the median, there was a
larger and statistically significant difference for the mean percent correct scores
for the long and short minitalks, F (1,113) = 17.70, p < .001. The mean for the
short minitalks was 50.37 with a standard deviation of 18.96 and the mean for
the long minitalks was 43.80 with a standard deviation of 15.21.

Discussion

Results from the primary analysis show statistically significant inter-

actions between notetaking and length, and between notetaking and topic.
These two significant interactions mitigate the significant main effects both for
notetaking and for length. The significant interaction between notetaking and
length revealed that when the lecture length was shorter (between 2’19" and
2’45") and participants were allowed to take notes, they performed far better
(M = 45.93) than they did when lecture length was shorter and they were not
allowed to take notes (M = 35.76) or when lecture length was longer (between
5’07" and 5’29") regardless of whether they were allowed (M = 35.68) or not
allowed (M = 37.62) to take notes. The combination of both a shorter lecture
length and the ability to take notes worked together to enhance performance.
These results run counter to those of Dunkel (1985) as well as those of Hale
and Courtney (1994) who found no effect for notetaking, although those re-
searchers did not consider the factor of length per se.
The significant interaction between notetaking and topic revealed
that for the physical sciences topics there was no difference between notetak-
ing being allowed (M = 41.17) or not being allowed (M = 40.17). However, for
the arts and humanities topics, there was a statistically significant difference
between being allowed to take notes or not, with participants performing far
worse on the arts and humanities topics when they were not allowed to take
notes (M = 33.61), than when they were allowed to take notes (M = 40.49).
When participants were allowed to take notes on arts and humanities topics,
they performed about the same as participants on physical science topics, with
or without notetaking being allowed. Evidently, the arts and humanities topics
were more difficult for these participants than the physical science topics were
for these participants. This may be due to the fact that a larger proportion
(32%) of all participants in our study, regardless of what topics they were
randomly assigned to, were scientifically-oriented participants (i.e., had a de-
clared intent to major in engineering, physical sciences, mathematics or com-
puter science). A smaller proportion (14%) of the sample were participants with

98
 Effects of Notetaking on Listening Comprehension

a declared intent to major in humanities fields. As a result, it seems as though

participants were advantaged when they were allowed to take notes on the
Arts and Humanities topics, possibly because a large proportion of the partici-
pants were not as familiar with Arts and Humanities topics as with the Physical
Science topics. It may be that their greater familiarity with topics in the Physi-
cal Sciences allowed them to recall more of the information without having
taken it down in note form.
When the participants were divided into high and low groups based
upon their scores on the listening comprehension section of the institutional
TOEFL, utilizing a median split, and when this variable was added into the
model for analysis, none of the basic results was affected. That is, the same
main effects and same interaction effects were significant with and without the
addition of the overall English listening proficiency variable. In addition to a
significant effect for the paper-and-pencil institutional TOEFL, notetaking and
length continued to be significant main effects, and notetaking and length, as
well as notetaking and topic continued to be significant interactions, as dis-
cussed above. There was also a significant interaction between length and
overall English listening proficiency. Participants in the group below the me-
dian performed virtually the same whether the lectures were shorter or longer;
however, participants in the higher group performed better on the shorter
lectures than on the longer lectures.
Those participants with higher levels of listening ability in English as
a foreign/second language were more advantaged when the lectures were
shorter, while participants with lower levels of listening ability in EFL/ESL were
less affected by lecture length. Their ability in English listening comprehen-
sion may have been too low to be affected by lecture length. In other words, a
floor effect may have prevailed for the lower proficient listeners. Examinees
may need to have a certain level of listening proficiency for the effects of
notetaking, length, and topic to have any significant effect on test perfor-
mance.

Some Evidence for the Concurrent Validity of the Computer-Based Test

Results from the secondary analysis showed that the paper-and-pen-

cil institutional TOEFL listening comprehension test correlated moderately
well with the computer-based test constructed for this study (r = .71). (TOEFL
reports a correlation of .82 between the listening components of the paper-
and-pencil traditional test and the computer-based test scores on a concor-
dance sample (TOEFL, 1998, p. 31).) In a sense, the correlation is significant in
that it provides some evidence of concurrent validity for the computer-based
test used in this study.

99
Carrell, Dunkel, and Mollaun

Summary of Main Findings

The following summarize our main findings:

1. A positive effect for allowing notetaking was found, like that found
by Liu (2001) and in contrast to previous experimental work by Dunkel (1985;
Dunkel, Mishra, & Berliner, 1989), Chaudron (Chaudron, Cook, & Loschky,
1988; Chaudron, Loschky, & Cook, 1994) and Hale and Courtney (1994). The
interactive effect of notetaking and length, as well as of topic, has been noted.
However, the fact remains that this study provides rare support for the value of
notetaking for L2 learners.
2. A positive effect for lecture length was found; shorter lectures
produced higher percent correct scores than longer lectures.
3. However, these two main effects are mitigated by the interaction
effects found for the following:

a. An interaction between notetaking and topic was found;

students performed least well on arts and humanities topics
when no notetaking was allowed, performed best on arts
and humanities topics when notetaking was allowed, and
performed virtually the same on physical science topics re-
gardless of whether notetaking was allowed or disallowed.

b. An interaction between notetaking and lecture length was

found; students performed best when notetaking was al-
lowed on short lectures, and performed less well when not
allowed to take notes on short lectures or when lectures
were long, regardless of whether they could or could not
take notes.

4. No differences in the pattern of results were found when overall English

listening proficiency (as measured by the listening comprehension section of
the institutional TOEFL) was added to the equation along with the three main
factors of notetaking, lecture length, and topic. However, there was a signifi-
cant interaction between lecture length and overall English listening profi-
ciency, with participants with lower listening comprehension performing virtu-
ally the same whether lectures were short or long, but participants with higher
listening comprehension performing far better on shorter minilectures than on
longer minilectures.

Implications of These Findings for TOEFL 2000 and Other Similar

Computer-Based Tests of Listening Comprehension

These results suggest that examinees might be allowed the opportu-

nity to take paper-and-pencil notes while listening to the computer-based

100
 Effects of Notetaking on Listening Comprehension

minilectures. Clearly, the finding of a significant interaction for notetaking and

length, for notetaking and topic, and for notetaking and English listening com-
prehension proficiency suggest that notetaking per se will not always help
examinees, depending upon the length of the lectures and the topic, and whether
they have sufficiently high English listening comprehension proficiency. The
perceived comfort of being able to jot down notes while listening to the minitalks
may also allow examinees to demonstrate higher levels of performance, since
they will not have to rely so heavily on their memory to store all the information
heard in the minitalks. They can reference their notes to check information
asked in the test questions. Furthermore, the face validity of the test should
improve somewhat if notetaking is allowed, since university lecturers encour-
age (and even expect) students to listen and take notes on their lecture presen-
tations. In allowing notetaking, TOEFL 2000 and other similar computer-based
tests of listening comprehension would be reiterating one of the traditional
approaches to learning from lectures (i.e., listening to the discourse heard, and
noting down information perceived as important or relevant for recall in an
examination).
With respect to length of minitalks on TOEFL 2000 or other computer-
based tests of listening comprehension, our results do not provide the basis
for definitive recommendations. Whether TOEFL 2000 or similar tests should
use longer (e.g., approximately 5 minutes) or shorter (e.g., approximately 2.5
minutes) minitalks remains a question for further study. In this study, noteta-
king helped listeners on the shorter lectures, but not the longer lectures. It
should be noted that the longer minitalks also had greater information density
than the shorter minitalks. It may be that if the minitalks had been increased in
length but without an increase in information load, with the addition of itera-
tion and expansion of information, a slower pace, and addition of backtracking,
fillers, etc., the students might have done as well on the longer talks as on the
shorter. Additional research should be conducted investigating the increase
in lecture length in two different ways: (a) longer minitalks which carry a con-
comitant increase in information density as a result of the increase in length
(which was the case in the present study), and (b) longer minitalks which, while
longer, do not increase the information load, by virtue of the addition of itera-
tion, elaboration, etc. Our finding in the current study reinforces the principle
that notetaking on shorter minitalks is advantageous, when compared with the
first type of longer minitalk. However, it may be that on the second type of
longer minitalk that students would have done as well or better on the longer
lectures as on the shorter lectures, with or without notetaking.
Notetaking effects may interact with topic to affect performance; all
topics may not behave the same with respect to notetaking effects. This may
be due, in part, to the backgrounds of examinees. This is worthy of further
investigation.
A conclusion one might draw from the correlation between the
computer-based test with its novel item and response types and the traditional
paper-and-pencil audio-tape institutional TOEFL test is that TOEFL 2000 and
other similar computer-based tests of listening comprehension might well

101
Carrell, Dunkel, and Mollaun

include some of these novel item types (detail and minor detail) and novel
response types (constructed response). However, before that possibility is imple-
mented in large-scale, high-stakes standardized testing, further study needs to
be undertaken examining our results by different item types, since the current
study used only an aggregate score encompassing all of the different item,
information and response types.

