文教大学学術機関リポジトリ

(1)

Teaching

the Rule—Governed

Nature

of Conversation

Joyce M. Taniguchi

Conversations, then, are structured, rule-governed, non-random sequences of utterances.

Peter Trudgil I

With this definition in mind, how does one go about setting up an effective conversation class for students learning English as a foreign

language? How does one plan an overall program for such students? A place of beginning might be to look at the different components of the above definition to determine what it is that such students are being asked to learn. This paper will then examine the background theory pertinent to the teaching of spoken English as a foreign

language, as well as a case study of several students within a begin-ning conversation class to learn more about the process involved. With this process in mind, ideas for solutions to the initial questions might become more apparent.

Background theory related to the teaching of spoken English

Most importantly, conversation is a cooperative activity, which Grice (1975, pg. 45) has theorized as following the cooperative princi-ple. By this he means that speakers and listeners depend on a shared set of assumptions about what is happening within a conversation. Both parties are involved in an activity that is of mutual benefit.

(2)

Teaching the Rule Governed Nature of Conversation

Brown and Yule (1983, pg. 23) say the functions of spoken language

are primarity " ... interactional, to eStablisii and maintain social

relations," as well as " ... transactional, to convey information." From

these statements the emphasis upon the social nature of the activity

becomes apparent. A speaker of an utterance is one necessary

partici-pant and a listener the other, who might very well become a speaker

in the natural give and take of the interaction.

Trudgill's definition notes the rule-governed nature of this

proc-ess. For one thing, there must be ground rules for turntaking, given

the social nature of the process. Many utterances are in fact made up

of adjacency pairs. If a speaker gives a greeting, the response will

most likely be a response greeting, a question usually leads to an

answer, a complaint might lead to an apology, or a farewell will lead

to a farewell. The possible list of such pairs is extensive. The process

of turntaking also implies rules about how to keep a turn, as well as

how to signal that a turn is finished.

The social nature of the exchange also demands that the

partici-pants accept the 'face' that others offer."We will be involved in what

Goffman (1955) has called 'face-work', the work of presenting faces

to each other, protecting our own face, and protecting the other's

face. We will be playing out a little drama together and cooperating

to see that nothing mars the performance" (Wardhaugh, pg. 293).

Brown and Levinson (1987) emphasize the emotional investment

involved in maintaining face. What is important for our students to

learn is the " ... unwritten agreement to deal with the world and

matters in the world in certain ways

we put ourselves in serious

peril of misunderstanding if we violate the agreement" (Wardhaugh,

(3)

Teaching the Rule-Governed Nature of Conversation

pg. 294). Of course, conversations which involve peoples from differ-ent cultural backgrounds, or learners in an EFL setting especially, can easily go wrong. The social nature and often unwritten nature of the rules/conventions involved in conversations means that much of the meaning in any encounter is indirect and implicit. All too often these rules are culturally specific, which means these rules vary from one society to another. If conversation is social by nature, knowledge of these kinds of rules, must be considered within classrooms in a systematic way.

Various theorists have worked to determine what they say makes up communicative competence, for as the initial definition implies, conversations are organized in ways that make sense. Hymes defined communicative competence _{as that which "... enables us to convey} and interpret messages and to negotiate meanings interpersonally within specific contexts" (Brown, pg. 198). Theorists such as Hymes (1967, 1972), Savignon (1983) Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983) have defined four basic components that make up communica-tive competence. The first is grammatical competence which includes knowledge of " ... lexical items, rules of morphology, syntax, senten-cegrammar semantics, and phonology" (Canale and Swain, pg. 20). The second component is discourse competence or the ability to connect and make sense of stretches of discourse or a series of utterances. Sociolinguistic competence is the third component. It is knowledge of the sociocultural rules of a language. This means that the participants need to understand the roles of the participants, the information which is shared, and the function of the interaction. Only an understanding of the whole context will allow for judgments as to

(4)

the appropriateness of a particular utterance. The fourth component is strategic competence. It is basically kinds of compensatory strat-egies that can be called upon by the participants of an interaction to overcome breakdowns in communication. Different skills asked for might be to paraphrase, use circumlocution, use repetition, hesitation, avoidance, or guessing, as well as being able to make shifts in register and style. These skills are especially important for language learners who often experience communication breakdowns due to imperfect knowledge of the rules, both linguistic and sociocultural. All four components are goals for conversation classes to work towards.

