AL Forum

AL Forum News, Volume 25:2 (March 2005)

by User Not Found | 11/02/2011
In This Issue...
  • Leadership Updates
    • From the Chair
    • From the Editors
  • Articles and Information
    • A Corpus-Based Study of Politeness and Solidarity in Workplace Conversations
    • Using the Mirroring Technique in Helping Nonnative Speakers of English Learn and Acquire English Intonation
    • Teaching International Students About Plagiarism
  • Convention News
    • TESOL Applied Linguistics IS Academic Session
    • ALIS InterSections
  • Community News and Information
    • Call for Submissions
    • About the Applied Linguistics Interest Section

Leadership Updates From the Chair

David Olsher photo.By David Olsher, chair, e-mail: olsher@sfsu.edu

Dear ALIS members,

I am happy to be writing you about the events that our interest section is sponsoring and organizing for the 2005 TESOL Convention in San Antonio. As I wrote in the last newsletter, our interest section is fairly unique among TESOL interest sections because we are so diverse in our interests, teaching contexts, and geographic locations in the United States and around the globe. What we do share in common is our concern for relating research in the diverse areas of applied linguistics to the practical concerns of providing English language education to speakers of other languages. At our ALIS meeting at the 2004 TESOL Convention in Long Beach, our members voiced concern that there seemed to be too much of a disconnect between researchers and language educators in TESOL. Our offerings for the San Antonio Convention, alone and in collaboration with other interest sections, promise to highlight research that is relevant to TESOL classroom practice, explore the practical applications, and promote a dialogue between teachers, teacher trainers, and researchers. In what follows, I would like to draw your attention to some of these events and presentations. I would also like to encourage all of you who are able to come to San Antonio to attend some of these exciting presentations and discussions.

First of all, our chair-elect, Noël Houck, has put together an exciting Academic Session on new approaches to teaching and learning grammar, with a dynamic group of presenters who will provide four distinct and diverse views of grammar and language learning. Please see the listing of panelists for this event in this issue of the newsletter, and mark your calendar for Wednesday morning. With panelists including Doug Biber, Marianne Celce-Murcia, Diane Larsen-Freeman, and Norbert Schmitt, this session promises to offer a lively and stimulating set of presentations and discussions.

In addition to our Academic Session, ALIS is cosponsoring two InterSections (panels organized by two or more interest sections). Both of these panels will provide researchers' insights on emerging research as well as teachers' and materials writers' examples of practical classroom applications. ALIS has joined with the Speech, Pronunciation, and Listening IS to organize a panel on "Embodied Second Language Learning: Gesture and Prosody." Panelists Steven McCafferty, Gale Stam, Janet Goodwin, and Marc Helgesen will explore the ways in which gesture and use of the body aid in language learning as well as ways this can be exploited in classroom teaching. This panel is scheduled for Thursday morning. On Friday morning, ALIS joins with the Higher Education IS to present a panel on "Corpus Research and Teaching Academic Writing." In this session, researchers Doug Biber and Eli Hinkel will present overviews of two different varieties of corpus research that can inform the ways we teach writing, and Patricia Byrd, Jan Frodesen, and Margi Wald will present practical applications of this research to teaching activities and materials. Both of these panels promise to provide insights into emerging research as well as balanced discussion of both research and actual classroom applications.

In response to the need for greater dialogue between researchers and educators, ALIS has joined with the Teacher Education IS and the Research IS to organize a Networking Reception on Thursday evening. This reception will welcome researchers, teachers, and teacher trainers representing a diverse range of research perspectives and teaching contexts to discuss ways that research may be able to inform classroom practice as well as questions from the classroom that teachers and teacher trainers would like researchers to explore. There will be topic tables representing teaching contexts and research areas; some researchers and teacher trainers will stay at each table while the rest of us are free to browse and visit tables freely, joining in discussions that catch our interest. TESOL is funding this event, providing the facilities as well as refreshments. We hope this event will initiate discussions that can carry on beyond the convention. To help support that, we will have note-takers and guest books at each table and follow up with articles and e-mail lists for all who are interested. Please let me know if you are interested in helping out at one of the tables, as a researcher, a teacher trainer, or a note-taker.

