Second Language Speaking

McCarthy, M.J. and A. O’Keeffe, (2006) ‘Second Language Speaking’ K. Brown (Ed) Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics 2nd Edition. Oxford: Elsevier, 95-101. SECOND LANGUAGE SPEAKING Michael McCarthy University of Nottingham. Nottingham NG7 2RD, United Kingdom Anne O'Keeffe Mary Immaculate College, University of Limerick, South Circular Road Ireland Abstract Approaches to spoken language description have contributed to the understanding of second language speaking. Three theoretical frameworks have also provided insight. Language Identity looks at the impact an additional language on an individual’s identity. Language Socialization sees language as the symbolic means by which humans appropriate norms of verbal and nonverbal behaviour. Sociocultural Theory draws on Vygotsky’s view of language acquisition as a sociocultural process linking the social/interactional with the cognitive. Speech acts research has also been important, but has generally used elicited data. Spoken corpora provide real data but raises issues concerning native and non-native speaker status as models. McCarthy, M.J. and A. O’Keeffe, (2006) ‘Second Language Speaking’ K. Brown (Ed) 1 Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics 2nd Edition. Oxford: Elsevier, 95-101. SECOND LANGUAGE SPEAKING INTRODUCTION The productive skill of speaking in a second language has only received attention in relatively recent times. Bygate (2001) notes three reasons for this. Firstly, many of the dominant approaches to language teaching (notably the grammartranslation approach) do not give any priority to the promotion of oral communication. Secondly, only since the mid-1970s has there been widespread availability of good recording media to facilitate the in-depth study of recorded natural speech and to allow for the use of spoken material in classrooms. Thirdly, many of the approaches to language teaching, other than grammar translation, did use oral communication in the target language as a central medium for teaching (for example the direct method, the audiolingual approach), however, ironically, speaking as a skill largely focused only on pronunciation. In the case of audiolingualism, the importance of speaking was highlighted in its inputbefore-output sequence: listening-speaking-reading-writing. This behaviourist view of language perceived speaking as a series of habits (in reality, structures) which could be broken down and learnt by ‘no more than engineering the repeated oral production of structures in the target language’ (Bygate 2001: 15). Since the 1970s other influences have changed the way we view second language speaking, most notably cognitive and socio-linguistic theories, and the rise to prominence of spoken corpora. McCarthy, M.J. and A. O’Keeffe, (2006) ‘Second Language Speaking’ K. Brown (Ed) 2 Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics 2nd Edition. Oxford: Elsevier, 95-101. MODELS AND DESCRIPTIONS OF SECOND LANGUAGE SPEAKING Theoretical Models for understanding second language speaking Concerted study of second language acquisition (SLA) has been underway since the late 1960s. A number of early SLA studies looked at the interactional aspects of speaking which were relevant to language learning. Simultaneously, and often independently, models of spoken language description have been evolving such as ethnography of speaking (ES) conversation analysis (CA), interactional sociolinguistics (IS), discourse analysis (DA) and critical discourse analysis (CDA). Boxer (2004) notes that while some more recent research in SLA has begun to glean insights from the various approaches to the analysis of spoken discourse, there is much more that could be studied so as to illuminate theoretical and practical aspects of SLA. As she notes by studying how language users employ their language in a variety of contexts, with various types of interlocutors and on a variety of topics, students, teachers and scholars can create curricula, materials and assessment instruments based on something more substantial than the intuition of mother tongue users. Boxer (2004: 8) identifies three theoretical models that offer ‘fairly compatible insights’ into the processes involved in the development of spoken language ability in both first and second/additional languages. These are: 1) Language Identity, 2) Language Socialization and 3) Socio-cultural Theory. The Language Identity model focuses on the impact of taking on an additional language in terms of an individual’s identity (see Pavlenko and Lantolf 2000). For those learning a language the primary resource, as Boxer (2004: 9) notes, is McCarthy, M.J. and A. O’Keeffe, (2006) ‘Second Language Speaking’ K. Brown (Ed) 3 Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics 2nd Edition. Oxford: Elsevier, 95-101. ‘social and interactional, involving face-to-face spoken discourse’. Pavlenko and Lantolf (2000) looked at the process that immigrants go through when they are faced with learning a new language. They either choose to appropriate or reject linguistic and cultural aspects of the new language and its culture that can potentially change one’s sense of self. Within the same paradigm, but focusing on the cumulative effect of interaction, relational identities are said to build up over time and successful interactions for language learners lead to further interaction, and in turn promote more opportunities for language development (see Boxer and Cortes-Conde 2000). Language Socialization offers a framework for the study of second language speaking in