Vol 21 1

VOLUMES MENU
CONTENTS
To print, select PDF page
ARTICLES nos. in parentheses
The Growth of Professionalism in TESOL:

Challenges and Prospects for the Future 9 (10-20)
James E. Alatis
ESL: The Regular Classroom Teacher’s Perspective 21 (22-40)
Joyce Penfield
Utilizing the Literatures in Teaching the Research Paper 41 (42-69)
John Swales
Expressing Temporal Frequency in Academic English 69 (70-87)
Graeme D. Kennedy
The Learning Style Preferences of ESL Students 87 (88-112)
Joy M. Reid
The English Language Amendment: (114-136)
A Case Study on Language and Politics 113
Elliot L. Judd
REVIEWS
Language and Content 137
Bernard A. Mohan
Reviewed by William Perry
Parallels: Narratives for Pair Work 143
Michael Rost and John Lance
Reviewed by Gail Kimzin
Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching 146
Diane Larsen-Freeman
Reviewed by Leo A.W. van Lier
BRIEF REPORTS AND SUMMARIES

Computer-Readable Corpora of Spelling Errors 153
Roger Mitton
THE FORUM
Comments on Martha C. Pennington and Jack C. Richards’s
“Pronunciation Revisited” 157
Whassa Mispernuciation?
Francis Cartier
The Authors Respond
Martha C. Pennington and Jack C. Richards
Artificial Unintelligence:
Computer Uses in Language Learning 159
John Higgins
Information for contributors 167

Editorial Policy
General Information for Authors
Publications Received 171
Publications Available From the TESOL Central Office 173
TESOL Membership Application 200
2 TESOL QUARTERLY
3
TESOL QUARTERLY
In This Issue
Volume 21 of the TESOL Quarterly begins with contributions on a

broad range of topics, including TESOL’S growth as a professional
organization; the perceptions of regular classroom teachers of the work of
the ESL specialist and of the challenges of teaching limited English
proficient (LEP) children in their own classrooms; a multidisciplinary
approach to teaching nonnative speakers of English to write research
papers; the expression of temporal frequency in academic English; the
learning style preferences of ESL students; and the English Language
Amendment. Together, the contributions to this issue portray the diversity
of issues and concerns encompassed by research and practice in English
language teaching.
The TESOL Quarterly’s third decade of publication begins—most
appropriately—with a contribution from James E. Alatis on TESOL’S
growth during its first 20 years and on the challenges and prospects
which it faces in the future. Like his guest editorial, “The Past as
Prologue, ” which helped mark the Quarterly’s 10th year of publication,
this invited contribution both marks a milestone in the Quarterly’s
history and serves as a tribute to Alatis’s unique and enduring service to
TESOL. In this article, Alatis describes major events and achievements
during TESOL’S first 20 years, concluding that “the promise of a new
professionalism which created TESOL has at last become a reality.”
He outlines three challenges—administrative, financial, and geopoliti-
cal—which TESOL and its membership face now and in the years
ahead.
Joyce Penfield reports the results of a survey of regular classroom
teachers’ perceptions of limited English proficient students and ESL
teachers. Responses to a questionnaire containing 15 questions, most of
which were open-ended, were collected from 162 New Jersey teachers
who had LEP students in their classes but who had had no training in
ESL. A content analysis of the responses “revealed five broad
categories of concern: programmatic setting and instruction, training
needs, LEP students and their parents, peer interaction, and the role of
the ESL teacher. ” In Penfield’s view, the teachers’ perceptions indicate
widespread misunderstanding of what ESL specialists can and should
do and reflect the difficulties which regular classroom teachers face in
integrating LEP students both socially and academically in their own
IN THIS ISSUE 5
classes. The article concludes with recommendations concerning ESL
training for reguIar classroom teachers and administrators, cooperation
and collaboration between ESL teachers and regular classroom
teachers, and the professional preparation of ESL specialists.
• John Swales argues for increased attention to the teaching of the
research paper—“the standard product of the knowledge-manufactur-
ing industry’’—to nonnative speakers of English. In this article, Swales
describes and illustrates an approach to teaching (on a group basis)
research English which is based on the literature of four areas: the
sociology of science, citation analysis, technical writing, and English
for academic purposes. He contends that the approach outlined in this
article usefully incorporates elements of both the process and product
approaches to the teaching of writing. Central to Swales’s proposal is
what these bodies of literature reveal about the research paper,
namely, that “the research article is a product that varies from one field
to another in terms of its conventionality and standardization.” For this
reason, an effective approach to teaching the research paper
“concentrates on making students aware of the constraints and
opportunities created by their being situated in a genre-specific
context.”
•Graeme Kennedy uses the communicative notion of temporal
frequency to demonstrate an empirical approach to the selection of
linguistic devices to be included in language teaching materials. A total
of 291 linguistic devices expressing temporal frequency were collected
from two written sources (a newsmagazine and a textbook), from
dictionary searches, and from 10 native-speaker informants. These
data were then compared with data obtained through computer
analysis of two large corpora of written academic English. Kennedy
found that computer-assisted analysis can be a valuable supplement—
particularly in indicating the relative frequency of use of expressions in
particular registers—to native-speaker intuitions about the ways in
which particular communicative notions are expressed.
.• Joy Reid reports the results of a study in which more than 1,200 ESL
students and more than 150 native English-speaking university students
were asked to identify their perceptual learning style preferences. A
self-reporting questionnaire, designed on the basis of previous work in
this area, was used to determine relationships between learning style
preferences and a number of other variables. Reid found that ESL
students’ learning style preferences often differ significantly from
those of native English-speaking students and that a number of
variables—sex, age, language background, English language profi-
ciency, level of education, field of study, length of time spent in the
United States, and length of time studying English in the U.S.—are all
related to one degree or another to differences in expressed learning
style preferences. The article concludes with a discussion of the
6 TESOL QUARTERLY
implications of these findings, including an analysis of problems
related to the application of data from this and similar research.
• Elliot Judd examines the historical background of and the arguments
surrounding the English Language Amendment, a constitutional
amendment proposed in the 99th Congress which states that English
should become the “official” language of the United States. Judd
summarizes the arguments of proponents of the amendment as well as
opponents’ challenges to the substance and wording of the amend-
ment. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of the
ELA amendment for ESOL professionals. The ELA issue, according to
Judd, should serve as a sober warning to researchers regarding the
ways in which studies on language policy issues are used by
policy makers. For those working in the United States, “the ELA would
definitely affect both how we teach and the general environment in
which we function.” And for all of us, whether we work in the United
States or elsewhere, the ELA is, in Judd’s view, “an interesting case
study on how language and politics interact,” one which “should make
all of us aware of how tenuous the relationship is between education
and ideology.”
Also in this issue:
• Reviews: William Perry reviews Bernard A. Mohan’s Language and
Content; Gail Kimzin reviews Michael Rost and John Lance’s
PAIRallels: Narrations for Group Work; and Leo van Lier reviews
Diane Larsen-Freeman’s Techniques and Principles in Language
Teaching.
• Brief Reports and Summaries: Roger Mitton describes data bases for
the study of spelling errors of native and nonnative users of English.
• The Forum: “Whassa Mispernunciation?” a commentary by Francis
Cartier on Martha C. Pennington and Jack C. Richards’s recent TESOL
Quarterly article, “Pronunciation Revisited,” is accompanied by a
response from the authors. In addition, John Higgins’s “Artificial
Unintelligence: Computer Uses in Language Learning” offers a
perspective on the use of computer technology in which “the computer
can provide us with . . . an experimental environment for language
learning.”
Stephen J. Gaies
IN THIS ISSUE 7
TESOL QUARTERLY, Vol. 21, No. 1, March 1987
The Growth of Professionalism

in TESOL: Challenges and
Prospects for the Future
JAMES E. ALATIS
Georgetown University
Stephen Gaies, TESOL Quarterly Editor, has invited me to start

off the 21st volume with a contribution “on the growth of TESOL
during its first 20 years and on the challenges and prospects which
we face in the years ahead.”
GROWTH
At its inaugural conference in New York in March 1966, a new
professional organization, Teachers of English to Speakers of Other
Languages, elected its first president and officers. In August of that
year, a central office with a part-time executive secretary was
established at Georgetown University in Washington, DC. The new
organization was incorporated as a nonprofit professional
association in the District of Columbia the following year. All this
came about as the result of a felt need on the part of members of
five professional organizations for an association that would deal
specifically with the problems of teaching English to speakers of
other languages. A steering committee was formed, and TESOL
was born. Those five parent organizations were the National
Association for Foreign Student Affairs (NAFSA), the National
Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), the Speech Association of
America, the Modern Language Association, and the Center for
Applied Linguistics. TESOL has continued during its 20-year
history to maintain professional relations and friendly cooperation
with its five founding mentors.
The growth of an organization is measurable in some aspects and
immeasurable in others. I could quote statistics to show the way the
organization has grown in members; I could point to an expanding
organizational structure; I could name increased services. Not
quantitatively measurable is growth in quality and degree of
9
professionalism; and, even less tangible, according to Gaies, is a
“sense of who we have become since 1967.”
Complete trust should not be invested in statistics, but let me list
a few for the record. TESOL has grown from 337 charter members
in 1966 to about 11,000 members at the end of 1986. The
geographical pattern of membership concentrations has changed
slightly: From 1976 to 1986 the proportion of members outside the
United States grew by 2% of the total. Likewise during the last 10
years, the heaviest concentration of members outside the U.S.
shifted from Canada to Japan, while inside the U. S., it has shifted
from New York State to California. The number of institutions
enrolling in TESOL membership has increased dramatically, from
3% or 4% of total membership in the first few years to about 17% of
membership in recent years. In this connection, 5 years ago TESOL
added one more category to its membership types—that of
paraprofessional, retired, unemployed, or volunteer, any one of
which qualifies for a dues rate one half of the ordinary individual
rate.
I could name other figures which show quantitative growth: from
900 to 4,900 participants in the annual convention, from 4 to 66
affiliates, from an operating budget of $24,000 to one of $1 million.
This growth in numbers has been accompanied by a growth in staff:
from one part-time executive secretary with part-time clerical
assistance to the same part-time executive director with a staff of
nine full-time and four part-time professionals. The growth of the
staff leads into the topic of growth in services to members, since it
was a demand for expanded services which necessitated expansion
of the staff.
From its beginning, TESOL offered to its members the TESOL
Newsletter, the TESOL Quarterly, and an annual convention. The
Newsletter, however, appeared sporadically in TESOL’S early
years. It was eventually standardized into six issues per year, took
on a more professional appearance, offered formalized columns or
departments (of which perhaps the most popular was It Works!),
acquired an editorial advisory board and a coterie of contributors,
and began to include a thematic supplement once each year. All this
has been accomplished by competent and willing volunteers under
the successive editorships of Alfred Aarons, Richard Light, Ruth
Wineberg, John Haskell, and Alice Osman.
While the TESOL Quarterly has appeared four times each year
since its first volume in 1966, its size has grown from an average 67
pages to an average 208 pages per issue. Over the years, the
Quarterly has reflected the best thinking and most recent research
and developments in the field, under the successive editorships of
10 TESOL QUARTERLY
Betty Robinett, Maurice Imhoof, Ruth Crymes, Jacquelyn
Schachter, Barry Taylor, and Stephen Gaies. It too has taken on a
“new look,” with smaller trim size, newly styled cover, new format
and type style inside, as well as the inclusion of new departments
such as In This Issue and Brief Reports and Summaries. It is high
praise to state with confidence that it is the most prestigious journal
in its field. This preeminence, too, has resulted from the work of
competent and willing volunteers: first of all, the editors; second,
their Editorial Advisory Board members; and third, the personal
assistants who have supported individual editors.
The third service which TESOL has offered its members since
the beginning was an annual convention. These have been held in
various large metropolitan areas around the United States, once in
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (San Juan), once in Canada
(Toronto), and once in Mexico (Mexico City). Sites have been
chosen because of their large populations, good facilities,
pervasiveness of nonnative English speakers, and more recently,
because TESOL has been invited by and assured of support from
the affiliate in a particular location. Thus, conventions have been
held in such widely separated areas as Anaheim, Boston, Chicago,
Denver, Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami Beach,
New Orleans, New York, San Antonio, San Francisco, and
Washington, DC. In the future, TESOL will consider returning
mainly to three or four cities which have very large populations and
the promise of large attendance, namely, New York, Los Angeles,
Chicago, and San Francisco.
While the convention program has always been planned by the
elected second vice president with the aid of the Program
Committee, the current trend is to have proposals evaluated by
interest section leaders, in order to see that all professional aspects
of the field are sufficiently covered. TESOL always counts largely
on local volunteers to orchestrate local arrangements; in past years,
local volunteers also handled preregistration. In recent years,
Central Office staff members have taken over the preregistration
process and the logistical distribution of proposals received for
presentations. This reflects the expansion of the Central Office
staff, since one of the new positions is that of convention
coordinator. Because of that position, more convention-related
functions are being handled in the Central Office, thus relieving
volunteers from what would be an onerous burden with the increase
in sheer size of conventions. It also provides an opportunity to build
on experience, with continuity provided by the staff. The
convention remains the highlight of the TESOL year, thanks to the
THE GROWTH OF PROFESSIONALISM IN TESOL 11

innovative dynamism and professional expertise of the successive
second vice presidents.
In its early years, TESOL began to provide one of the important
services of professional associations—the publication of bibliogra-
phies and directories. By 1972 it had published two bibliographies,
as well as the first edition of the TESOL Training Program
Directory (which Charles Blatchford compiled and edited, along
with subsequent editions through 1984) and the first TESOL
Membership Directory (which continued annually through 1981
and biannually thereafter).
Since these modest beginnings, TESOL has made substantial
progress in establishing a well-respected list of professional
publications. TESOL publications are of a high professional and
technical quality and of a variety of types. They include
professional preparation materials, selected papers from annual
conventions, position papers, and collections of articles on various
topics of interest such as testing, classroom practices, and bilingual
education. TESOL publications are distributed throughout the
world and are received by more than 1,800 libraries and institutions.
They are highly visible at the annual TESOL Convention, at
TESOL affiliate and regional conferences, and at conferences of
other education associations, such as NCTE, NAFSA, and the
Computer Assisted Language Learning and Instruction Consortium.
This growth in the volume and distribution of TESOL’S more than
40 titles resulted in the creation of a full-time position, that of
publications coordinator, in January 1985.
From 1974 through 1984, TESOL published a collection of
selected papers from each annual convention. It then changed its
publications policy, discontinued this yearly volume of heteroge-
neous papers, and began to publish a series of thematic volumes
containing papers from the conventions and other sources. Among
those thematic volumes already published are Technology and
Language Testing, Children and ESL: Integrating Perspectives, and
Current Perspectives on Pronunciation: Practices Anchored in
Theory. Other notable titles among the TESOL publications are the
seventh revised edition of the training program directory, entitled
Directory of Professional Preparation Programs in TESOL in the
United States: 1986-1988, and a collection of short papers which
form the nucleus of TESOL’S positions on such issues as
certification and preparation of ESOL teachers, core standards for
language programs, the role of ESL in bilingual education, and the
education of children with limited English. Evident in a glance at
TESOL’S publications is the more professional appearance which
recent volumes present.
12 TESOL QUARTERLY
Another service TESOL began to provide in its early years was to
allow local and regional organizations to affiliate. In 1969 the first
four—New Mexico, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and Texas—did so.
TESOL provides services to its affiliates in many professional ways,
including assistance with speakers for their conferences. It also
provides support for the regional conferences organized by
consortia of affiliates in given geographical areas. These began with
the first Midwest Regional TESOL Conference, held in Illinois in
1981, and have expanded to include regional conferences in the
Rocky Mountain area, the Pacific Northwest, Texas, the southeast-
ern United States, and the Caribbean area.
In 1974 the organizational structure of TESOL was changed to
allow for what were then called Special Interest Groups (SIGS).
There were seven of them, focusing respectively on teaching
English abroad, EFL for foreign students, ESL for U.S. residents in
general, ESL in bilingual education, ESL in adult education,
standard English for speakers of other dialects, and applied
linguistics. Three years later, the SIG focusing on ESL for U.S.
residents in general was terminated, and in its place three SIGS were
formed, for ESL at the elementary, secondary, and higher
education levels, respectively. Since that time, the SIGS have
expanded considerably—in functions, in numbers, and in
professionalism. The title was changed from Special Interest
Groups to Interest Sections; regulations were established for
permitting new sections to form and be maintained; and budgets
were set up for the use of the sections. Under the new regulations,
six new sections have been approved: Research, Refugee Concerns,
Teacher Education, Computer-Assisted Language Learning,
Program Administration, and Materials Writers. The majority of the
interest sections publish newsletters, which are printed and
distributed by the Central Office. Each interest section chooses its
own leaders, particularly the associate chair, chair, and newsletter
editor. The expansion of both the affiliates and the interest sections
called for another staff position, that of field services coordinator,
to provide improved services to these groups.
Long in planning and anticipation, the first Summer Institute
sponsored by TESOL was held at the University of California, Los
Angeles, in 1979. That seminal Institute has been followed by
another each year at the following sites: the University of New
Mexico; Teachers College, Columbia University; a consortium of
universities in the Chicago area (Northwestern University,
Northeastern Illinois University, and the University of Illinois at
Chicago); the University of Toronto with the Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education; Oregon State University; Georgetown

University; and the University of Hawaii. In summer 1987, TESOL,
together with the International Association of Teachers of English
as a Foreign Language, headquartered in England, will sponsor a
Summer Institute in Barcelona, Spain. This will be the second
Institute outside the United States and the first one outside North
America.
These Summer Institutes make it possible for people with a great
variety of backgrounds, training, and experience to congregate in
one place, far more than any single institution can do. They provide
a creative forum for the exchange of ideas and for exploring
professional issues.
Another service which TESOL started to offer its members when
it was still a very young organization was an information service on
employment in the field. This service has grown, and the number
who avail themselves of it by paying a small fee to receive the
bimonthly bulletin has doubled within the past 10 years. It was
exactly 10 years ago, at the TESOL Convention in Miami Beach,
that TESOL first began to offer some space for job interviews; at
that convention two booths in the exhibit area were set aside for this
purpose. TESOL has been open to the many suggestions for
improvement of this important service; consequently, the job
interview headquarters at the convention now occupies space the
size of a ballroom, and scheduling procedures have been refined.
In 1970, TESOL organized a Guidelines Conference in
Washington, DC, which eventually resulted in the adaptation of its
official Guidelines for the Certification and Preparation of Teachers
of English to Speakers of Other Languages in the United States.
This eight-page pamphlet has been distributed in thousands of
copies since its first publication, and it formed the foundation of the
professional assistance which TESOL has since given to its affiliates
in their efforts to push for state certification in the ESOL field.
TESOL’S Schools and Universities Coordinating Committee
cooperated in this effort of affiliates by issuing a document entitled
Nine Steps to Certification. In 1972, when Charles Blatchford
surveyed the state departments of education for their requirements
for ESL teachers, it was found that only two had specific ESOL
requirements, with another two considering proposals for them. In
1986, 26 states and the District of Columbia had either certification,
endorsement, or licensure for teachers of ESOL, thanks to the
efforts of TESOL affiliates aided and supported by the central
organization.
Yet another professional service in which TESOL takes pride is
the preparation of standards for language teaching programs and
professional preparation programs. TESOL’S Committee on
14 TESOL QUARTERLY
Professional Standards (a successor to the former Schools and
Universities Coordinating Committee) has worked long and
assiduously in drafting standards, holding hearings, receiving input
from every segment of the organization, and finally producing a
Statement of Core Standards for Language and Professional
Preparation Programs, which was accepted by the organization
through its Executive Board. These core standards have been
further refined into sets of standards for programs at various levels,
and a manual for self-study has been drafted. This set of materials
is being distributed through the Central Office, and more than a
dozen programs have already used the materials to conduct a self-
study. TESOL has decided that it would not establish itself as an
accrediting agency but would provide the standards, along with
directions for self-study, and encourage programs in ESOL at all
levels to evaluate themselves with the help of these materials.
Since its early years, TESOL has had a committee dealing with
sociopolitical concerns. Initially titled the Committee on the
Sociopolitical Concerns of Minority Groups, this committee
actively promoted the position that learners of English as a second
language in the United States should not have to sacrifice their
native languages and cultures. In time, the name of the group was
changed to Sociopolitical Concerns Committee, and its efforts have
been devoted to promoting the passage of legislation favorable to
the teaching and learning of languages. It established contacts with
affiliates and sent out a bulletin called the Hermes Courier, to alert
its readers about pending legislation which needed their action.
Today that committee cooperates closely with the Joint National
Committee for Languages (JNCL) and its lobbying branch, the
Council for Languages and Other International Studies (CLOIS).
TESOL has also demonstrated its professionalism through
another service: awards and scholarships. For many years TESOL
has been able to offer partial travel grants to graduate students to
attend TESOL Conventions. Since 1981, it has offered fellowships
to the TESOL Summer Institutes, and beginning in 1985, through
the munificence of publishers (Regents and Newbury House), it has
offered a generous scholarship for teacher preparation, as well as an
award for excellence in teaching and another for distinguished
research.
These statistics and expanded services are concrete evidence of
growth, providing answers to the questions, What? and How many?
On the other hand, it is an intriguing idea to try to give a sense of
who we have become. Certainly we have become larger; certainly
we have become more professional; certainly we do the things that
professional associations do for their members: publications,
TIIE GROWTH OF PROFESSIONALISM IN TESOL 15