We also have an exciting selection of ALIS concurrent sessions, including sessions dealing with feminism and racism, literacy, online discourse communities, and using news media in ELT. Of 122 submissions, we were able to accept only 24 individual papers as well as five panels. As you know, selections are made using a blind review process, and this year we had three readers for each proposal. Please check the program for the full listing of ALIS panels and papers in San Antonio.

Overall, this convention is going to be an excellent one. I encourage you to attend. TESOL is a very large organization, and its conventions can seem intimidating or impersonal. Yet in my experience as IS chair, I have been impressed with the great number of dedicated, thoughtful, and caring people involved in trying to keep TESOL responsive to our needs on a more human scale. The fact that student registration fees have been greatly reduced this year is one of the positive outcomes of their work, as is the fact that the submission date for the 2006 convention has been pushed back to June to allow more time to put together proposals.

Of course, there remain concerns about the convention, the publications, and the changing governing process and organization of the TESOL board. Many of you may have concerns that you feel are not being addressed. If you do, I would like to encourage you to come to our open business meeting, set for Wednesday evening (6:15 to 7:45, in Convention Center Room 210A). Please join us if you can, and if you cannot attend, please feel free to send an e-mail to me or incoming chair Noël Houck so that we can try to bring it to TESOL's attention on behalf of ALIS. The health of TESOL as an organization that represents us and our diverse field of language educators depends on our participation, whatever form that takes. It may be reading proposals for the convention, presenting, participating in your local TESOL affiliate, or communicating your concerns about the organization and how it can better serve you.

I hope to see many of you in San Antonio, and for those who cannot attend this year, I hope our ALIS newsletter will help keep you informed, along with the resources on the TESOL Web site.

Regards,

David


From the Editors

By Isaiah WonHo Yoo, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, e-mail: iyoo@mit.edu, and Stefan Frazier, University of California, Los Angeles, e-mail:sfrazier@ucla.edu

With this issue, AL Forum passes the milestone of a quarter century of publication, during which a successful transition has been made from print to electronic form. We would like to thank Almut Koester for her article on politeness and solidarity in workplace conversations; Joemer A. Ta-ala and Carolyn Swait for their detailed accounts of how they implemented the Mirroring Technique in helping ESL students learn intonation; and Patricia Brennecke for sharing her classroom experience in dealing with international students' plagiarism. This is Isaiah's last issue as coeditor. He has enjoyed the experience and is grateful for the opportunity to have served the Applied Linguistics Interest Section for the past three years. Stefan will continue as editor, so please contact Stefan (sfrazier@ucla.edu) with submissions, questions, or comments.



Articles and Information A Corpus-Based Study of Politeness and Solidarity in Workplace Conversations

By Almut Koester, University of Birmingham, e-mail almut@koester.eclipse.co.uk

Introduction

Though workplace talk has frequently been investigated from the point of view of its institutional and task-oriented nature (e.g., Drew & Heritage, 1992), more recent studies (e.g., Holmes & Stubbe, 2003) have shown that small talk and other relationally oriented features of workplace talk play a significant role in building, maintaining, and negotiating workplace relationships.

Background to the Study

This article reports findings from a study of naturally occurring office talk gathered by means of audio recording in different office environments in the United States and Britain, including university offices, publishers, and small private businesses (Koester, 2001). A corpus of approximately 34,000 words was constructed by classifying the transcribed data into the following activity types or genres:

A. Unidirectional genres

  1. Procedural and directive discourse
  2. Briefing
  3. Service encounters
  4. Reporting
  5. Requesting

B. Collaborative genres

  1. Decision making
  2. Arrangements
  3. Disscussing and evaluating

C. Nontransactional genres

  1. Small talk
  2. Office gossip

As shown above, the genres can be grouped into three macro-genres: unidirectional genres, which involve a discursively dominant speaker imparting information or instructing/directing another participant; collaborative genres, where participants contribute more or less equally to the discourse; and nontransactional genres, which are not concerned with performing workplace tasks. Office gossip, though not “on-task,” involves talk about people or events at work, and small talk is concerned with topics outside work. However, even in transactional, task-oriented talk (i.e., in unidirectional and collaborative genres), an exploratory interactional analysis of individual encounters showed that speakers oriented to relational as well as to transactional goals.