which language is viewed as the symbolic means by which humans appropriate knowledge of norms and rules of verbal and non-verbal behaviour in particular speech communities. Becoming a competent member of any speech community means taking on appropriate behaviours of the community. Most of the research in this area focuses on the first and second language development of children in particular speech communities and the role of parents and teachers who make explicit what ought to be said it done (see Boxer 2004). SLA studies which draw on a Language Socialization model mostly focus on socialization practices in the classroom from the perspective of a community of practice rather than in a speech community. Socialisation practices of such communities are reflected in the classroom discourse and interaction of second language classes in which talented teachers take on the role of socialising agent much in the same way as adults take on this role with children in first language development. McCarthy, M.J. and A. O’Keeffe, (2006) ‘Second Language Speaking’ K. Brown (Ed) 4 Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics 2nd Edition. Oxford: Elsevier, 95-101. The third and most influential model which Boxer (2004) identifies as appropriate for the study of the processes involved in the development of second language speaking is Sociocultural Theory (SCT). This movement, springing mainly from the work of Lantolf and his associates, draws on the theories of Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky (see Vygotsky 1978 posthumously published). Vygotsky’s philosophy supports the view that the acquisition of language (first and additional) is a sociocultural process linking the social/interactional with the cognitive. Boxer (2004) notes that contrary to Language Identity and Language Socialization models, SCT specifically connects the role of language as a mediating tool between social interaction and the development of higher order mental processes. This theory proposes that mental functioning such as memory, attention, perception, planning, learning and development come under the voluntary control of individuals as they internalise culturally constructed artifacts, which include all culturally organised forms of communication (Lantolf 2000). Social relationships are transformed into psychological processes by individuals as a means of mediating their own mental activity. Examination of Vygotsky’s work (e.g. Lantolf 2000) generated debate among applied linguists on how such a perspective might feed into the teaching and learning of second language speaking. Two central notions of the Vygotskian paradigm are relevant here: the notion of scaffolding and that of the zone of proximal development (ZPD). Scaffolding is the cognitive support provided by an adult or other guiding person to a child or learner. Scaffolding occurs in dialogue, so that the child/learner can make sense of challenging tasks. The ZPD McCarthy, M.J. and A. O’Keeffe, (2006) ‘Second Language Speaking’ K. Brown (Ed) 5 Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics 2nd Edition. Oxford: Elsevier, 95-101. is the distance between where the child/learner is developmentally and what s/he can potentially achieve in interaction with adults or more capable peers (Vygotsky 1978: 86). The concept of scaffolding refers to a situation where the interlocutor possessing the expertise guides the novice through a series of interactions in which the expert gradually cedes control as the novice takes on increasing responsibility and becomes more adept (Hall 1997). This happens through the various configurations of social interaction, and as the processes goes on that which began as an inter-mental, socially mediated activity becomes an intra-mental, cognitive development process. In contrast to most traditional SLA perspectives, SCT views the learner not as a deficient version of the idealised monolingual expert, but as an active and creative participant in a ‘sociocognitively complex task’ (Hall 1997: 303). Instructors (or peers) and their pupils co-create the arena for development; it is not pre-ordained and has no lock-steps or limits. Meaning is created through dialogue (including dialogue with the self, as may be evidenced in ‘private speech’) while the participants are engaged in activity. Ohta (2001) conducted a longitudinal case study of the private speech of seven adults learning Japanese in their foreign language classroom at the University of Washington in 1996 and 1997. She used the private speech of the learners to access what was actually going on in the mind of a learner while learning a second language. She defines private speech as ‘oral language uttered not for communicative interaction with another, but for dialogue with the self’ (Ohta 2001: 14), that is, an intermediary between social and inner speech. Ohta claims that private speech has particular potential as a data source because it provides a window into the mind as it works on the cognitive, intimately social interactive problems presented by learning language, McCarthy, M.J. and A. O’Keeffe, (2006) ‘Second Language Speaking’ K. Brown (Ed) 6 Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics 2nd Edition. Oxford: Elsevier, 95-101. arguing that the paramount understanding is that private speech is not only a frequent feature of L2 classroom activity, but evidences SLA in process. She compares private speech to a moving picture of language acquisition in process. In terms of the effectiveness of the Vygotskian approach in promoting second language speaking, Machado (2000) showed how peer-to-peer mutual help during the preparation stages of speaking tasks in the classroom (for example, negotiating interpretations of the tasks and the wording of meanings) can be directly reflected in the performance phases of the same tasks, suggesting that internalisation of scaffolding has taken place. This supports the view that peer-topeer scaffolding may be just as important as expert-novice scaffolding in the improvement of spoken performance. Ko, Schallert and Walters (2003) also take this line, and seek to explicate what constitutes good, effective negotiation-ofmeaning interactions in classroom tasks (see also Kasper, 2001). The contributions to such tasks made by the teacher may be enhanced by contributions from peers during the negotiation phase between separate performances of the same task, again suggesting the central role played by scaffolding in promoting and improving second language speaking. As a caveat to the general optimism towards Vygotskian approaches to second language speaking, Kinginger (2002) warns against the uncritical importing of concepts such as scaffolding and the ZPD in ways that do no more than justify unreformed current practices (e.g. the input-output hypotheses, all and any types of pair- and group-work tasks, teacher feedback moves, etc.), rather than genuinely reexamining the part played by social interaction in language development. In this respect, the work of Swain and her associates (for example Swain & Lapki, McCarthy, M.J. and A. O’Keeffe, (2006) ‘Second Language Speaking’ K. Brown (Ed) 7 Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics 2nd Edition. Oxford: Elsevier, 95-101. 2000) presents the ZPD as an open-ended arena for unplanned development and unpredictable events, and not as a fixed discourse based on input and output or the tightly circumscribed sequences of teacher-learner exchanges. Hughes (2002) also repeatedly stresses the need for proper social and cultural contextualisation of second language speaking activities, and there certainly seems to be a growing awareness that second language speaking in pedagogical settings should not take place in a vacuum, sealed off from the social and cultural life of the learner. Recent research has investigated the design and implementation of speaking tasks within cognitive frameworks, focusing principally on fluency, complexity and accuracy of production (Bygate 2001 provides an overview of the evolution of such research). Robinson (2001) has argued that stepping up the cognitive complexity of speaking tasks affects production, with a greater lexical repertoire on show in more complex versions and greater fluency evidenced in simpler versions of the task. Yuan and Ellis (2003) looked at the positive impact of pretask planning on learners’ spoken production, especially with regard to fluency and complexity, even though it was not obvious that accuracy benefited. Yuan and Ellis also examined situations where learners were given unlimited time to formulate and monitor their speech while performing; such planning seemed to positively influence accuracy and grammatical complexity. Research has also looked at repetition and recycling in speaking tasks and their contribution to the integration over time of fluency, complexity and accuracy of spoken production (Bygate 2001). Additionally, the role of the teacher in relation to task design and implementation and the teacher’s ability to provide scaffolding to underpin the development of competence in speaking has become a focus. McCarthy, M.J. and A. O’Keeffe, (2006) ‘Second Language Speaking’ K. Brown (Ed) 8 Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics 2nd Edition. Oxford: Elsevier, 95-101. Analytical approaches for understanding second language speaking Describing spoken language was a very difficult task before the widespread availability of audio recording equipment. Not surprisingly therefore, the last 40 years have seen a proliferation of studies and emergent methodologies in this area. Most relevant to the study of foreign language speaking have been conversation analysis (CA), Discourse Analysis (DA) and Interactional Sociolinguistics (IS). Though these analytical approaches differ, they all focus on empirical data and are concerned with turn-by-turn analysis of spoken interactions across many contexts of use. They have largely been used to describe first language interactions but many illuminating studies of foreign language speaking have also been carried out. Conversation Analysis (CA) studies the social organisation of conversation, or talk-in-interaction, by a detailed ‘bottom-up’ inspection of audio (and sometimes video) recordings and transcriptions. Core to its inductive analysis of the structure of conversations are the following areas: 1) the rules and systematicity governing turn-taking; 2) how speaker turns can be related to each other in sequence and might be said to go together as adjacency pairs (for example complaint + denial A: You left the light on B: It wasn’t me); 3) how turns are organised sequentially in context at any given point in an interaction and the systematicity of these sequences of utterances; 4) how seemingly minor changes in placement within utterances and across turns are organised and meaningful (for example, the difference between the placement of a vocative at the beginning, mid or end point of an utterance). The influence of CA as a tool for McCarthy, M.J. and A. O’Keeffe, (2006) ‘Second Language Speaking’ K. Brown (Ed) 9 Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics 2nd