Equipping learners with interactive listening
skills: the case for teaching backchannels
著者
Wolf James P.
雑誌名
観光学研究
号
9
ページ
161-169
発行年
2010-03
URL
http://id.nii.ac.jp/1060/00005089/
Creative Commons : 表示 - 非営利 - 改変禁止 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.jaJournal of Tourism Studies (2010) 161
Equipping learners with interactive listening skills:
The case for teaching backchannels
JAMES p. WOLF
＊
Abstract
Second language （L2 ）teachers have traditionally approached listening skilldevelopment as a purely cognitive endeavor. In this paper, it is suggested that theteaching of listening as an interactive skill deserves more attention. In particular, the
ability to use backchannels such as 'mm-hm,' 'uh-huh,' and 'yeah' is proposed as animportant interactive listening skill whose misuse can promote negative perceptions
and stereotyping of Ｌ2 learners. Negative pragmatic transfer, as well as the cognitivecomplexity associated with using backchannels in real time, can account for theirmisuse. The Noticing Hypothesis provides theoretical justification for the explicitteaching of backchannels. Linguistic and
socio-cultural groups differ with respect to their frequency, placement, functions, and types of backchannels. To develop L2 backchannel skills, language learners require instructional treatments that address these differences. Instruction should be aimed at helping L2 learners use backchannels in ways acceptable to members of the target language （ＴＬ）ｃｏｍｍｕnity･
Keywords:Second language listening; Backchannels; Pragmatics; Language teaching
Introduction
Theorists and practitioners of second language (L2)listening pedagogy claim that learners require both bottom-up and top-down listening skills to decipher target
language (TL)messages. Some further mention the importance of meta-cognitivestrategies such as predicting, monitoring, and evaluating to help learners regulate theirlistening skill development. These sets of cognitive and meta-cognitive skills enable
Ｌ2 learners to achieve TL understanding. While much attention has been devotedto the cognitive aspect of listening skill development, the teaching of listening asan interactive skill has received little mention. Interactive listening is bi-directional
162 Journal of Tourism Studies (2010)
in that the listener must simultaneously listen and speak to fellow interlocutors･
Vandergrift (2007)concurred with this assessment, noting that instruction has mostlyinvolved uni-directional listening activities in which learners are asked to passivelylisten for information. Though important, learners must also develop the bi-directionallistening skills necessary for participation in dynamic conversational exchange｡
To develop bi-directional listening skills, Ｌ2 learners need to become adeptat using clarification strategies, confirming information, and using appropriatebackchannels. Backchannels include verbal and
nonverbal messages provided by a listener in response to the primary speaker. Typical English backchannels are 'mm-hm,' 'uh-huh,' 'yeah; 'okay,' and 'right.' Nonverbal backchannels mostly
involve various types of head nods. As noted by Vandergrift (2007), bi-directionallistening may be easier in that it is more contextualized, thus providing learners
with more opportunities to clarify meaning or ask for repetition; however, it is alsomore cognitively demanding in that listeners must process input in real time while
simultaneously giving appropriate responses. Teachers can facilitate bi-directional listening development by explicitly teaching such skills. The remainder of this paper will focus on one important bi-directional listening skill, the ability to appropriately
use backchannels in response to one's interlocutor. To this end, the ensuing sectionswill examine (1) ｗhy backchannels have received little instructional attention, (2)why
Ｌ2 learners misuse them, (3)theoretical and socio-communicative rationales forteaching them, and (4)the link between explicit instruction, pragmatic development,and the learning of
Ｌ2 backchannel skills.
Why backchannels have received little instructional attention
In spite of the pervasiveness of backchannels in conversational exchange, why
have they received short shrift in Ｌ2 classrooms? Gardner (1998)offered two plausiblereasons. First, he suggested there had not been
ａ sufficiently systematic account ofthe various types of backchannels. Though seemingly similar on the surface, Gardnerpointed out that different
backchannels actually perform different functions in conversation. Secondly, Gardner cited the long-standing practice of treating listening and speaking as discrete skills within many language programs. In other words, many
teachers fail to recognize the importance of backchannels because they exist in ａ voidbetween listening and speaking. Or perhaps some teachers assume learners will begin
WOLF ■ Equipping learners with interactive listening skillsThe case for teaching backchannels 163
wonders whether explicit instruction would accelerate this process or not. Moreover, the ubiquitous role of backchannels in human communication seems to justify greater
attention to their use. Next, let's look at why Ｌ2 learners find backchannels difficult touse.