In an effort to investigate this phenomenon more systematically, a range of interpersonal markers--lexico-grammatical items, which can be used to express interpersonal meanings--were examined in the corpus using Wordsmith Tools[1]. The purpose of the study was to determine whether any differences could be found in the frequency and use of these items depending on the genre being performed. The interpersonal markers examined were modal verbs, vague language, hedges, intensifiers, and idioms; their use in the different types of interactions was compared using corpus-linguistic methods, such as frequency lists and concordances. Previous studies have shown that these items have an interpersonal[2] or evaluative function (Halliday, 1978; Hunston & Thompson, 2000) or express the speaker’s stance (Biber & Finegan, 1989).

Though all these interpersonal markers can express meanings or evaluations relevant to the transactional goals of an encounter, they are frequently used for relational purposes, even within task-oriented talk. Two relational functions, politeness and solidarity, can be identified and are defined below:

1) Politeness: According to Brown and Levinson’s (1987) model, positive and negative politeness is concerned with redressing or avoiding face-threatening acts. Negative politeness involves such discursive acts as apologizing and expressing deference, whereas examples of positive politeness include hedging opinions, mitigating criticism, and self-deprecation. Linguistic politeness strategies mainly involve indirectness and distancing devices used to soften and hedge propositions.

2) Solidarity concerns the affective dimension of interpersonal relations (i.e., the expression of mutuality and common ground). Solidarity strategies include claiming common ground or showing interest, approval, and sympathy, as well as the use of in-group language and colloquialisms.

Results

The frequency and function of the interpersonal markers were examined in each of the individual genres, but here only the overall results comparing the three macro-genres are discussed. All differences in frequency were found to be significant or highly significant with the chi square test.

 

least frequent

 --to--

most frequent

modal verbs

Nontransactional

Unidirectional

Collaborative

vague language

Nontransactional

Collaborative

Unidirectional

hedges

Nontransactional

Collaborative

Unidirectional

intensifiers

Collaborative

unidirectional

-

 

Nontransactional

idioms

Nontransactional

Unidirectional

Collaborative

Figure 1: Frequency of interpersonal markers in the three macro-genres.

Figure 1 shows that modals and idioms were most frequent in collaborative genres. Evaluative interpersonal markers expressing judgments and opinions, such as deontic modals (e.g., have to, need to) and idioms (e.g., sit down and talk about) are particularly frequent in decision-making encounters. See the excerpt below for examples.

Image 1.

The use of such evaluative interpersonal markers in collaborative genres can be linked directly to participants’ transactional goals in these genres: particularly in decision-making and discussing, making evaluations and expressing judgments and opinions form an essential part of the performance of these genres. In terms of relational goals, the discursively equal roles of the participants in these genres license the often more direct expression of necessity, obligation, and opinion through linguistic devices such as deontic modals.

Vague language and hedges were most frequent in unidirectional genres. These interpersonal markers are useful in referring vaguely or implicitly to facts and information (e.g., things, stuff), which are the focus of these genres, and in exemplifying or elaborating on explanations (e.g., like, sort of, orsomething). For example:

I don’t know if I already explained this or not, but . . . the stuff that’s already been paid . . .

You can give a reason for the free, you know, like gratis copy or something

So you’ll get photos coming down and everything

However, these markers also play an important role in terms of speakers’ relational goals: being vague and using hedges allow speakers to mitigate or minimize the unequal discursive relationship in these genres. These devices therefore often perform a face-saving politeness function. For example:

An’ it’s an’ it’s kind of a- you know you don’t have to like write down the minute that you- got the request and the minute that you got- it done, an’ youjust say well that took me about four hours to deliver it.