Further Research

Follow-up studies should investigate the various item types, response

types, and information types utilized in this study, since, as previously stated,
the current study used only an aggregate percent correct score encompassing
all of these different item types. Further research on the various item types and
response types included in this computer-based test might end up suggesting
that such novel item and response types could eventually be added to future
operational computer-based tests of listening comprehension.
Additional follow-up studies might further pursue other aspects of
the results of the current study. First and foremost, students’ notes should be
examined to determine whether students even took notes when allowed to.
The extent of the notes they took should also be examined. All we can state at
this point is that approximately 90% of students, when allowed to take notes,
made some type of written notation. Second, the quality of the notes taken by
the students should be analyzed by content analysis. Finally, the relationship
between the notes taken and their quality, on the one hand, and test perfor-
mance, on the other hand, should be explored. For example, did students who
took high quality notes perform better than students who either did not take
notes when they were allowed to or whose notes were not of high quality?
We also recommend that further studies be conducted to examine the
question of notetaking directly on the computer compared with the paper and
pencil notetaking allowed in this study, and to investigate the different ways in
which the minitalk stimuli might be lengthened (e.g., both with or without
increase in information density) to be more similar to longer classroom lectures
and to investigate how such different kinds of increases in length of stimuli
interact with notetaking.

References

Aiken, E. G., Thomas, G. S., & Shennum, W. A. (1975). Memory for a lecture:
Effects of notes, lecture rate, and information density. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 67, 439-444.
Benson, M. (1989). The academic listening task: A case study. TESOL Quar-
terly, 23, 421-445.
Bilbow, G. T. (1989). Towards an understanding of overseas students’ difficul-
ties in lectures : A phenomenographic approach. Journal of Further
and Higher Education, 3, 85-9

102
 Effects of Notetaking on Listening Comprehension

Chaudron, C., Cook, J., & Loschky, L. (1988). Quality of lecture notes and
second language listening comprehension (Tech. Rep. No 7). Hono-
lulu: University of Hawaii at Manoa, Center for Second Language
Classroom Research.
Chaudron, C., Loschky, L., & Cook, J. (1994). Second language listening
comprehension and lecture note-taking. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Aca-
demic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 75-92). New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Clerehan, R. (1995). Taking it down: Notetaking practices of L1 and L2 stu-
dents. English for Specific Purposes, 14, 137-155.
Crawford, C. C. (1925a). The correlation between college lecture notes and
quiz papers. Journal of Educational Research, 12, 282-291.
Crawford, C. C. (1925b). The correlation between lecture notes and quiz pa-
pers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 12, 379-386.
Crawford, C. C. (1925c). Some experimental studies of the results of college
note-taking. Journal of Educational Research, 12, 379-386.
Cushing, S. T. (1991a). The relationship between academic status, language
proficiency and notetaking: An exploratory study. Unpublished
manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles.
Cushing, S. T. (1991b). A qualitative approach to the study of notetaking in
UCLA’s English as a Second Language Placement Examination.
Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles.
DiVesta, F., & Grey, G. S. (1972). Listening and notetaking. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 63, 8-14.
Dunkel, P. (1985). The immediate recall of English lecture information by
native and non-native speakers of English as a function of notetak-
ing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation: University of Arizona.
Dunkel, P. (1988a). Academic listening and lecture notetaking for L1/L2 stu-
dents: The need to investigate the utility of the axioms of good noteta-
king. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du Canada, 6, 11-26.
Dunkel, P. (1988b). The content of L1 and L2 students’ lecture notes and its
relation to test performance. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 259-281.
Dunkel, P., & Davy, S. (1989). The heuristic of lecture notetaking: Perceptions
of American and international students regarding the value and prac-
tice of notetaking. English for Specific Purposes, 8, 33-50.
Dunkel, P., Mishra, S., & Berliner, D. (1989). Effects of notetaking, memory, and
language proficiency on lecture learning for native and nonnative
speakers of English. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 543-549.
Freedle, R.F., & Kostin, I. (1999). Does the text matter in a multiple-choice test
of comprehension? The case for the construct validity of TOEFL’s
minitalks. Language Testing, 16, 2-31.
Hale, G., & Courtney, R. (1994). The effect of note-taking on listening compre-
hension in the Test of English as a Foreign Language. Language
Testing, 11, 29-47.
Hansen, C. (1994). Topic identification in lecture discourse. In J. Flowerdew
(Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 131-145). New

103
Carrell, Dunkel, and Mollaun

York: Cambridge University Press.

Hartley, J., & Davies, I. K. (1978). Note-taking: A critical review. Programmed
Learning and Educational Technology, 15, 207-224.
Kiewra, K. A. (1987). Note-taking and review: The research and its implica-
tions. Instructional Science, 16, 233-249.
Kiewra, K. A., DuBois, N., Christian, D., McShane, A., Meyerhoffer, M., &
Roskelley, D. (1991). Note-taking functions and techniques. Jour-
nal of Educational Psychology, 83, 240-245.
King, P. (1994). Visual and verbal messages in the engineering lecture: Noteta-
king by postgraduate L2 students. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic
listening: Research perspectives (pp. 219-238). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Liu, Y. (2001). A cognitive study on the functions of notetaking and the con-
tent of notes taken in a context of Chinese EFL learners. Thesis
submitted in partial fulfillment of Master of Arts requirements,
Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, People’s Republic of China.
Maxwell, S., & Delaney, H. (1990). Designing experiments and analyzing
data: A model comparison perspective (pp. 504-507). California:
Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
McKenna, E. (1987). Preparing foreign students to enter discourse communi-
ties. English for Specific Purposes, 6, 187-202.
Olsen, L. A., & Huckin. T. N. (1990). Point-driven understanding in engineer-
ing lecture comprehension. English for Specific Purposes, 9, 33-47.
Palmatier, R. A., & Bennett, J. M. (1974). Notetaking habits of college students.
Journal of Reading, 18, 215-218.
TOEFL. (1998). TOEFL Computer-based TOEFL Score User Guide. Princeton:
Educational Testing Service.

Notes

1
This research was conducted and supported under the auspices of
the TOEFL-2000 program of the Educational Testing Service. Reprinted by
permission of Educational Testing Service, the copyright owner. The authors
wish to thank the consultants at the five cooperating universities: Mr. Samuel
T. Lee, University of Southern California, Mrs. Sylvia D. Smythe, University of
Southern California, Dr. Alfred D. Stover, University of Arizona, Ms. Beverly
Ruiz, Indiana University, Ms. J. Becky Pharis, Southern Illinois University at
Carbondale, and Dr. Ray Graham, Brigham Young University. Furthermore, the
authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of the following individuals:
Ms. Frances McCarty, statistical consultant, and Ms. Joanne Crump, research
assistant, both at Georgia State University. At ETS, we wish to thank Dr. Carol
Taylor, Mr. Lou Mang, and Ms. Vanessa Hubbard. Finally, we wish to acknowl-
edge the support of Dr. Craig Carrell, who provided additional support in the
conduct of the project.j
2
Notetaking (allowed or disallowed) was the variable of primary
interest in this study. Lecture length was the variable of secondary interest in

104
 Effects of Notetaking on Listening Comprehension

this study, given the speculation by Hale and Courtney (1994) on the possible
relationship between notetaking and lecture length. Both of these variables
were incorporated into the research design as repeated measures. Topic was
subsequently added to the research design as a main effect due to its signifi-
cance found in the testing of second/foreign language listening comprehen-
sion (albeit not in connection with notetaking) by Freedle and Kostin (1999).
To have added topic as a third repeated measure would have significantly
lengthened the test for examinees. It was felt that there was no loss to add
topic as a between subjects, group factor, with examinees randomly assigned
to topics.

Authors

PATRICIA L. CARRELL, Professor Emerita, Southern Illinois University,

pcarrell@gsu.edu. Specializations: Second/foreign language reading
comprehension, language and cognition, psycholinguistics, and prag-
matics.
PATRICIA A. DUNKEL, Professor, Georgia State University,
pdunkel@gsu.edu. Specializations: Assessment of second/foreign
language listening comprehension; research design and statistics for
applied linguistics.
PAMELA MOLLAUN, Assessment Specialist, Educational Testing Service,
pmollaun@ets.org. Specializations: Assessment of ESL listening
comprehesnion and speaking proficiency.