Making use of theory to organize lesson plans

From the above theorists, a great deal of ground needs to be covered within a conversation class in order to bring about opportu-nities for learners to engage in meaningful conversations. Obviously not all things can be covered within one course, even when lessons are twice a week for 90 minutes per class. Choices will have to be made. A look at the student population shows that most all of the learners are what many consider to be "false beginners". This means that although students have a rather extensive knowledge of English grammar and a large enough vocabulary for some reading and some writing, that they have had little or no experience in speaking English. Some students have had a native speaker as an assistant teacher in their schooling. For most students at Bunkyo Women's College, the conversation class is their first contact with a native speaker teacher more than once per week.

How to go about teaching the rule-governed nature of

- 64

(5)

----Teaching the Rule-Governed Nature of Conversation

tion is one problem that needs to be addressed. The rules extend from linguistic competence, including grammar and knowledge of lexical items, as well as some knowledge of the phonology of English, to sociocultural competence, which includes things such as the ground rules for turntaking, the use of fillers, gestures, lengths of pauses/ silence, basic routines for social encounters in a variety of situations, which includes learning the function of language as purposeful. The list might be extended, but a teacher must begin somewhere and make choices along the way as well.

Given that students have had little or no real contact with English in their everyday lives, the native speaker teacher will be providing them with opportunities for meaningful communication."More impor-tant than the analysis of the linguistic structure, however, is the presence of role models, people who use the language to communi-cate. A teaching staff that routinely use the L2 in exchanges among themselves is ideal" (Savignon, pg. 101),In other words, students first need to be aware by hearing others using the language they are studying, that this language is one that functions for real purposes. Thus, one of the roles for teachers is that of role model and partici-pant in meaningful conversations.

Classroom situations alone all too often involve a lot of talk, often by the teachers, but this is not real conversation. Teachers often select the topics, see that students stick to that topic, and decide who will be allowed to speak. There is little simultaneous talk or overlap-ping as might be found in the real world. (Wardhaugh 1992, Lit-tlewood 1981, van Lier 1988). Such classroom talk is not the natural kind of conversation that has been defined by theorists. Talk is not

(6)

enough. Rather the roles of teachers are to " act as facilitator of the communicative process,.., to act as a participant... and to act as an observer and learner" (Breen and Candlin 1980, in Nunan, pg. 87). Students are to do a lot of talking with the teacher helping that to happen.

Again a reliance upon theorists leads the way to making choices for lesson planning. Tasks that encourage students to take part in meaningful exchanges are a must. It is in the conversation class that opportunities are provided for students to engage in natural interac-tions, such as activities that require using language to complete a task. Using language for communication is imperative if real lan-guage learning is to take place (Littlewood, pg. 17-18, Richards, pg. 78). Students must have an opportunity to speak in the target lan-guage.

The other side of the conversation coin is the realization that most learners in this setting have more chances to hear the target language than to speak it. Encouraging students to do lots and lots of listening both inside and outside of the classroom, seems to be one way of helping students tune in on the art of conversation, the discovery that this is an interactive _{exchange that functions for purposes. " ... the} best preparation for production is continual comprehension, since it is recurrent deployment in comprehension that can firm up the internal system to a point at which it becomes deployable in production"

(Prabhu, pg. 80). Guest speakers, radio programs, movies, videos, lyrics of songs, all are available and can be used by learners to work on listening skills, to prepare the way for taking part in the real world of using English.

(7)

Teaching the Rule Governed Nature of Conversation

Students need to learn that listening demands active involvement. "For example

, it is only by applying his knowledge of the language that he (a listener) can divide the continuous stream of sound into meaningful units at all, and it is only by comparing these units with the shared knowledge between himself and the speaker that he can interpret their meaning" (Littlewood, pg. 68). Thus it is, that in order to carry on a conversation, learners need to work upon speaking skills and listening skills, for it is only by developing both, that the learner can identify how conversation is organized in the target language and work towards communication goals.

Some suggestions have been given in textbooks devoted to teach-ing students how to be successful as language learners. Brown and Yule (1983), Pawley and Syder (1983), Rubin and Thompson (1982) all suggest that beginning students need to be taught the basics of short turntaking. Often this involves the learning of fixed expressions, such as short responses : yes, of course ;right ; right, I will ; sorry, I can't ; I really can't manage it ; I'm afraid not. This list could include thousands of such expressions, for such is the usual repertoire of a native speaker; but the language learner needs also to learn well, that such expressions cannot be used indiscriminately.