Edition. Oxford: Elsevier, 95-101. understanding and fostering speaking in second language learning contexts has grown in recent years. Ducharme and Bernard (2001) studied spoken interactions among learners of French, by means of micro-analyses of videotaped conversations and post-task interviews aimed at incorporating the perspectives of the participants. CA was also used by Mori (2002), who analysed a speaking task performed by non-native speaking learners (NNS) of Japanese, where learners interacted with Japanese native speakers (NS) who had been invited to the class. The intention was to encourage freer, natural conversation, but the NS-NNS interaction in Mori’s case revealed the characteristics of an interview, with questions from the students and responses from the NS guests, an undesired outcome. More natural discursive exchanges happened when the learners made spontaneous contributions or when they paid more marked attention to the moment-by-moment progression of the talk. Key to the interpretation of such phenomena is an understanding of the participants’ orientation towards the institutionalized nature of the task they had been set, and CA, it is argued, facilitates such understandings. The CA-based view is that aspects of activity design and implementation influence the outcomes of speaking tasks in ways that CA can elucidate, and that CA can point to directions for the improvement of the design and implementation of speaking tasks. On the other hand, there has been criticism of the lack of a ‘learning’ dimension in CA studies of second language speaking, in that CA is a very locally-oriented analysis which is not good at producing actual evidence of change and development in speaking ability over longer spans of time. McCarthy, M.J. and A. O’Keeffe, (2006) ‘Second Language Speaking’ K. Brown (Ed) 10 Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics 2nd Edition. Oxford: Elsevier, 95-101. CA analysts also examine openings and closings in conversations and how speakers manage the topics they talk about or want to talk about. Topics generally shade smoothly into one another, without unnatural jumps, and in conversations between equals, the right to launch a topic belongs to any speaker, but the other participants have to accept the topics and contribute to them before they can truly be said to be conversational topics. In short, topics are typically negotiated in everyday talk among equals. Again, questions relating to second language speaking pedagogy include the possibility of assembling a lexicon of topic-management expressions such as Oh, by the way, Going back to … and As I was saying (Dőrnyei and Thurrell 1994). Another related issue is the exercising of topical control (typically by the teacher) and the potential therein for losing opportunities for the introduction of topics of which learners have genuine knowledge. The question of motivation if topics are imposed on learners or whether it is preferable to allow learners to introduce and manage their own topics is also one of interest. Other issues include whether raising awareness of topic-boundary phenomena (such as metastatements or discourse markers) can help second language learners to listen more selectively to discourses such as university lectures and the way learners actually intervene in topical negotiation, including even in relatively ‘traditional’ language classrooms. The discourse analysis (DA) approach has also been influential in research into second language speaking. In this approach the smallest unit of interaction is seen as the exchange, which involves at least two turns: an initiation (I) and a response (R), for example How are you? (I) Fine (R). The most common pattern of spoken exchanges in the traditional teacher-fronted classroom is that of McCarthy, M.J. and A. O’Keeffe, (2006) ‘Second Language Speaking’ K. Brown (Ed) 11 Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics 2nd Edition. Oxford: Elsevier, 95-101. initiation (I), response (R) and follow-up (F), often called IRF exchanges. That is to say, the teacher initiates, the student respond and the teacher then follows up, for example What colour was the cat? (I) Black. (R) Very good (F). The original study in this area was carried out on L1 classroom data by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) and it is often argued that the IRF pattern does not reflect the complex demands of everyday conversations outside of the classroom, especially since teachers most typically exercise the follow-up role, while learners languish in passive, respondent roles. However, Kasper (2001) takes to task the commonly held view that IRF routines are a restrictive interactional format. Kasper argues that the negative reputation of the IRF exchange may not be entirely justified and that it is the kind of interactional status assigned by the teacher to individual learners which matters in how speaking occurs in the classroom. When learners are treated as primary interactants in speaking activities, teachers extend them more participation rights in the conversation. Kasper suggests that teachers can help learners to become actively involved in spoken interaction, even within the framework of the classic IRF patterning of teacher-fronted classroom talk. McCarthy (2002), also starting from a DA base, suggests that R and F moves play a central role in the manifestation of ‘listenership’, that is to say, verbal engagement in the discourse when one is not in the role of main speaker, a situation NNS typically find themselves in, especially at earlier stages of