105
 Reviews

Reviews

Nihongo Shokyu Dokkai Yomikata + Kakikata: Reading and Writing in Japa-

nese for Beginners. (2000). By Kyoko Chinami and Yasuyo Uegaki. Tokyo:
ALC Press. Pp. 166, ISBN 4-7574-0242-2.
Reviewed by MUTSUMI HIRAI
Monterey Institute of International Studies

As its title indicates, Nihongo shokyu dokkai yomikata + kakikata

aims to help beginners learn Japanese through reading and writing. Consider-
ing adult learners who live in Japan as its ideal audience, the book offers varied
content, from reading that learners are likely to encounter in their everyday
lives to reading that is interesting for adult, educated learners to discuss. This
book comprises 20 chapters with different types of reading text for each, in-
cluding business name cards, posters, essays, conversational dialogues, news-
paper articles and so on. Supplements such as vocabulary lists and sample
answers to tasks follow as study guides. Appendices that give overview of
Japanese sentence structures and basic conjugations of verbs and adjectives
are provided at the end of the book. Each chapter employs the same structure,
which begins with a text for reading, tasks that check learners' reading of kanji
words and the basic structures used in the text, short-answer questions for
comprehension checks, and a writing task. Writing tasks vary according to the
content of the core reading. For instance, in a chapter featuring a postcard
message as its reading text, the writing task posed to learners is writing a
postcard to their friends.
A strength of this textbook is that tasks are designed to promote
communication between learners and native speakers of Japanese. As can be
seen in the example of writing a postcard to a friend, learners are encouraged to
undertake writing tasks that can be used as communication tools with native
speakers. Moreover, although they are not purely authentic, some reading
texts at least simulate common text types, as they are close to authentic texts
that learners will encounter in their everyday lives (e.g., business name cards,
mailing addresses, a notice from a post office, and so on).
Adult learners will also benefit from sophisticated words used in
Nihongo shokyu dokkai, whose main purpose is to provide learners an oppor-
tunity to enjoy reading and writing from beginner level. A typical approach to
Japanese language teaching novices in Japan is to focus on speaking and
listening skills rather than reading and writing, due to the burden of acquiring
the complex orthography and the great gaps between spoken and written
language. Learners who are not satisfied with everyday language and are
eager to express abstract ideas will enjoy this book by learning sophisticated
words presented in the written language. Learners whose orthographic back-
ground is not related to kanji can also enjoy reading, as each chapter contains
a text with furigana (hiragana presented above each kanji symbol, which shows
how to read the kanji) after the main reading text, which does not present
furigana.

107
Applied Language Learning

Although Nihongo shokyu dokkai is strong in many respects, sev-

eral shortcomings are worth noting. Supplements such as study guides may
help learners to some extent; however, the hints given for writing tasks are
inadequate. For example, for a task describing the writing system in learners'
mother tongues, the supplement only gives sample topics to write about (e.g.,
"What kind of letters do you use in your country?"); it does not provide other
important information such as discourse organization or grammatical structure
that learners can use. Other than topical hints and vocabulary presented in the
supplements, no exercises accompany the writing tasks, requiring consider-
able additional preparation by teachers who wish to develop their students'
writing skills.
In terms of the book's overall design and organization, readers will
note a serious gap between the variety of text types and the consistency of
task types. The genres that are presented in this book vary from reading a
poster to reading a newspaper article, suggesting a need to offer a range of
skills development tasks. However, task types are small in number, including
only identifying kanji words, grammar exercises, and short-answer comprehen-
sion questions. These tasks follow a consistent, mechanical format in all chap-
ters. Although this book can meet different needs of learners in terms of vari-
ous text types, it fails to do so in terms of the variety of task types. Again,
teachers will need to prepare additional tasks that are appropriate to type of
text in each chapter in order to help learners develop sufficiently varied reading
skills. The text types covered in Nihongo shokyu dokkai also make it difficult
for teachers to identify the book's true focus. It is unclear what reading and
writing skills will be promoted by using the book. In addition, due to the
diverse text types, chapters offer few opportunities for learners to practice
previously-introduced skills; the book recycles skills and knowledge only mini-
mally.
Despite its several shortcomings, if used properly, Nihongo shokyu
dokkai could be very useful. A textbook that relies too heavily on a fixed set of
activities and provides too much guidance can inhibit teachers' creativity due
to a lack of flexibility. This book is highly flexible in the sense that it allows
teachers to adapt materials and exercises according to their learners' needs.
Moreover, the variety of text types can be a valuable resource for teachers
selecting materials to acquaint learners with a range of written genres.

Tema-betsu Chukyu Kara Manabu Nihongo. ( (2003). By R. Arai, J. Ota, M.

Kameta, K. Kikawa, N. Kuwahara T. Nagata, K. Matsuda.Tokyo, Japan:
Kenkyusha. Rev. Ed.
Reviewed by HISAKO YAMASHITA
Monterey Institute of International Studies

Extensively revised from the first edition in 1991, Tema-betsu Chukyu

Kara Manabu Nihongo (Rev.ed.), accompanied by a workbook, is an inte-
grated skills textbook that aims to develop four skills: reading, writing, speak-
ing, and listening. This book is suitable for prospective students of Japanese

108
 Reviews

universities and vocational schools, as well as those who plan to work in

Japan.
Each of the 25 chapters forms a self-contained unit that can be stud-
ied out of sequence as needed or desired. Each chapter includes the following
sections: new words, pre-reading task, main reading, reading comprehension
questions, grammar and exercises, gapped-summary exercise, discussion ques-
tions, and useful phrases. The pre-reading task at the beginning of each chap-
ter introduces the theme of the chapter, and when used in a classroom, gives an
opportunity for learners to talk about the theme with other learners, thereby
developing learner's speaking and listening skills.
Japanese culture, intercultural communication, gender issues, and
environmental issues are some of the themes covered in Tema-betsu Chukyu
Kara Manabu Nihongo (Rev.ed.). Some chapters feature texts written from the
perspective of foreigners living in Japan and could appeal to the students.
Written by seven Japanese language professionals, this edition is a
great improvement from the last edition. New samples have replaced the old
samples in the main reading, less frequently used words and grammatical struc-
tures have been replaced, and the amount of vocabulary items has been in-
creased. According to the authors, three chapters have been completely re-
written. Extensive revisions were made in three chapters, and some parts were
revised in 18 other chapters. Similarly, the new edition presents 250 more target
words than the earlier edition. Furthermore, a total of 22 additional katakana
words were added; these items are current in Japanese society and are often
difficult for learners to master.
Tema-betsu Chukyu Kara Manabu Nihongo (Rev.ed.) can also be
used in preparation courses for the Japanese language Proficiency Tests. 13%
of the all the words in the book are included in the Level One Japanese Lan-
guage Proficiency Test; more than 47% of the words are listed for the Level
Two Japanese Language Proficiency Test.
A weakness of Tema-betsu Chukyu Kara Manabu Nihongo (Rev.ed.)
involves a serious lack of authenticity. The sources of the core reading texts
are unknown; they seem to have been composed by the authors themselves.
The materials do not feature genre or text types that learners will need to read,
understand, and reproduce in the future. Moreover, the layout and visual
appeal of the text are poor. The design offers limited space for learners to write
in their answers, and the margins are not wide enough for note-taking. The
grammar section of the textbook provides no grammatical rules, making the
book unsuitable for those who are studying on their own.
Despite the weaknesses, this is a well written book for learners who
plan to take the Japanese Language Proficiency Tests and for those who plan
to continue their studies in Japanese universities. The text is best used in
classroom contexts, as many of the sections involve development of four skills
through classroom discussions. The first edition of this book has been widely
used in Japanese language schools since its publication in 1991, and teachers
involved in test preparation courses will find the revised edition well worth
examining.

109
News and Views

National Language Conference Results

The Department of Defense announced today the initial results of

The National Language Conference that was held June 22-24 at the University
of Maryland. The conference was prompted by the greater need for citizens
with foreign language competence to help respond to requirements of the 21st
century and the Global War on Terrorism, the increasing globalization of indus-
try, and the need to provide government services to a diverse and multilingual
population in the United States. The initial findings of the conferees were:

Increasing language skills and cultural awareness

are national requirements that will be filled primarily at the
state and local level.
There is a need for greater coordination within the
elementary, secondary, and post secondary educational sys-
tem and a need for coordination at the national level.
The rich population of multilingual Americans
found in our heritage communities need to be invited to
participate in this national initiative.
The population needs to be aware of career oppor-
tunities for those possessing language skills, and these skills
should be recognized as valuable in today’s business and
governmental environment.
An increased government and industry emphasis
on the value of foreign language competency is necessary
to spur the allocation of resources for education and also to
attract students to study them.