conventions, employment information, services to local affiliates,
lobbying for legislation and certification, establishing professional
standards, making awards, and providing group insurance for
members.
TESOL has become an organization which commands recogni-
tion. In 1983 the U.S. Information Agency (USIA) had decided to
produce a set of materials for teaching English abroad. Recognizing
TESOL as the preeminent professional organization in the field, the
Agency contracted with TESOL to handle the background
preparation. This background consisted of (a) a team of experts
traveling to 10 countries to ascertain the need and the market, (b) a
conference to establish perimeters of the project, and (c)
preparation of sample materials. In 1985 the USIA signed a contract
with Macmillan Publishing Company to produce the desired
materials. Designed as a program for learners at the beginning to
intermediate levels, the English-language-teaching-by-broadcast
package will consist of 26 half-hour television programs in
magazine format, 52 radio programs, series workbooks, audio-
cassettes, supplementary texts, and teachers’ aids. This multimillion-
dollar project is intended for use worldwide, with regional and
language adaptations to follow the English version. TESOL will
continue to be consulted as the materials are being produced.
In 1986 the Director of the USIA, Charles Z. Wick, decided to
revive the defunct advisory panel on English language teaching for
his agency, largely through the influence of TESOL’S first president
and its executive director; he has asked the former (Harold B. Allen)
to chair the panel and the latter (James E. Alatis) to be a member.
TESOL is one of the member organizations of the JNCL and its
lobbying branch, CLOIS, and TESOL’S present Executive Director
has served as president of JNCL for 6 years.
TESOL has been very active in testifying before the government,
including hearings on the bilingual education regulations. It was
influential also in the deliberations of President Carter’s Commis-
sion on Foreign Languages and International Studies (PCFLIS).
When the Commission had made its final report to the President, its
Executive Director wrote to TESOL’S Executive Director:
Had we ever voted on whether [ESL/EFL] was part of the
Commission’s mandate, the outcome would in all probability have been
negative. Through your help and extraordinarily well-organized
involvement, ESL/EFL were not excluded. We even said some positive
things, if not enough to suit you. Your President [Timothy Healy, S. J.,
President of Georgetown University and a member of the PCFLIS] was
very helpful in all that. (B.B. Burn, personal communication, October 22,
1979)
16 TESOL QUARTERLY
In brief, TESOL is now a name to be recognized. But still, who
are we? We are elementary teachers; we are returned Fulbrighters,
and we are teacher educators; we are Peace Corps volunteers, and
we are students in the process of obtaining a master’s degree; we are
applied linguists and researchers; we are teachers, counselors, and
friends to immigrants and refugees; we are secondary school
teachers and materials writers; we are program administrators and
testing experts. We get a sense of who we are when we come to that
great yearly event, the TESOL Convention, and mingle with our
colleagues from Argentina, Finland, Kuwait, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, or
Yemen. We learn and we teach, and we encourage each other.
CHALLENGES
Great challenges face TESOL in the immediate future. The first
is administrative: The Executive Board has determined that 1987 is
the year to engage a full-time, paid executive director of the
organization. (The author has served in this position since the
founding of TESOL, essentially as a volunteer.) At the same time,
the Central Office will end its relationship with Georgetown
University, under whose umbrella it has thrived for 20 years. This
move will require establishing new procedures for personnel
recruitment, staff benefits, and payroll, among other administrative
matters. Associated with this move, the Board may also consider
purchasing space for headquarters, so that TESOL will gradually
acquire equity in property.
The second challenge concerns finances. It has been the goal of
the present Executive Director and his staff to establish sufficient
financial reserves for the TESOL organization, reserves which
could include real estate as well as liquid assets. While working
toward this goal, we have also been increasing services because of
the growing involvement of TESOL members and their expressed
needs. At the same time, dues have been kept moderate out of
concern for our members. Because of these converging factors,
resulting in an increasing professional staff during the past 3 years,
the organization’s reserves have not been augmented to the desired
goal. Therefore, with the increased costs for a full-time, paid
executive director, the organization faces a financial challenge
within the next few years. As TESOL sets up new administrative
procedures, it will also need to find new sources of funding in order
to continue the services members have come to expect.
A third challenge which the organization faces now and in the
very near future is the issue of internationalism. The founders of
TESOL purposely decided not to include American, U. S., o r

national in the title of the organization. They intended to be
receptive to growth and to members from abroad. However, it is a
historical fact that TESOL was founded by U.S. citizens, the
headquarters was established in the United States, and it was legally
incorporated in the District of Columbia. People who applied for
membership were accepted into the organization without regard to
country of residence or origin. It was necessary to add a surcharge
to the membership fee for members living outside the United
States, however, to cover the significant additional cost of mailing
periodicals outside the country. (Such a surcharge is a standard
practice among the publishers of periodicals.)
Early in its history, TESOL began to accept affiliates, which were
usually organizations with statewide memberships in the United
States. When groups from outside the U.S. began to apply for
affiliation, TESOL accepted them also. But it never solicited
affiliates from abroad because the members of the Board realized
the difficulties and expense of providing services on an international
basis. Distances to travel, costs of mail and telephone, time gaps in
communication, currency differences, and varying customs
regulations all come into play. Nevertheless, TESOL now has 21
affiliates from outside the U. S., who have joined of their own
volition, without any form of proselytizing on TESOL’S part.
TESOL has offered services to these far-flung affiliates in spite of
the costs involved. Yearly records show that it has spent, in both
dollars and individual trips, a higher proportion on affiliates outside
the U.S. than it has on those within the country.
Volunteer leaders within the organization have undergone a
consciousness-raising on this topic over the last several years. As a
result of this consciousness-raising, there are times when 38-40% of
the candidates nominated for office and members placed on
committees are international members, whereas 25-26% of the total
organization is from outside the United States. Of course, such
representation places additional financial strains on the organiza-
tion. This must be recognized. At the same time we affirm that
TESOL has a great desire to be all things to all people. Perhaps the
day is not far off when TESOL members will be called upon to
decide how “international” they want the organization to be, unless,
of course, an outside source of funding can be found for such
international activities.
Each of the three challenges—administrative, financial, and
geopolitical—will be met in its own time in ways as yet unforeseen.
The Board, with its Transition Group, will make decisions affecting
the administrative procedures, which will be implemented by the
new full-time director during 1987. Again, the Board will make
18 TESOL QUARTERLY
decisions affecting the financial future of the organization. The
political decision on the future of TESOL as an international
organization, which also has serious financial implications, cannot
be postponed much longer. This is a question about which members
of TESOL should make their thoughts known.
PROSPECTS
The prospects for the TESOL organization are most encouraging.
In 21 years, with 11,000 members, 66 affiliates, a large and highly
professional annual convention, a respected journal and newsletter,
it has established its position in the language profession and the
world of professional associations. It can look forward to refining
and perfecting the services it offers to its members, to pursuing its
work on professional and program standards, to expanding its
publications, and to attempting to find funding to help people from
other countries attend the annual TESOL Convention. It can
continue to advise government on the professional aspects of
language and culture.
The prospects are that as TESOL becomes ever more firmly
established, it will make its resources more readily available to those
who need them. The organization will become an ever better
resource for its members, while it becomes an ever better advocate
with the government and private sectors on behalf of those
members. Ideally it will be a clearinghouse where any information
regarding English for speakers of other languages can be found or
directions given on whereto find it.
After the present transition period has passed into history,
procedures can be perfected by means of which volunteers and
Central Office staff can work in their collaborating but separate
roles for the good of the organization. After all, TESOL is its
membership. It is no accident that the first word in the
organization’s title is teachers. It is teachers at all levels and in all
parts of the world that TESOL was always intended to serve. And
serve them it has for more than 20 years, in a unique and
unprecedented way, such that the promise of a new professionalism
which created TESOL has at last become a reality.
THE AUTHOR
James E. Alatis is Dean of the School of Languages and Linguistics and Professor
of Linguistics and Modern Greek, Georgetown University. He has been TESOL’s
only chief administrative officer—first as Executive Secretary, then as Executive
Director—during its first 20 years.

ESL: The Regular Classroom

Teacher’s Perspective
JOYCE PENFIELD
Rutgers University
A large number of limited English proficient (LEP) students in the

United States spend only a small fraction of their school day with
ESL teachers. Yet regular classroom teachers are unprepared in
how to integrate the LEP student into the regular classroom. This
article analyzes the results of a survey of regular classroom
teachers’ perceptions of LEP students and ESL teachers. An open-
ended questionnaire was administered to 162 New Jersey teachers
who had LEP students in their classrooms but who had had no
training in ESL. A content analysis of the responses revealed five
broad categories of concern: programmatic setting and instruc-
tion, training needs, LEP students and their parents, peer
interaction, and the role of the ESL teacher. The responses
indicate the difficulties which regular classroom teachers
encounter in integrating LEP students socially and academically
into the regular setting. Accordingly, it is recommended that ESL
teachers and teacher training programs devote greater attention to
preparing the regular classroom teacher for dealing more
adequately with the educational needs of LEP students.
Despite the increase in the number of trained ESL specialists over

the past 10 years or so, it is no secret that vast numbers of limited
English proficient (LEP) students still spend either all or large
portions of their academic life with regular or content classroom
teachers. (The term regular teacher is used here instead of
mainstream teacher to avoid a connotation that many find offensive
and misleading. The regular classroom refers to a setting in which
subject matter and literacy skills are taught entirely in English and
the majority of the students are native speakers of English. ) In most
cases, these teachers have no training in how to deal with LEP
students. The 1980-81 Teachers Language Skills Survey of public
school teachers in the United States revealed that although half of
all public school teachers had current or previous experience with
21
LEP students in their classes, only 6% had taken one or more
academic or nonacademic courses to learn how to teach such
students (NABE News, 1984; O’Malley & Waggoner, 1984;
Waggoner & O’Malley, 1985). Given the trend in school popula-
tions, it is projected that by the year 1990 language minority
children will account for 25% or more of all school-age children in
the United States (Bell, 1984).
Few regular teachers have had training in how to integrate the
LEP student into the regular classroom. Too often when ESL
teachers attempt to assist the regular classroom teacher, they
encounter resistance and a lack of cooperation which impedes their
ability to improve the quality of education for LEP students in
regular classrooms. Regular teachers, for their part, sometimes
express anger, frustration, and unwillingness to deal with “the new
burden” placed upon them in having a few LEP students in their
classrooms.
ESL teachers themselves often express perplexity when trying to
understand the beliefs and assumptions with which these same
teachers operate. What are regular teachers’ beliefs and assumptions
about ESL? What are their perceptions of LEP students? What do
they view as their role and the role of the ESL teacher vis-à-vis the
LEP student? What training needs do they perceive they need to
deal with LEP students? This article reports on a survey which
attempted to address these fundamental questions.
ESL research has paid scant attention to the relationship between
the ESL specialist and the classroom teacher or to the perceptions
and attitudes of regular classroom teachers toward LEP students.
Gregor (1981) has offered practical suggestions on how the ESL
teacher might establish a good working relationship with classroom
teachers, but she did not deal with the underlying differences in
perceptions which cause the poor working relationship to exist.
Teacher assumptions and beliefs about LEP students and about
second language development do play a significant role in the
teaching-learning process in the classroom (Cohen, 1972; DeAvila &
Duncan, 1980). Carter and Segura (1979), for example, found that
teachers of Mexican American children tended to associate a lack of
oral English proficiency with deficiency in other abilities.
One field which has contributed research on the impact of
teacher beliefs upon the learner is special education. Of particular
interest has been the willingness of regular teachers to integrate
special education children into the reular classroom in accordance
with Federal Law 94-142, which introduced mainstreaming as a
requirement (Pernell, McIntyre, & Bader, 1985). Larrivee (1981)
noted that the manner in which regular classroom teachers
22 TESOL QUARTERLY
responded to the special child’s needs was a more potent variable in
ultimately determining the success of mainstreaming than any
administrative or curricular strategy. Others (Gearheart &
Weshahn, 1976; Gottlieb, 1975; Schmelkin, 1981) have suggested
that the “climate within which mainstreaming is to be imple-
mented” (Schmelkin, 1981, p. 42) is one of the most significant
determinants of its outcomes.
ESL research has begun to demonstrate the effects which the
social organization of the classroom has upon the second language
development of LEP students and the critical role which the teacher
plays in constructing social opportunities for learning (Enright &
McCloskey, 1985; Johnson, 1983; Wong Fillmore, 1982). What has
received less attention are those beliefs and assumptions held by
regular teachers and students which interfere with the social and
academic integration of LEP students into a regular classroom
setting.
The survey described below explored the regular classroom
teachers’ perceptions of LEP students and their parents, of ESL
specialists, and of their own needs in working with LEP students in
their classes. The implications of this survey for teacher training are
discussed and concrete suggestions offered for improving the
preparation of regular teachers who have LEP students in their
classrooms.
METHOD
Design
This survey of regular teachers’ perceptions of LEP students and
ESL teachers was based on a qualitative research paradigm in the
phenomenological tradition (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982; Bogdan &
Taylor, 1975). The object of such an approach to inquiry is to gain
entry into the conceptual world of respondents by attempting to
understand what meaning they construct around events in their
daily or work lives and how this meaning is constructed. The goal of
this study was to uncover the regular classroom teachers’ implicit
beliefs and assumptions about those whom they teach and those
with whom they work—from their own point of view. Since a
predetermined framework was not assumed, specific hypotheses
were not tested. The data collected were descriptive in nature and
served as an initial step toward constructing the regular teachers’
conception of reality by identifying the issues of concern to them
and their attitudes toward those issues.
ESL AND THE REGULAR CLASSROOM TEACHER 23

The tool for data collection was a survey instrument consisting of
15 questions, most of which were open-ended. (See Appendix; the
term ESL students was used on the questionnaire to refer to LEP
students because, in general, the teachers were unfamiliar with the
term LEP. ) Written comments made by the respondents constituted
the primary data base. This use of commentary derives from
Mathiot’s (1982) “self-disclosure technique,” which assumes that
respondents reveal their perceptions of reality by how they talk
about the events and people in their lives (see also Penfield &
Mathiot, 1985). (Self-disclosure first elicits verbal comments from
the respondent over many hours of face-to-face interviewing and
then guides the respondent in commenting on his/her own remarks
and the meaningful categories in these remarks. Obviously, the
entire procedure was not used here, merely the first step—eliciting
comments. )
It is argued that an open-ended format is more flexible and lends
itself to less distortion of the respondent’s reality. This was
confirmed many times in the survey in this study. For example, at
least 26% of the respondents refused to provide an exact number of
hours or portion of the school day which the LEP student should
spend with the ESL teacher (Question 11). Instead, they
commented that this should be adjusted to the proficiency of the
student. A forced numerical choice would have distorted their view
of reality.
Open-ended questions in the survey elicited comments on topics
of concern to the teachers. Most questions were sufficiently general
to permit respondents to comment on topics which they themselves
introduced. Questions 7 and 9 were especially helpful in eliciting
new topics of concern. For example, Question 9, which deals with
the subject of discipline, elicited instead comments about the
respondents’ perceptions of ethnic groups.
Respondents
A total of 179 questionnaires were distributed to regular
classroom teachers immediately before required inservice
workshops on LEP students in the classroom. The workshops were
given by the investigator and two of her colleagues in public schools
in New Jersey. Respondents consisted of regular classroom teachers
who currently or had previously had LEP students in their classes
and who had had no training in how to teach LEP students.
Questionnaires were completed and handed back to the investiga-
tor within 20 minutes. Insufficiently completed questionnaires and
those completed by respondents who had never had LEP students
24 TESOL QUARTERLY
in their classrooms were eliminated, leaving 162 questionnaires as
the data base for the analysis.
Respondents represented six counties in New Jersey and taught in
large urban school districts, such as Newark and Jersey City
(n = 52; 32%); suburban districts, such as Morris School District,
Chatham, Franklin Township, and Old Bridge (n = 102; 63%); and
smaller urban districts, such as New Brunswick (n = 8; 5%). Among
the countries represented by the LEP students whom these teachers
taught were Vietnam, Laos, Pakistan, India, Taiwan, Philippines,
People’s Republic of China, Japan, Korea, Puerto Rico, Haiti,
Afghanistan, and some of the countries of Central America. The
vast majority of the LEP students came from Taiwan, India, and
Puerto Rico.
Of the total number of respondents, 85% (n = 137) taught in
Grades K-8 and the remainder (n = 25) in Grades 9-12. The amount
of time per day they taught a class with one or more LEP students
in it ranged from 30 minutes to a full day. More than four fifths of
the respondents (n = 132) had fewer than six LEP students during
their school day.
Analysis
The written comments in the survey served as the data base for
inferring how respondents perceived the LEP students. the ESL
teacher ), and themselves. In the first stage of the analysis, those
comments which directly answered the questions in the survey were
examined. Where possible, open-ended comments were classified
according to categories prompted by a specific question in the
survey.
A content analysis on all the written comments in the survey was
then conducted. The topics of the comments rather than the
questions in the survey served as organizers of the data so that the
voice of the respondents could be heard. The comments revealed
five broad categories: (a) programmatic setting and instruction, (b)
training needs, (c) LEP students and their parents, (d) peer
interaction, and (e) role of the ESL teacher. A more detailed content
analysis was then carried out by the investigator in order to create
an inventory of different perspectives within each of the five broad
categories. Comments which differed in content were listed under
their relevant category until an exhaustive list was obtained. The
exact wordings used by the respondents in these comments form
the basis of the Results and Discussion section. These comments
provide a realistic view of the respondents’ perspective.