This injunction means that developing awareness of the social nature of interactions is also necessary in order to be able to partici-pate meaningfully and appropriately in conversations. As students work on cultural differences in different kinds of speech acts, for example apologizing, they need also to become better listeners of similar conversations in order to develop sensitivity about such behavior (Olshtain and Cohen in Celce-Murcia, pg. 163).

(8)

If these three components, opportunities for meaningful exchanges in the language, developing listening skills, and becoming aware of the sociocultural aspect of language learning, might be part of a beginning conversation classroom, perhaps Trudgill's definition might be achieved. The interdependence of all three components needs to be emphasized from the outset, for the communicative process always includes all three simultaneously.

The materials used in the classroom are one important choice a teacher makes which influence strongly the direction and goals of the course. Given the three pronged approach this researcher/teacher chose from the outset, as guided by theorists in the field, a decision was made to use two textbooks : Interchange 2 by Jack Richards with an accompanying tape which offers a variety of listening tasks, as well as suggestions for pair work and group work activities that require students to complete tasks rather than simply practice the language; and, the Student Workbook, which provides exercises for students to work on linguistic competence, which complements the main text, and gain some awareness of the social appropriateness of different responses, both in register and style.

The course plan also included making use of student tapes." ... if spoken language production is considered a necessary part of the teaching syllabus, then its assessment should be taken seriously. In order to carry out effective assessment, a student profile containing a students's tape is a basic practical requirement" (Brown and Yule, pg. 106).

To go about teaching all of this systematically would be the ideal, but as Breen and Candlin have suggested, one of the roles of the

(9)

teacher is to observe and learn. By doing this carefully, a systematic approach can hopefully come out of the results. The following is a case study of some students in their beginning conversation class.

A Case Study of First Year Conversation Students at Bunkyo Women's College

The basic lesson plan for the course included classroom activities which required some speaking by everyone in the class during each class session. The range of tasks varied from face to face activities in which students were simultaneously interviewing one another about some assigned topic, to exercises from the text which often required pairs of students to find out information from the other in

other to be able to complete a task. Homework consisted weekly of completing the Student Workbook by each Wednesday class time. This concentrated chiefly upon linguistic aspects of communicative competence as well as some exercises regarding appropriateness of responses for specific situations. The teacher gave feedback for this homework by the next class.

On Thursdays, the student tapes were due. During one week a student would make up a conversation, usually by writing a script for both parts and then recording that dialogue. The topics for the conversation were assigned from related topics in the texbook, for example giving directions to a specific place or talking about prefer-ences in places to visit, etc. The tapes were then given at random to

another class member to be transcribed and commented upon. This person was to listen, transcribe at least part of the dialogue (the number of lines assigned increased over the term), mark grammatical

(10)

errors and note whether or not the listener thought this particular dialogue was polite or not. The teacher then collected the tapes the following Thursday, along with the listener's transcript and com-ments.

The teacher's feedback was two-fold: The teacher made com-ments about the dialogue directly on the tape to the original speaker. Comments included feedback about pronunciation, grammar, socio-cultural errors, and the overall contents. Each assigned dialogue had a particular focus to aid in student's understanding about the compo-nents of a conversation, such as the need for fillers, what appropriate fillers might be used, etc. or the need for different word choices or use of more indirect means so as to be polite and not have either speaker lose face. As only one person created this dialogue, the problem of face was one of practice more than reality, but the feedback was given as if two participants were speaking. In this way, in a rather neutral fashion, the teacher thought that students might gain some awareness of the emotional investment of face-work in all conversa-tion.

The second part of the feedback was for the listener who wrote the transcription. A copy was made and comments made for both the original dialogue maker, i. e., the speaker, and the listener. The listener learned if she had correctly or incorrectly marked grammar errors and also learned what the teacher thought about the level of politeness. A record was made by the teacher noting the quality of the dialogue and the quality of the work done in peer evaluation of that dialogue.

The study was done over one term, a three month classroom — 70 —

(11)

period of time. The number of dialogues completed was 5 during this interval with two weeks used by students for each assignment, one for the speaker and one for the listener. The teacher worked as rapidly as possible to listen to the tapes and give feedback in order that the process might continue with the next assignment. The topics involved a range of speech behaviors, from transactional--the shar-ing of information, to interactional, in which various speech acts were explored, such as apologizing. There was also an overlap upon occasion between these two categories. When students made a tape about places to visit, for example, sometimes the speaker chose to have the participants disagree about the choices. One tape was also made by two participants as if it were a "real" conversation with equal participants. Still this was a scripted conversation and did not have the spontaneous quality of "real" conversation, nor the overlap or simultaneous talk that usually accompanies natural interaction.