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, praised the efforts of

the conferees, and the promise for national security, saying,

The greater our ability to communicate with people, the easier

the burden on our troops and the greater the likelihood that
we can complete our missions and bring our people home
safely. Even better, the greater our linguistic skill, the greater
the possibility that we can resolve international differences
and achieve our objectives without having to use force. I am
asking the under secretary of defense for personnel and
readiness to follow-up on the recommendations of the con-
ferees with other interested federal agencies.

111
 News and Views

Conference speakers and panelists outlined the needs of the federal

sector and industry, and the capabilities and possibilities of the American
educational system. Conferees then met to propose actions that might be
taken to make the United States population more competent in foreign lan-
guages. The results of the conference work will be assembled in a white paper
proposing national policies and programs to address foreign language needs,
in a first step toward spurring national action on this issue.
Rep. Rush Holt, the keynote speaker for the conference, said,

In 1958, Congress responded to Sputnik by passing the

National Defense Education Act (NDEA), which created a
generation of scientists, engineers, and Russian linguists
who helped win the Cold War. Immediately after September
11, 2001, Americans found themselves again facing a Sput-
nik moment. They realized that they were caught flatfooted,
unprepared to confront Al Qaeda terrorists. We need a na-
tional commitment to languages on a scale of the NDEA
commitment to science, including improved curriculum, teach-
ing technology and methods, teacher development, and a
systemic cultural commitment.

More than 300 people attended the event, representing federal agen-
cies, the nation’s educational system, industry, language experts and research-
ers. Experts from Australia, Finland, and the Netherlands were also on hand to
discuss their nations’ responses to foreign language needs. Rosemary G. Feal,
the executive director of the Modern Language Association said,

The National Language Conference was great. The confer-

ence brought together people from many difference commu-
nities, and all voices were heard. The conference partici-
pants found much common ground and have begun the
important task of identifying next steps. The language fu-
ture of the United States just became a lot brighter as a result
of the light shed at the National Language Conference.

The Department of Defense cosponsored the conference with the

Center for Advanced Study of Language.

112
 ALL Index

General Information

ALL Index

Authors and Articles

Abraham, Roberta G. (1996). Introduction: Validity Issues in the Assessment of

L2 Learner Strategies. 7(1&2), p. 1.
Abraham, Roberta G. (1996). Using Task Products to Assess Second Language
Learning Processes. 7(1 & 2), p. 61.
Aldrich, Ray Lane. (2000). Army Language Training in the 21st Century. 11(2),
p. 363.
Allen, Linda Quinn. (2000). Nonverbal Accommodations in Foreign Language
Teacher Talk. 11(1), p. 155.
Ariew, Robert. (1991). Effective Strategies for Implementing Language Train-
ing Technologies. 2(2), p. 31.
Bar-Lev, Zev. (1993). Sheltered Initiation Language Learning. 4(1 & 2), p. 95.
Bush, Michael D. (1991). Hardware for Language Training: Coping with
Confusion. 2(2), p. 77.
Butler, Stephen L. (2000). It’s Not Training, It’s Education. 11(2), p. 357.
Byrnes, Heidi. (1989). Features of Pragmatic and Sociolinguistic Compe-
tence in the Oral Proficiency Interview. 1(1), p. 1.
Cadierno, Teresa. (1997). The Effects of Lexical and Grammatical Cues on
Processing Past Temporal References in Second Language Input.
8(1), p. 1.
Callahan, Philip, @ Shaver, Peter. (2001). Formative Considerations Using
Integrative CALL. 12(2), p. 147.
Chapelle, Carol A. (1996). Validity Issues in a Computer-Assisted Strategy
Assessment. 7(1 & 2), p. 47.
Child, James. (1993). Proficiency and Performance in Language Testing. 4(1 &
2), p. 19.
Child, James R. (1998). Language Aptitude Testing: Learners and Applica-
tions. 9 (1 & 2), p. 1.
Cho, Kyung-Sook. (1997). 1998 Free Voluntary Reading as a Predictor of
TOEFL Scores. 8(1), p. 111.
Clark, John L.D. (1991). Measurement and Research Implications of Spolsky’s
Conditions for Second Language Learning. 2(1), p. 71.
Clifford, Ray T. (1993). Proficiency and Performance in Language Testing. 4(1
& 2), p. 19.
Cohen, Andrew D. (1992). Language Learning Strategies: Crucial Issues of
Concept and Definition. 3(1 & 2), p. 1.
Cohen, Andrew D. (1996). Verbal Reports as a Source of Insights into Second
Language Learner Strategies. 7(1 & 2), p. 5.
Constantino, Rebecca. (1997). Free Voluntary Reading as a Predictor of TOEFL
Scores. 8(1), p. 111.

113
Applied Language Learning

Davis, Lynne. (1998). Essay Scores as Instruments for Placement and Ad-
vancement in an Intensive English Program. 9(1 & 2), p. 107.
Derwing, Tracey M. (1997). Pronunciation Instruction for “Fossilized” Learn-
ers: Can It Help? 8(2), p. 217.
Derwing, Tracey M & Rossiter, Marian J. (2003). The Effects of Pronunciation
Instruction on the Accuracy, Fluency, and Complexity of L2 Ac-
cented Speech. 13(1), p. 1.
Douglas, Dan. (1989). Testing Listening Comprehension. 1(1), p. 53.
Dunkel, Patricia A. (1992). The Utility of Objective (Computer) Measures of
the Fluency of Speakers of English as a Second Language. 3(1 & 2),
p. 65.
Dupuy, Beatrice. (1993). Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition in French as a
Foreign Language. 4(1 & 2), p. 55.
Dupuy, Beatrice. (1997). Voices from the Classroom: Intermediate-Level French
Students Favor Extensive Reading over Grammar and Give Their
Reasons. 8(2), p. 285.
Dutertre, Ayça. (2000). A Teacher’s Investigation of Her Own Teaching. 11(1),
p. 99.
Ehrman, Madeline. (1998). The Modern Language Aptitude Test for Predicting
Learning Success and Advising Students. 9(1 & 2), p. 31.
Eisenstein Ebsworth, Miriam. (1997). What Researchers Say and Practitioners
Do: Perspectives on Conscious Grammar Instruction in the ESL
Classroom. 8(2), p. 237.
Ellis, Rod. (1994). Factors in the Incidental Acquisition of Second Language
Vocabulary from Oral Input: A Review Essay. 5(1), p. 1.
Feyten, Carine M. (1999). Consciousness Raising and Strategy Use. 10(1 & 2),
p. 15.
Flaitz, Jeffra J. (1999). Consciousness Raising and Strategy Use. 10(1 & 2),
p.15.
Ganschow, Leonore. (1992). Factors Relating to Learning a Foreign Lan-
guage among High- and Low-Risk High School Students with Learn-
ing Disabilities. 3(1 & 2), p. 37.
Gardner, Robert C. (1991). Second-Language Learning in Adults: Correlates
of Proficiency. 2(1), p. 1.
Garrett, Nina. (1989). The Role of Grammar in the Development of Communica-
tive Ability. 1(1), p. 15.
Garrett, Nina. (1991). Language Pedagogy and Effective Technology Use. 2(2),
p. 1.
Glass, William R. (1997). The Effects of Lexical and Grammatical Cues on
Processing Past Temporal References in Second Language Input.
8(1), p. 1.
Gonzallez-Bueno, Manuela. (2001). Pronunciation Teaching Component in
SL/FL Education Programs: Training Teachers to Teach Pronun
ciation. 12(2), p. 133.
Granschow, Leonore. (1998). Factors in the Prediction of Achievement and
Proficiency in a Foreign Language. 9(1 & 2), p. 71.