proficiency. Listenership is distinct from ‘listening’ in the conventional fourskills paradigm of listening-speaking-reading-writing, where listening is seen as receptive and is tested through comprehension tests. Listenership is instead a component of the speaking skill, since it demands appropriate verbal response as McCarthy, M.J. and A. O’Keeffe, (2006) ‘Second Language Speaking’ K. Brown (Ed) 12 Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics 2nd Edition. Oxford: Elsevier, 95-101. the main index of comprehension and engagement. The difficulty lies in the fact that many R moves and the vast majority of classroom F moves are produced by the teacher, resulting in impoverished opportunities for learners to engage in typical listener follow-ups as they occur in non-institutional, everyday conversations. Learners most typically only experience the teacher’s R and F moves as peripheral participants (Ohta 2001). Ohta advocates peer-to-peer interaction as offering more enriched opportunities for learners to engage in appropriate listener behaviour. The happiest compromise seems to be exposure to the teacher’s use of R and F moves accompanied by explicit guidance and instruction on the use of respondent moves to encourage learners to develop over time towards production of such moves in peer-to-peer speaking activities. In a framework which combines DA and CA elements, Walsh (2002) stresses the importance of distinguishing different modes of teacher talk and illustrates how different modes may hold back or optimise opportunities for second language learners to contribute via the distinct types of exchanges associated with each mode. Seedhouse (1996) also argues that traditional classroom discourse has been unfairly criticised by those advocating more ‘communicative’ pedagogies. He argues that the goal of creating ‘natural’ conversation in the second language classroom is basically unattainable, and that it would be better to adopt an approach where classroom discourse is seen as an institutional variety of discourse, alongside other institutional varieties and alongside non-institutional varieties, in which the character of the interaction corresponds appropriately to institutional goals. Interactional Sociolinguistics (IS) also provides an analytical framework for a McCarthy, M.J. and A. O’Keeffe, (2006) ‘Second Language Speaking’ K. Brown (Ed) 13 Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics 2nd Edition. Oxford: Elsevier, 95-101. number of studies of second language speaking. IS stems particularly from the work of Gumpertz (see Gumpertz 1982). It is a micro-ethnographic approach to the study of communication in the context of bilingualism and cross-cultural contexts. IS draws on CA and ethnographic approaches to look at audio or videotaped interactions from both the perspective of the researcher and the participants. Research in this area is particularly focused on gaining insights into cross-cultural miscommunication and misperceptions when two cultures are involved in a spoken interaction. By scrutinising the recorded interaction, participants can reflect on what they said, what they meant and what they achieved. Boxer (2004) notes that IS offers rich contextualised analysis of talk in interaction that has important potential implications for of the study of second language speaking in SLA contexts. Halmari (2004) for example conducted a 12-year study of the codeswitching patterns of two young Finnish Americans living in the United States. Her study illustrates 1) that codeswitching patterns may be seen as a reflection of developing discourse competences and 2) how the two languages are deftly altered in naturally-occurring discourse among bilingual family members as a means of conveying a vast array of subtle pragmatic messages. Speech acts in second language speaking The study of speech acts is a related area to CA, DA and IS, but studies in this field differ fundamentally in the data they use. Most studies into speech act realisation in second language speaking have derived from elicited rather than spontaneously recorded data. This is because it can be difficult to gain access to data with rarely-occurring or rarely-recorded speech acts, or speech acts that do McCarthy, M.J. and A. O’Keeffe, (2006) ‘Second Language Speaking’ K. Brown (Ed) 14 Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics 2nd Edition. Oxford: Elsevier, 95-101. not readily occur in two languages which the researcher wishes to compare. One of the most common strategies is to use Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) which involves specially designed questionnaires that elicit responses. For example they can provide a situation and leave a blank for the speech act to be supplied, or provide a first turn followed by a blank. Multiple turns have also been employed so as to make DCTs more interactive. DCTs can alter contextual features such as age, gender, and speaker status so as to access varied responses from informants. Much discussion has taken place as to the adequacy of DCTs as a research instrument. They are criticised for making a priori decisions about sociolinguistic variables that are deemed to be important in a given situation (Boxer 2004). Beebe and Waring (2004) designed a DCT-based study on rudeness which comprised six situations where someone was rude and the subject was asked to respond. The situations were selected from 750 naturallyoccurring examples of spontaneous rudeness. It involved 40 NNS participants from seven countries all enrolled on an Intensive English Language Program in a