The study described below represents the first part of an ongoing
research project dealing with the academic and social integration of
LEP students into the regular classroom setting. In the next stage the
investigator plans to utilize in-depth observation in classrooms and
extensive elicited commentary from a few regular classroom
teachers in order to identify problems preventing academic and
social integration of LEP students in regular settings.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Programmatic Setting and Instruction
Question 5 of the survey asked respondents to choose which of
five programmatic approaches they favored for LEP students and
why. Table 1 illustrates that a majority of the respondents (61%)
viewed the regular classroom setting as better suited for LEP
students than a segregated setting. A smaller number (21%)
preferred the bilingual education setting, and an even smaller
number (18%) chose a self-contained or ESL-only setting.
TABLE 1
Teachers’ Responses on Programmatic Approach
Best Suited to LEP Students
Note Total number of responses for this question was 152
No doubt some of the responses to this question reflect

sociopolitical attitudes toward language education policies. One
respondent was very emphatic: “Once in America, the ESL student
should learn in English, not their native language. ” Two
respondents wrote a large “NO!” next to the bilingual education
choice.
When asked at what point in their language development LEP
students should be placed in the regular classroom for the entire day
(Question 5), one teacher responded: “After crossing the border.”
But many respondents suggested that LEP students be placed in the
regular classroom only when they could understand oral English
26 TESOL QUARTERLY
sufficiently to follow directions and instructions given by the
classroom teacher. A small number of respondents felt that LEP
students should enter the regular classroom as soon as possible so
that they would not become isolated from other students. Other
comments reflected a fear of the LEP student’s impact upon the
regular classroom: “They should be mainstreamed when they can
respond without retarding the progress of other students.”
Question 11 asked respondents what portion of the school day
LEP students should spend with an ESL teacher. Table 2 shows that
26% of the open-ended responses indicated the need for adjusting
the amount of ESL instruction to the student rather than choosing a
specific number of class periods. These respondents demonstrated
sensitivity to the need for ongoing language assessment and
program flexibility. Very few of the respondents (2%) believed that
the LEP student should not spend any time with the ESL teacher,
while at the other extreme a greater proportion (12%) supported the
idea of LEP students’ spending an entire day with the ESL teacher.
The majority of respondents (60%) favored from one to six periods
per day.
TABLE 2
Teachers’ Responses on Number of Periods
Which Should Be Spent With ESL Teacher
Adjust to
student 0 1 2 3 4 6 8
26 2 15 16 7 18 4 12
Note: Total number of responses for this question was 100.
A few comments suggested that LEP students miss out on content

and opportunities for language development when they leave the
regular classroom:
Missing 20 or 30 minutes per day from their regular class is detrimental.
They should not miss their art, gym, library, or music periods. They lose
out on either a structured lesson, which they really need, or activity time,
where free play would improve their language.
When regular teachers do teach LEP students content, they find
certain subjects relatively easy to teach and others very difficult. Of
the respondents, 71% mentioned math as the subject easiest to teach
LEP students, and 83% chose language arts, especially reading, as
the most difficult subject areas to teach (Question 6). Another 23% of

the respondents mentioned social studies and science as the next
subject areas most difficult to teach. These responses obviously
point to those subject areas in which the least or most amount of
English is involved.
While the integration of LEP students into the regular classroom
was considered desirable to the respondents, it was also viewed as
problematic. Some respondents recognized the potential that an
integrated setting would provide for L2 development, but at the
same time they feared the effect it would have upon the regular
students and, perhaps by inference, upon their own style of
teaching.
Without doubt, the LEP student poses a serious challenge to those
who follow a traditional mode of classroom organization. As these
teachers become aware that a teacher-centered, traditional
approach does not work for the LEP student, they find themselves
in need of making changes but without the appropriate training to
do so. As a result, many LEP students remain isolated and
segregated amidst one of the richest sources for intellectual and L2
development—social interaction with their English-speaking peers.
Second language classroom researchers have agreed that social
interaction brings access to linguistic input, which in turn results in
L2 development (Hakuta, 1986; Wong Fillmore, 1979). Those
classroom climates which enhance social integration provide the
greatest amount of access to L2 and academic development for
LEP students.
The responses of the regular teachers demonstrate that they
understood the need to improve academic learning for LEP
students, yet they appeared to have little knowledge of how to
integrate content and L2 development, viewing these two as
separate and distinct rather than as an integrated process in which
both they and the ESL teacher should participate.
Finally, respondents reported that math, spelling, and phonics
were easiest to teach to LEP students. This accords with recent
classroom observations reported by Wong Fillmore (1986),
suggesting that what LEP students are being taught are mechanical
skills and facts rather than conceptual understanding. If viewed as
purely mechanical and computational, mathematics may be “easier
to teach,” since it would entail little talking or thinking—it is basic,
memorizable, and quiet.
Training Needs
Respondents were asked to comment upon their frustrations and
assess their own needs (Questions 7 and 10). The most frustrating
28 TESOL Q[JARTERLY
experience for regular classroom teachers was their inability to
communicate with LEP students and their parents. As one teacher
commented, “I’m directing a class of 25 students and I see an LEP
student who sits there with a blank look on his face. I wonder what
he is understanding.”
Several respondents observed that the use of regular textbooks
and curriculum provided little flexibility for meeting the cultural
and individual learning needs of LEP students. They noted that
LEP students could not complete the same class work as
monolingual or English-dominant students.
The vast majority of the respondents recognized the gap in their
own knowledge of how to handle LEP students. Question 10 asked
classroom teachers to select three ways (from six choices) that
would help them deal more effectively with LEP students (see
Table 3). The most frequently selected response was the need for
more training on how to teach content to LEP students. This was
especially true for those teaching Grades 9-12. Teachers expressed
the need for access to appropriate curricular materials; most
preferred the ESL teacher to prepare these materials for them.
Although teachers were not asked to comment on this question,
relevant comments emerged from other survey questions. One
teacher assessed the problem in the regular classroom in the
following way: “I feel I should provide more meaningful ‘busy
work’ when I’m teaching the rest. ” The frustration of another was
summarized succinctly: “No time, no materials, no parents!” By
contrast, a third teacher’s comment reflected sensitivity: “Teach me
Spanish.” Perhaps the comment that revealed most clearly the
challenge which LEP students pose to the regular teacher’s general
TABLE 3
Teachers’ Responses on Most Helpful Ways to
Deal Effectively With LEP Students
Most frequently
Most effective means selected n
Techniques on how to teach content to LEP students 1 88

Materials prepared by the ESL teacher for LEP students in
regular classrooms 2 76
More familiarity with materials for LEP students 3 66
Better communication between ESL teachers and regular
teachers 4 65
More time to adapt regular assignments/lessons to LEP
students 5 65
Information about cultures represented by LEP students 6 34

style of teaching was the following: “They make the teacher use
teaching techniques which must be individualized and varied.”
Many respondents felt a strong need for appropriate content
curriculum materials adapted to the LEP student. Student materials
as well as teacher resource books are indeed being created which
will meet these needs (Cantoni-Harvey, 1987; Chamot, 1986;
Chamot & O’Malley, in press; Enright & McCloskey, in press;
Mohan, 1986a; Penfield, in press). However, resource materials
alone, though they may be a quick, short-term solution, cannot solve
the complex problems of the academic and social integration of the
LEP student in the regular classroom setting. The teacher plays a
key role in creating and controlling the social climate and
organization in the classroom. If the LEP student is to gain anything
significant from the use of these materials, regular teachers must
learn new ways for improving classroom dynamics (Enright &
McCloskey, 1985; Johnson, 1983; Milk, 1985; Mohan, 1979, 1986b).
LEP Students and Their Parents

Questions 9 and 14 in the survey dealt with the relationship
between the classroom teacher and the LEP students and their
parents. In judging whether LEP students were easier, more
difficult, or the same as regular students to discipline, 45% of the
respondents who answered this question asserted that they were
easier to discipline (see Table 4). This answer was often
accompanied by the labels passive and introverted. Such a view of
the LEP student may indeed reflect neglect, as one respondent’s
comment suggests: “They get lost and tune out. It’s easy to forget
them because they don’t demand attention.” Another respondent
even pointed to the unfortunate result of this process: “Many upon
arrival seem anxious to start and fit in; either they achieve quickly or
this enthusiasm wears thin and they languish.” From the point of
TABLE 4
Teachers’ Responses on Ease of Disciplining LEP Students
Depends on person-
Easy Difficult Same ality of child
n % n % n ‘% n %
61 45 23 17 39 29 12 9
Note: Total number of responses for this question was 135,
30 TESOL QUARTERLY
view of some regular teachers, however, even if the LEP students
were easier to discipline, “they take more time away from class.”
Open-ended comments regarding discipline evoked many
responses related to the ethnic origin of LEP students. Asian
students were viewed as very well disciplined and having high
respect for adults. Hispanic students, whenever they were
mentioned, were looked upon as “difficult to discipline and
requiring greater attention and time than other students.” At the
very least, teachers mentioned keeping these same students busy so
they would stay out of trouble.
Comments about ethnic groups were offered spontaneously; they
were not elicited by any specific question in the survey. However,
all comments which referred to Hispanic students were negative.
These students were viewed as “discipline problems.” Even though
the teachers acknowledged in Question 14 that they had had little
contact with Hispanic parents, they nevertheless attributed such
discipline problems to the parents and the home: “The Hispanic
students come from restrictive environments; when they arrive in
school, they go wild.” A teacher of Puerto Rican students
commented, “Puerto Rican students are disruptive because they are
babied by parents.” In still other cases, the behavior of this same
group was attributed to the culture’s “lack of appreciation for
education.” As one respondent put it, “Some cultures have a high
regard for teachers. Hispanic cultures do not and discipline
problems arise.” Obviously these stereotypic interpretations of
behavior reflect an ingrained ethnocentric bias on the part of some
teachers. While these interpretations clearly reveal cultural
disjuncture between teachers and LEP students, the dynamics of
the classroom interaction on which these interpretations were based
is undoubtedly complex and requires empirical investigation.
Some regular teachers attributed the academic difficulties of LEP
students in the regular classroom to laziness or a lack of effort: “ESL
students are not interested in putting forth the effort. ” Attempts by
ESL teachers to suggest to the regular teacher appropriate work at
the functional level of the student were viewed as an excuse for the
student’s lack of interest: “Some ESL students have problems but this
is not an excuse for not learning or to hide their lack of effort.” On the
other hand, some respondents recognized that their ability to assess
the competencies of LEP students was too easily masked by those
students’ lack of oral proficiency: “You don’t know how capable they
are.” Again, it appears that the regular teachers’ lack of knowledge
about LEP students can lead them to negative interpretations of LEP
behavior, and these no doubt interfere with the learning process.
But it must not be construed from the above that all respondents
had a completely negative view of LEP students. When asked,

“What contributions do LEP students make to your class?”
(Question 8), teachers acknowledged in their comments that these
students enhanced the learning atmosphere in several ways. They
noted the multiculturalism which the LEP student introduced into
the classroom: “They teach cultural tolerance.” LEP students were
observed to be positive role models for the regular students in terms
of behavior (“They serve as good examples for English-speaking
students because they are conscientious and well-mannered”) and in
their determination and motivation (“They show other children that
anyone can accomplish anything if they put their mind to it.” “They
have an enthusiasm to learn”). Teachers mentioned also that the
presence of LEP students in the regular classroom increased
cooperation among the regular students: “They add to cohesiveness
because other children need to cooperate more closely to assist LEP
students.” One teacher found LEP students to be extremely helpful
in tutoring low-achieving native speakers of English.
Teachers’ comments about ethnic groups in their classes indicate
their personal interpretations of what clearly seems to be cultural
disjuncture in classroom discourse. Although it is difficult to arrive
at any conclusions without observing classroom interaction, Wong
Fillmore’s (1986) discussion of classroom observations of Asian and
Hispanic students provides a clue. She found that when Chinese
children were confronted with curriculum material which lacked
any real meaning to them, they responded by increasing their
concentration. They regarded themselves as responsible for finding
meaning. Hispanic students (mostly Mexican Americans), on the
other hand, responded to irrelevant curriculum material by losing
interest. These same students did very well when teachers
presented well-organized instruction rich in content and empha-
sized comprehension and student participation in instructional
activities. In short, the nature of the curriculum and the way it is
presented may be the explanatory factor for the classroom
disjuncture which these teachers’ comments reflect.
Peer Interaction
Respondents often commented upon the tendency of LEP
students to band together and consequently isolate themselves from
the English-speaking students: “LEP students separate themselves
from American-born and clique with their own ethnic group.” A
few respondents offered causes for this social behavior: “They
aren’t accepted as one of the crowd. Some may be accepted
academically but not socially.”
32 TESOL QUARTERLY
The conflict between LEP students and regular students merits
investigation. (The term regular student does not refer to any
definition of normality but rather to a proficient speaker of English
who does not need help in second language development. ) Many of
the comments suggest that LEP students are stigmatized. An eighth
grade teacher noted, “This age level seems to put down those from
other countries—especially Hispanic students. ” Regular students
may be jealous of the individual attention received by LEP students
and consequently seek revenge by teaching them inappropriate
classroom behavior and foul English: “Native speaking students
ignore, taunt, or ask questions they can’t understand. ” “When LEP
students do finally attempt to participate in class, they are laughed
at and ridiculed.” Several teachers sought solutions for dealing with
this awkward situation.
Despite the grim realities of peer friction, some respondents did
offer positive suggestions for integrating LEP students into the
regular classroom. One teacher assigned one or two academically
oriented English-speaking students to serve as partners or buddies
to help the new student learn the “ways of the classroom.” Another
solved the problem of social integration by assigning group-
collaboration projects. Others sought to bridge cultural differences
by having LEP students share something about their home country
with the class or by introducing a lesson on friendship and kindness.
And finally, one respondent commented on the value of sports
activities as a socializer and means for integrating the LEP student.
The lack of social integration of LEP students into regular
classrooms, and perhaps the entire school, is clearly apparent in the
comments about peer interaction. In some cases, LEP students are
treated by their peers as outcasts. Such a negative social climate is
especially detrimental to L2 development, not to mention the
psychological impact on self-concept and self-worth. It is generally
agreed by L2 researchers that a healthy climate among peers who
speak the second language can influence the kind of language that
is acquired and the speed with which it is acquired (Hatch, 1978;
McLaughlin, 1978).
In the survey, those teachers who recognized the problem of
social acceptance by peers reacted with empathy. While some of
them viewed their role as passive and nonintervening, others sought
strategies for handling the situation. This suggests that some
teachers define their job as an academic one in which content is
taught and that others understand the importance of a positive
social climate for academic and L2 learning. The impact of each of
these attitudes upon the LEP student is apparent.

Role of the ESL Teacher
Diverse responses and comments were obtained from Questions
12 and 13: “Which subjects or skills should the ESL teacher teach
during ESL class?” and “What is the role of the ESL teacher as you
see it?” One comment uncovered an attitude of very real jealousy
and conflict toward the ESL teacher: “The ESL teacher’s job is to
take credit for bright students and to assign blame for slower
students.” For the most part, regular teachers’ comments suggested
the strong belief that it was not their responsibility to learn how or
know how to teach LEP students. This was especially true where
language development was concerned: “ESL is the job of ESL
teachers. We are not hired to teach an ESL student English.”
However, the respondents did not hesitate in expecting the ESL
teacher to teach the subject matter of regular teachers as well as to
perform many other tasks.
A content analysis of the respondents’ expectations of what ESL
teachers’ work should consist of suggested five different roles: (a)
language/reading teacher, (b) subject-matter teacher, (c) liaison
between the teacher and LEP student and parents, (d) cross-cultural
interpreter, and (e) consultant to the regular teacher.
Although the respondents expected ESL teachers to help students
learn to function in English, many viewed this primarily to mean
teaching them to read. Teachers in the lower elementary grades
specified that the work of the ESL teacher should be the teaching of
sight word mastery and phonics.
Above all, ESL teachers were expected to teach academic skills
and subject matter, especially the major subject areas, including
spelling, social studies, science, the math curriculum which regular
students followed, and other grade-level skills. One respondent
even felt that the ESL teacher should reinforce all the subject matter
taught in the regular classroom in the native language of each
student. The unbelievable assumption that ESL teachers spoke the
native language of each student and in fact taught in this language
was expressed repeatedly.
ESL teachers were expected to play the role of liaison between
regular teachers and the parents of LEP students. For example,
regular teachers presumed that their colleagues in ESL would be
present when parent-teacher conferences were necessary. In fact,
communicating with the parents of LEP students was too often
viewed as the job of the ESL teacher only. When asked, “In what
way do you communicate with the parents of LEP students?”
(Question 14), one respondent replied, “I don’t. That is the ESL
teacher’s job.”
34 TESOL QUARTERLY
Regular teachers also held ESL teachers responsible for the role
of cross-cultural interpreter. They were expected not only to know
the cultural customs and values of each of their students but also to
teach them the rules of the American classroom. A review of the
comments made by regular teachers indicates that “helping the
student understand classroom rules” and “how to behave” had a
higher priority to some classroom teachers than teaching English to
the LEP student. From their various comments, it is obvious that
regular teachers expected LEP students to follow the assumed
norms of their classrooms, whether or not they were proficient in
English.
Regular teachers viewed the ESL teacher as the contact through
whom they worked. They wanted to be kept informed about the
LEP student’s progress. From their perspective, the student was
helped most when ESL teachers and regular teachers worked
cooperatively: “The ESL teacher can’t go it alone isolated from the
staff.” This comment strongly suggests that ESL teachers were
expected to serve as consultants and advisers to regular teachers by
monitoring the progress of LEP students and finding appropriate
materials for these students in regular classrooms.
The comments of these respondents, who represent a wide range
of school levels and districts, indicate how little regular teachers
seem to know about the job of ESL teachers and, consequently,
how much they expect of them. Perhaps this misunderstanding
leads to the lack of cooperation between the two professional
groups and to the isolation of ESL teachers. One of the major
complaints of ESL teachers in the field (which this writer has heard
expressed repeatedly in her years of training such teachers) is that
their colleagues isolate them. It is ironic that regular teachers believe
ESL teachers choose their own isolation when many of them would
like advice and help from these specialists. Somehow ESL teachers
must be brought out of their isolation so that greater cooperation
can be achieved between the two professional groups. One of the
most important functions of the ESL teacher may well be not
merely to teach the LEP student, but more significantly to provide
inservice training of regular teachers.
CONCLUSION
The following broad recommendations are suggested on the basis
of the survey results:
1. More training in handling the LEP student must be provided for
regular classroom teachers and administrators. All regular

teachers and administrators should be required, as part of their
preservice training, to have at least one course dealing with the
LEP student in the school. This is an especially important
requirement in those states with large immigrant populations.
For those currently teaching, inservice training must be provided
as one mechanism for improving classroom conditions for LEP
students. Administrators play a key role in encouraging this
process; thus, ESL teachers must work hard at educating and
informing administrators of the need for such training so that
time for inservice workshops can be provided yearly in the
school schedule.
2. ESL teachers must provide direct help to regular teachers on
how to teach the LEP student. ESL teachers must develop
strategies for increasing cooperation and collaboration with
regular classroom teachers, even though negative and resistant
attitudes may block their attempts initially. They must devote
more professional time to advising and consulting with these
teachers.
3. Teacher training programs must be sensitive to the professional
needs of the ESL teacher in the field. They must teach the ESL
teacher to train the regular classroom teacher through inservice
workshops and informal strategies for best meeting the needs of
the LEP student. This training should include classroom
techniques on how to integrate content and language, how to
improve the social climate, and how to alter the social
organization of the classroom. This is necessary if the LEP
student is to receive the same access to excellence in education as
the regular student does.
THE AUTHOR
Joyce Penfield is an Assistant Professor of Second/Foreign Language Education at
Rutgers University. She has trained teachers in Nigeria, Mexico, the U.S.
Southwest, and New Jersey. Her recent book, The Media: Catalysts for
Communicative Language Learning (Addison-Wesley), suggests group-oriented
activities for integrating academic and language development in the classroom.
36 TESOL QUARTERLY
REFERENCES
Bell, T. (1984). The importance of language competence in education.
TESOL Newsletter, 18(4), 1-4.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S .K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An
introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bogdan, R., & Taylor, S. (1975). introduction to qualitative research
methods: A phenomenological approach to the social sciences. N e w
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Cantoni-Harvey, G. (1987). Teaching ESL in the content areas. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Carter, T., & Segura, R. (1979). Mexican Americans in school: A decade of
change. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Chamot, A. (1986). Language development through content: Social studies
and math. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Chamot, A., & O’Malley, J.M. (in press). Language development through
content: Mathematics. R e a d i n g , M A : A d d i s o n - W e s l e y .
Cohen, E. (1972). Interracial interaction disability. Human Relations, 25,9-
2 4 .
DeAvila, E., & Duncan, S. (1980). The language minority child: A
psychological, linguistic, and social analysis. In J. Alatis (Ed.),
Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics
1980: Current issues in bilingual education (pp. 104-137). Washington,
DC: Georgetown University Press.
Enright, D., & McCloskey, M. (1985). Yes, talking!: Organizing the
classroom to promote second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly,
19, 431-453.
Enright, D., & McCloskey, M. (in press). Cultivating communication.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gearheart, B., & Weshahn, M. (1976). The handicapped child in the
regular classroom. St. Louis: C.V. Mosby.
Gottlieb, J. (1975). Public, peer, and professional attitudes toward
mentally retarded persons. In M.J. Begab & S.A. Richardson (Eds. ), The
mentally retarded and society: A social science perspective (pp. 99-125).
Baltimore: University Park Press.
Gregor, E. (1981). Promoting good relations with classroom teachers.
TESOL Newsletter, 15(1), 31.
Hakuta, K. (1986). The mirror of language: The debate on bilingualism.
New York: Basic Books.
Hatch, E. (1978). Second language acquisition: A book of readings.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Johnson, D. (1983). Natural language learning by design: A classroom
experiment in social interaction and second language acquisition.
TESOL Quarterly, 17, 5 5 - 6 8 .
Larrivee, B. (1981). Effect of inservice training intensity on teachers’
attitudes toward mainstreaming. Exceptional Children, 48, 34-39.