Why L2 learners misuse backchannels
Research findings suggest Ｌ2 learners use backchannels in interculturalencounters in
ａ manner reflecting the communication styles of their Ｌ ｌ and socio-cultural contexts (White, 1989;
Cutrone, 2005). Ａｎ inverse relationship betweenbackchannel use and oral proficiency seems to exist. As learners develop greater
Ｌ2 oral proficiency, they tend to reduce their reliance on LI backchannel strategies.This relationship has been noted in ａ number of interlanguage pragmatics studies(Kasper
& Roever, 2005). In general, however, non-advanced Ｌ2 learners producebackchannels
as they do in their respective Ｌ ｌ and cultural environmentsﾝ Theirmisuse of TL backchannels is due to what is called pragmatic transfer as defined byKasper(1992).
Pragmatic transfer in interlanguage pragmatics shall refer to the influence exerted by learners' pragmatic knowledge of languages and cultures other than Ｌ2 on their comprehension, production and learning of Ｌ2 pragmatic information (1992, p. 207)｡
Maynard (1997)found the backchannel use of the subjects in her study to beinfluenced by pragmatic transfer. Her analysis of English conversations betweenAmericans and Japanese revealed that the backchannel style of the Japanesesubjects followed the conventions of the
Japanese language and culture. Maynard thus concluded that Japanese conduct themselves in intercultural discourse as they
do within their own cultural context (1997, p. 52). Signes and Bou Franch (1999),who studied Spanish learners of English in the United States, likewise found their
subjects to transfer their LI backchannel strategies to their Ｌ2 conversations. Theirsubj ects used the strong form Yes as
ａ backchannel though it was never used by thenative English speakers in the study. The native English speakers instead mostlyused the backchannel Yeah
which the subjects never used. Because the most frequent
164 Journal of Tourism Studies (2010)
backchannel used in the subjects' LI is Si (Yes), the researchers determined pragmatictransfer had occurred｡
For the most part, pragmatic transfer can explain L2 learners' misuse of TL backchannels. However, other factors may operate alongside pragmatic transfer to delay the acquisition of TL backchannel skills. For example, Ｌ2 learners may need
ａ minimum threshold of Ｌ2 competence to free up the cognitive resources requiredto use backchannels spontaneously. Bi-directional listening is more cognitivelydemanding due to the
need to process and produce language appropriately in realtime
(Vandergrift, 2007). The cognitive complexity involved likely makes it easier forpragmatic transfer to operate. An interesting parallel can be seen with LI backchanneldevelopment. Garvey (1984)reported that the ability to use backchannels developsrelatively
late in children's interactive talk. Moreover, she stressed that, because backchannels must be precisely inserted into an interlocutor's ongoing talk with
respect to both meaning and timing, it is no wonder their use is not fully mastereduntil adolescence. Next, theoretical and socio-communicative reasons for teachingbackchannels are discussed.
Theoretical and socio-communicative reasons for teaching backchannels
Schmidt's (1990)Noticing Hypothesis provides ａ theoretical rationale forexplicitly teaching backchannel skills. According to Schmidt, conscious noticing oflinguistic
features is the necessary and sufficient condition for converting languageinput to intake. He further contends this noticing requirement applies equally toall aspects of language (phonology, grammatical form, lexicon, and pragmatics).Moreover,
he suggests that explicit instruction has a priming effect which heightensnoticing of these aspects of language (1990, p. 143).
Through facilitating noticing,explicit instruction is believed to help learners develop implicit knowledge. Despiteits wide influence, the
Noticing Hypothesis has been challenged over the years.Perhaps the most noteworthy criticisms were levied by Truscott (1998)who detailed
its shortcomings. For example, Truscott argued the foundation of the hypothesis
in cognitive psychology is weak with little research to support it or yield ａ clearinterpretation. Moreover, he asserted the hypothesis is not based on any coherent
theory of language thus making it difficult to determine its meaning vis-a-vis language
or to develop testable hypotheses. As ａ result, Truscott recommended the hypothesisbe reformulated as ａ claim that noticing is necessary only for the acquisition of
meta-WOLF : Equipping learners with interactive listening skills: The case for teaching backchannels 165
linguistic knowledge, rather than for competence (i.e. implicit knowledge)･
Of importance to our purposes here is that Truscott's (1998)criticisms of the
Noticing Hypothesis only pertained to the acquisition and explicit instruction ofgrammatical form. The applicability of the Noticing Hypothesis to justify explicitinstruction of other formal
linguistic features, such as vocabulary or pragmatics, was not challenged･
The evidence ｌ deal with is specifically about grammar instruction, not about formal instruction in general. So it does not directly challenge the value of instruction in other areas, or the application of the Noticing Hypothesis to those areas. One possible example is pragmatic knowledge. Another is lexical learning: Schwartz argued
that it can benefit from explicit instruction, even though the acquisition of syntactic competence cannot (Tmscott, 1998, p. 117)･
Because backchannels and their appropriate use in context constitute ａ formof pragmatic knowledge, explicit instruction aimed at improving L2 learners'
backchannel skills is theoretically supported by this weaker form of the Noticing Hypothesis.