north American University. They were asked both what they would say and what they would feel like saying, so that the informants could respond 1) in a way that reflects social constraints and 2) in a way that reflects no social constraints which would hold them back. They found that the low-proficiency speakers tended to rely on sarcasm and intensifiers by repeatedly using a limited number of adverbs. The high proficiency speakers, on the other hand, used a much wider range of adverbials to convey tone and managed to sound assertive without being hostile. Based on these and other findings Beebe and Waring speculate that there is a cline of difficulty in acquiring pragmatic tone in second language speaking - McCarthy, M.J. and A. O’Keeffe, (2006) ‘Second Language Speaking’ K. Brown (Ed) 15 Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics 2nd Edition. Oxford: Elsevier, 95-101. intense and sarcastic tones are easier to acquire than more subtle tones of assertiveness or aggression. AREAS OF GROWING INFLUENCE AND DEBATE IN THE AREA OF SECOND LANGUAGE SPEAKING Corpus linguistics The advent of the tape recorder changed not only how spoken language was taught but also how it was studied. Similarly, the availability of computers meant that large amounts of naturally-occurring recorded spoken language could be transcribed and then stored on computer for analysis. Such principled collections of texts (spoken and written) are referred to as corpora. As a result, our knowledge of spoken language has changed significantly. Large corpora of spoken language are now collected and described. . In the area of English as a Foreign Language, spoken corpora which have been or are being exploited for the teaching of speaking include the spoken components of the British National Corpus (BNC – 100 million words in total, of which 10 million is spoken conversation) and of the Bank of English, the British/Irish CANCODE spoken corpus the Michigan corpus of academic spoken English (MICASE), the Longman Spoken American Corpus and the American National Corpus. The teaching of speaking note the growing influence of spoken corpora on the pedagogy of speaking and point out that new understandings have prompted new debates about the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of the teaching of second language speaking. McCarthy, M.J. and A. O’Keeffe, (2006) ‘Second Language Speaking’ K. Brown (Ed) 16 Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics 2nd Edition. Oxford: Elsevier, 95-101. In the context of English as a globally used language, new issues for second language pedagogical modelling arise with the collection and description of different varieties from around the world. In the case of English, the ICE (International Corpus of English) project makes available spoken data for the Englishes of Hong Kong, New Zealand, Singapore, Great Britain, Nigeria, and the Caribbean, with others under development, while Ireland can count on both ICE and the Limerick Corpus of Irish English (LCIE), all of which are either aimed at or have direct implications for the improvement of second language speaking. Though English dominates the present discussion, it is apparent that similar problems exist in the establishment of pedagogical models for speaking of multi-national languages such as French and Spanish. North American universities often insist on the spoken model of metropolitan France rather than that of nearby French Canada, and publishers routinely sanction language teaching materials for use in Latin America in terms of their faithfulness to European (Castillian) Spanish norms. Corpora are also currently influencing the teaching of spoken French, with similar debates about the modelling of spoken language for pedagogy as those underway with regard to English (Lawson 2001). Research into language corpora has frequently shown that there is a discrepancy between the language we use and the language we teach (see for example Holmes 1988). A recent example is the finding by corpus analysts and other linguists that fixed ‘chunks’ of various kinds have a central role in everyday, fluent speech. Wray, investigating formulaic sequences (which include idioms, collocations and institutionalised sentence frames), stresses that such sequences circumvent the analytical processes associated with the interpretation of open McCarthy, M.J. and A. O’Keeffe, (2006) ‘Second Language Speaking’ K. Brown (Ed) 17 Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics 2nd Edition. Oxford: Elsevier, 95-101. syntactic frames in terms of both reception and production and she criticised attempts to encourage the analysis of formulaic sequences in second language pedagogy as ‘pursuing native-like linguistic usage by promoting entirely unnative-like processing behaviour’ (Wray 2000: 463). Wray’s work attempts to move away from a static, behaviourist account of formulaic language, emphasising its nature as dynamic, responding to the demands of language in use. The study of the role of fixed sequences in second language contexts has recently been investigated by Schmitt and his associates (Schmitt 2004), and emerging insights into the importance of the acquisition of chunks in second language speaking continue to flow from corpus-based studies of both first and second language speaking. NS versus NNS models for second language speaking Another debate which is ongoing centres on the comparability of native versus non-native speaking. Medgyes (1992) argued that a non-native cannot aspire to acquire a native speaker’s language competence and that native- and