Mathiot, M. (1982). The self-disclosure technique for ethnographic
elicitation. In M. Herzfeld & M. Lenhart (Eds. ), Proceedings of the 5th
Annual Meeting of the Semiotic Society of America, Lubbock, Texas,
October 4-7, 1 9 8 0 ( p p . 3 3 9 - 3 4 6 ) . N e w Y o r k : P l e n u m .
McLaughlin, B. (1978). Second language acquisition in childhood (Vol. 1).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Milk, R. (1985). The changing role of ESL in bilingual education. TESOL
Quarterly, 19, 6 5 7 - 6 7 2 .
Mohan, B. (1979). Relating language teaching and content teaching.
TESOL Quarterly, 13, 1 7 1 - 1 8 2 .
Mohan, B. (1986a). Language and content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Mohan, B. (1986b). Language and content learning: Finding common
g r o u n d . E R I C / C L L News Bulletin, 9(l), 8 - 9 .
NABE News staff. (1984). Special report on research findings: Summary
abstract of the “1980-81 Teachers Language Skills Survey.” N A B E
News, 7 ( 5 ) , 1 6 - 1 9 .
O’Malley, J. M., & Waggoner, D. (1984). Results of a U.S. survey: Public
school teacher preparation and the teaching of ESL. TESOL Newsletter,
18(1), 1 8 - 2 2 .
Penfield, J. (in press). The media: Catalysts for communicative language
learning. Reading, M A : A d d i s o n - W e s l e y .
Penfield, J., & Mathiot, M. (1985). The self-disclosure technique as a type
of qualitative methodology. U n p u b l i s h e d m a n u s c r i p t .
Pernell, E., McIntyre, L., & Bader, L. (1985). Mainstreaming: A continuing
concern for teachers. E d u c a t i o n , 1 0 6 , 1 3 1 - 1 3 7 .
Schmelkin, L. (1981). Teachers’ and nonteachers’ attitudes toward
mainstreaming. Exceptional Children, 48, 42-47.
Waggoner, D., & O’Malley, J.M. (1985). Teachers of limited English
proficient children in the United States. NABE Journal, 9(3), 25-42.
Wong Fillmore, L. (1979). Individual differences in second language
acquisition. In C. Fillmore, D. Kempler, & S. Wang (Eds. ), Individual
differences in language ability and language behavior (pp. 203-228).
New York: Academic Press.
Wong Fillmore, L. (1982). Instructional language as linguistic input:
Second language learning classrooms. In L. Wilkinson (Ed.),
Communicating in the classroom (pp. 283-296). New York: Academic
Press.
Wong Fillmore, L. (1986). Research currents: Equity or excellence?
Language Arts, 63, 474-481.
38 TESOL QUARTERLY
APPENDIX
Survey Instrument
1. School District: Training in ESL:
2. Grade you currently teach:
3. Number of ESL students in your classroom? How long each day?
4. What is their country of origin?
5. Which programmatic approach is better suited to ESL students?
(circle one)
a. regular classes only
b. regular classes + an ESL class
c. bilingual education
d. only ESL
Why?
At what point in their language development should ESL students be
placed in the regular or content classroom totally?
6. Which subject is easiest to teach ESL students? the most difficult?
7. What frustrates you most in dealing with ESL students?
8. What contributions do ESL students make to your class?
9. Are ESL students easier or more difficut to discipline? What problems
do they create for the classroom?
10. Which of the following would help you most in dealing more
effectively with ESL students? (choose only 3)
Better communication between ESL teachers and regular
teachers.
More time to adapt regular assignments/lessons to ESL
students.
Techniques on how to teach content to ESL students.
More familiarity with materials for ESL students.
Information about cultures represented by ESL students.
Materials prepared by the ESL teacher for ESL students in
your classrooms.
11. In your opinion, how much of the student’s school day should be spent
with the ESL teacher?
12. Which subjects or skills should the ESL teacher teach during ESL
class?
13. What is the role of the ESL teacher as you see it?
14. In what way do you communicate with the parents of ESL students?
15. What problems do ESL students have in adjusting to their peers? How
have you dealt with these?

Utilizing the Literatures in

Teaching the Research Paper
JOHN SWALES
University of Michigan
Teaching research English, particularly the writing of papers, to

nonnative speakers (NNS) has not been given the attention it
needs. Available evidence points both to the overwhelming role of
English as a medium of communication in the international
research literature and to the low level of NNS contributions to
that literature. This article outlines and illustrates an approach to
the teaching of research English (on a group rather than an
individual basis) which derives from four bodies of literature: (a)
the sociology of science, (b) citation analysis, (c) technical writing,
and (d) English for academic purposes. It is argued that this
approach gives the ESL instructor insight into research writing
processes and products, increases instructor confidence, provides
accessible content, and produces texts from the literatures that can
be used directly in class. The discussion reviews present
knowledge of the research paper; considers the issues of genre,
schema, and rhetorical structure; and relates the orientation taken
in this article to the current debate about “process” and “product”
approaches to ESL writing.
THE CASE FOR TEACHING THE RESEARCH PAPER

Teaching the research paper to nonnative-speaker (NNS)
graduate students and staff is not, in my experience, a responsibility
that all university-employed ESL instructors embrace with
noticeable relish and confidence. Around the world there seem to
be many instructors who feel that such teaching must somehow be
an arcane activity largely beyond their professional preparation and
competence. For one thing, these instructors see research-paper
teaching as bedeviled with uncontrollable and abstruse content and
enmeshed in disciplinary cultures (Becher, 1981) or discourse
communities (Herrington, 1985) of diversely alien character. And
certainly, given the fissiparous tendencies within late 20th century
graduate education, diversity is apparent enough (Bazerman, 1981).
41
Today, Milton’s “grove of academe” increasingly resembles an
arboretum rather than a forestry plantation. A further typical source
of disquiet lies in the perceived difficulty of handling issues of
research methodology and research rhetoric at an appropriate level
of sophistication. If we add to these twin apprehensions the fact that
few instructors will have had any direct training in teaching the
research paper (it is not discussed in either Kennedy & Bolitho,
1984, or McDonough, 1984) and the clear sense in the field of
English for academic purposes (EAP) that undergraduates
comprise the priority target population, then it is easy to see why
teaching the research paper has retained Cinderella status.
Even if such anxieties and demurrals are real and understandable,
equally pressing are the responsibilities of those charged with
providing an adequate range of ESL services in major universities
and other research institutions. To start with, the rapid rise of
English as the world’s premier language of international communi-
cation is nowhere else as clearly demonstrated as it is in the field of
research and scholarship. Within that field, the research paper, as a
presented or printed document, is the standard product of the
knowledge-manufacturing industry.
The annual world output of research papers (in all languages)
currently runs to several million. Although undistorted figures for
the proportion of papers published in English are hard to establish
(but see Baldauf & Jernudd, 1983a, and Swales, 1985a), a
reasonably conservative estimate would be that at least half of these
millions of papers are published in the English language, and in
some disciplines considerably more than half. Furthermore,
Baldauf and Jernudd (1983a) have clearly shown that, despite some
predictions to the contrary, the predominance of English has been
steadily increasing over the last two decades. Thus, there is every
indication that English will remain the primary language of research
at least for the remainder of this century. In the longer term,
however, much will presumably depend on the language use
patterns that emerge in the research communities of the so-called
Pacific Rim (Australia, Singapore, Taiwan, China, Korea, Japan, the
western seaboard of the Americas, etc.).
Overall, the role of the NNS in this Anglocentric research
environment remains rather obscure. The limited available
evidence (Baldauf & Jernudd, 1983b; Swales, 1985b) indicates a
relatively low level of NNS contribution to the “visible” English-
language research literature, and what contributions there are
emanate principally from NNSs located (with varying degrees of
permanence) in anglophone environments and from the more
developed nonanglophone countries of the northern hemisphere.
42 TESOL QUARTERLY
Hence, once again, we see a North-South imbalance in the world—
an imbalance reflected in the uncomfortable fact that numbers of
able people in isolated and “off-network” places are being excluded
from actively participating in international scholarship and
research.
The reasons for the relative absence or invisibility of nonanglo-
phone research, particularly from lesser developed and smaller
countries, are obviously complex. The research environments are
likely to be less supportive. NNS researchers need to take time out
from their academic and scientific careers to develop and sustain
high-level English language skills (Lewin & Jordan, 1981). There
may well be editorial bias against submissions from obscure places
or from authors who are apparently NNSs. Limited library
resources will probably mean that only the most prestigious
journals—those with the highest rejection rates—will be subscribed
to, thus curtailing knowledge of alternative outlets. Possibly there
will be misconceptions about the appropriate length, style, and
organization of research reporting in English.
Even if we do not know in any precise way how much of this low
NNS productivity can be ascribed straightforwardly to lack of the
relevant English language skills, we would be unwise, I believe, to
assume that uncertainties about English language usage are of
marginal or negligible importance. If that belief is correct, then
those of us concerned with ESL in settings that include research
cannot easily shrug off responsibilities for preparing and assisting
NNSs to participate fully in English-dominated international
research communities. In anglophone situations (North America,
Britain, Australia, etc.), this would involve not only helping NNSs to
write dissertations and so on, but also doing whatever we can to
ensure that those NNSs have sufficient competence and confidence
in their English-language research writing to carry on after
graduation. In nonanglophone settings, we have the responsibility
of providing supporting services for doctoral and other returnees
and of offering specialized courses that will at least partially
compensate those who have not had access to English-medium
higher education.
1 therefore suggest that such a program is more than just a luxury,
given the likelihood that in many parts of the world and in many
fields (not excluding applied linguistics and ESL), there exists “a
lost generation” of well-trained but quasi-invisible NNS scholars
and researchers. And if that is so, then we face hard questions
indeed about the return on the investment made by straitened
Lesser Developed Countries in the overseas graduate scholarships
they award to their nationals, as well as questions about the longer
UTILIZING THE LITERATURES IN TEACHING THE RESEARCH PAPER 43

term intellectual value of fellowships, scholarships, and visitorships
offered to NNSs by Western governments and other sponsoring
agencies.
A final reason for taking the teaching of research English seriously
lies in the widely recognized difficulty of research writing. For
instance, experienced ESL professionals, doubtless like other
groups of experts, rarely find it easy to write up their inquiries,
investigations, and research into publishable form—a well-attested
phenomenon which should convince us that those with a lesser
command of the language will, other things being equal, experience
even greater difficulty.
APPROACHING THE RESEARCH PAPER

The preceding discussion has tried to make a case for giving
greater attention to the teaching of the research paper—for giving
Cinderella at least an invitation to the ball. Even if the target group
is small and suspiciously elite, it is also one at greater risk to career
advancement, due to shortage of high-level English language skills,
than almost any other. However, in making this recommendation, I
have also tried to acknowledge that instructors may have good
reasons for being wary of venturing into the territory of the research
paper, partly through lack of insight into this “macrogenre”
(Widdowson, 1983a) and partly through lack of role models for
courses of this type.
This article’s first aim is to dispel some of that reluctance by
discussing a range of literatures that are concerned in very different
ways with research reporting. The claim is that the diverse
perspectives embodied in these literatures provide the ESL
instructor with a rich background of knowledge, insight, and
interpretive strategy that can serve as a solid, confidence-building
orientation to this type of teaching. In addition, and perhaps more
important, the article attempts to demonstrate that these literatures
not only provide insight for the instructor, but also contain within
them textual extracts that can be used as primary resources, that is,
as actual teaching materials. The phrase “utilizing the literatures” is
thus used in this dual sense. The literatures considered here are (a)
the sociology of science (or knowledge), (b) citation analysis, (c)
technical writing, and (d) EAP (as it pertains to research reporting).
It will be noted that only the last two have anything to do with
teaching and that only the last falls within the ambit of ESL.
Before considering how these four distinct research disciplines
might be utilized (and there are other possible candidates such as
the history of research writing and research into higher education),
44 TESOL QUARTERLY
it is first necessary to clarify what is here meant by teaching the
research paper. In the first place, this article concentrates on what
can be done in a class setting, in particular in those “awkward”
classes of 20 or more graduate students coming from a wide
diversity of disciplines and possessing levels of general English
proficiency varying from the good intermediate to the advanced. In
other words, the article is not concerned with the one-on-one or
small-group consultancy devoted to the restructuring and editing of
individual and student-generated pieces of writing. This type of
service is well established, noncontroversial, and of proven value.
(For intriguing studies of such consultancies in operation, see
Ballard, 1984, and James, 1984.) The only major problem with such
consultancies is that they are hopelessly cost-ineffective, especially
if more senior and expensive staff are involved. Given such time
and budgetary constraints, it therefore becomes all the more
necessary to see what can be done with larger groups. We need
preventive medicine as well as dissertation surgery. In the second
place, this article is primarily concerned with teaching the writing
of the research paper, although both incidentally and by design,
opportunities for developing reading skills, for textual analysis, for
lexico-syntactic experimentation, and for discussion and oral
presentation do occur.
UTILIZING THE LITERATURES

The Sociology of Science
In a recent paper, Myers (1985) reports on the struggles of two
established biologists, Dr. Bloch and Dr. Crews, to get their papers
published. For Myers, all researchers are faced with decisions about
the level of claim they might wish to make. The higher the level of
claim, the more likely that it will involve contradicting large bodies
of the relevant literature and will challenge assumptions embodied
in important ongoing research programs. On the other hand, low-
level claims may contradict nothing but may also add very little to
what is accepted and established within the given research field.
Thus, high-level claims are likely to be important but risky, while
low-level claims are likely to be trivial but safe.
Both of Myers’s biologists consistently sought to make the highest
level claim that they could persuade a particular journal to accept,
but in both cases they eventually had to settle for the publication of
much more limited and lower level claims than they had originally
hoped for (and perhaps still hope for). The main value of Sample
Text 1, which is an extract from Myers’s article, lies mainly in the
UTILIZING THE LITERATURES IN TEACHING THE RESEARCI1 PAPER 45

way it demonstrates that the apprentice-researcher may not be
alone in having difficulty in getting a paper accepted. However, it
also usefully exemplifies the publishing process and its attendant
vocabulary.
1. 1) First, each author wrote a wide-ranging draft he did not submit for
publication. 2) Then they wrote more limited and conventional
manuscripts for submission to major interdisciplinary journals:
Nature (in Dr. Bloch’s case) and Science (in Dr. Crews’s case). Dr.
Bloch’s was rejected without review, while Dr. Crews’s was reviewed
by two referees who split their decisions: it was also rejected. 3) Each
author then revised and resubmitted the manuscript to the same
journal, with a covering letter asking for reconsideration: both were
reviewed and again rejected. 4) Still confident that their manuscripts
were important, they resubmitted to other prestigious interdisciplin-
ary journals, Dr. Bloch revising somewhat for Science, Dr. Crews
revising drastically for Nature. This time Dr. Blochs article got an
ambivalent but generally favorable review but was still rejected,
while Dr. Crews’s article was returned without review. 5) After these
rejections by Science and Nature, both authors submitted to journals
with more limited audiences that seemed more likely to accept the
articles. Dr. Bloch sent a revised version to a journal recommended
by one of the referees at Nature, the Journal of Molecular Evolution.
It was accepted on the condition that certain changes suggested by
the referees and editor were made. Dr. Crews submitted the
unrevised Nature manuscript to PNAS, where the referees were
generally favorable, but still recommended rejection. 6) Finally,
both articles were published. Dr. Blochs manuscript was accepted in
its revised form in the Journal of Molecular Evolution, where it
appeared in December 1983. Dr. Crews’s unrevised manuscript was
accepted at Hormones and Behavior on the basis of its previous
reviews, and appeared in March 1984. The revisions between each of
these stages are extremely complex, ranging from massive cuts and
additions to shifting of an adjective or a comma. (pp. 600-601)
Sample Text 1 is a suitable early text in a research writing course.
It is rich in manuscript-related technical vocabulary and also gives
rise to some useful analytic activities, such as that elicited by the
following assignment:
Study Sample Text 1 and produce two boxed flow charts, one showing
what happened to Dr. Blochs manuscript and the other what happened
to Dr. Crews’s manuscript.
The two histories related in Sample Text 1 may be atypical
because both biologists were trying to edge away from the research
areas in which they had established their reputations. However,
these histories do at least undermine any belief that the scientist-
46 TESOL QUARTERLY
researcher is necessarily less concerned with the niceties of
description and explanation or with the subtleties of rhetorical
persuasion than, say, the literary critic, the historian, or the political
scientist. Furthermore, if we turn to the earlier stages of the
composing process, the preparation of a manuscript prior to review,
we can find impressive evidence that any vision we may have of the
scientist-researcher working away in the lab and then retiring to a
quiet place to type up quickly the experimental report according to
some stereotyped format is decidedly at odds with reality.
Evidence for what really happens can be gathered from three
recent book-length studies that are largely concerned with the
construction of research papers. Two are case studies of important
U.S. laboratories (Knorr-Cetina, 1981; Latour & Woolgar, 1979); the
third is an analysis of a controversy in biochemistry (Gilbert &
Mulkay, 1984). All three books are significant products of a
relatively new school within the sociology of science in which
discourse is topic rather than resource, in which text is no longer
used as evidence of historical fact but as reflection of beliefs about
the contextual and rhetorical organization of a research world.
Latour and Woolgar’s (1979) study of the Salk Institute in
California is probably the most remarkable, certainly the most
controversial. Latour, a French anthropologist, comments that the
strange Salk Institute tribe “spend the greatest part of the day
coding, marking, altering, correcting, reading, and writing” (p. 49).
The aim of all this documentary activity is not to preserve
administrative records, but to make contributions to the research
front in the form of published papers. This interpretation is
expressed in the following striking paragraph:
2. Firstly, at the end of the day, technicians bring piles of documents
from the bench space through to the office space. In a factory we
might expect these to be reports of what has been processed and
manufactured. For members of this laboratory, however, these
documents constitute what is yet to be processed and manufactured.
Secondly, secretaries post off papers from the laboratory at an
average rate of one every ten days. However, far from being reports
of what has been produced in a factory, members take these papers
to be the product of their unusual factory. (p. 47)
Sample Text 2 is best utilized as a discussion prompt. Does the
text exaggerate the reporting stage? Do the authors fail to
distinguish fact and statement of fact? Does the documentary world
of Latour and Woolgar conveniently ignore the substances and
animals left behind as research moves from raw data to Results
sections? And so on.

For our purposes, the most relevant section of the Knorr-Cetina
(1981) volume is the chapter on “The Scientist as a Literary
Reasoner.” Here, Knorr-Cetina presents an extensive textual study,
including facsimiles and also supported by direct observation and
interview, of what transpired between the first rough notes for and
the final draft of one paper produced at a large government-
financed research center in Berkeley, CA, during 1977. The subject
of the paper is the recovery of protein from potatoes, a process of
some significance for the food industry.
The first significant point to emerge is that the public story as told
in the drafts is a reversed, even more than revised, version of what
actually took place within the confines of the laboratory. In the
laboratory the realization that ferric chloride coagulation could
occur without heat eventually led to the establishment of an
alternative method, while in the paper, the story opens with the
need to produce a better method and then offers ferric chloride
coagulation as a resolution of this need. Of course, this reversal of
the research dynamic is, in its context, neither deceitful nor
misrepresentative, although it might be thought so if the laboratory
notes themselves had been revised in this way. After all, the
research paper is a genre quite different from the laboratory record
and has its own quite separate conventions, its own processes of
literary reasoning, and its own standards of argument. Within this
genre, one powerful shaping paradigm is the problem-solution text
type (Hoey, 1979).
But the story of the introduction to the paper does not end here
because there are further differences between the first full version
and the final version. In the first, there is a clear succession of
increasingly specific paragraphs, starting with observations about
the large quantities of valuable potato proteins available in the
world and how these are underutilized. A description of current
recovery methods follows, with considerable emphasis on their
drawbacks. The introduction ends with a discussion of a major
alternative coagulant (ferric chloride), which would turn the
disadvantages of the current methods into advantages.
Several months and drafts later, a final version emerged after
considerable discussion with and comments from colleagues,
including the Director of the Institute. The straightforward and
somewhat dramatic unfolding of the first version has almost entirely
disappeared. The general-specific structure (“zeroing in on the
solution”) has been abandoned for a series of paragraphs that
discuss various topics at approximately equivalent levels of detail,
thus producing a more discursive and less goal-directed text.
Further, many “dangerous” claims have been eliminated, and there
48 TESOL QUARTERLY
has been a considerable increase in hedging. Sample Text 3 consists
of the final sentences from the introduction in the first and final
drafts, respectively.
3a. The aim of this work was to find an alternative precipitation
method resulting in a yield comparable to that of protein recovered
by means of the most commonly used acid/heat treatment method,
while achieving a more acceptable quality of the PPC needed for
the application0 in human foods. (p. 157)
b. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of HC1,
FeCl 3, and HC1 combined with heat, as precipitant of potato
protein in the laboratory, as well as under pilot plant conditions,
and to evaluate some compositional, nutritional and functional
characteristics of the protein concentrates recovered by these three
methods. (p. 165)
Sample Text 3 provides both a comparative exercise for group
work and a connection to the negotiation of claims to knowledge
illustrated in Sample Text 1. Its purpose is to help students see how
a bold announcement of a new method has become a much tamer
comparative analysis; how the early exuberance of the primary
researchers has become the careful statement of a wider group; and
how potential damage to the Institute’s reputation, if things go
awry, has been limited. (Alternative scenarios are, of course,
possible: Students can be asked to guess which draft was first and
which final, or they can be asked to tone down the first draft in
various ways. )
In contrast to the two other books, Gilbert and Mulkay’s (1984)
work offers an analysis of the various ways in which a major
controversy in biochemistry is described and discussed by the
leading protagonists. The accounting for “the facts” seems to vary
along two major dimensions. The first relates to where a particular
researcher “stands” vis-a-vis the currently fashionable position.
More specifically, Gilbert and Mulkay are able to show the tension
between a need to recognize good work by others—however
unpalatable—and a need on the researcher’s behalf to protect his (or
more rarely her) “investment” in time, equipment, money, effort,
and kudos. The second major variation in accounting relates to
public and private statement—more specifically to the difference
between what is said in formal published papers and what is said in
informal interviews with the two sociologists.
Thus, Gilbert and Mulkay argue that the ordered variability of
research discourse can be explained by recognizing the existence of
two repertoires: the empiricist and the contingent. In the former,
there is no mention of authors’ involvement with or commitment to