114
 ALL Index
Han, Youngju. (2000). Grammaticality Judgment Tests: How Reliable and
Valid Are They? 11(1), p.177.
Hayakawa, Harumi & Yoshinori Sasaki. (2003). Does a Quiz Facilitate or Spoil
Language Learning? Instructional Effects of Lesson Review Quiz-
zes. 13(1), p. 33.
Hedgcock, John. (2000). Overt and Covert Prestige in the French Language
Classroom: When Is It Good to Sound Bad. 11(1), p. 75.
Hinkel, Eli. (2001). Matters of Cohesion in L2 Academic Texts. 12 (2), p. 111.
Hinkel, Eli. (1994). Pragmatics of Interaction: Expressing Thanks in a Second
Language. 5(1), p. 73.
Hinkel, Eli. (2001). Matters of Cohesion in L2 Academic Texts. 12(2), p. 111.
Hodges, Rosemary. (1995). Examining the Value of Conversation Partner
Programs. 6(1 & 2), p. 1.
Hokanson, Sonja. (2000). Foreign Language Immersion Homestays: Maximiz-
ing the Accommodation of Cognitive Styles. 11(2), p. 239.
Holznagel, Donald C. (1991). Managing Innovation and Change for Instruc-
tional Technology. 2(2), p. 45.
Hughes Wilhelm, Kim & Rivers, Marilyn. (2001). An Audience Approach to
EAP Writing Assessment: Learners, Teachers, Outsiders. 12(2), p. 67.
Hussein, Anwar S. (1995). Sociolinguistic Patterns of Arabic Native Speak-
ers: Implications for Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language. 6(1 &
2), p. 65.
Izumi, Shinichi. (2000). Implicit Negative Feedback in Adults NS-NNS Con-
versation: Its Availability, Utility, and the Discourse Structure of the
Information-Gap Task. 11(2), p. 289.
Javorsky, James. (1992). Factors Relating to Learning a Foreign Language
among High- and Low-Risk High School Students with Learning
Disabilities. 3(1 & 2), p. 37.
Javorsky, James. (1998). Factors in the Prediction of Achievement and Profi-
ciency in a Foreign Language. 9(1 & 2), p. 71.
Johnson, Adm. Jay L. (2000). Language Training and Naval Operations from
the Sea. 11(1), p. 29.
Johnson, Ruth. (1997). A Link Between Reading Proficiency and Native-Like
Use of Pausing in Speaking. 8(1), p. 25.
Johnson, Ruth. (1998). Essay Scores as Instruments for Placement and Ad-
vancement in an Intensive English Program. 9(1 & 2), p. 107.
Johnson, Yuki. (1997). Proficiency Guidelines and Language Curriculum:
Making ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines Effective in Furthering Japa-
nese Language Proficiency. 8(2), p. 261.
Kaplan, Robert B. (2001). Language Training and Language Policy 12(1) p. 81
Kennedy, Lt. Gen. Claudia J. (2000). Meeting the Army’s Language Needs.
11(1), p. 9.
Kimbrough, Jeania. (1995). Examining the Value of Conversation Partner Pro-
grams. 6(1 & 2), p. 1.
Kitajima, Ruy. (2001). Japanese Benefactive Auxiliary Verbs: The Relation-
ship Between Noticing and Use. 12(1), p. 55.

115
Applied Language Learning

Krashen, Stephen D. (1993). Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition in French as

a Foreign Language. 4(1 & 2), p. 55.
Krashen, Stephen D. (1997). Free Voluntary Reading as a Predictor of TOEFL
Scores. 8(1), p. 111.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). Intake Factors and Intake Processes in Adult Lan-
guage Learning. 5(1), p. 33.
LaRocca, Michela A. (1999). Consciousness Raising and Strategy Use. 10(1 &
2), p. 15.
Leaver, Betty Lou. (2000). The World From the Perspective of a Peripatetic
Pedagogue. 11(1), p. 205.
Lee, James F. (1997). The Effects of Lexical and Grammatical Cues on Process-
ing Past Temporal References in Second Language Input. 8(1), p. 1.
Lee, Sy-Ying. (1997). Free Voluntary Reading as a Predictor of TOEFL Scores.
8(1), p. 111.
Lefkowitz, Natalie. (2000). Overt and Covert Prestige in the French Language
Classroom: When Is It Good to Sound Bad. 11(1), p. 75.
Leow, Ronald P. (1997). The Effects of Input Enhancement and Text Length on
Adult L2 Readers’ Comprehension and Intake in Second Language
Acquisition. 8(2), p. 151.
LoCastro, Virginia. (1997). Pedagogical Intervention and Pragmatic Compe-
tence Development. 8(1), p. 75.
Lowe, Jr., Pardee. (1993). Proficiency and Performance in Language Testing.
4(1 & 2), p. 19.
Lowe, Jr., Pardee. (1998). Zero-Based Language Aptitude Test Design: Where’s
the Focus for the Test? 9(1 & 2), p. 11.
Lunberry, Clark. (1994). Deviant English and the Para-Poetic. 5(1), p. 93.
Markee, Numa. (1994). Curricular Innovation: Issues and Problems. 5(2), p. 1.
Matsuo, Naoko. (2000). Varieties of Conversational Experience: Looking for
Learning Opportunities. 11(2), p.265.
McCollum, Daniel L. (2003). Investigating Non-Cognitive Components of
Foriegn Language Achievement. 13(1), p. 19.
McQuillen, Jeff. (1994). Reading versus Grammar: What Students Think is
Pleasurable and Beneficial for Language Acquisition. 5(2), p. 95.
Mecarty, Frances H. (2000). Lexical and Grammatical Knowledge in Reading
and Listening Comprehension by Foreign Language Learners of
Spanish. 11(2), p. 323.
Meunier, Lydie E. (1994). Computer-Assisted Language Learning in Coop-
erative Learning. 5(2), p. 31.
Mollering, Martina. (1995). Pragmatics in Interlanguage: German Modal Par-
ticles. 6(1 & 2), p. 41.
Moore, Rita. (1997). A Link Between Reading Proficiency and Native-Like
Use of Pausing in Speaking. 8(1), p. 25.
Mora, Raimundo. (1995). Silence, Interruptions, and Discourse Domains: The
Opportunities to Speak. 6(1 & 2), p. 27.
Munro, Murray J. (1997). Pronunciation Instruction for “Fossilized” Learn-
ers: Can It Help? 8(2), p. 217.

116
 ALL Index
Nunan, David. (1993). From Learning-Centeredness to Learning Centeredness.
4 (1 & 2), p. 1.
Nunan, David. (1995). Pragmatics in Interlanguage: German Modal Particles.
6(1 & 2), p. 41.
Olive, Floyd. (1998). Essay Scores as Instruments for Placement and Advance-
ment in an Intensive English Program. 9(1 & 2), p. 107.
O’Mara, Francis. (1991). Measurement and Research Implications of Spolsky’s
Conditions for Second Language Learning. 2(1), p. 71.
Orr, Joseph. (2000). Language Training Opportunities: Today and Tomorrow
2000 Command Language Program Manager Seminar. 11(2), p. 367.
Otto, Sue K. (1991). Training in Instructional Technologies: Skills and Meth-
ods. 2 (2), p. 15.
Overstreet, Maryann. (1999). Fostering Pragmatic Awareness. 10(1 & 2), p. 1.
Oxford, Rebecca L. (1992). Language Learning Strategies: Crucial Issues of
Concept and Definition. 3(1 & 2), p. 1.
Oxford, Rebecca L. (1993). Instructional Implications of Gender Differences in
Second/Foreign Language Learning Styles and Strategies. 4(1 & 2),
p. 65.
Oxford, Rebecca L. (1996). Employing a Questionnaire to Assess the Use of
Language Learning Strategies. 7(1 & 2), p. 25.
Oxford, Rebecca L. (1997). A Gender-Related Analysis of Strategies Used to
Process Written Input in the Native Language and a Foreign Lan-
guage. 8(1), p. 43.
Patton, Jon. (1992). Factors Relating to Learning a Foreign Language among
High- and Low-Risk High School Students with Learning Disabili-
ties. 3(1 & 2), p. 37.
Patton, Jon. (1998). Factors in the Prediction of Achievement and Proficiency
in a Foreign Language. 9(1 & 2), p. 71.
Porto, Melina. (2001). Second Language Acquisition Research: Implications
for the Teachers. 12(1), p. 45
Pusack, James C. (1991). Software for Language Training: Directions and
Opportunities. 2(2), p. 61.
Rekart, Deborah. (1992). The Utility of Objective (Computer) Measures of the
Fluency of Speakers of English as a Second Language. 3(1 & 2), p.
65.
Rivers, Marilyn, & Hughes Wilhelm, Kim. (2001). An Audience Approach to
EAP Writing Assessment: Learners, Teachers, Outsiders. 12(2), pp.
177.
Rossiter, Marian J. (2001) The Challenges of Classroom-Based SLA Research.
12(1), p. 31.
Rossiter, Marian J & Derwing, Tracey M. (2003) The Effects of pronunciation
Instruction on the Accruacy, Fluency and Complexity of L2 Accented
Speech. 13(1), p. 1.
Ryan, Gen. Michael E. (2000). Language Skills in Expeditionary Aerospace
Force. 11(1), p. 13.
Sasaki, Yoshinori & Hayakawa, Harumi. (2003). Does a Quiz Facilitate or Spoil