non-nativespeaking teachers reveal considerable differences in their teaching behaviour and that most of the discrepancies are language-related. However, he notes that natives and non-native teachers have an equal chance to become successful teachers, but the routes used by the two groups are not the same. A number of recent publications debate the issue of NS versus learner corpora and NNS corpora (Seidlhofer 2001; Prodromou 2003). Prodromou, whose work is based on a mixed NS/NNS spoken English corpus, raises issues concerning the undermining effect of NS spoken corpora for NNS faced with language varieties and cultures that they can never appropriate completely for themselves. Reacting McCarthy, M.J. and A. O’Keeffe, (2006) ‘Second Language Speaking’ K. Brown (Ed) 18 Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics 2nd Edition. Oxford: Elsevier, 95-101. to similar concerns, Seidlhofer proposed a spoken corpus of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) to profile ELF as robust and independent of English as a native language and to establish “something like an index of communicative redundancy” with pedagogical applications (Seidlhofer 2001: 147). The shift away from the NS as the sole model for second language speaking is further underlined by the introduction into the debate of terms aimed at levelling the playing field between NS and NNS as potential models. Building on earlier work such terms include “expert users” and “successful users of English” (SUEs), with a focus on the modeling of successful language users (whether NS or NNS) in non-pedagogical contexts. Meanwhile the The Louvain International Database of Spoken English Interlanguage (LINDSEI) set up in 1995 provides spoken data for the analysis of learner language. Second language speaking is a complex affair and many aspects of research and observation of first and second language behaviour have contributed to our understanding of the process. The future promises more data-based studies of second language speaking and more delicate descriptions of second language speaking on its own terms, rather than simply as an impoverished reflection of first language speaking. References Beebe, L. M. & Waring, H. Z. (2004). ‘The linguistic encoding of pragmatic tone: adverbials as words that work’ In: Boxer, D. & Cohen, A. D. (eds.), 228-254. McCarthy, M.J. and A. O’Keeffe, (2006) ‘Second Language Speaking’ K. Brown (Ed) 19 Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics 2nd Edition. Oxford: Elsevier, 95-101. Boxer, D. (2004). ‘Studying speaking to inform second language learning: a conceptual overview’ In: Boxer, D. & Cohen, A. D. (eds.), 3-24. Boxer, D. & Cohen, A. D. (eds.) (2004). Studying speaking to inform second language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Boxer, D. & Cortes-Conde, F. (2000). ‘Identity and ideology: culture and pragmatics in content-based ESL’ In Hall, J. K. & Verplaste L. (eds.) Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 203-219. Bygate, M. (2001). ‘Speaking’ In Carter R. & Nunan D. (eds.) The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 14-20. Dörnyei, Z. & Thurrell, S. (1994). ‘Teaching conversational skills intensively: course content and rationale’ ELT Journal, 48, 40-49. Ducharme, D. & Bernard, R. (2001). ‘Communication breakdowns: an exploration of contextualization in native and non-native speakers of French’ Journal of Pragmatics 33 (6), 825-847 Gumpertz, J. J. (1982). Language and social identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McCarthy, M.J. and A. O’Keeffe, (2006) ‘Second Language Speaking’ K. Brown (Ed) 20 Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics 2nd Edition. Oxford: Elsevier, 95-101. Hall, J. K. (1997). ‘In response to Firth and Wanger: a consideration of SLA as a theory of practice’ Modern Language Journal 81(3), 301-306. Halmari, H. (2004). ‘Codeswitching patterns and developing discourse competence in L2’ In: Boxer, D. & Cohen, A. D. (eds.), 115-146. Hughes, R. (2002). Teaching and researching speaking. London: Longman Kasper, G. ( 2001). ‘Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development’ Applied Linguistics 22 (4), 502-530. Kinginger, C. (1999). ‘Videoconferencing as Access to Spoken French’ Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 468-489. Kinginger, C. (2002). ‘Defining the zone of proximal development in US foreign language education’ Applied Linguistics, 23, 240-261. Ko, J, Schallert, D. L., & Walters, K. (2003). ‘Rethinking scaffolding: examining negotiation of meaning in an ESL storytelling task’ TESOL Quarterly, 37, 303-324. Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McCarthy, M.J. and A. O’Keeffe, (2006) ‘Second Language Speaking’ K. Brown (Ed) 21 Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics 2nd Edition. Oxford: Elsevier, 95-101. Machado, A. (2000). ‘A Vygotskian approach to evaluation in foreign language learning contexts’ ELT Journal, 54, 335-345. McCarthy, M. J. (2002). ‘Good listenership made plain: British and American non-minimal response tokens in everyday conversation’ In R. Reppen, Fitzmaurice S.& Biber D. (eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 49-71. Medgyes, P. (1992). ‘Native or nonnative: who's worth more?’ ELT Journal, 46(4), 340-349. Mori, J. (2002). ‘Task design, plan, and development of talk-in-Interaction: an analysis of a small group activity in a Japanese language classroom’ Applied Linguistics 23, 323-347. Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Pavlenko, A. & Lantolf, J. (2000). ‘Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction of selves’ In Lantolf, J. (ed.) Sociocultural theory and second language learning. New York: Oxford University Press. Prodromou, L. (2003). ‘In search of the successful user of English’. Modern English Teacher,12, 5-14. McCarthy, M.J. and A. O’Keeffe, (2006) ‘Second Language Speaking’ K. Brown (Ed) 22 Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics 2nd Edition. Oxford: Elsevier, 95-101. Robinson, P. (2001). ‘Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: exploring interactions in a componential framework’ Applied Linguistics, 22, 27-57. Schmitt, N. (ed.) (2004). Formulaic sequences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Press. Seedhouse, P. (1996). ‘Classroom interaction: possibilities and impossibilities’ ELT Journal 50 (1), 16-24 Seidlhofer, B. (2001). ‘Closing a conceptual gap: the case for a description of English as a Lingua Franca’ International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11, 133-158. Sinclair, J. McH. & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2000). ‘Task based second language learning: the uses of the first language’ Language Teaching Research, 4, 253-276. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: the development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walsh, S. (2002). ‘Construction or obstruction: teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom’ Language Teaching Research, 6, 3-23. McCarthy, M.J. and A. O’Keeffe, (2006) ‘Second Language Speaking’ K. Brown (Ed) 23 Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics 2nd Edition. Oxford: Elsevier, 95-101. Wray, A. (2000). ‘Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: principle and practice’ Applied Linguistics, 21, 463-489. Yuan, F. & Ellis, R. (2003). ‘The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production’ Applied Linguistics, 24, 1-27. McCarthy, M.J. and A. O’Keeffe, (2006) ‘Second Language Speaking’ K. Brown (Ed) 24 Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics 2nd Edition. Oxford: Elsevier, 95-101. Author biographies Michael McCarthy is Emeritus Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of Nottingham, UK, Adjunct Professor of Applied Linguistics at the Pennsylvania State University, USA, and Adjunct Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of Limerick, Ireland. He is author of Vocabulary (OUP, 1990), Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers (CUP, 1991) Language as Discourse (Longman, 1994, with Ronald Carter), Exploring Spoken English (CUP, 1997, with Ronald Carter), Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy (co-edited with Norbert Schmitt, CUP, 1997), Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics (CUP, 1998), Exploring Grammar in Context (with Ron Carter and Rebecca Hughes, CUP, 2000) and Issues in Applied Linguistics (CUP, 2001). He is co-author, with Felicity O’Dell, of English Vocabulary in Use, Elementary, Upper Intermediate and Advanced levels (CUP), English Idioms in Use and English Phrasal Verbs in Use (CUP) and author of more than 50 academic papers. He is Academic Consultant to the Cambridge International Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs and the Cambridge International Dictionary of Idioms and Phrases. From 1994 to 1998 he was co-editor of Applied Linguistics (OUP). He is co-director (with Ronald Carter) of the CANCODE spoken English corpus, and the CANBEC spoken business English corpus, both sponsored by Cambridge University Press. Anne O'Keeffe is Lecturer in Applied Linguistics at Mary Immaculate College (MIC), University of Limerick, Ireland. She is founder and co-ordinator of the Inter-Varietal Applied Corpus Studies (IVACS) research centre at MIC. Her McCarthy, M.J. and A. O’Keeffe, (2006) ‘Second Language Speaking’ K. Brown (Ed) 25 Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics 2nd Edition. Oxford: Elsevier, 95-101. research interests centre on spoken corpora, their description and pedagogical applications, and their application in the study of language in the media. She has also been involved in the building of the Limerick Corpus of Irish English (LCIE) with her colleagues at the University of Limerick. She has recently published a number of papers in edited volumes on corpus linguistics and (with Fiona Farr) in TESOL Quarterly. She has also co-guest edited a forthcoming special issue of Teanga (the Irish Yearbook of Applied Linguistics) on ‘Corpora, Varieties and the Language Classroom’. Forthcoming works include a monograph on media discourse and co-authored book on the pedagogic applications of corpus linguistics. McCarthy, M.J. and A. O’Keeffe, (2006) ‘Second Language Speaking’ K. Brown (Ed) 26 Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics 2nd Edition. Oxford: Elsevier, 95-101. Keywords Second language speaking; spoken language; ethnography of speaking; conversation analysis; interactional sociolinguistics; discourse analysis; language identity; language socialisation; sociocultural theory; Vygotsky; spoken corpora; non-native speaker; second language acquisition; zone of proximal development McCarthy, M.J. and A. O’Keeffe, (2006) ‘Second Language Speaking’ K. Brown (Ed) 27 Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics 2nd Edition. Oxford: Elsevier, 95-101. Suggestions for cross-references to other articles in the encyclopedia Discourse studies, second language Vocabulary, second language Inter-cultural communication Language teaching traditions, second language Non-native speaker teachers Second language acquisition Socialization, second language