Uh just wanted to come and chat to you a little bit about the company. ‘Cause the- paper brokers have changed a little bit,

Finally, intensifiers, though occurring with about equal frequency in collaborative and unidirectional genres, are used most frequently in the nontransactional genres, office gossip, and small talk, reflecting a relational orientation toward solidarity and heightened involvement. Intensifiers often modify evaluative adjectives (e.g.,just dreadful, really great), which, according to a preliminary analysis of such items in the corpus, are also most frequent in these genres. The small talk excerpt below illustrates the use of intensifiers and evaluative adjectives:

Image 2.

Conclusion

The analysis shows that the frequency and use of the interpersonal markers investigated varied considerably according to genre. This finding indicates that genre has a significant impact on linguistic choice and is thus a central factor in language variation. Furthermore, the study demonstrates the important role played by interpersonal or evaluative elements of the discourse. Taking into account only the features of talk related to speakers’ transactional goals would mean disregarding a key dimension of workplace talk: the building and maintaining of workplace relationships. This finding has important implications for the teaching of English for occupational or business purposes. Teaching in this area has usually focused on task-oriented topics and skills, such as business correspondence or telephoning, and small talk has tended to be relegated to a marginal role. More needs to be done to raise awareness of interpersonal language features that play a key role in workplace discourse to show speakers’ evaluation or stance and express relational functions of solidarity and politeness.

References

Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9(1), 93-124.

Brown, P., & Levinson. S. (1987).Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Talk at work. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.

Holmes, J., & Stubbe, M. (2003). Power and politeness in the workplace. London: Pearson Education.

Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (Eds.) (2000). Evaluation in text. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Koester, A. J. (2001). Interpersonal markers in workplace genres: Pursuing transactional and relational goals in office talk. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Nottingham, School of English Studies, Nottingham, England.

Almut Koester is a lecturer in English language at the University of Birmingham, England.

End Notes

1. Wordsmith Tools is available from Oxford University Press.

2. Halliday (1978, p. 46) defined the interpersonal function of language as “expressing relations among participants in the situation and the speaker’s own intrusion into it.”


Using the Mirroring Technique in Helping Nonnative Speakers of English Learn and Acquire English Intonation

By Joemer Ta-ala and Carolyn Swait, Academic Spoken English Program, Linguistics Department, University of Florida, e-mail: jataala@ufl.edu andcbswait@yahoo.com

As one of the prosodic features of English, intonation has been considered an integral element in English learners’ overall comprehensibility and fluency. Previous studies have posited that overall comprehensibility may suffer more from prosodic errors than from segmental errors (Celce-Murcia, Brinton, & Goodwin, 1996; Munro & Derwing, 1999). In addition to causing personal misunderstanding, incorrect intonation may also indicate lack of sufficient understanding of the social norms and graces in the second culture (McNerney & Mendelsohn, 1992; Wennerstrom, 2000). Despite its apparent importance, our current knowledge on how nonnative speakers learn intonation is rather scarce. This paper reports on an encouraging result from an instructional methodology, the Mirroring Technique, in teaching intonation to international graduate students at the University of Florida.

The Mirroring Technique, a concept adopted from social psychology, was originally designed as an instructional methodology in teaching intonation by Monk, Lindgren, and Meyers (2004). In their study “Documenting Prosodic Acquisition with the Mirroring Technique,” Monk et al. found that international teaching assistants were able to mirror the prosodic features in the speech of the actors in a short movie clip that their students were trying to mimic. For this current study, we adopted the same Mirroring Technique method with minor changes: The movie clip was reduced to 3–5 minutes from 5‑7, and the duration of the project was extended from 4 weeks to 9. Our Mirroring Technique method entailed the following steps:

  1. The students were instructed to choose a movie segment containing a monologue from 3 to 5 minutes in length.
  2. The students were asked to transcribe the segment to be mirrored or mimicked.
  3. They were then instructed on patterns of English intonation and directed to analyze the transcript in terms of thought groups, lexical stress, and phrasal stress.
  4. The students were then asked to memorize their scripts while mirroring the performance of the actor in their respective movie clips (mirroring included both verbal and nonverbal cues).
  5. The students were coached by native speakers throughout the process (coaching included feedback on pronunciation, word and phrasal stress, intonation, and body language, and was done by native-speaking undergraduate student assistants).