particular analytic positions nor of their social ties with like-minded
colleagues. Furthermore, experimental work is described in a
laconic and conventional manner, and this description is one of
impersonal procedures of universal effectiveness and applicability.
“Empiricist discourse is organized in a manner which denies its
character as an interpretative product and which denies that its
author’s actions are relevant to its content” (p. 56).
The contingent repertoire emerged in interviews in which
“scientists presented their actions and beliefs as heavily dependent
on speculative insights, prior intellectual commitments, personal
characteristics, indescribable skills, social ties and group member-
ship” (p. 56). Gilbert and Mulkay go on to demonstrate that an
important kind of humor in the academic world depends on playing
off one repertoire against the other. In addition to certain other
changes, Sample Text 4 (adapted from pp. 176-177) has been
converted into a matching exercise to be unscrambled by students
working in pairs.
4. Lineup the equivalent statements in Columns I and II.
Column I (empiricist) Column II (contingent)
What they wrote What they meant
a. It has long been known that 1. We were already teaching
b. Findings of some impor- them
tance 2. The other three were really
c. Correct within an order of screwed up
magnitude 3. I haven’t bothered to look
d. A low-intermediate group up the references
of students was chosen as 4. Work done by our group
especially suitable 5. Work done by a rival group
e. Three of the six variables 6. Wrong
were subjected to detailed
statistical analysis
f. Results of doubtful signifi-
cance
The four sample studies reviewed in this section indicate in their

varying ways the strength of the genre-specific conventions that
constrain and shape the research paper. In addition, they affirm that
writing a research paper is neither a simple nor a trivial activity. The
four textual fragments selected for in-class examination are offered
as suitable samples for “consciousness-raising” sessions, even though
they have been ordered so that they increasingly relate to the textual
surface. The important questions that arise with regard to content
choice, discipline specificity, and the value of student rhetorical
50 TESOL QUARTERLY
analysis are examined in the Discussion section, where they are
addressed in the full context of the literature-utilizing approach
proposed here.
Citation Analysis
The second body of literature that I believe to be worth
incorporating into an NNS research-paper course is citation
analysis. This field extends from highly quantitative studies
typically based on bibliometric data, such as citation indexes, to
qualitative concerns with citing behavior as manifested in text. The
former’s purposes are to evaluate the research productivity and
influence of countries, institutions, or individuals (Martin & Irvine,
1984); to trace the influence of certain publications; or to map via
statistical techniques the boundaries of cognitive fields (Rip &
Courtial, 1984). The qualitative end of the spectrum aims to
develop adequate topologies for classifying citations (Frost, 1979;
Peritz, 1983; Swales, 1986a) or to construct a defensible theory of
citing (Bavelas, 1978; Cronin, 1981; Gilbert, 1977). Those adopting
quantitative techniques tend to be information scientists, while
those with a more contextual orientation are more typically
sociologists. Historians of ideas may use both types of methodol-
ogy.
In fact, very few papers in the quantitative literature are
sufficiently concerned with the language variable to warrant
incorporation into a course on writing a research paper. One of
these few is Baldauf’s (1986) paper, an adapted extract from which
(PP. 220-221) appears as Sample Text 5.
5. Linguistic Constraints on Participation
in Psychology
Richard B. Baldauf, Jr.
James Cook University, Australia
Russell (1984), in his paper on psychology in its world context, has
shown how the dominance of English as a universal language in
psychology limits the potential development of psychology as an
international discipline. I would like to elaborate further on this
important issue using data which describe the linguistic characteris-
tics of four cross-cultural psychology journals. The study is based on
338 articles published between 1978 and 1982 in the Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology (JCCP), the International Journal of Psychology
(IJP), the International Journal of Intercultural Relations (IJIR) and
the Interamerican Journal of Psychology (IAJP). Three hundred and
twenty seven, or 97%, of the studies were published in English. . . .

Language of Citations
In Table 1 [not shown here] the language of the 8489 citations
provided for the 338 articles is given. Ninety-seven percent of the
citations were in English. While citations were found in 16 languages,
an English speaker with French, German, Spanish, and Hebrew as
second languages could read 99.5% of the cross-cultural psychology
literature cited in these four journals. The fact that about 92.5% of the
psychology literature cited in Psychological Abstracts is written in
English, along with the figures given here, suggests that some cross-
cultural psychologists may be missing relevant research due to the
language barrier. Although this failure to communicate is undoubt-
edly less of a problem than in the physical sciences (see Lewin, 1981),
it certainly does not contribute to the advancement of cross-cultural
psychology and puts a particularly difficult burden on speakers of
languages other than English who want to have their work read and
cited.
The Baldauf extract is a useful study-and-discussion text for a
number of reasons:
1. It deals with useful terminology (cited, citations, language
barrier, acronyms and their pronunciation).
2. It shows an interesting relationship between the first and second
sentences. Also of interest are the use of authorial comment (“I
would like . . . , “ “this important [italics added] issue”); the
narrowing from “psychology as an international discipline” to
“cross-cultural psychology”; the early (contrastive?) mention of
data; the use of elaborate as opposed to develop, extend, o r
confirm.
3. Present passive is used in the third sentence, and past passive in
the fourth.
4. Lexical superordination is used: “this . . . issue” (second
sentence), “this failure” (last sentence and possible variants).
5. The extract raises questions of sample size and methodology.
6. It raises the issues of why language use patterns may not
contribute to the advancement of a discipline and whether
anything can be done about it.
More important, the last two issues lead naturally to a class
project particularly suitable for a heterogeneous group of graduate
students coming from a wide variety of disciplines. For this project,
each student takes an international journal from his or her field and
analyzes an agreed number of recent articles in terms of the
language of publication and the language(s) of the citations. The
class-pooled expertise is used to identify individually unrecognized
52 TESOL QUARTERLY
languages. A master table of all the findings is prepared, and then
small groups discuss, draft, and redraft the emerging research
paper.
Although my long-held ambition of getting the English class to
research a topic, write it up in a form appropriate to a particular
journal, submit the paper, and gain acceptance has yet to be
realized, I still harbor hopes that such a citation analysis project can
eventually be successfully completed. A project of this type has a
number of advantages: (a) It develops search reading skills; (b) the
quantitative nature of the investigation appeals to the scientists and
engineers who often comprise the majority of the class; (c) the
English language issue falls naturally within the competence of the
instructor; and (d) the topic may be of direct concern and relevance
to the NNS class participants.
The utilization of the qualitative citation analysis literature is not
so easy to demonstrate. However, in the following activity, the class
is first provided with a checklist of reasons that have been proposed
for citing the work of others. They are then given the following
sample text or, if appropriate, a “simpler account” of it (Wid-
dowson, 1979).
6. Citation, ultimately, is a ‘private process’, 14 albeit a . . . private
process with a public face, but the essential subjectivity of the act of
citing means that the reason why an author cites as he does must
remain a matter of conjecture. We lack what Swanson caIls a
‘convenient and rapid method of discovering the nature of the
relevance link which the citing author has established’. 15 T h i s
conjectural element is worth pursuing precisely because the end-
product of the private process (the citation) acquires the status of a
public commodity. Assumptions are made about the nature of this
commodity, yet its real import is obscured by the secretiveness of the
production process. Textual analysis of the citing paper cannot tell us
why an author cites as he does, though it may suggest very plausible
reasons. To quote Mulkay, ‘there has been no clear demonstration of
the way in which citations reflect the process of scientific influence’.l6
(Cronin, 1981, pp. 16-17)
Matters can now proceed in a variety of ways. A first step may be
for the students to interview each other about their citing behavior
in general and in relation to specific texts they have written and
brought to class. Alternatively or additionally, the instructor
distributes a citation-rich introduction written by a colleague and
then plays a tape of a recorded interview with the colleague
designed to elicit the reasons for the individual citations. The
students then select a paper written by one of their professors, make
an appointment, prepare for the interview, and—armed with the

Cronin text and, if possible, a cassette recorder—conduct the
interview. The results are studied and relayed back to the group or
class. The hidden agenda behind all this activity is in fact fairly
obvious. The tasks provide an opportunity to demystify the process,
to recognize the complexity of the motivations, to appreciate that
many of the decisions made are judgment calls, and ultimately to
gain a feel for this kind of text.
Technical Writing
Since this body of literature is uncomfortably large, the discussion
of it here is extremely selective. As the illustrations from the two
previous bodies of literature consisted of fragments of scholarly and
research texts, this discussion concentrates on the subsection of the
technical writing literature that consists of manuals and style guides
aimed at assisting the native speaker to write acceptable research
papers.
In these instructional materials, there is an interesting difference
of opinion with regard to the need to include in the introduction a
statement or announcement of the principal findings. This minor
skirmish will have to serve as but a single example of utilizing this
literature. In fact, a number of well-regarded manuals do not
consider the issue at all (Michaelson, 1982; O’Connor & Woodford,
1976). However, where it is discussed, the preponderance of advice
is to include the principal findings (Calman & Barabas, 1973;
Dudley, 1977). The most assertive statement of this view is
contained in the popular volume by Day, entitled How to Write and
Publish a Scientific Paper (1979). Day’s fourth and final rule for a
good introduction comprises Sample Text 7.
7. It should state the principal results of the investigation. Do not keep
the reader in suspense; let the reader follow the development of the
evidence. An O’Henry surprise ending might make good literature,
but it hardly fits the mold that we like to call the scientific method.
Let me expand on that last point. Many authors, especially
beginning authors, make the mistake (and it is a mistake) of holding
up their most important findings until late in the paper. In extreme
cases, authors have sometimes omitted important findings from the
Abstract, presumably in the hope of building suspense while
proceeding to a well-concealed, dramatic climax. However, this is a
sophomoric gambit which, among knowledgeable scientists, goes
over like a double negative at a grammarians’ picnic. Basically, the
problem with the surprise ending is that the readers become bored
and stop reading long before they get to the punch line. “Reading a
54 TESOL QUARTERLY
scientific article isn’t the same as reading a detective story. We want
to know from the start that the butler did it.” (p. 24)
On the other hand, I have traced only one manual writer—Huth
(1982)–who unequivocally recommends leaving out a statement of
results:
8. Some authors close the Introduction with a short statement of the
research findings. This practice has been justified as a device to hold
the reader’s attention; it has been criticized as moving the conclusion
from its logical place in the sequence of argument. One reason for
keeping the conclusion at the end of the paper is that many journals
now publish full summaries or abstracts on their title pages. Why give
the answer twice at the beginning of the paper? (p. 53)
This contrasting pair of sample texts (7 and 8) serves the research
writing class in a number of ways:
1. The two texts are a useful stimulus for a discussion about
individual preferences.
2. As the texts are essentially secondary sources, the next step is to
ask the class to search out and examine the advice given (if any)
in the primary sources of guidance in their fields (the style guides
produced by associations and journals). The findings are then
reported back.
3. The third step is to carry out small individual or group projects
designed to validate the advice against what actually happens in
the introductions to papers from the students’ disciplines. (In
fact, experience suggests that the majority of advice is likely to
be “more honored in the breach than in the observance.”)
4. Once again, there is a hidden agenda—to develop an ability to
come to terms with the frailty of human advice, to gain an
appreciation of the different expectations of different fields, and
to further the capacity to see how information is structured in the
research article.
English for Academic Purposes

The final body of literature to be utilized, that of EAP, brings the
discussion closer to surface-level features and their manipulation
and development. However, as several of the previous “resource”
texts have dealt with introductions to research papers (i.e., Sample
Texts 3,5,7, and 8), the ensuing commentary is also confined to that
context. For a number of reasons, this is a sensible restriction.
First, much of the debate about EAP research methodology has
centered on introductions, in particular the issues of the value of

“subject specialist informants,” their selection, and their integration
into a hermeneutic cycle (Huckin & Olsen, 1984; Selinker, 1979).
Second, this type of text has figured prominently in the search for
the identity and boundary criteria necessary to set up textual
subdivisions of a discoursal character (Bley-Vroman & Selinker,
1984; Crookes, 1986; Swales, 1981). Third, several studies have
compared the function and distribution of linguistic features across
introductions and methods, results, and discussion sections. In these
terms, West (1980) investigated that-nominals; Heslot (1982) voice
and tense; Tarone, Dwyer, Gillette, and Icke (1981) first person
pronoun use versus use of the passive; Weissberg (1984) paragraph
structure; and Adams Smith (1984) the frequency of various kinds
of authorial comment. Finally, some EAP research has been
concerned with features of introductions themselves. Dubois (1982)
was able to show that many complex noun phrases tend not to be
lifted wholesale from elsewhere but are gradually built up and
consolidated as the introduction proceeds. The still unresolved issue
of the best way of accounting for tense variation in the reporting of
previous literature has been/was/is discussed by Oster (1981), Een
(1982), and Swales (1983).
There is also some evidence to suggest that short introductions in
the mainstream “harder” disciplines tend to have a four- or five-part
information structure. In these areas, this evidence is probably
strong enough to warrant some pedagogical applications, although
elsewhere this is not so at present. Crookes (1986) has demonstrated
considerable variation in the social sciences, and Cooper (1985) has
shown a different structure in many technical research reports in
electronics.
The actual characterization of the mainstream structure may be
viewed in terms of a problem-solution model. This, for instance, is
the route taken by Zappen (1983); in an introduction “the research
addresses the goals, current capacities, problems and criteria of
evaluation that derive from and operate within that discipline”
(p. 130).
An alternative model (Swales, 1986b) uses the ecological
metaphor of “creating a research space. ” At the outset, the writer of
an introduction may need to establish that the particular area of
research is of some significance. This is most commonly achieved
by claiming that the area is not peripheral: Authors may claim that
there is interest in it, that it is important or relevant, that it has been
widely investigated, or that standard procedures have evolved. This
done, the second move is to summarize selectively the relevant
previous research. The rhetorical role of the third move is to show
that the reported research is not complete. This is principally
56 TESOL QUARTERLY
effected by indicating a gap in the previous work or by raising a
question or a hypothesis. Finally, the gap is turned into the research
space for the present article, or an offer is made to answer the
question or test the hypothesis. And inevitably, the smaller the
research space (i. e., the less evident the existence of an unfilled
ecological niche in the research area), the greater the rhetorical
“work” that will be necessary.
Nevertheless, it is worth noting that these two models may not be
in direct competition, for we may need both kinds of metaphorical
caricature to capture the development of the arduously crafted
introduction sections of research papers. We may need to account
for both description and persuasion, for both logical surface and
egocentric subtext. Sample Text 9 provides a suitable introduction
for class work. (Sentence numbers have been added.)
9 . INTRODUCTION
[1] There are many situations where examination scripts are
marked by one examiner and then re-marked by another examiner.
[2] One examiner may be checking on the marking standards of the
other examiner (Black, 1962), or else the marks of the two examiners
may be averaged in order to attempt to produce a more reliable
assessment (Wiseman, 1949; Wood and Quinn, 1976). [3] It has been
suggested by Pilliner (1965) that one of the critical factors which
affect the re-marking of scripts is whether or not the second examiner
is aware of the marks awarded by the first examiner. [4] In fact,
Pilliner suggests that if the second examiner is aware of the marks
awarded by the first examiner then this invalidates the independence
of the two assessments of the script. [5] Furthermore, an impression
has been gained from re-marking investigations (e.g., Murphy, 1978)
that more extreme differences in marking standards are revealed
when previous marks and comments are removed from scripts. [6] It
would seem that however much an examiner tries to ignore the
judgments of a previous examiner when he is re-marking scripts, his
own impression of the scripts is bound to be influenced.
[7] The aim of this investigation was to test this view by comparing
the results of re-marking two sets of scripts, one set with previous
marks and comments on them and the other set with these removed.
(Murphy, 1979, p. 73)
The passage opens with a typical appeal to the readership
underscoring the significance of the research area (compare “many
situations” with a few or some). The second sentence provides
illustration and support for the first one; the use of the rare
progressive “may be checking” is clever in its implication that this
very process may well be taking place at the time when the article
is being read. The next three sentences (3-5) create a research space

by downplaying the present state of knowledge (“It has been
suggested,” “Pilliner suggests,” “an impression has been gained”).
We find the research hypothesis in Sentence 6 and an offer to
evaluate it in Sentence 7 (with again some downplaying of present
knowledge by the choice of view as opposed to, say, assumption or
belief.
The methodology for teaching this structure relies initially on
techniques of text marking and text assembly. In text marking, an
extract is marked, blocked, and labeled in various ways by the class,
either individually or in pairs or small groups, sometimes in class
and sometimes for preparation. The following are typical types of
these student text-marking activities:
1. Insert section labels if these are missing or have been removed.
2. In the margin, draw two vertical lines at varying distances apart
to show narrowing and widening of scope (see Hill, Soppelsa, &
West, 1982).
3. Block up and label/number an introduction according to some
version of a model.
4. Link—with lines, blocked text, and numbers—parts of the
abstract to parts of the introduction.
The next stage requires the class to produce introductions from their
own fields and to see how well they fit the model. (Sets of pastel
marker pens are excellent for this kind of marking up. )
In the text-assembly, “scrambled sentences,” or “strip story”
technique, portions of the text are placed out of order and have to
be reordered correctly. In textbooks this is usually done by printing
the text fragments in the wrong order. However, if circumstances
permit, it is much better to have the fragments cutup and placed in
envelopes because this enables the students to view and read
through an experimental reassembly. As might be expected, a
normal practice is to start with large fragments (i. e., sections), then
move on to parts of sections (i. e., “moves”) and finally to individual
sentences.
Fancy variations of this technique include (a) requiring the
students to locate the place where a fragment has been deliberately
removed by the instructor, (b) adding extraneous fragments for
identification and removal, (c) providing envelopes (or whatever)
with two strip stories to disentangle and reassemble, and (d) indeed
going to the malicious trouble of having a range of texts and putting
not quite all the fragments in the right envelopes so that groups have
to trade their surpluses for their shortages. Whatever variation is
chosen, the group activity underlines the need for a multiple
58 TESOL Q[JARTERLY
strategy in reordering: content clues, coherence and cohesion,
rhetorical structure and schematic expectations, levels of lexical
abstraction, and so on. And of course, if these manifold con-
siderations are needed for successful reconstruction, does it not
follow that those same considerations are needed for successful
composition?
Finally, we need to recognize that the various sections of
introductions provide well-motivated opportunities for undertaking
language work on such specific topics as the following:
1. Opening sections: generalizations of various types
“There are many situations where . . .” (Sample Text 9)
“It has become a common practice for one examiner . . .”
(Sample Text 9 variant)
“Recently, there has been wide interest in . . .”
“For some time there has been evidence that . . .”
“A full explanation for . . . is not yet available.”
2. Sections handling previous research
a. Choice of reporting verb (show, suggest, claim, stress, etc. )
b. Place of the cited researcher/research in the sentence (as
subject, agent, in parentheses, etc. )
c. Cohesion and coherence in literature reporting
“A further study that bears upon this question is . . .”
“Additional evidence in support of . . . is provided by . . .”
“Somewhat different conclusions were reached by . . .”
3. Sections indicating a gap
a. Contrastive connectors (however, nevertheless, in spite of,
etc. )
b. Negative quantifiers (no, none of, few, little)
c. Verbs of negative import (restricted to, lack, neglect, limited
to, fail)
d. Indirect questions
“It is not yet clear whether . . .”
4. Sections announcing present research
a. Demonstratives (this, the present)
b. A switch to we
“We now report the interaction of . . .”
c. Overt and underlying locatives
“In the present paper, figures are reported which . . .”
“The present paper reports figures which . . .”
d. Tense and purpose
UTILIZING TIiE LITERATURES IN TEACHING TIIE RESEARCII PAPER 59