The work assigned kept the students quite busy throughout the term, as creators of English conversation, as listeners/transcribers, and as peer evaluators both linguistically and sociolinguistically. The tapes kept the teacher/researcher also busy in giving feedback, but the same tapes also offered a wealth of data for the teacher to learn more about the needs of students in a linguistic way as well as a sociocultural way. In fact, the students defined for themselves the direction of the class by the feedback. The teacher learned what was needed and then could offer the information necessary for student to become better able to handle such a situation.

A. final written exam was also given, and will be included in this study. The task was for students to write a dialogue in which they

(12)

had to return an item of merchandise to the store at which they had purchased it. The students were reminded to be polite. They were also reminded to make their dialogues seem as natural as possible. Results

Two student tapes were chosen at random and transcribed by the researcher, both student portions and teacher feedback. The follow-ing data is some excerpts from these sample tapes.

The first assignment was to give directions by following a map which appeared in the textbook to someone asking for help, Students were encouraged to be polite in asking for help and in giving the needed information. Student A's tape consisted of 6 lines of exchange:

A : Excuse me B : Yes?

A : I'm looking for the post office. Could you tell me how to go to the post office?

B : Well, go straight South St. about one block and turn left and go north for about two blocks.The post office is on your left. A : Thanks a lot.

B : You're welcome.

The teacher responded as follows :

H that was a pretty good job on your conversation. There are some problems though in grammar. Go straight on South. St. You might also have said, Go straight to the corner and turn left.

Also, it might have been a good idea to make sure the listener got the information correct. Repetition helps us make sure we are com

— 72 —

(13)

municating. For example, A might have said, "Let's see, I go straight on this street for one block, turn left and walk for 2 more blocks until I see the Post Office. Is that right? : B would then answer, "Yes"... and then, continue on with your conversation.

Politeness was marked in this exchange via word choice. These same words also marked the beginning and ending of this particular conversation. As such, this type of interaction was an easy one for beginning students as an assigned task, for the communication goals were clear-cut. In reality, following spoken directions is not an easy task, and more hesitation and confirmation would likely occur.

The second student's tape was very similar in types of grammati-cal errors and in the need to have the information repeated. The teacher's response for B student's tape was to model the entire possible conversation showing the needed repetition.

Another assigned task, the third one for the term, was to exchange information about three places in the world that you might want to visit. Student A chose Switzerland, Australia and the South Pole :

B : The South Pole? Why do you want to go to the South Pole? A : Because there is no person in the South Pole, but many seals and pengins are there. I want to see them and the Southerm

Cross.

The teacher responded to this portion of this assignment by commenting

(14)

To show surprise about the choice of the South Pole is all right, but try not to make the other person feel angry or defensive. The purpose is to make each other feel good, to feel comfortable with each other. For example,"My, I'd never thought about the South Pole!" or "Wow, that's one I never thought of! Why there?"

Also there are some grammar and pronunciation mistakes. There are no people at the South Pole penguins, /gw/, not/g/and/sA/not /sou/ in southern.

Student B's interaction was much longer in length for this assign-ment than student A's, 13 different exchanges made in comparison to 6. A portion of this transcript will, show some of the other typical problems of this assignment :

A : Let's compare Tokyo and Seattle? B : All right.

A : And let's talk about size first. B : Okay.

The teacher's response on the tape :

The beginning of your conversation, K is not natural. It sounds like a texbook, which I understand, but conversations always need a beginning for example. A :"Hi, K I heard you just got back from Seattle, would you tell me about your trip?" B : "Sure." A : "Maybe you could compare it to Tokyo, for then I would understand more." B : "Sure, that sounds interesting. What do you want to know about Seattle?" A : "What about the size?"

Also politeness can be greater when questions are more indirect — 74 —

(15)

than direct expressions. "Would you like? Is more polite than "let's

..."

The fourth assignment was a dialogue between two class mem-bers. They were to have agreed upon a place to meet and then have missed each other. An apology would therefore be in order and repair work in order to make a new plan and keep the friendship friendly. A portion of this exchange will show some of the problems for the students

K : I was at the Varsity Theater.