Ａ socio-communicative rationale also exists for teaching backchannels. Thisis because
infelicitous use of backchannels can lead to negative perceptions andstereotyping of L2 learners. Mizutani (1982)said Japanese tend to disturb non-Japanese speakers with their
continuous flow of backchannels during interculturalcommunication.
Because communication in Japanese is characterized by ａ relativelyhigh frequency of backchannels, Japanese speakers of foreign languages often
continue this habit. Likewise, Mizutani said Japanese speakers are disturbed by non-Japanese
who fail to give frequent backchannel responses. In White's (1989)study,however, the American subjects actually increased their own backchannel frequencyduring intercultural communication with Japanese people. White claimed theAmericans
accommodated to their Japanese interlocutors' speech style. Moreover, herresults showed the American subjects perceived the frequent backchannel behaviorof
the Japanese subjects positively as signs of patience, politeness, and attentiveness.She thus concluded no stereotyping or negative perceptions were present･
However, White's (1989)study was criticized by Maynard (1997)who argued the Americans only accommodated to the Japanese subjects' backchannel style out
of sympathy for its peculiarity and because they had the power to do so. Maynardfurther argued the inappropriate use of backchannels can create ａ sense of “otherness"
166 Journal of Tourism Studies (2010)
in intercultural discourse (1997, p. 56). In the same vein, Cutrone (2005)investigatedthe effects of backchannels on intercultural communication in eight dyadic English
conversations between British and Japanese subjects. The British subjects reported having negative perceptions of their Japanese counterparts. They interpreted the
Japanese subj ects' frequent backchannels as signs of impatience and were annoyedby these frequent interruptions. Moreover, some British subj ects felt the Japanese
overused backchannels to avoid speaking due to worries about their English ability･ Others complained about the lack of variety in the types of backchannels used by the Japanese subjects, as well as their tendency to produce backchannels even when
disagreeing or not understanding. Cutrone's results suggest ａ need for the explicitteaching of backchannels in
Ｌ2 classrooms. The next section thus focuses on explicitteaching, pragmatic development, and Ｌ2 backchannel skills.
Explicit teaching, pragmatic development, and L2 backchannel skills
In L2 teaching programs, Richards (1990)discussed two major approaches to teaching conversational skills. One is an indirect approach in which conversational competence results from engaging learners in interaction such as role plays,
information gap activities, and problem-solving tasks. This approach appeals to teachers who consider explicit teaching ineffective for teaching aspects of language such as grammatical form (Truscott, 1 998). The other approach is a direct approachthat
“involves planning ａ conversation program around the specific micro-skills,strategies, and processes that are involved in fluent conversation" (Richards, 1 990,p.
77). This approach appeals to teachers who believe explicit teaching is effectivefor teaching language. The Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt, 1990), as noted already,provides
ａ theoretical basis for the explicit teaching of lexical and pragmatic aspectsof language.
A direct teaching approach may foster L2 pragmatic development because pragmatic knowledge seems at least partly accessible to consciousness (Schmidt,
1993). For instance, Schmidt observed that some people pre-plan telephoneconversations or consciously brainstorm the politest form while writing. Moreover,he said some students ponder which linguistic forms are most appropriate to addresstheir professors. This conscious accessibility to pragmatic knowledge can
enable Ｌ2learners to monitor their pragmatic language use in real-time communication. Kasper
WOLF : Equipping learners with interactive listening skills: The case for teaching backchaimels 167
that pragmatic language features are indeed teachable. Furthermore, they found that a direct teaching approach yielded better results than an indirect one. However they cautioned that this may not always hold true for all aspects of skill development･ Continuing along, what characteristics of backchannels might then provide a
framework for a direct teaching approach?
Backchannels constitute ａ universal human behavior because they occur acrossall linguistic and cultural groups (Heinz, 2003).
