Book contents
- Literature, Spoken Language and Speaking Skills in Second Language Learning
- Literature, Spoken Language and Speaking Skills in Second Language Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures and Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Literature and Spoken Language
- 2 The Realism of Conversation in Literature
- 3 Using Literature in Text-Driven Materials to Help Develop Spoken Language Awareness
- 4 Literature, TV Drama and Spoken Language Awareness
- 5 Haiku and Spoken Language: Corpus-Driven Analyses of Linguistic Features in English Language Haiku Writing
- 6 Screenplays as a Pedagogical Medium for Cultivating EFL Learners’ Metapragmatic Awareness of Speech Acts in Spoken English
- Part II Literature and Speaking Skills
- Index
- References
4 - Literature, TV Drama and Spoken Language Awareness
from Part I - Literature and Spoken Language
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 October 2019
Edited by
Book contents
- Literature, Spoken Language and Speaking Skills in Second Language Learning
- Literature, Spoken Language and Speaking Skills in Second Language Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures and Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Literature and Spoken Language
- 2 The Realism of Conversation in Literature
- 3 Using Literature in Text-Driven Materials to Help Develop Spoken Language Awareness
- 4 Literature, TV Drama and Spoken Language Awareness
- 5 Haiku and Spoken Language: Corpus-Driven Analyses of Linguistic Features in English Language Haiku Writing
- 6 Screenplays as a Pedagogical Medium for Cultivating EFL Learners’ Metapragmatic Awareness of Speech Acts in Spoken English
- Part II Literature and Speaking Skills
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter reports on research in a study abroad context at a UK university. It centres on the use of literature which has been dramatised on television (the popular TV series Sherlock) and how this can be harnessed to develop a greater awareness of typical features of spoken language – in this case the use of ellipsis. An experimental study was undertaken which compared the results of three groups: one receiving explicit instruction plus input enhancement (experimental group 1), one receiving explicit instruction only (experimental group 2) and a control group who received no instruction. Both treatment groups worked with three short extracts from Sherlock over three lessons and were given explicit instruction, comprehension tasks and exercises to raise awareness of several features of spoken language, including ellipsis, requesting and modality. The experimental groups received the same explicit teaching (here understood as the teacher making it clear to the students what the lesson focus was), but experimental group 1 also had their transcripts enhanced via textual enhancement to highlight the aforementioned features of spoken language. Results were measured using a comprehension test and a test which measured receptive knowledge of ellipsis in spoken language administered at a pre-, post- and delayed test stage, which was 3 weeks after the classes. In addition, six members of each experimental group took part in a focus group to discuss the extent to which participants found the classes helped to develop awareness of ellipsis and how useful and motivating they found the literature materials to be. Results show clear effects for instruction, with significant gains made over time on the receptive tests for experimental group 1 when compared to the control group. However, no significant difference between treatment types was shown in the post- and delayed tests. Focus groups indicated that participants found the dramatised literature materials to be motivating and useful, and they also reported some noticing of ellipsis in their contact with English outside class time.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Alanen, R. 1995. ‘Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition’, in Schmidt, R. (ed.), Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning. Hawai’i: University of Hawai’i Press, 259–302.Google Scholar
BBC. 2016. English at University. Available at: www.bbc.co.uk/learningenglish/english/features/english-at-university/ (Accessed 1 May 2017).Google Scholar
BBC. 2017. ‘Sherlock: Most watched programme across all channels over festive season for second year running’ . BBC Media Centre. Available at: www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2017/sherlock-most-watched (Accessed 7 April 2018).Google Scholar
Bergsleithner, J. M., Frota, S. N. and Yoshioka, J. K. (eds.) 2013. Noticing and Second Language Acquisition: Studies in Honor of Richard Schmidt. Hawai’i: National foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bloemert, J., Paran, A., Jansen, E. and van de grift, W. 2019. ‘Students’ perspectives on the benefits of EFL literature education’, The Language Learning Journal 47(3): 371–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, R. 1998. ‘Orders of reality: CANCODE communication, and culture’, ELT Journal 52(1): 43–56.Google Scholar
Carter, R., Hughes, R. and McCarthy, M. 2000. Exploring Grammar in Context: Grammar Practice and Reference Upper-Intermediate and Advanced. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. 1997. Exploring Spoken English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.2006. Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. 2017. Spoken grammar: Where are we are and where are we going?, Applied Linguistics 38(1): 1–20.Google Scholar
Carter, R. and McRae, J. (eds.) 1996. Language, Literature and the Learner: Creative Classroom Practice. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carter, R., McCarthy, M., Mark, G. and O’ Keeffe, A. 2011. English Grammar Today: An A–Z of Spoken and Written Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chirravoori, M. 2018. Sherlock Holmes fan.com Available from: www.sherlockholmes-fan.com (Accessed 1 May 2018).Google Scholar
Choi, S. 2017. ‘Processing and earning of enhanced English collocations: An eye movement study’, Language Teaching Research 21(3): 403–426.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 1969. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences (1st edn). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences (2nd edn). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Conan Doyle, A. 2008. A Study in Scarlet. Available at: www.gutenberg.org (Accessed 3 May 2018).Google Scholar
Council of Europe. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, M. 2004. BYU-BNC (based on the British National Corpus from Oxford University Press). Available at: https://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/ (Accessed 2 May 2018).Google Scholar