Y : Varsity Theater? I think I told you to meet at Cinema Theater. We talked on the phone. Do you remember? K : Oh, I remember. I'm very sorry. It was my mistake. I talked

to my mom about Varsity Theater after your call. I think

they mixed up them.

The teacher responded by pointing out some of the grammatical errors, as well as noting the difficulties in social interaction in the student's dialogue

It would be better to question in order to clarify the past conversa-tion rather than say "I told you. Didn't we agree to meet at the Cinema Theater at 7?" Then K might apologize and say, "Oh, I remember" (which is a good filler) and continue on, "It was my mistake. I got it mixed up when I talked to my mom after your phone call. I'm very sorry." This makes a softer accusation and a more

(16)

correct apology. Then the two need to make a new arrangement for their next meeting. Don't just have them agree to meet, but tell a specific time and place with each one repeating it to be clear. In this way the friendship will be kept.

The scripted conversation assigned on the final exam also is included in this study. Again, the situation called for an easy conver-sational opening, for the students were asked to take back a sweater which they had purchased and later found to have a hole in one sleeve. Student A's dialogue consited of 9 exchanges between the clerk and customer, a portion of which is given below :

Clerk : Can I help you?

Customer : Ah, yes, I bought this sweater 3 days ago. But I found there's a hole in the left sleeve.

Clerk : Oh, really? I'm very sorry.

. . .

Clerk : Please chose what you like in these sweaters. Customer : Really? um I like this one.

The teacher's written comments included the following additions besides corrections of the grammatical or spelling errors :

H, the clerk would probably ask to see the sweater, "May I see it, please?'.' Also a smile mark was written beside the "um" filler to show the teacher was pleased that H had attempted to make the conversa-tion sound natural.

(17)

The second student's dialogue included her additional problem to the one assigned

Clerk : Please, wait here. I'll bring you a new one. K : 0. K. Thank you.

(student indicated time passed ...)

Cleak : I'm very sory . There isn't the same sweater we have in stock now . Would you mind if I call you after the arrival of it. K : Not at all. I'll wait for your call

The teacher responded by correcting the grammar and putting a smile mark by this exchange and underlining the "Would you mind" expression and adding another smile mark there.

Discussion and Implications

Quite a bit can be learned from a careful examination of the data. For example, the first assignment did not have too many problems about beginnings and endings of conversations, but other assignments did. Students needed to be reminded that conversations just don't happen out of the blue. A look at the textbook, in fact most any textbook, would probably show that one of the reasons students do this, is because textbooks begin dialogues without a real beginning and often stop before there would be a clear marked ending. As textbooks only sometimes include this sociocultural information, students cannot really be held responsible for missing this themselves. As this teacher/researcher learned this from listening to the tapes,

(18)

the teacher could then use this as information to give to students before their next assignment. Fanselow has suggested that feedback be seen and used in a circular manner. " ... results can begin a second cycle as well as come after a first cycle. Instances of feedback can consequently become added information given when setting tasks rather than simply information given after the performance of tasks" (Fanselow, pg. 87). The teacher can simply say,"Be sure to begin in a realistic way, such as a greeting and make it all come to a natural sounding ending,"as part of the directions.

Students also can benefit from being taught some of the expres-sions necessary, as well as other paralinguistic means possible of how to end a conversation, or how to know when a turn is ending. Giving such information can be useful to students : things such as prolonging the final syllable or pitch of voice which will indicate closure, or word choices such as "well, then, that's agreed," or repetition, "one o'clock, then", or "see you soon", exchange of farewells, or the body itself might signal an end of a turn by a relaxing of posture, a hand gesture

or looking directly at the listener as if asking them to either continue or make an ending (Wardhaugh, pg. 299-304). All of these possibilities might be too much to expect students to .take in at once, but if the teacher acts as role model to explain, as well as does this in natural conversation within the classroom, students might have ample oppor-tunity to learn this important aspect of turntaking.

Another implication from this study is that students themselves can learn a great deal by transcribing and evaluating their peers' work.. For one thing, feedback can be provided more quickly and often as the work load is shared between students and the teacher.

(19)

Teaching the Rule-Governed Nature of Conversation "

... All learners are more immediately involved in their performance; students develop editing skills in connection with their efforts on behalf of their peers; and learning problems are perhaps more clearly highlighted..."(Gaies, pg. 52). Plus, this assignment had the added benefit of asking students to work on their listening skills by provid-ing trancripts and peer evaluations. As students listened actively to each other's tapes, they could learn more about the fine points of making a conversation, as well as about the English language.