Use of the present or the past if the noun indicates the type of
inquiry (investigation, study, research, experiment, analysis,
etc. )
“The aim of this investigation was to . . .”
“The aim of this investigation is to . . .”
Use of the present only if the noun indicates the type of
presentation (paper, article, report, thesis, note, etc.)
“The aim of this paper is to . . .”
DISCUSSION
At the end of the day, the picture we have of the research paper
is somewhat incomplete. However, at least the pieces we do have
all seem to belong to the same jigsaw puzzle. In other words,
findings of research from different traditions and undertaken for
diverse reasons are on the whole supportive rather than conflicting.
Four of these findings are worth summarizing:
1. The research article is a product that varies from one field to
another in terms of its conventionality and standardization. In
those areas of knowledge variously described as hard, exact, or
physical, consensus on objectives, ground rules, and points of
departure has led to textual products with a regularized
microstructure and with rhetorics that follow identifiable role
models. In such cases, the genre is a clear outcome of the
intersections of thematic, procedural, and stylistic constraints. As
is well known, this experimental role model has been jealously
admired by many researchers in those sciences variously
described as soft, human, or behavioral. In these areas, therefore,
there has been some attempt to adopt and adapt the hard-science
paradigm, as is illustrated most tellingly by the incredible
increase in the size of the Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association during this century (from 6 to 208
pages). Finally, in much of the humanities, role modeling is more
a matter of the influence of “intellectual schools or scholarly
traditions” than of the disciplines themselves. In general,
differences between papers, reviews, and chapters in books are
less easily detected.
2. There are two principal corollaries of this variation. First, the
more established the conventions, the more articulated the
genre. Thus, on a superficial level, the research paper becomes
increasingly divided into standardized divisions (introduction-
methods-results-discussion or a disciplinary variant); on a less
obvious level, we are more likely to find that different sections
will have different rhetorical features (e.g., introductions in
60 TESOL QUARTERLY
contrast to methods sections). The second corollary is that as we
move toward the diffuse end of the continuum, it becomes more
necessary for authors to engage in acts of persuasion that will
encourage the readership to share particular visions of the
research world.
3. On the other hand, there area number of phenomena that appear
to be relatively constant. Research articles are rarely simple
narratives of investigations but are complexly distanced
reconstructions of research activities. Part of this reconstruction
process derives from a need to anticipate and discountenance
negative reactions to the knowledge claims being advanced. And
this need in turn illuminates the long-standing (Shapin, 1984) and
extensive use of hedges as rhetorical devices, both for projecting
honesty, modesty, and proper caution in self-reports, as well as
for diplomatically creating research space in areas heavily
populated by other researchers.
4. In stylistic terms, sentence length is close to the norm for
expository prose. However, the research paper is differentiated
from most other expository genres by its powerfully nominal
style (Smith, 1982), wherein as many as a third of the sentences
may have equative be as the main verb. The lexis is becoming
increasingly abstract (as indeed a diachronic study of this journal
reveals), and lexical repetition and paraphrase are key devices
for maintaining cohesion in introductions and discussions. The
range of voice, tense, aspect, and modality is narrow, and
patterns of occurrence vary significantly from section to section,
particularly in harder fields. Overall, there is a perceivable
interrelationship between the research paper as a peer-group
intellectual object, the abstract nominal style, and the presence of
authorial intrusion in contexts thought to need persuasive support
or to need some revelation of the author’s individual cognitive
processes.
I would venture to suggest that these gleanings from diverse
literatures provide a valuably broad orientation for instructors, both
in terms of what they might wish to look for and how they might
look for it. In addition, it is my experience that knowledge of these
bodies of literature provides us with an impressive series of talking
points when entering into discussions with subject-area depart-
ments. We no longer need to go naked into those conference
chambers.
Furthermore, these bodies of literature seem to point us toward
an approach to teaching the writing of the research paper that
concentrates on making students aware of the constraints and

opportunities created by their being situated in a genre-specific
context. This is because a genre “is a rhetorical means for mediating
private intentions and social exigence; it motivates by connecting
the private with the public, the singular with the recurrent” (Miller,
1984, p. 163). Indeed, Miller goes on to argue that “what we learn
when we learn a genre is not just a pattern of forms or even a
method of achieving our own ends. We learn, more importantly,
what ends we have” (p. 165). Our students then need to learn that
they may create a research space for themselves, that they may
“sell” their research area, and that they may uncouple the
chronological order of research action from the spatial order of its
description and justification.
In the introduction, I put forward some geopolitical arguments
for giving a higher priority to the writing of the research paper as
well as an administrative argument for not abandoning the hope of
teaching some of the high-level skills involved in fairly large classes.
In so doing, I hope not to have given the impression that students’
individual interests, anxieties, and relative strengths and weaknesses
are to be ignored. I fully accept—and would indeed be the first to
advocate—that both instructor and student time need to be devoted
to individual projects and consultancies; all the same, it seems
equally important to see what can be done with groups—and often
heterogeneous ones at that.
The ensuing problems with appropriate content have perhaps
been only partially solved. The first three sample texts represent
investigative studies of the process of research writing; the fourth
provides some light relief; the fifth deals usefully with the language
issue, and the sixth with motivations for citing; Sample Texts 7 and
8 contrast prescription and description; and Sample Text 9 deals
with the process of educational assessment—a topic of universal
interest and debate.
Over the last few years, these kinds of extracts have served me
well enough, but there may be better ones. The tasks associated
with the later sample texts (5-8) have required data from individual
disciplines to be gathered, consolidated, and then cooperatively
written up. Extracts of the type displayed in this article would, of
course, be only a part of any research-paper writing course. I have
not discussed, for instance, the individual and more open-ended
writing tasks, which are based on topics of personal research
interest and intercalated with the more general activities. Nor have I
referred to the “reformulation” element (Cohen, 1983), which plays
an increasingly important role.
The literature-utilization approach is premised on the early need
to make students, whether native or nonnative speakers, more
62 TESOL QUARTERLY
sensitive to the rhetorical structures that more or less recur in
specific genres. There is little new in this, as the following
statements demonstrate:
In-depth comprehension of a written academic text depends on the
reader’s ability to perceive the notional blocs that comprise a text and
the hierarchical relationships that conceptually align them. (Blanton,
1984, p. 43)
A knowledge of the rhetorical divisions of an experimental-research
paper and the function of those divisions within the paper greatly
enhances ESL student reading and writing skills. (Hill et al., 1982, p. 338)
It seems, then, that formal schemata need to be activated and
developed, not so much as rigid templates against which all texts are
forced to fit, but rather as caricatures which self-evidently simplify
and distort certain features in an attempt to capture general
identity. However, the significance of schemata is much better
established in the area of ESL reading comprehension (e.g., Carrell,
1983; Stanley, 1984) than it is for ESL writing. Apart from Johns (in
press), there seem to be relatively few investigations at present that
show the value of appropriate schematic and rhetorical perceptions
in the ESL composing process. Thus, the rhetorical-sensitivity
element in the approach proposed here requires further empirical
validation.
Several of the topics raised in the latter half of this discussion
pertain to current debate on “process” and “product” in teaching
ESL writing. Oversimplifying somewhat, it appears that the
majority of ESL writing teachers would today accept the following
three propositions: Writing is a recursive process; writing is a
heuristic undertaking; and writing is very difficult without the
vocabulary to write with (Raimes, 1983). Beyond this, however, it is
possible to detect differences in emphasis.
On the one hand, there are those who emphasize the internal
aspects of composing (Spack, 1984; Woods, 1984; Zamel, 1983) and
thus stress prewriting and invention strategies, the training of
students to develop awareness of their own writing processes, the
value of drafting and redrafting, the selection of topics of individual
interest, the relaxation of time constraints, and so on. On the other
hand, there are those who give greater attention to external
determinants of composing (Horowitz, 1986; Widdowson, 1983a,
1983b) and thus emphasize less the cognitive relationship between
the writer and the writer’s internal world and more the relationship
between the writer, the writing environment, and the intended
readership. The main activities here focus on the need to clarify

purpose and on ways of anticipating and countenancing the
reactions of the intended audience.
I would like to argue that the literature-utilizing approach to
research-paper writing offers, within its admittedly specialized
context, one way of usefully incorporating both emphases. Many
activities within this approach require students to relate in various
ways to reports of what actually happens in the composing of
research papers, to reflect upon levels of knowledge claim, and to
introspect on reasons for citing the work of others. Concomitantly,
students are asked to analyze textual products representative of the
genre and take part in activities that use such authentic texts as
caricature-type models. What binds the process and product
activities together is an underlying commitment to search out
reality, so that prescriptive and presumptive elements in both the
process and product areas can be detached from our growing
understanding of how things are in the real world of research
reporting.
THE AUTHOR
John Swales is the Acting Director of the English Language Institute and Visiting
Professor of Linguistics at the University of Michigan. He has worked in ESP for
many years and in various places. He is co-editor of the ESP Journal and the author
of Episodes in ESP (Pergamon, 1985).
REFERENCES
Adams Smith, D.E. (1984). Medical discourse: Aspects of author’s
comment. ESP Journal, 3, 25-36.
Baldauf, R.B. (1986). Linguistic constraints on participation in psychology.
American Psychologist, 41, 220-224.
Baldauf, R. B., & Jemudd, B.H. (1983a). Language of publications as a
variable in scientific communication. Australian Reuiew of Applied
Linguistics, 6, 97-108.
Baldauf, R. B., & Jernudd, B.H. ( 1983b). Language use patterns in the
fisheries periodical literature. Scientometrics, 5, 245-255.
Ballard, B. (1984). Improving student writing: An integrated approach to
cultural adjustment. In R. Williams, J. Swales, & J. Kirkman (Eds.),
Common ground: Shared interests in ESP and communication studies
(pp. 43-45). Oxford: Pergamon.
64 TESOL QUARTERLY
Bavelas, ].B. (1978). The social psychology of citations. Canadian
Psychological Review, 19, 1 5 8 - 1 6 3 .
Bazerman, C. (1981). What written knowledge does: Three examples of
academic discourse. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11, 361-382.
Becher, T. (1981). Towards a definition of disciplinary cultures. Studies in
Higher Education, 6, 1 0 9 - 1 2 2 .
Blanton, L.L. (1984). Using a hierarchical model to teach academic reading
to advanced ESL students: How to make a long story short. ESP Journal,
3, 37-46.
Bley-Vroman, R., & Selinker, L. (1984). Research design in rhetorical/
grammatical studies: A proposed optimal research strategy. English for
S p e c i f i c P u r p o s e s , 8 2 - 8 3 , 1 - 4 ; 84, 1 - 6 .
Calman, J., & Barabas, A. (1973). Writing medical papers: A practical
guide. L o n d o n : H e i n e m a n n .
Carrell, P.L. (1983). Some issues in studying the role of schemata, or
background knowledge in second language comprehension. Reading in
a Foreign Language, 1, 8 1 - 9 2 .
Cohen, A.D. (1983). Reformulating compositions. TESOL Newsletter,
17(6), 1, 4-5.
Cooper, C. (1985). Aspects of article introductions in IEEE publications.
Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Aston, Birmingham, England.
Cronin, B. (1981). The need for a theory of citing. Journal of Doc-
umentation, 37, 1 6 - 2 4 .
Crookes, G. (1986). Towards a validated analysis of scientific text
structure. Applied Linguistics, 7, 5 7 - 7 0 .
Day, R.A. (1979). How to write and publish a scientific paper.
Philadelphia: ISI Press.
Dubois, B.L. (1982). The construction of noun phrases in biomedical
journal articles. In J. Hoedt, L. Lundquist, H. Picht, & J. Quistgaard
(Eds.), Pragmatics and LSP (pp. 49-67). Copenhagen: School of
Economics.
Dudley, H. (1977). The presentation of original work in medicine and
biology. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.
Een, J.A. (1982). Tense usage in reporting research in geotechnical writing,
Working Papers in ESL, 2, 72-91. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Frost, C.O. (1979). The use of citations in literary research: A preliminary
classification of citation functions. Library Quarterly, 49, 399-414.
Gilbert, G.N. (1977). Referencing as persuasion. Social Studies of Science,
7, 1 1 3 - 1 2 2 .
Gilbert, G. N., & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora’s box: A sociological
analysis of scientists’ discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Herrington, A.J. (1985). Writing in academic settings: A study of the
contexts for writing in two college chemical engineering courses.
Research in the Teaching of English, 19, 3 3 1 - 3 6 1 .

Heslot, J. (1982). Tense and other indexical markers in the typology of
scientific texts in English. In J. Hoedt, L. Lundquist, H. Picht, & J.
Quistgaard (Eds.), Pragmatics and LSP (pp. 83-103). Copenhagen:
School of Economics.
Hill, S. S., Soppelsa, B. F., & West, G.K. (1982). Teaching ESL students to
read and write experimental-research papers. TESOL Quarterly, 16,
333-347.
Hoey, M. (1979). Signaling in discourse (ELR Monograph 6). Bir-
mingham, England: Birmingham University.
Horowitz, D.M. (1986). Process, not product: Less than meets the eye.
TESOL Quarterly, 20, 141-144.
Huckin, T., & Olsen, L. (1984). On the use of informants in LSP discourse
analysis. In A. Pugh & J. Ulijn (Eds. ), Reading for professional purposes
(pp. 120-129). London: Heinemann.
Huth, E.J. (1982). How to write and publish papers in the medical
sciences. Philadelphia: ISI Press.
Kennedy, C., & Bolitho, R. (1984). English for specific purposes. London:
Macmillan.
Knorr-Cetina, K.D. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge. Oxford:
Pergamon.
James, K. (1984). The writing of theses by speakers of English as a foreign
language: The results of a case study. In R. Williams, J. Swales, & J.
Kirkman (Eds.), Common ground: Shared interests in ESP and
communication studies (pp. 99-113). Oxford: Pergamon.
Johns, A.M. (in press). The ESL student and the revision process: Some
insights from schema theory. The Basic Writing Teacher.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction
of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lewin, R. A., & Jordan, D.K. (1981). The predominance of English and the
potential use of Esperanto for abstracts of scientific articles. In M.
Kageyama, K. Nakamura, T. Oshima, &T. Uchida, (Eds.), Science and
scientists (pp. 433-441). Tokyo: Japan Scientific Societies Press.
Martin, B. R., & Irvine, J. (1984). CERN: Past performance and future
prospects—I. Research Policy, 13, 183-210.
McDonough, J. (1984). ESP in perspective. London: Collins.
Michelson, H.B. (1982). How to write and publish engineering papers and
reports. Philadelphia: ISI Press,
Miller, C.R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70,
151-167.
Murphy, R.J.L. (1979). Removing the marks from examination scripts
before re-marking them: Does it make any difference? British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 49, 73-78.
Myers, G. (1985). Texts as knowledge claims: The social construction of
two biology articles, Social Studies of Science, 15, 593-630.
O’Connor, M., & Woodford, F.P. (1976). Writing scientific papers in
English. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
66 TESOL QUARTERLY
Oster, S. (1981). The use of tenses in reporting past literature. In L.
Selinker, E. Tarone, & V. Hanzeli (Eds.), English for academic and
technical purposes (pp. 76-90). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Peritz, B.C. (1983). A classification of citation roles for the social sciences
and related fields. Scientometrics, 5, 303-312.
Raimes, A. (1983). Tradition and revolution in ESL teaching. TESOL
Quarterly, 17 17, 535-552.
Rip, A., & Courtial, J.P. (1984). Co-word maps of biotechnology: An
example of cognitive scientometrics. Scientometrics, 6, 381-400.
Selinker, L. (1979). On the use of informants in discourse analysis and
language for specialized purposes. International Review of Applied
Shapin, S. (1984). Pump and circumstance: Robert Boyle’s literary
technology. Social Studies of Science, 14, 481-520.
Smith, R.N. (1982). A statistical syntactic study of four English genres.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Spack, R. (1984). Invention strategies and the ESL college composition
student. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 649-670.
Stanley, R.M. (1984). The recognition of microstructure: A pilot study.
Reading in a Foreign Language, 2, 156-168.
Swales, J. (1981). Aspects of article introductions. Birmingham, England:
University of Aston.
Swales, J. (1983). Developing materials for writing scholarly introductions.
In R. Jordan (Ed.), Case studies in ELT (pp. 188-200). London: Collins.
Swales, J. (1985a). English as the international language of research. RELC
Journal, 16 (1), 1-7.
Swales, J. (1985b). English language papers and authors’ first language:
Preliminary explorations. Scientometrics, 8, 91-101.
Swales, J. (1986a). Citation analysis and discourse analysis. Applied
Swales, J. (1986b, March). The experimental research article: An applied
genre analysis. Paper presented at the Conference on College
Composition and Communication, New Orleans.
Tarone, E., Dwyer, S., Gillette, S., & Icke, V. (1981). On the use of the
passive in two astrophysics journal papers. ESP .Journal, 1, 123-140.
Weissberg, R.C. (1984). Given and new: Paragraph development models
from scientific English. TESOL Quartedy, 18, 485-500.
West, G.K. (1980). That-nominal constructions in traditional rhetorical
divisions of scientific research papers. TESOL Quarterly, 14, 483-489.
Widdowson, H.G. (1979). Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Widdowson, H.G. (1983a). Learning purpose and language use. Oxford:
Widdowson, H.G. (1983b). New starts and different kinds of failure. In A.
Freedman, I. Pringle, & J. Yalden (Eds.), Learning to write: First
language/second language (pp. 34-47). Harlow, England: Longman.

Woods, D. (1984). A process orientation in ESL writing. In L. Young (Ed.),
Carleton papers in applied language studies I (pp. 101-138). Ottawa:
Carleton University.
Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six
case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165-187.
Zappen, J.P. (1983). A rhetoric for research in sciences and technologies. In
P.V. Anderson, R.J. Brockman, & C.R. Miller (Eds.), New essays in
technical and scientific communication (pp. 123-138). Farmingdale, NY:
Baywood.
68 TESOL QUARTERLY
Expressing Temporal Frequency

in Academic English
GRAEME D. KENNEDY
Victoria University of Wellington
Recent studies have shown the need for more attention to be paid
to English as form and not only as communication. This article
describes a methodology for discovering how the communicative
notion of temporal frequency is expressed in academic English.
Almost 300 different linguistic devices are identified and
described, along with the number of times they each occur in two
large corpora of written academic English which can be used for
computer analysis. The article also highlights the potential of
computer-assisted analysis of authentic texts to help improve the
basis for the development of language teaching materials.
Semantic approaches to the organization of language teaching, or

teaching language as communication, as it is sometimes called, have
become widely accepted over the last decade. There can be little
doubt that the teaching of English as an applied or functioning
system has the support of many teachers who have been persuaded
that their learners need to know how to understand or express such
notions as obligation, generalization, cause and effect, or frequency
of occurrence. But how these and other important notions are
expressed in English is less clear.
THE SELECTION OF LINGUISTIC DEVICES TO BE TAUGHT

A glance at contemporary teaching materials shows that the
linguistic devices taught are often apparently chosen on the basis of
the intuitions of materials writers or teachers, rather than on any
more empirical basis. In the preparation of many classroom
materials, it is as if the following chain of events occurs. The writer
decides that the notion of, say, frequency of occurrence should be
included in a course, perhaps because this notion appears in a
syllabus or simply because it seems self-evident that a learner of
English needs to understand or express how often something
69
happens. Thus, for example, Wilkins (1972, p. 133), in a classic
paper which outlined a notional syllabus and became the basis for
much innovation over the following decade, included a section on
temporal frequency which covers adverbs (never, sometimes,
often, always), present tense adverbial (on Mondays, every week,
daily, weekly, monthly, etc.), “frequency clauses introduced by
‘when (ever) ,’ ” and catenative verb constructions (he kept asking).
Wilkins was painting with broad strokes and made modest claims
about the illustrative and somewhat ad-hoc nature of his model
syllabus. Course-book writers, however, often have to tell the
teacher and learner how notions are expressed. Cooper (1979), for
example, in a text on reading and writing for advanced learners of
English, lists 11 frequency types on a scale from 100% to 0% (always,
usually, generally, as a rule, often, sometimes, occasionally, rarely,
seldom, hardly ever, never).
We might well ask, however, on what basis the textbook writer
chooses to teach these particular linguistic devices to a learner
needing to understand or express frequency of occurrence. Are the
learners being exposed to the most common ways of expressing this
notion, those which they are most likely to meet in the language in
use? Our disquiet is heightened in the light of studies such as that of
Pearson (1983), whose description of the notions of agreement and
disagreement demonstrates a wide gulf between the language
native speakers of English actually use to express these notions and
the language taught in current textbooks for learners of English as a
second language. Auerbach and Burgess (1985) have also strikingly
shown that contemporary pedagogical materials frequently do not
reflect authentic language use.
THE NOTION OF FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE

Teachers of English for academic purposes will need little
convincing that frequency of occurrence is a notion which adult
learners of English for academic and indeed many other purposes
will need to be able to understand or express. The following
sentences are taken from academic texts in Section J of the Brown
(Francis & Kucera, 1979) and Section J of the LOB (Johansson,
Leech, & Goodluck, 1978) corpora (discussed below). They contain
words or phrases which express temporal frequency (all italics have
been added).
1. Usually Inhelder and Piaget give details of three stages of thinking.
2. The poet in a written tradition who generally never blots a line may
once in a while pause and polish without incurring blame.
70 TESOL QUARTERLY
3. Drowning is rarely witnessed but the ordinary course of events is
apparently as follows.
But it is not clear whether these ways of expressing frequency of
occurrence are typical of those which occur in academic English.
Nor is it known which devices are frequent enough to be worth
teaching or learning.
To throw light on how temporal frequency is expressed, we must
first be clear as to what we mean by the notion. It is hard to improve
on the definition given by Leech and Svartvik in A Communicative
Grammar of English (1975): “Expressions of frequency answer the
question ‘How many times?’ or ‘How often?’ ” (p. 81). A search of
standard grammars to identify which devices are used to express
the notion yields disappointing results. Leech and Svartvik, for
example, list devices such as usually, generally, and normally but
not commonly, typically, or in most cases. We find frequently but
not infrequently, now and then but not now and again. M a n y
people who listened to President Reagan during his reelection
campaign in 1984 will recall his now famous answer to a questioner
who asked whether he would increase taxes. “Over my dead body”
was the President’s reply, and his vast audience had no difficulty
recognizing this phrase as a synonym for never.
Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik (1972) discuss the use of
at least 60 temporal frequency devices over nine pages of text. The
devices are subdivided semantically into those measuring what is
called definite frequency, which explicitly name the periods and
times by which frequency is measured (e.g., hourly, 3 days a week),
and those devices expressing what is called indefinite frequency,
which range along the commonly used scale from always through
usually, often, and sometimes to never. One might take issue with a
taxonomy which classifies always, never, and their synonyms as
expressions of indefiniteness, Nevertheless, there is much
information on possible word order and co-occurrence restrictions,
even though it is easy to think of many apparently common words
or phrases which are not listed.
A search of semantically organized dictionaries or thesauruses
similarly provides little help. McArthur (1981), for example, lists
almost 50 linguistic devices which express frequency. However, it is
not difficult to think of many devices which are not listed, and we
have no idea of the relative importance of those which are listed.
Teachers of English are well aware that, as West (1951) noted, it is
not efficient, desirable, or indeed possible to teach all the ways the
language makes available to express a particular semantic field.
Selection is essential. We need to ensure that learners have
TEMPORAL FREQUENCY IN ACADEMIC ENGLISH 71

opportunities to learn the devices they are most likely to meet in the
variety of English they are learning.
THE STUDY
Since grammars and thesauruses give examples of only some
ways which English makes available for expressing temporal
frequency, the question arises as to how a more comprehensive
account can be given. The study of temporal frequency reported in
this article addresses that question. (The methodology described
below is discussed in greater detail in Kennedy, in press, which uses
the same methodology to explore the wider notion of quantifica-
tion.)
Three Methods to Identify Linguistic Devices