Research has found differencesamong these groups in their use of backchannels (e.g. Clancy et al., 1 996; Maynard,1986,
1990, 1997; Tao and Thompson, 199 1 ; White, 1989). These differences mainlyinvolve the (1)frequency,
(2)placement, (3)types. and (4)functions of backchannelsused. These four characteristics can thus provide a framework for the direct teachingof backchannels in L2 classrooms. However, different
varieties of English can vary in relation to these four characteristics.^ L2 teachers of English, as representatives of
their cultures, should thus teach their learners backchannel skills appropriate for their respective TL communities｡
Moreover, the differences in backchannel use between various Ｌ ｌ and socio-cultural groups with respect to
this framework means that L2 teachers of Englishmust provide instructional treatments that take this into account. For example,the
relatively high frequency of backchannels uttered by the Japanese subjects in
Cutrone's (2005)study irritated their British interlocutors. This high frequency is ａhallmark of the Japanese language and culture. For non-advanced Japanese learners
of English, teachers can adopt a direct teaching approach to make them consciously notice the need to reduce their frequency to levels acceptable to the TL community･ In contrast, other L2 learners of English may require a direct teaching approach
aimed at increasing their frequency of backchannels. Clancy et al. (1996)reported
that Mandarin Chinese speakers utter few backchannels due to ａ cultural value for notinfringing
on an interlocutor's turn space. Therefore, non-advanced Chinese learnersof English would benefit from ａ direct approach aimed at increasing the frequency oftheir
backchannel responses.
Conclusion
In addition to frequency, the framework also recommends the direct teaching
168 Journal of Tourism Studies (2010)
of the appropriate functions, placement, and types of English backchannels. Direct
teaching of these four characteristics of backchannels can help Ｌ2 learners consciouslynotice the gap between their backchannel use and the TL backchannel norms. To this
end, L2 teachers should aim to develop pedagogical techniques to afford learnerssuch practice. Learning to listen interactively in ａ foreign language is a processrequiring time and effort. Though not
ａ panacea, direct teaching can have a primingeffect towards helping learners
develop these skills. Ａ reasonable goal is for foreignlanguage learners to develop interactive listening skills that meet the expectationsof the
TL community. For this to happen, L2 teachers must not view listening skill development as belonging solely to the cognitive domain, but also as a process of acquiring interactive skills essential for achieving socio-communicative competence.
References
Clancy, P., Thompson, S., Suzuki, R., & Tao ，H. (1996). The conversational use of reactive tokens in English, Japanese, and Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 355-387.
Cutrone, p. (2005). A case study examining backchannels in conversations between Japanese-British dyads. Multilingual, 24(3), 237-274.
Gardner, R. (1998).Between speaking and listening: The vocalisation of understandings. Applied Linguistics, 19, 204-224.
Garvey, C. (1984). Children's talk.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Heinz, B. (2003). Backchannel responses as strategic responses in bilingual speakers' conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1113-1142.
Kasper, G. (1992).Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research, 5(3), 203-231 ，
Kasper, G., & Roever, c. (2005). Pragmatics in second language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 317-334). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 81-104.
Maynard, s. (1986). On back-channel behavior in Japanese and English casual conversation. Linguistics, 24, 1079-1108.
Maynard, S. (1990). Conversation management in contrast: Listener response in Japanese and American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 14 397-412.
Maynard, s. (1997).Analyzing interactional management in native/non-native English conversation: Ａ case of listener response. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 35(1), 37-60.
Mizutani, N. (1982). The listener's responses in Japanese conversation. Sociolinguistic News-letter, 7i(l), 33-38.
Richards, J. Ｃ. (1990). The language teaching matrix. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 129-158.
WOLF : Equipping learners with interactive listening skills: The case for teaching backchannels 169
Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21-42). New York: Ｏχford University Press.
Signes, Ｇ･， &Bou Franch, p. (1999). Pragmatica intercultural: Emisiones del oyente en ingles britanico y espaiiol peninsular. In A. Sanchez et al. (Eds.), Pragmdtica Intercultural (pp. 123-134). Valencia,
Universitat de Valencia.
Tao, H., & Thompson, S. (1991). English backchannels in Mandarin conversations:A case study of superstratum pragmatic interference. Journal of Pragmatics, j 6, 209-223.
Tottie, Ｇ. (1991). Conversational style in British and American English: The case of backchannels.
In Karin Aijmer & Bengt Altenberg (Eds.), English Corpus Linguistics.(pp. 254-271). London: Longman･
Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: Ａ critical review. Second Language Research, 14(2), 103-135.
Vandergrift, L. (2007). Recent developments in second and foreign language listening comprehension research. Language Teaching, 40, 191-210.
White, s. (1989). Backchannels across cultures: Ａ study of Americans and Japanese. Language in Society, 18, 59-76.
Wolf, J. p. (2008). Ｔｈｅ effects of backchannels on fluency in L2 oral task production. System, 36, 279-294.