We believe that the reduction of the length of the movie clip was a good decision, as this gave the students a better chance to memorize their transcripts and made the activity less laborious and more fun. Extending the project duration to 9 weeks afforded the students more rehearsal time, not to mention the much-needed time for feedback from both the instructor and the undergraduate assistants.

Twenty-one international graduate students from the Advanced Tutorial class in the Academic Spoken English Program at the University of Florida participated in the project. Of the 21 students, 16 were Chinese (11 males and 5 females) and 5 were Koreans (4 males and 1 female). All 21 subjects had received a score of 45 or better on the university-administered SPEAK test.

During the 9-week period, the students were immersed in lessons on word and phrasal stress, thought groups, and intonation and its social and pragmatic functions. These lessons were taught in lecture form for approximately an hour per week. In addition, for roughly 2 hours per week in class, the students worked on their respective transcriptions. This activity ensured that the transcriptions that they had started working on at home were accurate. After the accuracy of their transcriptions was ascertained, the students were asked to start annotating them—marking them for thought groups, word stress, phrasal stress, intonation patterns, and sound reduction and linking. At the end of each class, an audio recording of the students’ performance (reading from transcriptions for the first 2 to 3 weeks and later from memory) was done. This not only gave the students a sense of accomplishment but also served as a way to monitor their progress.

In their final performance, the students competed against each other. Each student successfully mirrored with native-like or near-native-like intonation the actors in the movie clips he or she had chosen. Their pronunciation of segmental sounds, however, did not improve significantly.

Though the pedagogical goals of the activity were achieved, it remains to be determined if the intonation patterns transfer from the performance to everyday speech, and whether repeated applications of the method have a long-term benefit for the students. We believe that it will. Be that as it may, it was clear from the students’ performances and their reactions that they now had a better understanding of the various types of intonation and their importance in any given speech act or event. Moreover, by immersing themselves in annotating their transcripts in terms of lexical and phrasal stress and marking the thought groups and intonational contours, they had developed a more aggressive and proactive listening strategy. The students had learned what to listen for when talking to a native speaker. They had also realized how important mimicking and rehearsing are in their acquisition of English.

Finally, one of the highlights of this method was the confidence the students developed throughout the project. The realization that with proper instruction and guidance they can in fact sound like native speakers was both an encouragement and a challenge for the students. Without a doubt, this will carry them through for a long time as they strive to be more proficient in English.

References

Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Goodwin, J. (1996). Teaching pronunciation: A reference for teachers of English to speakers of other languages. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

McNerney, M., & Mendelsohn, D. (1992). Suprasegmentals in the pronunciation class: Setting priorities. In P. Avery and S. Ehrlich (Eds.), Teaching American English pronunciation. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Monk, M., Lindgren, J., & Meyers, C. (2004, April). Documenting prosodic acquisition with the mirroring technique. Paper presented at TESOL Conference, Long Beach, CA.

Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1999). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning, 49(1), 285–310.

Wennerstrom, A. (2000). The role of intonation in second language fluency. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Joemer Ta-ala teaches linguistics (second language acquisition) and English for academic purposes in the Department of Linguistics and the Academic Spoken English program at the University of Florida. Carolyn Swait teaches English for academic purposes and trains international teaching assistants in the Academic Spoken English program at the University of Florida.