117
Applied Language Learning

Language Learning? Instructional Effects of Lesson Review Quiz-

zes. 13(1), p. 33.
Schweers, C. William. (1997). What Researchers Say and Practitioners Do:
Perspectives on Conscious Grammar Instruction in the ESL Class-
room. 8(2), p. 237.
Shaver, Peter, & Callahan, Philip. (2001). Formative Considerations Using
Integrative CALL. 12(2), p. 147.
Shelton, Gen. Henry H. (1999). Letter to the Editor. 10(1 & 2) p. i.
Shook, David J. (1994). FL/L2 Reading, Grammatical Information, and the
Input-to-Intake Phenomenon. 5(2), p. 57.
Shook, David J. (1999). What Foreign Language Recalls About the Input-to-
Intake Phenomenon. 10(1 & 2), p. 39.
Sparks, Richard. (1992). Factors Relating to Learning a Foreign Language
among High- and Low-Risk High School Students with Learning
Disabilities. 3(1 & 2), p. 37.
Sparks, Richard. (1998). Factors in the Prediction of Achievement and Profi-
ciency in a Foreign Language. 9(1 & 2), p. 71.
Štefánik, Jozef. (2001). The Critical Period Hypothesis and the Slovak Lan-
guage. 12(2), p. 161.
Stoller, Fredricka. (1995). Examining the Value of Conversation Partner Pro-
grams. 6(1 & 2), p. 1.
Suh, Jae-Suk. (1999). The Effects of Reading Instruction on Reading Attitude,
and Reading Process by Korean Students Learning English as a
Second Language. 10(1 & 2), p. 77.
Supinski, Col. Stanley B. (2001). Russian Language Development and Mainte-
nance at a Distance: Methodology and Technology. 12(1), p. 1.
Sutherland, Richard L. (2001). Russian Language Development and Mainte-
nance at a Distance: Methodology and Technology. 12(1), p. 1.
Tomlinson, Brian. (2000). Talking to Yourself: The Role of the Inner Voice in
Language Learning. 11(1), p. 123.
Valentine, Capt. Susan M. (2001). Russian Language Development and Main-
tenance at a Distance: Methodology and Technology. 12(1), p. 1.
Valdman, Albert. (1989). The Problem of the Target Model in Proficiency-
Oriented Foreign Language Instruction. 1(1), p. 33.
Van Lier, Leo. (1991). Inside the Classroom: Learning Processes and Teaching
Procedures. 2(1), p. 29.
Vann, Roberta J. (1996). Introduction: Validity Issues in the Assessment of L2
Learner Strategies. 7(1 & 2), p. 1.
Vann, Roberta J. (1996). Using Task Products to Assess Second Language
Learning Processes. 7(1 & 2), p. 61.
Vanniarajan, Swathi. (1997). An Interactive Model of Vocabulary Acquisition.
8(2), p. 183.
VanPatten, Bill. (1997). The Effects of Lexical and Grammatical Cues on Pro-
cessing Past Temporal References in Second Language Input. 8(1),
p. 1.
van Lier, Leo. (2000). Varieties of Conversational Experience: Looking for

118
 ALL Index
Learning Opportunities.
Wiebe, Grace. (1997). Pronunciation Instruction for “Fossilized” Learners:
Can it Help? 8(2), p. 217.
Young, Dolly Jesuita. (1997). A Gender-Related Analysis of Strategies Used to
Process Written Input in the Native Language and a Foreign Lan-
guage. . 8(1), p. 43.
Young, Richard. (1995). Discontinuous Interlanguage Development and Its
Implications for Oral Proficiency Rating Scales. 6(1 & 2), p. 13.
Yule, George. (1999). Fostering Pragmatic Awareness. 10(1 & 2), p. 1.

Reviews

Akutsu, S. (1997). Review: Taylor: Writing and Literacy in Chinese, Korean

and Japanese. 8(1), p. 128.
Barrera Pardo, Dario. (2000). Leather and James (Eds.): New Sounds 97. 11(2),
p. 351.
Bean, Martha S. (1995). Review: Cook: Discourse. 6(1 & 2), p. 89.
Bean, Martha S. (1997). Review: Eggins and Slade: Analyzing Casual Con-
versation. 2(3), p. 23.
Bean, Martha S. (2000). Review: Schmidt: Language Policy and Identity Poli-
tics in the United States. 11(2), p. 349.
Chu, Kevin W. K. (1998). Review: Kenny and Savage (Eds.): Language and
Development: Teachers in a Changing World. 9(1 & 2), p. 149.
Dinh-Hoa, Nguyen. (1997). Review: Vuong and Moore: Colloquial Vietnam-
ese. 8(2), p. 329.
Gale, Roderic A. (1998). Review: Gates: The Road Ahead. 9(1 & 2), p. 154.
Hedgecock, J.S. (1997). Review: The Current State of Interlanguage: Studies
in Honor of William Rutherford. 8(1), p. 119.
Hedgcock, John. (2001). Review: Herschensohn: The Second Time Around:
Minimalism and L2 Acquisition. 12(1). p. 87
Hedgcock, John. (2003). Review: Nikolov: Issues in English Language Edu-
cation. 13(1), p. 73.
Jackson, Gordon L. (2000). Review: González and Farrell: Composición
Práctica. 11(1), p. 221.
Jourdenais, Renee. (2000). Review: Schneider: Multisensory Structured
Metacognitive Instruction. 11(1), p. 211.
Kuo, J. (1997). Review: Taylor: Writing and Literacy in Chinese, Korean, and
Japanese. 8(1), p. 128.
Lesikin, Joan. (2000). Review: Kozyrev: Talk it Over! Talk it Up! 11(1), p. 217.
Nation, Paul. (1997). Review: Strange (Ed.): Penguin Readers. 8(2), P. 317.
Müller, Kurt E. (2003). Review: Department of the Army: The Language Bridge
fo the Future: Army Language Master Plan. 13(1), p. 69
Olsen, Brigitte. (1997). Review: Taylor and Haas: German: A Self-Teaching
Guide. 8(2), p. 327.
Plakans, L. (1997). Review: Reeder, Shapiro, Watson, and Goelman: Literate
Apprenticeships. 8(1), p. 132.

119
Applied Language Learning

Shin, Sang-Keun. (2001). Review: Brinton, Jenson, Repath-Martos,

Frodesen, and Holten: Insights I and II: A Content Based Ap
proach to Academic Preparation. 12(1), p. 93.
van Lier, Leo. (1998). Review: Cots: Teaching by Chattinb. 9(1 & 2), p. 147.
Vanniarajan, Swathi. (2000). Review: Pinker: Words and Rules: The Ingredi-
ents of Language. 11(1), p. 213.
Vanniarajan, Swathi.(2001). Review: Searle: Mind, language, and Society.
12(2), p. 191.
White, Philip A. (1998). Review: Lee and Van Patten: Making Communicative
Language Teaching Happen: Directions for Language Learning and
Teaching. 9(1 & 2), p. 151.
Woytak, Lidia. (1995). Review: Van Lier: Introducing Language Awareness.
6(1 & 2), p. 91.
Zhao, Jim Jielu. (2003). Review: Katuzynska: Contemporary Chinese Place
Names. 13(1), p. 67.
Editorials

Devlin, Col. Daniel D. (2000). Military Linguists for the New Millennium.
11(1), p. 1.
Money, Arthur L. (2000). Language Skills and Joint Vision 2020. 11(2), p. 235.
Mueller, Col. Gunther A. (2000). Beyond the “Linguist”: Global Engagement
Skills. 11(1), p. 15.
Reimer, Gen. Dennis J. (1997). Army Language Needs for the New Century.
8(2), p. 147.
Ryan, Michael E. (2000). Language Skills in Expeditionary Aerospace Force.
11(1), pp. 13-14.
Shelton, Gen. Henry H. (2000). Preparing for the Future: Joint Vision 2010
and Language Training. 11(1), p. 5.

Interviews

Woytak, Lidia. (1997). Linguists in Action: Interview with Colonel Daniel D.

Devlin. 8(2), p. 295.
Woytak, Lidia. (1998). Interpreter in Action: Interview with Lieutenant Colo-
nel Richard Francona (Retired). 9(1 & 2), p. 121.
Woytak, Lidia. (2000). Leading the U.S. Army into the New Millennium: Inter-
view with General Dennis J. Reimer. 11(1), p. 33.