Expressing Temporal Frequency
Initially, an analysis was made of a corpus of 63,176 words of text
(hereafter referred to as Minicorp) drawn from two sources:
N e w s w e e k and New Zealand: A New Geography ( D e n t &
McEwen, 1981). The newsmagazine was chosen because it is widely
read internationally (although it may not be typical of academic
English) and because many topics, attributed to a wide range of
named writers, were covered in the sample. In Newsweek, every
fifth page over four consecutive weekly editions in April 1980 was
analyzed, giving a total of 35,086 running words. Every word or
phrase expressing frequency of occurrence was noted. The rest of
the corpus was taken from Dent and McEwen because this textbook
was widely used in New Zealand by senior high school students to
study physical and economic geography, was of general academic
interest, and was incidentally found to be difficult by nonnative
speakers of English. The first 70 pages of this text were analyzed.
Forty-three different linguistic devices, or types, were recorded
(see Table 1, which lists for each of these types the number of
tokens, or frequency of occurrence). As expected, words like the
following were found: always, annually, monthly, rarely, seldom,
typically. There were some unexpected ones also, for example,
diurnal pack-a-day, regularity.
However, since Minicorp was quite small, it was not difficult to
think of many other devices which are used to express frequency of
occurrence. Some of these occurred often enough to appear in A
General Service List of English Words (West, 1953). A systernatic
search through the sixth edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary
revealed 43 devices not found in Minicorp. Words or phrases such
72 TESOL Q(JARTERLY
TABLE 1
Linguistic Devices Expressing Temporal Frequency in Minicorp
Tokens
Types Magazine Textbook Examples
always 8 6 Reagan always gets tons of votes in California.
annual 7 24 an annual fee
annually 3 1 I had wasted $300,000 of my time annually
at times 1 at times pressure builds up
common 14 it is common in the North Island
Commonly 5 commonly occurs on the slopes
constantly 1 he must constantly think ahead
diurnal 1 the 24 hour diurnal cycle
each (day) 2 8 the homily he delivered each Sunday
ever 8 3 did you ever see Jack Kennedy kiss Jackie
every (hour) 1 7 enter the Persian Gulf every 24 hours
everytime 1 everytime she shows up
frequency 1 the frequency of wind
frequent 3 3 one frequent visitor to China
frequently 3 we are frequently frustrated
generally 23 these mountains are generally lower
how often 1 how often they are mistaken for each other
monthly 2 6 minimum monthly payments
never 16 I’ll never have a decent job again
normally 1 has normally law-abiding citizens up in arms
occasional 1 4 launching occasional guerrilla strikes
occasionally 1 they occasionally approach New Zealand
odd 1 odd jobs like distributing advertising leaflets
often 10 39 owners often leave the labels stuck on their lens
on and off 1 has occurred on and off for years
once 4 3 the sort of thing people do just once
ordinarily 1 would ordinarily rise to $3 billion
pack-a-day 1 a pack-a-day cigarette smoker for 35 years
rare 1 a rare opportunity to observe an eruption
rarely 5 1 rarely have relations been so embittered
regular 4 the regular passage of anticyclones
regularity 1 a sport where records fall with regularity
regularly 3 5 newspapers regularly reprinted his sermons
seldom 2 relations have seldom been chillier
sometimes 5 6 he sometimes appeared a naive pawn
times 10 2 was interrupted 2.5 times by applause
twice 1 2 twice this year
typical 2 a typical river pattern
—

TABLE 1 –Continued
Linguistic Devices Expressing Temporal Frequency in Minicorp
Tokens
Types Magazine Textbook Examples
typically 1 he typically puts in an eight-hour workday
usual 1 the usual method of fertilizing cows
usually 3 38 is usually ascribed to genetic causes
weekly 1 the weekly magazine Panorama
wherever
possible 2 committed to appeasement wherever possible
as biweekly, every now and then, infrequent, nightly, now and

again, quarterly, and yearly are examples. Since a dictionary search
of this kind is subjective and the focus is on individual words rather
than on phrases or routines which can also express the notion, it was
clear that the list of devices was still not comprehensive. Colleagues
would ask whether certain devices were on my list, and often it was
found they were not. These included examples such as as a general
rule, at no time, from time to time, once in a while, rush hour.
I then decided to try a third method to see whether the often
maligned intuitions of native speakers of English could provide a
more comprehensive list of devices or types. Ten English teachers,
all native speakers of English, were asked to write down as many
words, phrases, or clauses as possible which they considered might
be used to express frequency of occurrence, especially in academic
English. The types they suggested included most of those found in
Minicorp and the dictionary search, but many more as well. The
total number of different types obtained from all three sources was
291. These are presented in Figure 1. (Figure 1 lists the types
according to whether or not they occurred in the Brown and LOB
corpora of written American and British English.)
Several of my informants pointed out difficulties in deciding the
boundary (if any exists) between the notion of temporal frequency,
which of course implies repeated occurrence, and other notions.
For example, again, seasonal, anniversary, between (as in take two
pills between meals), and at full moon combine notions of
repetition, recurrence, or iteration as much as frequency.
Figure 1 contains a list of specific linguistic devices, mainly
lexical, which mark temporal frequency. However, it was also clear
that temporal frequency is sometimes expressed through other
notions or by implication, and these are not included in the figure.
74 TESOL QUARTERLY
FIGURE 1
Linguistic Devices Used for Expressing the Notion of Temporal Frequency
A. Devices occurring at least once in Section J of the Brown and LOB corpora
again, again and again, a great deal, a little, all the time, alternate, always, anniversary,
annual, annually, as a (general) rule, as much as possible, as necessary/needed/required, at
(Christmas), at all times, at intervals of, at no time, at times, between (meals),
characteristically, common, commonly, consistent, consistently, constant, constantly,
continual, continually, continuous, continuously, custom, customarily, customary, cycle,
cyclic, cyclical, daily, (a/per) day, day after day, day by day, (from) day to day, diurnal,
diurnally, each (April), episode, ever, for ever and ever, every (second) (week), every other,
fluctuation, for the most part, frequency, frequent, frequently, from (week to week), from
time to time, (in) general, generally, habit, habitual, habitually, happen, (an/per) hour, hour
after hour, peak hour, rush hour, hourly, how frequently, in (the winter), in most cases, in
some cases, in some instances, infrequent, intermittent, intermittently, (five year) intervals,
invariably, irregular, irregularly, less (often), (a/per) minute, (a/per) month, month after
month, monthly, more (often), most of the time, mostly, never, night, nightly, normal,
normally, not at all, not ever, not often, not very often, occasional, occasionally, occur,
occurrence, odd, often, on (Monday [s] ), once, once (a/per) (hour), once again, once in a
while, once more, ordinary, ordinarily, over again, over and over (again), per (annum),
period, periodic, periodically, permanent, permanently, perpetually, predictability,
predictable, quarter, quarterly, rare, rarely, rarely ever, rate, recur, recurrence, recurrent,
regular, regularity, regularly, repeat, (its) repeated (application), repeatedly, repetition,
repetitious, rhythm, rhythmic, rhythmically, rife, ritual, rotate, rotation, rotational,
rotationally, routine, scarce, scarcely, scatter, season, seasonal, (a/per) second, seldom,
session after session, some (weekends), sometimes, sparse, sporadic, sporadically, strange,
strangely, strangeness, successive, successively, temporary, temporarily, the (first) time, thick
and fast, time and again, (three) times, (19) times (out of 20), twice, typical, typically, under
(certain) circumstances, under no circumstances, unusual, unusually, usual, usually, (a/per)
week, weekly, whenever, wherever, without ever, (a/per) year, yearbook, yearly.a
B. Devices not occurring in Section J of the Brown and LOB corpora
a bit, a fair bit, a good deal, all along, a lot, as a general practice, as often as not, as often as
possible, at gaps of, biannual, biannually, biennial, biennially, bimonthly, biweekly,
cyclically, day in day out, endemic, ephemeral, ephemerally, episodic, ever and anon, every
(Sunday), every now and again, every now and then, every once in a while, every so often,
every time, few and far between, fitful, fitfully, fits and starts, fluctuate, fortnightly, hardly
ever, how many times, how often, incessant, incessantly, infrequency, infrequently,
invariable, just this once, many a time, many is the time, more often than not, morning noon
and night, most (weekends), never ever, not frequent, not frequently, not in a thousand years,
not infrequent, not infrequently, now and again, now and then, off and on, oft, on and off,
on and on, on each occasion, on every occasion, on no occasion, on occasion, on the hour,
once each (week), once every (week), once in a blue moon, once in a lifetime, over my dead
body, pack-a-day, periodical, perpetual, predictably, rarity, recurrently, repetitiously,
repetitive, repetitively, rhythmical, ritually, routinely, seasonally, seldomly, seven days a
week, eight days a week, sparsely, spasmodic, spasmodically, the whole time, thick, thickly,
thin, thinly, time after time, time and time again, times without number, twenty-four hours
a day, twice a/per (week)
a
Certain subordinate clauses and prepositional phrases also mark temporal frequency.
Thus, some of the examples produced by informants illustrate a

point made by Quirk et al. (1972, p. 496), namely that some
adverbial of temporal frequency are roughly equivalent to certain
quantifiers, as the following examples demonstrate.

4. It usually rains in the evening. (frequency)
5. Most evenings it rains. (quantity)
6. People rarely die of TB nowadays. (frequency)
7. Few people die of TB nowadays. (quantity)
Temporal frequency can sometimes also be approximately
equivalent to spatial distribution, probability, or duration.
8. Instances of TB rarely occur. (frequency)
9. Instances of TB are few and far between. (spatial distribution)
10. Instances of TB are thinly distributed. (spatial distribution)
11. People seldom see a blue whale in these
w a t e r s . (frequency)
12. People are unlikely to see a blue whale in
these waters. (probability)
13. It rained throughout the game. (duration)
14. They argued throughout their marriage. (frequency ?)
An important observation can be made from the informants’ data:
Whereas some aspects of temporal frequency have to be marked by
words and phrases, others do not and can be expressed by
implication or presupposition based on knowledge of the world.
Thus, whereas the meanings of usually, often, sometimes, a n d
seldom have to be expressed explicitly or marked with a word or
phrase, the meanings of always and never do not. Always can be
implied by the form of a proposition in the affirmative, the verb
(usually the stem or present simple form), and context.
15. Water [always] boils at 100° at sea level.
Similarly, many negated propositions imply never. In Example 16,
do not live roughly equates with never live in Example 17.
16. These butterflies do not live for more than 3 days.
17. These butterflies never live for more than 3 days.
Thus, many propositions, unless explicitly qualified, imply always
(or never if there is negation). These unmarked ways of expressing
temporal frequency have not of course been included in the list of
particular types in Figure 1.
Subordinate constructions beginning with conjunctions such as
when, whenever, wherever, after, before, as, while and until a r e
frequently used in academic English with the meaning of “always
under these conditions” and seem to be quite commonly used to
mark always. Some prepositional phrases can be similarly used.
76 TESOL QUARTERLY
Examples 18-28 are taken from Section J of the Brown and LOB
corpora as illustrations (all italics have been added).
18. The A-effect is obtained only when both eyes are used.
19. This loss is acceptably small when no correction for carrier recovery
is possible.
20. Whenever he could afford it he travelled widely to collect fossils.
21. [They] have a natural diameter limitation wherever a mesh support
cannot be tolerated.
22. A residue is left after hydrogen peroxide treatment.
23. The thickness must be increased before conductivity is observed.
24. As the nuclei increase in size they grow together.
25. They are almost completely non-volatile at low temperatures.
26. the various contraceptive methods they had used during their
married lives
27. Some radioactivity remains on the algae until the metathesis has
been completed.
28. At Ramadan fasting occurs.
In Examples 26 and 28, repeated occurrence or frequency is what is
being expressed rather than continuous duration. Knowledge of
natural or scientific phenomena or cultural or marital practices
helps direct our interpretation.
Although it was found that seeking native-speaker intuitions
produced many more types than the Minicorp and dictionary
searches, it should nevertheless be noted that this list, which totals,
for all three sources, almost 300 different types for marking
temporal frequency, is by no means exhaustive. Over my dead
body and not in a thousand years were produced by my informants
as ways of saying never, but none of them suggested synonymous
expressions such as not on your life, not a chance, that’ll be the day,
you must be joking, and so on.
Frequency of Use in Written Academic English of

Linguistic Devices Identified
While lists of types, however arrived at, can be an end in
themselves in that they reveal systemic possibilities, they can also be
the basis for further description and analysis. The next stage in the
study, therefore, was to see how many of the types listed in Figure
1 are used in academic written English and which are used most
frequently, the assumption being that the most commonly used ones
will generally be the most useful for learners of English for

academic purposes. And it is here that the easy availability of large
corpora of English for computer analysis has become of great
potential use for applied linguistics.
The Brown University corpus of written American English
consists of 1,014,312 words of running text. There are 500 samples,
each of about 2,000 words in 15 main categories ranging from press
reportage to fiction. Section J, the “learned” samples, is typical of
written English for academic purposes, but not of course of any one
specific subject area, since there are 80 samples, each of 2,000
words, covering natural sciences, medicine, mathematics, social and
behavioral sciences, politics, law, education, humanities, technol-
ogy, and engineering (Francis & Kucera, 1979). The LOB corpus is
a parallel sample of written British English (Johansson et al., 1978).
Together, Section J of the Brown and Section J of the LOB corpora
represent at least 160 different authors, and the approximately
350,000 words are equivalent in length to about 1,000 textbook
pages.
A computer search of Section J of the combined Brown and LOB
corpora was made, using the Oxford Concordance Programme as
software. The aim of the search was to find how often each of the
words or phrases in Figure 1 appeared in context in the corpora.
The results are shown in Figure 1 and Table 2. About two thirds
(192) of the 291 types in Figure 1 occurred once or more. The others
did not occur at all. Table 2 rank orders the devices which occurred
10 times or more. Although some of the types seem dubious in
isolation, care was taken to see them in contexts of about 20 words
to ensure that each use was expressing frequency of occurrence.
It is apparent that quite a number of devices are common enough
to be learned by someone wishing to use English for academic
purposes and that the list differs somewhat from the normal list of
adverbs of frequency taught to learners. Most striking is the large
number of instances that frequency is expressed by means of a
simple verb form in the main clause and a time conjunction and
subordinate clause. Quirk et al. (1972) give only one example of the
use of such a construction (whenever + clause), but as these results
show, it is by far the most common way of indicating the meaning
of “always under conditions” in the variety of English being used in
this study. Of course, as noted earlier, always or never can also be
implied or unmarked.
Next, frequency of occurrence is marked in texts not only by
adverbs. In fact, (in) general was more likely to occur than
generally, normal than normally, common than c o m m o n l y ,
ordinary than ordinarily.
78 TESOL QUARTERLY
TABLE 2
Rank Ordering of Linguistic Devices for Expressing Frequency
Occurring 10 or More Times in the Brown and LOB Corpora and in West (1953)
LOB/ LOB/
Linguistic device Brown West Linguistic device Brown West
Note: Frequencies in West (1953) have been adjusted to be comparable with the size of
Section J of the LOB/Brown corpora containing approximately 350,000 words. ? = not
possible to determine frequencies.
Although there were almost 300 different types identified in this

study, 99 of which did not actually occur in the Brown and LOB
corpora of academic English, there are a number of other possible
types which can be achieved through the use of attenuators and
intensifiers. For example, the word almost preceded invariably on 5
out of the 10 times in which invariably occurred in the corpora.

Attenuators and intensifiers which can combine with some
frequency devices to modify the meaning include the following:
almost—e. g., almost always, almost invariably, almost never
ever so—e.g., ever so often
fairly —e.g., fairly commonly, fairly infrequently
nearly—e. g., nearly always, nearly all the time
pretty (well) —e.g., pretty well all the time, pretty regularly
quite—e.g., quite often, quite commonly
rather—e.g., rather often, rather frequently
reasonably—e.g., reasonably often, reasonably typical
very —e. g., very rarely, very occasionally, very often
virtually—e. g., virtually continually, virtually always
Many quantity words can also combine with certain frequency
words such as times or occasions to generate more types than have
been listed in this study. Many times/occasions as a synonym for
often is an example. Furthermore, when a quantifier can be used
before times, the quantifier is sometimes used alone, for example,
We go there a lot.
Table 3 lists types which relate to the scale from alwaysys to never,
which was referred to earlier. With the exception of never, which
really is the most important type found for expressing zero
frequency, and often, which is more frequent than all the other
semantically equivalent types put together, it is clear that no one
type is adequate to learn in order to understand how any one part
of the scale is expressed. A similar picture emerges for the
expression of occurrence, iteration, and definite frequency,
summarized in Table 4.
Although the study made possible a comparison between British
and American usage, there did not appear to be striking differences.
For expressing “usual occurrence,” British writers were more
inclined to use adverbs such as usually, generally, commonly (e.g.,
The reaction usually occurs . . .), whereas American writers tended
to use adverbial with an adjective such as usual, general, common,
normal, typical (e. g., The usual pattern is for the reaction to occur
. . . ).
A more important comparison for teachers of English can be
made between the frequency information obtained from Section J
of the Brown and LOB corpora and that obtained from a widely
used and respected source such as West (1953). This classic guide
for teachers and curriculum designers is based on data collected 50
years ago from general rather than academic written English. Thus,
Table 2 shows, not unexpectedly, that there are major differences
80 TESOL QUARTERLY
between the present study and that of West in the relative
frequencies of the most common types of devices for expressing
frequency. More important, however, several very frequent types
do not appear in West at all. In 15 cases (marked ?) it is not possible
to determine the frequencies. West’s list thus needs to be and can be
supplemented as a source of data for the teaching of academic
English.
CONCLUSIONS
One of the conclusions which can be drawn from this study is that
of the three methods used to discover how we express frequency of
occurrence, the intuitions of native speakers produced by far the
largest range of types. Nevertheless, the list is not exhaustive, nor
can it ever be, given the creative potential of language. What
emerges is a pattern of huge variety.
However, while native-speaker intuitions helped produce a large
number of types, such a list is of little help to teachers, without an
indication of relative frequency in particular registers. Computer-
assisted analysis can provide that information. In the present study,
frequencies are provided for just one register—written academic
English. The same could be done for other varieties of spoken and
written English. Indeed, many of the types which did not occur in
the LOB and Brown corpora (about a third of the total) might be
characteristic of spoken varieties of English, including spoken
academic English.
Whereas learners of English for academic purposes are clearly
likely to encounter a large number of linguistic devices which
express the notion of frequency of occurrence, they may need to
produce very few. The importance of the difference between a
receptive vocabulary and a productive vocabulary is well
appreciated by teachers. The results of this and similar studies can
therefore help guide materials development by assisting the
selection of types within a semantically coherent framework.
The methodology used in the present study could be improved
by having more than one person examine each token or use of a
device in context to ensure that it is indeed expressing frequency of
occurrence. Nevertheless, the study does give us more reliable
information upon which to base curriculum materials than our
intuitive ideas about relative importance or than the use of unedited
texts which may not expose learners to important words or phrases
or give the repeated exposure necessary for learning important

TABLE 3
Scale of Temporal Frequency (With Number of Occurrences in Section J of the Brown and LOB Corpora)
Continual frequency Usual occurrence High frequency Low frequency Zero frequency
(always) (usually) (often) (sometimes) (never)
189 (in) general 124 often 133 sometimes 69 never 66
186 normal 119 frequently 36 in/under (certain) at no time 2
110 usually 105 repeated 36 circumstances 29 not ever 2
76 common 104 frequent 12 on some occasions 27 not at all 1
59 generally 78 repeatedly 9 scatter 22 without ever 1
35 typical 38 repetition 8 rare 19 under no
24 ordinary 30 a great deal 3 unusual 17 circumstances 1
21 usual 27 many times 3 occasionally 14
19 normally 26 again and again 2 rarely 14
14 commonly 24 time and again 2 in some cases 12
13 regular 18 rife 1 seldom 10
12 for the most part 10 thick and fast 1 occasional 8
11 custom 8 innumerable times 1 at times 7
10 more often 8 often times 1 periodic 7
8 more often than not 8 session after strange 7
7 ordinarily 6 session 1 from time to time 6
5 mostly 6 repetitions 1 odd 6
4 regularly 6 as much as sporadic 5
4 customary 5 possible 1 intermittent 5
4 routine 5 irregular 5
4 in most cases 4 scarcely 5
Continual frequency Usual occurrence High frequency Low frequency Zero frequency
(always) (usually) (often) (sometimes) (never)
TABLE 4
Occurrence, Iteration, and Definite Frequency
(With Number of Occurrences in Section J of the Brown and LOB Corpora)
Occurrence Iteration Definite frequency
items. Furthermore, the methodology, involving simple computer-

assisted analysis, can be applied to discover how other notions or
communicative functions are expressed in particular varieties of
English.
84 TESOL QUARTERLY
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Janet Holmes and Paul Nation, for their valuable comments
on an earlier version of this article, and Jack Fisher, Chris Lane, Jane Dudley, and
other colleagues, who made suggestions about how temporal frequency is
expressed in English. The earlier version of this article was presented under the
title, “Discovering How a Communicative Notion Is Expressed in English,” at the
19th Annual TESOL Convention in New York.
THE AUTHOR
Graeme D. Kennedy is Professor of Applied Linguistics and Director of the English

Language Institute at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. His current
research interests include English for academic purposes, computer-assisted
analysis of English, and second language learning theory.
REFERENCES
Auerbach, E. R., & Burgess, D. (1985). The hidden curriculum of survival

ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 475-495.
Cooper, J. (1979). Think and link: An advanced course in reading and
writing skills. L o n d o n : A r n o l d .
Dent, P., & McEwen, F. (1981). New Zealand: A new geography.
Auckland: Heinemann.
Francis, W. N., & Kucera, H. (1979). Manual of information to accompany
a standard corpus of present-day edited American English, for use with
digital computers ( r e v . ed.). Providence, RI: Brown University,
Department of Linguistics.
Johansson, S., Leech, G., & Goodluck, H. (1978). Manual of information to
accompany the LOB corpus, for use with digital computers. O s l o :
University of Oslo.
Kennedy, G.D. (in press). Quantification and the use of English: A case
study of one aspect of the learner’s task. Applied Linguistics.
Leech G., & Svartvik, J. (1975). A communicative grammar of English.
London: Longman.
McArthur, T. (1981). Longman lexicon of contemporary English. London:
Longman.
Pearson, E. (1983). Agreement and disagreement: A study of speech acts in
conversation and ESL texts. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of
Hawaii.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1972). A grammar of
contemporary English. London: Longman.
West, M. (1951). Catenizing. English Language Teaching, 5, 147-151.