Teaching International Students About Plagiarism

By Patricia Brennecke, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, e-mail: pbrennec@mit.edu

Rules regarding plagiarism differ from culture to culture. Students who come from secondary schools and universities around the world often have no idea what constitutes plagiarism in the United States, nor are they aware of how seriously it is treated. As a result, when they write papers requiring research, they may take phrases, sentences, even whole paragraphs directly from sources and incorporate them into their papers without citation. Often, they have no sense that this is wrong. They have never been taught not to do it; they have never been taught how not to do it. Furthermore, many come from academic cultures that are exam-based; they have had little experience doing research from sources or producing original writing. If they have written papers, they may have copied from a source or from each other. One European student told me that although plagiarism is not officially sanctioned, “Everybody does it and nobody cares.”

In China and other Asian countries, cultural factors contribute to the difficulty students have in grasping the concept of plagiarism (Xueqin, 2002). Chinese students and colleagues have told me that in their culture, to use the words of another demonstrates respect for that person and displays a certain level of education; knowledge is to be shared, and the idea of owning words is alien. Allan Drebin, coauthor of a book on accounting that was plagiarized by a Korean education official in 1982 and himself a visiting professor in Thailand, was quoted as saying that “This is what often happens in places where the culture emphasizes learning by rote above all else. If something’s there, you just copy it, right?” (Cohen, 2000).

At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where I have taught Expository Writing for Bilingual Students since 1996, undergraduates are worked extremely hard and writing classes often take a back seat to courses in the sciences. I encountered plagiarism early: one student, who hadn’t slept in several days, had copied from the Web; another, who was undergoing a personal crisis, had copied sections of a review from Amazon.com. After this happened, I began to devote more time to discussing plagiarism in class. Nevertheless, I continued to encounter it: one student, for example, copied extensively from an article on the Web but cited his source. He told me, “I thought that if I told you where I got it, that would be OK.” I decided then that I needed to teach how to paraphrase and summarize.

I approach the task by starting at the sentence level, writing the following on the board: “Research shows that young frogs prefer to eat green flies over black flies if both are present in the environment.” I ask the students to imagine that they want to include this information in their paper, but that they cannot quote because the language is not particularly beautiful, nor is the sentence attributed to a known expert. How, then, I ask them, can they change the sentence so that the information is retained but the words are their own? Together we elicit the strategies: finding synonyms, changing sentence type, changing parts of speech, turning clauses into phrases, and changing voice. By applying these strategies one by one, eventually we arrive at something like “It has been found that immature frogs will choose to consume green flies rather than black flies when both are available.” (At this point some bright MIT freshman will often point out that immature frogs are, in fact, tadpoles, and that tadpoles don’t eat flies. But the point has been made.)

From here we practice more skills in sentence paraphrasing and summarizing. Along the way, we work on integrating quotations, citing sources properly (I teach MLA style), and preparing a Works Cited section. The students then write a seven- to nine-page paper in which they take a position on an issue and defend it; they submit all their sources with the paper. I check these as needed, and if I find plagiarism (and I rarely do, now) it’s usually inadvertent and we work on improving the summary or paraphrase.

Concomitantly, students learn how to navigate databases such as Lexis-Nexis and ProQuest. I schedule a library orientation with one of the reference librarians and we spend one class session (one and a half hours) on how to access the databases and search for pertinent material. I think all teachers who require students to do research from sources should do this. Just as we cannot assume students will avoid plagiarism unless they are instructed how to paraphrase, we cannot assume they will know how to do library research unless they’ve used a library. When I worked at the Pedagogical Faculty of Charles University in Prague, the library was usually locked, and on the rare days when it was open, only faculty members were allowed to check out books.

At MIT, the library and its plethora of databases are literally at the students’ fingertips. They no longer have to trudge to the library and take notes on file cards, as I once did. They can obtain the full text of articles with just one click of the mouse. Computer technology is wonderful, but it has made plagiarizing easier than ever. It is therefore even more important to teach international students the skills they will need to avoid committing it.

References

Cohen, D. (2000, Sept. 29). South Korean official accused of plagiarism. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A55. Retrieved February 29, 2005, from Lexis Nexis Academic Universe.