News and Views

León, Natalia Martinez & Smith, Patrick H. (2003). Transnationalism and Lan-
guage-in-Education Planning in Mexico. 13(1), p. 57.
Smith, Patrick H. & León, Natalia Martinez. (2003). Transnationalism and Lan-
guage-in-Education Planning in Mexico. 13(1), p. 57.
Woytak, Lidia. (2003). Say, Yes! to the National Museum of Language. 13(1),
p. 61.

120
 Calendar of Events

Calendar of Events*
2004

Cultural Diversity and Language Education, 17-19, September, University of

Hawaii. Contact: National Foreign Language Resource Center, Uni-
versity of Hawaii at Manoa, 1859 East-West Road #106, Honolulu, HI
96822; (808) 956-9424, Fax (808) 956-5983, Email: nflrc@hawaii.edu,
Web: nflrc.hawaii.edu/
First International Online Conference on Second and Foreign Language Teach-
ing and Research, 25-26 September. Contact: www.readingmatrix.com/
Symposium on Second Language Writing, 30 September - 2 October, Purdue
University, West Lafayette. Contact: Nona Schaler, Conference Coor-
dinator, Symposium on Second Language Writing, 1586 Stewart Cen-
ter, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1586; (765) 494-2756, Fax (765) 494-0567,
Email: njschaler@purdue.edu, Web: symposium.jslw.org/2004
American Translators Association (ATA), 13-16 October, Toronto, Canada.
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
7th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as First and
Second Languages, University of Minnesota. Contact: Carol Klee,
Dept. of Spanish and Portuguese Studies, University of Minnesota,
34 Folwell Hall, 9 Pleasant St. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, (612) 625-
5858, Fax (612) 625-3549, Email: hispling@umn.edu, Web:
spanport.cla.umn.edu/conferences/lingconferences.htm
Pathways to Bilingualism: Evolving Perspectives on Immersion Education, 21-
23 October, University of Minnesota. Contact: CARLA, 619 Heller
Hall,
271 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455, (612) 626-8600, Fax (612) 624-
7514, Email: carla@tc.umn.edu, Web: www.carla.umn.edu/confer-
ences/immersion
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), 19-21 No-
vember, Chicago. Contact: ACTFL, 700 S. Washington St., Suite 210,
Alexandria, VA 22314; (703) 894-2903, Fax (703) 894-2905, Email:
headquarters@actfl.org, Web: www.actfl.org
American Association of Teachers of German (AATG), 19-21 November, Chi-
cago. 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
American Association of Teachers of Italian (AATI), 19-21 November, Chi-
cago. Contact: Piero Baldini, Department of Languages and Litera-
tures, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 870202, Tempe, AZ 85287-
0202; Email: pbaldini@asu.edu

*Courtesy of The Modern Language Journal 121

 Applied Language Learning

Chinese Language Teachers Association (CLTA), 19-21 November, Chicago.

Contact: CLTA Headquarters, Cynthia Ning, Center for Chinese Stud-
ies, Moore Hall #416, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822; (808)
956-2692, Fax (808) 956-2682, Email: cyndy@hawaii.edu, Web:
clta.deall.ohio-state.edu
National Network for Early Language Learning (NNELL), 19-21 November,
Chicago. Contact: Mary Lynn Redmond, NNELL, P.O. Box 7266, A2A
Tribble Hall, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC 27109; Email:
nnell@wfu.edu, Web: www.nnell.org
Japan Association for Language Teaching (JALT), 19-22 November, Tezukayama
University, Nara. Contact: Web: jalt.org/jalt2004/main/call/
CLS International Conference, 1-3 December, National University of Singapore.
Contact: The Secretary, CLaSIC 2004 Organising Committee, Centre
for Language Studies, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, National
University of Singapore; (65) 68746715, Fax (65) 67777736; Email:
clasic@nus.edu.sg, Web: www.fas.nus.edu.sg/cls/clasic2004/
Modern Language Association of America (MLA), 27-30 December, Philadel-
phia. 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 De-
cember, Philadelphia. Contact: AATSEEL, Kathleen E. Dillon, Execu-
tive Director, P.O. Box 7039, Berkeley, CA 94707-2306, Email:
aatseel@earthlink.net, Web: www.aatseel.org
International Association of Teachers of Czech (IATC-NAATC), 27-30 Decem-
ber, Philadelphia. Contact: Hana Píchová, Executive Officer, Slavic
Languages and Literatures, University of Texas at Austin, P.O. Box
7217, Austin, TX 78713-7217; Email: pichova@mail.utexas.edu, Web:
www.language.brown.edu/NAATC/index.html

2005

Southern Conference on Language Teaching (SCOLT), 24-26 February, Char-

lotte, NC. Contact: Lynne McClendon, SCOLT, 165 Lazy Laurel Chase,
Roswell, GA 30076; (770) 992-1256, Fax (770) 992-3464, Email:
lynnemcc@mindspring.com, Web: www.valdosta.edu/scolt
Central States Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 10-12 March,
Columbus, OH. Contact: Patrick T. Raven, Executive Director, P.O.
Box 251, Milwaukee, WI 53201-0251; (414) 405-4645, Fax (414) 276-
4650, Email: CSCTFL@aol.com, Web: www.centralstates.cc
20th Conference on Spanish in the US, 24-26 March, Chicago. Contact:
fstayn1@uic.edu Web: http://spaninus.uic.edu/

122
 Calendar of Events

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), 29 March - 2

April, San Antonio, TX. 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), 31 March - 3 April, Chicago. 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
Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (NECTFL), 31
March - 3 April, New York. Contact: Northeast Conference, Dickinson
College, P.O. Box 1773, Carlisle, PA 17013-2896; (717) 245-1977, Fax
(717) 245-1976, Email: nectfl@dickinson.edu, Web:
www.dickinson.edu/nectfl
Southwest Conference on Language Teaching (SWCOLT), 7-9 April, Irving,
TX. Contact: Audrey Cournia, SWCOLT, (775) 358-6943, Fax (775)
358-1605, Email: CourniaAudrey@cs.com, Web: www.swcolt.org
American Educational Research Association (AERA), 11-15 April, Montreal,
Canada. Contact: AERA, 1230 17th St. NW, Washington, DC 20036-
3078; (202) 223-9485, Fax: (202) 775-1824, Web: www.aera.net
International Reading Association (IRA), 1-5 May, San Antonio, TX. 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.ira.org
Computer-assisted Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO), 17-21 May,
East Lansing, MI. Contact: CALICO, Southwest Texas State Univer-
sity, 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 of Teachers of French (AATF), 7-10 July, Quebec City,
Canada. Contact: Jayne Abrate, AATF, Mailcode 4510, Southern Illi-
nois University, Carbondale, IL 62901-4510; (618) 453-5731, Fax (618)
453-5733, Email: abrate@siu.edu, Web: www.frenchteachers.org
Summer Institute in Applied Linguistics, 27 June - 21 July, The Pennsylvania
State University, University Park, PA. Contact: James P. Lantolf, Dept.
of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, The Pennsylvania State
University, 305 Sparks, University Park, PA, 16802; (814) 863-7038,
Email: jpl7@psu.edu
AILA 2005, 24-29 July, 14th world congress, Madison, WI. Contact: Richard F.
Young, AILA 2005, Department of English, University of Wisconsin,
600 North Park Street, Madison, WI 53706; (608) 263-2679, Email:
rfyoung@wisc.edu, Web: www.aila2005.org
American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL), 24-29 July, Madison,
WI. Contact: Contact: AAAL, 3416 Primm Lane, Birmingham, AL 35216;
(205) 824-7700, Fax (205) 823-2760, Email: aaaloffice@aaal.org, Web:
www.aaal.org

123
 Applied Language Learning

International Conference on Task-based Language Teaching, 21-23 Septem-

ber, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium. Contact:
Web:www.tblt.org/index.htm
American Translators Association (ATA), 9-12 November, Seattle. Contact:
ATA, 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
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), 18-20 No-
vember, Baltimore, MD. Contact: ACTFL, 700 S. Washington St., Suite
210, Alexandria, VA 22314; (703) 894-2903, Fax (703) 894-2905, Email:
headquarters@actfl.org, Web: www.actfl.org
American Association of Teachers of German (AATG), 18-20 November, Balti-
more, MD. 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), 18-20 November, Baltimore,
MD. 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.deall.ohio-state.edu
National Network for Early Language Learning (NNELL), 18-20 November, Bal-
timore, MD. Contact: Mary Lynn Redmond, NNELL, P.O. Box 7266,
A2A Tribble Hall, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC 27109;
Email: nnell@wfu.edu, Web: www.nnell.org