DeVere, A. 2012. Sherlock transcript: ‘A Study in Pink’ (part 1). Available at: www.ariandevere.livejournal.com (Accessed 1 December 2018).Google Scholar
Doughty, C. 1991. ‘Second language instruction: Does it make a difference?’,Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13(4): 431–469.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, S. and Nelson, G. 1999. ‘Elliptical clauses in spoken and written English’, in Collins, P. and Lee, D. (eds.), The Clause in English: In Honour of Rodney Huddleston. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 111–127.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. 2013. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th edn). Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Han, Z. H., Park, E. S. and Combs, C. 2008. ‘Textual enhancement of input: Issues and possibilities’, Applied Linguistics 29(4): 597–618.Google Scholar
Indrarathne, B. and Kormos, J. 2017. ‘Attentional processing of input in explicit and implicit conditions’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 39(3): 401–430.Google Scholar
Izumi, S. 2002. ‘Output, input enhancement and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(4): 541–577.Google Scholar
Jones, C. 2007. ‘Spoken grammar: Is “noticing” the best option?’, Modern English Teacher 16(4): 155–160.Google Scholar
Jones, C. 2017. ‘Soap operas as models of authentic conversations: Implications for material design’, in Maley, A. and Tomlinson, B. (eds.), Authenticity in Materials Development for Language Learning. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 158–175.Google Scholar
Jones, C.(ed.). 2018. Practice in Second Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,Google Scholar
Jones, C., Byrne, S. and Halenko, N. 2017. Successful Spoken English: Findings from Learner Corpora. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jones, C. and Waller, D. 2017. The effect of input enhancement on vocabulary learning: Is there an impact upon receptive and productive knowledge?’, TESOL International Journal 12(1): 48–62.Google Scholar
Lee, S. K. and Huang, H. T. 2008. ‘Visual input enhancement and grammar learning: A meta-analytic review’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 30(3): 307–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, H. W. 2010. ‘The taming of the immeasurable: An empirical assessment of language awareness’, in Paran, A. and Sercu, L (eds.), Testing the Untestable in Language Education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 191–216.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, I. 2000. ‘Institutionalised utterances, literature and language teaching’, Language and Literature 9(1): 61–78.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. and Carter, R, 1995. ‘Spoken grammar: What is it and how can we teach it?’, ELT Journal 49(3): 207–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, M. and McCarten, J. 2018. ‘Now you’re talking! Practising conversation in second language learning’, in Jones, C. (ed.), Practice in Second Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 7–29.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. and Ortega, L. 2000. ‘Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis’, Language Learning 50(3): 417–528.Google Scholar
Pawlowski, A. and Han, P. 2010. ‘British tourism hopes to cash in on Sherlock Holmes’. Available at: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/01/18/sherlock.holmes.tourism.london/index.html (Accessed 2 May 2018).Google Scholar
Petchko, K. 2011. ’Input enhancement, noticing and incidental vocabulary acquisition’, The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly 3(4): 228–255.Google Scholar
Rebuck, M. 2011. ‘Using the l1 “errors” of native speakers in the EFL classroom’, ELT Journal 65(1): 33–41.Google Scholar
Ricento, T. 1987. ‘Clausal ellipsis in multi-party conversation in English’, Journal of Pragmatics 11(6): 751–775.Google Scholar
Richards, J. C. and Schmidt, R 2002. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (3rd edn). Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. 1990. ‘The role of consciousness in second language learning’, Applied Linguistics 11(2): 129–158.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. 1993. ‘Awareness and second language acquisition’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 13: 206–226.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. 2010. ‘Attention, awareness and individual differences in language learning’, in Chan, W. M., Chi, S., Cin, K. N., Istanto, J., Nagami, M., Sew, J. W., Suthiwan, T. and Walker, I. (eds.), Proceeding of ClaScc 2010 Singapore December 2–4. Singapore: University of Singapore Center for Language Studies, 721–737.Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. 1981. ‘Consciousness raising and the second language learner’, Applied Linguistics 2(2): 159–186.Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. 1991. ‘Speaking to many different minds: on the relevance of different types of language information for the l2 learner’, Second Language Research 7(2): 118–132.Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. 1993. ‘Input enhancement in instructed SLA’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15(2): 165–179.Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. and Truscott, J. 2014. ‘Explaining input enhancement: A MOGUL perspective’, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 52(3): 253–281.Google Scholar
Sherlock: Complete Series 1–4 and the Abominable Bride. 2016. London: British Broadcasting Corporation.Google Scholar
Spada, N. and Tomita, Y. 2010. ‘Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis’, Language Learning 60(2): 263–308.Google Scholar
Timmis, I. 2005. ‘Towards a framework for teaching spoken grammar’, ELT Journal 59(2): 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmis, I. 2012. ‘Spoken language research and ELT: Where are we now?’ ELT Journal 66(4): 514–522.Google Scholar
Timmis, I. 2018. ‘A text-based approach to grammar practice’, in Jones, C. (ed.), Practice in Second Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 79–108.Google Scholar
Warner, C. 2012. ‘Literary pragmatics in the advanced foreign language literature classroom: The case of young Werther’, in Burke, M., Csabi, S., Week, L. and Zerkowitz, J. (eds.), Pedagogical Stylistics: Current Trends in Language Literature and ELT. London: Continuum, 142–157.Google Scholar
Wilson, P. 2014. Mind the Gap: Ellipsis and Stylistic Variation in Spoken and Written English. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wong, W. 2003. ‘The effects of textual enhancement and simplified input on l2 comprehension and acquisition of non-meaningful grammatical form’, Applied Language Learning 13(2): 17–46.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by