Xueqin, J. (2002, May 17). Chinese academics consider a “culture of copying.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A45. Retrieved February 29, 2005, from Lexis Nexis Academic Universe.

Patricia Brennecke is a lecturer in English language studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She is currently working with a member of the MIT Committee on Discipline to prepare a handbook for students on academic honesty.



Convention News TESOL Applied Linguistics IS Academic Session

Current Research Perspectives and Grammar Teaching
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
8:30-11:15 a.m.
Convention Center, Room 207

Four leading researchers on grammar in use and language learning will discuss recent research findings and theoretical issues from different perspectives. Doug Biber (Regents Professor of Applied Linguistics, Northern Arizona University) will look at applications of corpus linguistics to grammar teaching; Marianne Celce-Murcia (professor emeritus of applied linguistics & TESL, UCLA) will focus on the importance of qualitative analysis in research on grammar in context and on teaching applications that emerge from this type of analysis; Diane Larsen-Freeman (professor of linguistics, professor of education, and director of the English Language Institute at the University of Michigan) will discuss the implications of chaos/complexity theory for grammar practice activities; and Norbert Schmitt (reader in applied linguistics, University of Nottingham) will relate research on lexical patterning to the acquisition of grammatical forms.


ALIS InterSections ALIS Intersections

Corpus Research and Teaching Academic Writing
sponsored by the ESL in Higher Education and Applied Linguistics Interest Sections

Friday, April 1, 2005
9:30-11:15 a.m.
Convention Center, Room 217 C

Abstract
Panelists including researchers and classroom language educators will provide an overview of corpus research, highlight findings relevant to academic writing, and present practical applications for teaching English for academic purposes. Issues include grammatical features common to particular genres and formulaic phrases used to construct academic texts.

Presenters
Doug Biber, Northern Arizona University; Eli Hinkel, Seattle University; Patricia Byrd, Georgia State University; Jan Frodesen, University of California, Santa Barbara; Margi Wald, University of California, Berkeley

Embodied Second Language Learning: Gesture and Prosody
sponsored by the Applied Linguistics and Speech, Pronunciation, and Listening Interest Sections

Thursday, March 31, 2005
9:30-11:15 a.m.
Marriott River Center, Salon C

Abstract
The panelists will introduce research on the interconnection of gesture and prosody in speech and then present practical examples of the use of gesture in the classroom as tools for learning prosodic features of English. In both research and educational practice, gesture is considered an embodied modality for L2 learning.

Panelists
Steven McCafferty, University of Nevada, Las Vegas; Gale Stam, National-Louis University; Janet Goodwin, University of California, Los Angeles; Marc Helgesen, Miyagi Gakuin Women's College



Community News and Information Call for Submissions

The Applied Linguistics Forum welcomes your submissions of articles, opinion pieces, announcements, reports on conference presentations, and book reviews in any area of Applied Linguistics research that is of interest to our diverse IS membership. We also welcome your suggestions and ideas. Submissions may be edited for length and style. For more information, please contact Stefan Frazier (sfrazier@ucla.edu).

 


About the Applied Linguistics Interest Section Applied Linguistics Interest Section

TESOL's Applied Linguistics Interest Section (ALIS) looks at language as a communicative system from both theoretical and practical perspectives, applies research and theory to real world contexts, and explores implications for the enhancement of language learning and communication. It draws on linguistic disciplines (e.g., linguistics, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics), as well as on studies of a broad range of language phenomena.

ALIS Community Leaders, 2004-2005

Chair: David A. Olsher, e-mail olsher@sfsu.edu
Chair-Elect: Noel R. Houck, e-mail nrhouck@csupomona.edu
Editor: Stefan J.S. Frazier, e-mail sfrazier@ucla.edu
Coeditor: Isaiah W. Yoo, e-mail iyoo@mit.edu

Discussion E-List: Visit http://www.tesol.org/getconnected to subscribe to ALIS-L, the discussion list for ALIS members, or visit http://lists.tesol.org/read/?forum=alis-l if already a subscriber.

Web Site: http://www.tesol.org/alis