2006

Southern Conference on Language Teaching (SCOLT), 16-18 February, Or-

lando, FL. Contact: Lynne McClendon, SCOLT, 165 Lazy Laurel Chase,
Roswell, GA 30076; (770) 992-1256, Fax (770) 992-3464, Email:
lynnemcc@mindspring.com, Web: www.valdosta.edu/scolt
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
Central States Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 9-11 March,
Chicago. Contact: Patrick T. Raven, Executive Director, P.O. Box 251,
Milwaukee, WI 53201-0251; (414) 405-4645, Fax (414) 276-4650, Email:
CSCTFL@aol.com, Web: www.centralstates.cc
Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (NECTFL), 30
March - 2 April, New York. Contact: Northeast Conference, Dickinson
College, P.O. Box 1773, Carlisle, PA 17013-2896; (717) 245-1977, Fax
(717) 245-1976, Email: nectfl@dickinson.edu, Web:
www.dickinson.edu/nectfl

124
 Calendar of Events

Association for Asian Studies (AAS), 6-9 April, San Francisco. 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 Fran-
cisco. Contact: AERA, 1230 17th St., NW, Washington, DC 20036-
3078; (202) 223-9485, Fax: (202) 775-1824, Web: www.aera.net
International Reading Association (IRA), 30 April - 4 May, Chicago, IL. Con-
tact: International Reading Association, Headquarters Office, 800
Barksdale Rd., PO Box 8139, Newark, DE 19714-8139, (302) 731-1600,
Fax: (302) 731-1057, Web: www.ira.org
American Translators Association (ATA), 2-5 November, New Orleans. Con-
tact: ATA, 225 Reinekers Lane, Suite 590, Alexandria, VA 22314, (703)
683-6100, Fax (703) 683-6122, Email: conference@atanet.org, Web:
www.atanet.org
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), 17-19 No-
vember, Nashville. Contact: Contact: ACTFL, 700 S. Washington St.,
Suite 210, Alexandria, VA 22314; (703) 894-2903, Fax (703) 894-2905,
Email: headquarters@actfl.org, Web: www.actfl.org
American Association of Teachers of German (AATG), 17-19 November, Nash-
ville 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.
Contact: CLTA Headquarters, Cynthia Ning, Center for Chinese Stud-
ies, Moore Hall #416, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822; (808)
956-2692, Fax (808) 956-2682, Email: cyndy@hawaii.edu, Web:
clta.deall.ohio-state.edu
National Network for Early Language Learning (NNELL), 17-19 November,
Nashville. Contact: Mary Lynn Redmond, NNELL, P.O. Box 7266, A2A
Tribble Hall, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC 27109; Email:
nnell@wfu.edu, Web: www.nnell.org

125
 Information for Contributors

Information for Contributors

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of Applied Language Learning (ALL) is to increase and promote professional
communication within the Defense Language Program and academic communities on adult lan-
guage learning for functional purposes.

Submission of Manuscripts

The Editor encourages the submission of research and review manuscripts from such disciplines
as: (1) instructional methods and techniques; (2) curriculum and materials development; (3)
testing and evaluation; (4) implications and applications of research from related fields such as
linguistics, education, communication, psychology, and social sciences; (5) assessment of needs
within the profession.

Research Article

Divide your manuscript into the following sections:

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Method
• Results
• Discussion
• Conclusion
• Appendices
• Notes
• References
• Acknowledgments
• Author
Abstract

Identify the purpose of the article, provide an overview of the content, and suggest findings in an
abstract of not more than 200 words.

Introduction

In a few paragraphs, state the purpose of the study and relate it to the hypothesis and the
experimental design. Point out the theoretical implications of the study and relate them to
previous work in the area.

Next, under the subsection Literature Review, discuss work that had a direct impact on your
study. Cite only research pertinent to a specific issue and avoid references with only tangential or
general significance. Emphasize pertinent findings and relevant methodological issues. Provide
the logical continuity between previous and present work. Whenever appropriate, treat contro-
versial issues fairly. You may state that certain studies support one conclusion and others chal-
lenge or contradict it.

127
Applied Language Learning

Method

Describe how you conducted the study. Give a brief synopsis of the method. Next develop the
subsections pertaining to the participants, the materials, and the procedure.

Participants. Identify the number and type of participants. Specify how they were selected and
how many participated in each experiment. Provide major demographic characteristics such as
age, sex, geographic location, and institutional affiliation. Identify the number of experiment
dropouts and the reasons they did not continue.

Materials. Describe briefly the materials used and their function in the experiment.

Procedure. Describe each step in the conduct of the research. Include the instructions to the
participants, the formation of the groups, and the specific experimental manipulations.

Results

First state the results. Next describe them in sufficient detail to justify the findings. Mention all
relevant results, including those that run counter to the hypothesis.

Tables and figures. Prepare tables to present exact values. Use tables sparingly. Sometimes you
can present data more efficiently in a few sentences than in a table. Avoid developing tables for
information already presented in other places. Prepare figures to illustrate key interactions, major
interdependencies, and general comparisons. Indicate to the reader what to look for in tables and
figures.

Discussion

Express your support or nonsupport for the original hypothesis. Next examine, interpret, and
qualify the results and draw inferences from them. Do not repeat old statements: Create new
statements that further contribute to your position and to readers understanding of it.

Conclusion

Succinctly describe the contribution of the study to the field. State how it has helped to resolve
the original problem. Identify conclusions and theoretical implications that can be drawn from
your study.
Appendices

Place detailed information (for example, a table, lists of words, or a sample of a questionnaire)
that would be distracting to read in the main body of the article in the appendices.

Notes

Use them for substantive information only, and number them serially throughout the
manuscript. They all should be listed on a separate page entitled Notes.

128
 Information for Contributors

References

Submit on a separate page of the manuscript a list of references with the centered heading:
References. Arrange the entries alphabetically by surname of authors. Review the format for
bibliographic entries of references in the following sample:

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.

List all works cited in the manuscripts in References, and conversely, cite all works included in
References in the manuscript. Include in reference citations in the text of the manuscript the name
of the author of the work cited, the date of the work, and when quoting, the page numbers on
which the materials that you are quoting originally appeared, e.g., (Jones, 1982, pp. 235-238).

Acknowledgments

Identify colleagues who contributed to the study and assisted you in the writing process.

Author

Type the title of the article and the author's name on a separate page to ensure anonymity in the
review process. Prepare an autobiographical note indicating: full name, position, department,
institution, mailing address, and specialization(s). Example follows:

JANE C. DOE, Assistant Professor, Foreign Language Education, Univer-

sity of America, 226 N. Madison St., Madison, WI 55306. Specializa-
tions: foreign language acquisition, curriculum studies.

Review Article

It should describe, discuss, and evaluate several publications that fall into a topical category in
foreign language education. The relative significance of the publications in the context of teaching
realms should be pointed out. A review article should be 15 to 20 double-spaced pages.

Review

Submit reviews of textbooks, scholarly works on foreign language education, dictionaries, tests,
computer software, video tapes, and other non-print materials. Point out both positive and
negative aspects of the work(s) being considered. In the three to five double-spaced pages of the
manuscript, give a clear but brief statement of the work's content and a critical assessment of its
contribution to the profession. Keep quotations short. Do not send reviews that are merely
descriptive.

Manuscripts are accepted for consideration with the understanding that they are original material
and are not being considered for publication elsewhere.

129
Applied Language Learning
Specifications for Manuscripts

All editorial correspondence, including manuscripts for publication should be sent to:

Applied Language Learning

ATFL-AP-AJ
ATTN: Editor (Dr. L. Woytak)
Defense Language Institute
Foreign Language Center
Presidio of Monterey, CA 93944-5006

Manuscripts should be typed on one side only on 8-1/2 x 11 inch paper, double-spaced, with
ample margins. Subheads should be used at reasonable intervals. Typescripts should typically
run from 10 to 30 pages.

All material submitted for publication should conform to the style of the Publication Manual of
the American Psychological Association (4th Ed., 1994) available from the American Psychologi-
cal Association, P. O. Box 2710, Hyattsville, MD 20784.

Review Process
Manuscripts will be acknowledged by the editor upon receipt and subsequently sent to at least
two reviewers whose area of expertise includes the subject of the manuscript. Applied Language
Learning uses the blind review system. The names of reviewers will be published in the journal
annually.

Specifications for Floppy Disks

Preferably use Windows-based software. Format manuscripts produced on one of the DOS-
based or Macintosh systems, as an ASQII file at double density, if possible. Please name the
software used. MS Word or text documents preferred.

Copyright

Further reproduction is not advisable. Whenever copyrighted materials are reproduced in this
publication, copyright release has ordinarily been obtained for use in this specific issue. Requests
for permission to reprint should be addressed to the Editor and should include author's permis-
sion.

130