Another point that might be noted is that grammatical errors do not suddenly disappear. Fluency was emphasized during the time

interval of the study, but feedback was also given regarding many of the linguistic errors as well. Accuracy did not notably improve, but hopefully students gained some awareness that making the message understandable to a listener is of prime importance if meaning is to be shared.

Conclusion

Classroom practices that emphasize student interaction, work on listening skills, and sociocultural components involved in interactions seem to be appropriate content for "false beginners" in a conversa-tion class. An analysis of what happened in such a classroom via a case study indicates that teaching some aspects of turntaking, as well as other aspects of conversation directly might be beneficial to students. As they make progress more subtle sociocultural informa-tion, especially about different speech acts, might also become more useful and meaningful as students learn more awareness for them-selves. Learning the rules of various speech acts, (Austin 1962, Searle

(20)

1969) would be useful information for students. It seems also likely, that the fourth component of communicative competence, strategic competence for making repairs, would become even more important as students increase their fluency and ability to keep the conversation ball bouncing. There are many possible ways and means of achiev-ing these same goals of communicative competence, but a program in conversational skills needs to emphasize student interactions, devel-opment of listening skills, and an ever increasing store of knowledge amongst student learners about the sociocultural aspects of conversa-tions to be used by them. Using classroom data, combined with ideas from theorists can give purpose and direction to teachers. From this, over time, an overall program for the teaching of conversation might be developed. For example, more advanced students might learn more strategies of what to do when conversations breakdown. The fact that conversation is a systematic, rule-governed social behavior makes it possible to outline possibilities in a systematic way.

References

Austin, J. L.(1962).How to do things with words. New York : Oxford University Press.

Breen, M. & Candlin, C.(1980).The essentials of a commumicative

curriculum in language teaching. Applied linguistics, 1, (2), 89-112.

Brown, G.(1990). Listening to spoken English. 2nd ed. London : Longman.

Brown, G. & Yule, G.(1983). Teaching the spoken language : An — 80 —

(21)

approach based on the analysis of conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, H. D.(1987). Principles of language learning and teaching, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall Regents. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C.(1987). Politeness : Some universals of

language use. Cambridge : Cambrige University Press. Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to

tive language pedagogy. J. Richards & R. Schmidt (eds.) Language and communication. London : Longman.

Canale, M. & Swaim, M.(1980). Theoretical bases of commumicative

approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied linguistics. 1, 1-47.

Fanselow, J.(1992). Contrasting conversation : Activities for exploring our beliefs and teaching practices. White Plains, N.Y.:

man.

Gaies, S.J.(1985). Peer involvement in language learning. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall Regents.

Goffman, E.(1955). On face-work : An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction.Psychiatry, 18 : 213-231.

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole and Morgan (eds.) Speech acts, vol. 3. New York : Academic Press.

Hymes, D.(1967). On communicative competence. Unpublished script, U. of Pennsylvania, in H. D. Brown. Principles of

language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:

Prentice Hall Regents.

Littlewood, W.(1981). Communicative language teaching. Cambridge Cambridge University Press.

(22)

Nunan, D.(1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Olshtain, E. & Cohen, A. D.(1991). Teaching speech act behavior to nonnative speakers. In M. Celce-Murcia (ed.) Teaching

English as a second or foreign language, 2nd ed. New York :. Newbury House.

Pawley, A. & Syder, F.(1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory : native like selection and nativelike fluency. In. J. Richards &

R. Schmidt (eds.),Language and communication. London : Longman.

Prabhu, N. S.(1987). Second language pedagogy. Hong Kong : Oxford University Press.

Richards, J. C.(1990). The language teaching matrix. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Rubin, J. & Thompson, I.(1982). How to be a more succesful language learner. Boston, MA : Heinle & Heinle Publishers, Inc. Savignon, S. J.(1983). Communicative competence : Theory and

room practice. Reading, MA : Addison-Wesley Publishing

Co.

Searle, J. R.(1969). Speech acts : An essay in the philosophy of guage. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Trudgill, P.(1983). Sociolinguistics : An introduction to language and society, revised edition. London : Penguin Books.

van Lier, Leo (1988). The classroom and the language learner. London: Longman.

Wardhaugh, R.(1992). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.