West, M. (1953). A general service list of English words. L o n d o n :
Longman.
Wilkins, D.A. (1972). The linguistic and situational content of the common
core in a unit/credit system. In Systems development in adult language
learning (pp. 129-146). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
86 TESOL Q(JARTERLY
The Learning Style Preferences

of ESL Students
JOY M. REID
Colorado State University
Following a review of the literature on learning styles and

cognitive styles for both native speakers (NSS) and nonnative
speakers (NNSS) of English, this article presents the results of a
questionnaire that asked 1,388 students to identif y their perceptual
learning style preferences. Statistical analyses of the questionnaires
indicated that NNS learning style preferences often differ
significantly from those of NSS; that ESL students from different
language backgrounds sometimes differ from one another in their
learning style preferences; that other variables such as sex, length
of time in the United States, length of time studying English in the
U. S., field of study, level of education, TOEFL score, and age are
related to differences in learning styles; and that modifications and
extensions of ESL student learning styles may occur with changes
in academic environment and experience.
During the past decade, educational research has identified a

number of factors that account for some of the differences in how
students learn. One of these factors, learning styles, is broadly
described as “cognitive, affective, and physiological traits that are
relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with,
and respond to the learning environment” (Keefe, 1979a, p. 4).
Considerable research in the general area of learning styles has
been done with students whose native language is English
(Cavanaugh, 1981; Hodges, 1982; Stewart, 1981) and with English
speakers learning a second language in the United States and
Canada (Ballinger & Ballinger, 1982; Birckbichler & Omaggio,
1978; Genesee & Hamayan, 1980; Hansen & Stansfield, 1981, 1982;
Hosenfeld, 1979; A.G. Ramirez, 1986; Wong Fillmore, 1976).
Research on cultural differences in learning styles indicates, for
example, that members of industrialized societies and members of
nonindustrial societies respond to visual illusions quite differently
(Glick, 1975). Lesser, Fifer, and Clark (1965), who studied ethnic
87
groups in elementary schools, found that the pattern of mental
abilities (e.g., visual, spatial, abstract, and numerical) displayed by
middle-class and lower class Chinese children differed from the
pattern displayed by middle-class and lower class Jewish children.
Flaugher’s (1971) later study with high school students showed
similar differences; indeed, research by M. Ramirez and Price-
Williams (1974) and R.R. Gonzales and Roll (1985) has questioned
the validity of standardized intelligence tests on the basis of cross-
cultural differences in cognitive style. Research by Witkin (1976)
has shown differences in the global and abstract functioning in
different cultures: Different modes of thinking are characteristic of
different cultures.
If, indeed, learners outside the mainstream of American culture
exhibit unique learning style characteristics, then ESL students may
use most of their time and effort trying to adjust to their new
learning situations. Therefore, identifying the learning style
preferences of nonnative speakers (NNSs) may have wide-ranging
implications in the areas of curriculum design, materials develop-
ment, student orientation, and teacher training.
After summarizing a generation of research on learning styles, this
article describes the results of a self-reporting questionnaire
designed to determine the perceptual learning styles of ESL
students. The questionnaire was administered to 1,234 ESL students
in 39 intensive English language programs and to 154 native-
speaking university students, and the responses were statistically
analyzed to identify the relationship of learning style preferences to
such variables as language background, major field of study, level
of education, TOEFL score, age, sex, length of time in the United
States, and length of time studying in the U.S.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Native Speakers of English
Thirty years ago, educational theorists and researchers were
investigating the concept of cognitive style: how the mind actually
functions, how it processes information or is affected by each
individual’s perceptions. Various groups of researchers have
worked with pieces of this complex cognitive profile; each group
has its own taxonomy and terminology, though some appear to
overlap.
For example, Witkin (1976), Witkin, Moore, Goodenough, and
Cox (1977), and Witkin, Moore, Oltman, et al. (1977) have written
widely about field independent (analytic) versus field dependent
88 TESOL QUARTERLY
(global) approaches to experiencing the environment and
processing information, Kagan (1966) and Kagan and Messer (1975)
have discussed conceptual tempo: reflectivity (slower, more
calculated guesses) versus impulsivity (quick, risk-taking guesses) in
the responses of learners. Hill (1971) has investigated cognitive style
mapping, an inventory process that references preferred types of
media, instructional strategies, and structure of the environment.
Messick and Associates (1976) have listed more than 20 dimensions
of cognitive style, including those of Witkin and Kagan and sensory
(perceptual) modality preferences. Kolb (1976, 1984) has
introduced the terms accommodator, diverger, converger, a n d
assimilator to describe particular student approaches to learning.
Gregorc (1979a, 1979b) has done extensive work with his categories
of learning—concrete sequential, abstract sequential, abstract
random, and concrete random—which serve as indicators of a
learner’s mediation abilities and capacities.
In the mid- to late 1970s, paradigms began to be developed to
identify the more external, applied modes of learning styles. Style
refers to a pervasive quality in the learning strategies or the learning
behavior of an individual, “a quality that persists though the content
may change” (Fischer & Fischer, 1979, p. 245). Seminal research by
Dunn and Dunn (1972) resulted in The Learning Style Inventory
(Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1975), a self-reporting questionnaire that
enables public school students to identify their learning style
preferences. Among the 21 identified learning styles, R. Dunn
(1983) and Dunn and Dunn (1979) have reported on perceptual
learning styles, a term that describes the variations among learners
in using one or more senses to understand, organize, and retain
experience.
Research with U.S. school children (R. Dunn, 1983, 1984; Reinert,
1976) has demonstrated that learners have four basic perceptual
learning channels (or modalities):
1. Visual learning: reading, studying charts
2. Auditory learning: listening to lectures, audiotapes
3. Kinesthetic learning: experiential learning, that is, total physical
involvement with a learning situation
4. Tactile learning: “hands-on” learning, such as building models or
doing laboratory experiments
Research that identifies and measures perceptual learning styles
relies primarily on self-reporting questionnaires by which students
select their preferred learning styles (see Babich, Burdine, Allbright,
LEARNING STYLE PREFERENCES OF ESL STUDENTS 89

& Randol, 1975; Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1975, 1979; Kolb, 1976;
Reinert, 1970).
The research findings of the Dunns and their colleagues verify that
most students do correctly identify their learning strengths,
particularly when an element is strongly preferred or rejected (R.
Dunn, 1984). Dunn and Dunn (1979) found that only 20-30% of school
age children appear to be auditory learners, that 40% are visual, and
that the remaining 30-40% are tactile/kinesthetic, visual/tactile, or
some other combination. Price, Dunn, and Sanders (1980) found that
very young children are the most tactile/kinesthetic, that there is a
gradual development of visual strengths through the elementary
grades, and that only in fifth or sixth grade can most youngsters learn
and retain information through the auditory sense. Carbo (1983),
investigating the perceptual styles of readers, found that good
readers prefer to learn through their visual and auditory senses, while
poor readers have a stronger preference for tactile and kinesthetic
learning.
Farr (1971), who asked postsecondary students to identify their
learning style preferences through self-reporting questionnaires,
reported that their preferred learning styles paralleled their actual
learning strengths. In another postsecondary study, Domino (1979)
found that college students taught in preferred learning styles scored
higher on tests, fact knowledge, attitude, and efficiency than those
taught in instructional styles different from their preferred styles.
The questions of the identification and classroom application of
both student- and teacher-preferred styles are discussed in Student
Learning Styles: Diagnosing and Prescribing Programs (Keefe,
1979b) and Student Learning Styles and Brain Behavior: Programs,
Instrumentation, Research (Keefe, 1982). In addition, a host of
articles on cognitive and learning styles (unfortunately, the two terms
are sometimes used interchangeably) in elementary (e.g., Carbo,
1984; Pizzo, 1982), secondary (e.g., Douglass, 1979; Garger & Guild,
1984; Zampagna, Gentile, Papila, & Silber, 1976), postsecondary
(e.g., Grasha, 1984; Pettigrew & Zakrajsek, 1984; Sapp, Elliott, &
Bounds, 1983; Schmeck & Grove, 1979), adult education (e. g.,
Dorsey & Pierson, 1984), and vocational education (e.g., Birkey,
1984; Fourier, 1984; Gregorc & Butler, 1984; Walker, Merryman, &
Staszkiewicz, 1984) journals attest to the breadth of current research.
Second Language Learners

Interest and research in second language learning styles has
focused on cognitive styles (with some behavioral applications) and
90 TESOL QUARTERLY
on conscious learning strategies. Much of the work concerns the
interaction of cognitive styles and affective variables with
situational demands (Brown, 1974; Ely, 1986; Hatch, 1974; Heyde,
1977; Naiman, Fröhlich, & Todesco, 1975; Tarone, Swain, &
Fathman, 1976; Tucker, Hamayan, & Genesee, 1976). Other studies
have concentrated on the role of affective elements and cognitive
styles in academic achievement (Abraham, 1983; d’Anglejan,
Painchaud, & Renaud, 1986; Bassano, 1986; Bialystok, 1985;
Chapelle & Roberts, 1986). Wong Fillmore (1986) has studied the
process of learning English in bilingual and ESL classrooms, in
particular the role of cultural factors in second language acquisition.
The conscious learning strategies of NNS students (e.g., practicing,
monitoring, inferencing, memorizing, and self-directed learning)
have also been investigated (Bialystok & Frohlich, 1978; Carver,
1984; Krashen, 1982; Oxford-Carpenter, 1985; Wenden, 1984,
1986a).
Finally, recent studies have investigated culture-specific modes
of learning (Scribner & Cole, 1981; Wagner, Messick, & Spratt,
1986). Omaggio (1978) and Cohen (1984) have indicated that NNSs
can successfully identify and describe second language learning
strategies. Other research includes Wong’s (1985) discussion of the
“sensory generalist” learning style of limited English proficient
Asian students and Wenden’s (1986b) overview of the successful
language learner. This research in second language learning has
revealed that individuals vary in the strategies they employ because
of differences in learning styles, affective styles, and cognitive
styles.
There is no published research that describes the perceptual
learning style preferences of NNSs. Preuniversity ESL students,
with their variety of language and cultural backgrounds and their
differences in age and previous education, often come together in
intensive English language programs in which they are taught
homogeneously by teachers who have little knowledge of learning
styles. ESL instructors often use methods and materials that have
been developed with the learning needs of native speakers of
English in mind. In many cases, neither students nor teachers are
aware that difficulty in learning class material, high frustration
levels, and even failure may not rest solely in the material itself. The
study reported in this article was designed to provide baseline data
for future research on the perceptual learning style preferences of
NNSs and to provide insights for the ESL classroom.

THE SURVEY: DESIGN, SUBJECTS, AND PROCEDURES
A self-reporting questionnaire was developed on the basis of
existing learning style instruments, with modifications suggested by
NNS informants and U.S. consultants in the fields of linguistics,
education, and cross-cultural studies. The survey, which was
constructed and validated for NNSs, consisted of randomly
arranged sets of 5 statements on each of the six learning style
preferences to be measured: visual, auditory, kinesthetic, tactile,
group learning, and individual learning (see Appendix). Validation
of the questionnaire was done by the split-half method. Correlation
analysis of an original set of 60 statements (10 per learning style)
determined which 5 statements should remain within each subset.
The survey, including instructions for administration, was mailed
to 43 university-affiliated intensive English language programs
across the United States, the faculties of which had volunteered to
participate in the study. All NNSs in high intermediate or advanced
ESL classes in those programs were asked to respond on a voluntary
basis to the questionnaire as it applied to their learning English as a
foreign language. In addition, 154 native speakers of English
involved in various graduate and undergraduate major fields at
Colorado State University voluntarily completed the survey
instrument. A total of 1,234 questionnaires were returned from 39 of
the 43 participating intensive English language programs.
Respondents representing 98 countries, 29 major fields of study, and
52 language backgrounds completed the questionnaire. Table 1
summarizes data on the respondents for eight variables.
The individual student variables and the responses from the
questionnaires were statistically analyzed. Preference means for
each set of variables were classified into three ranges: major, minor,
and negative learning style preferences. Analysis of variance and
multiple comparison of means tests were run on the preference
means (p < .05). (Significance from the multiple comparison of
means analysis was determined on the basis of the Scheffé test
because it is the most valid test for unequal sample sizes and the
only one of the seven SPSS multiple comparison of means tests that
uses paired comparison of means and maintains total experiment
Type I error at < .05.)
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Generally speaking, the results of this study showed that ESL
students strongly preferred kinesthetic and tactile learning styles.
Most groups showed a negative preference for group learning.
92 TESOL QUARTERLY
TABLE 1
Overview of Learning Style Questionnaire Variables
Age n Language n TOEFL n

15-19 342 Arabic 193 300-349
20-24 532 Spanish 205 350-399
25-29 235 Japanese 130 400-449
30-34 87 Malay 113 450-474
35-39 43 Chinese 90 475-499
40-44 16 Korean 118 500-524
45-49 4 Thai 47 525-549
50-54 3 Indonesian 59 550-574
55+ 1 English 154 575+
Other 261
Length of time studying

Length of time in U.S. n English in U.S. n
Less than 3 months 428 Less than 3 months 511

3-6 months 272 3-6 months 266
7-11 months 149 7-11 months 133
12-17 months 151 12-17 months 131
18 months-2 years 66 18 months-2 years 48
Over 2 years 17 Over 2 years 13
Over 3 years 103 Over 3 years 53
class n Major field n sex n
Graduate 424 Engineering 268 Male 849

Undergraduate 851 Business 277 Female 481
Humanities 171
Computer science 130
Hard sciences 54
Medicine 43
Other 420
Note: Discrepancies between the totals for each variable and the total number of subjects (or
of NNSs) are due to the fact that not every subject supplied the requested information.
Surprisingly, one finding of this learning style preference study was

similar to that of a prior pilot project (Reid, 1983): Among all the
NNS language groups, Japanese speakers most frequently were
significantly different in their preferences.
Graduate/Undergraduate and Male/Female

Graduate students indicated a significantly greater preference for
visual and tactile learning than undergraduates, F (1, 1230) = 29.520,
p = .0000, and F (1, 1210) = 23.065, p = .0000, respectively;

undergraduates were significantly more auditory than graduates, F
(1, 1225) = 7.147, p = .0076. Both graduates and undergraduates
strongly preferred to learn kinesthetically and tactilely. Males
preferred visual and tactile learning significantly more than
females, F (1, 1281) = 4.144, p = .0420, and F (1, 1260) = 5.665, p
= .0175, respectively.
Major Fields
Statistical analysis did not provide as many significant differences
as anticipated, but the results seemed logically consistent (see Table
2). In general, responses for all six major fields indicated that
kinesthetic learning was a major learning style preference and that
group learning was considered a negative learning style by students
in all major fields except computer science. Visual learning was
selected as a major learning style only by students in hard sciences;
surprisingly, humanities majors were the least oriented toward
visual learning. Students in four major fields preferred auditory
learning as a major learning style: computer science, hard sciences,
business, and medicine. Engineering and computer science majors
were significantly more tactile than humanities majors (Scheffé test,
p < .05); students in all fields except hard sciences indicated that
individual learning was a minor learning style.
TABLE 2
Learning Style Preference Means According to Major Field
Learning style
Major field Visual Auditory Kinesthetic Tactile Group Individual
Engineering 13.28 13.36 14.58 14.10 11.39 12.34

Medicine 13.31 13.55 13.98 13.30 10.59 13.16
Business 13.07 13.58 14.48 13.81 10.70 12.65
Computer
science 13.31 13.89 14.51 14.54 11.53 12.77
Hard sci-
ences 13.70 13.83 14.25 13.83 10.42 13.65
Humanities 12.80 13.26 14.23 13.02 10.96 12.68
Note: Preference means 13.50 and above = major learning style preference; means of
11.50–13.49 = minor learning style preference; means of 11.49 or less = negative
learning style preference.
Related learning styles research with native speakers of English

suggests that students who shift majors during their academic
careers enter fields that are more compatible with their cognitive
styles ( Witkin, Moore, Oltman, et al., 1977), and some research
94 TESOL QUARTERLY
suggests that people with certain learning styles probably prefer
different content areas (Grasha, 1984). Further research into the
learning style preferences of ESL students in major fields might
focus on similarities to and differences from native English
speakers.
Age and TOEFL Score

Although statistical analysis did not result in significant
differences for these variables, the trends in learning style
preferences were interesting. First, the older the student, the higher
the preference means for visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and tactile
learning. The learning style preferences of students with higher
TOEFL scores more closely paralleled those of native speakers of
English. Whether these trends indicate a difference in the ways
older students or students with greater language proficiency
respond to questionnaires or whether they indicate that these
students generally approach learning with more sensory (percep-
tual) modalities is another area for future research.
Length of Time in the U.S. and

Length of Time Studying English in the U.S.
Statistical analyses of these variables generally were consistent
with analyses of previous variables. For example, respondents
selected kinesthetic and tactile major learning styles, and their
negative learning style was group learning. In addition, the auditory
learning style demonstrated an interesting trend: The longer
students had lived in the United States, the more auditory their
preference became. Students who had been in the U.S. more than 3
years were significantly more auditory in their learning style
preferences than those students who had been in the U.S. for shorter
periods of time (Scheffé test, p < .05). Two research questions
immediately come to mind. First, do students who have had more
“in country” experience with the language simply become more
comfortable with auditory learning? Second, and perhaps more
important, do students become more auditory as they adjust to U.S.
academic classrooms (that is, do their learning style preferences
change) ?
Another interesting trend indicated that students who had studied
English in the United States for more than 3 years were somewhat
lower in their preference means for visual, kinesthetic, and group
learning than all other student respondents. In addition, students

who had studied English in the U.S. for more than 3 years were less
tactile in their learning style preferences than students who had
been studying English in the U.S. for shorter periods of time. These
results also raise a question: When students have lived and studied
for an extended time in the U. S., do they adapt their learning styles
to the demands of the educational system? In this study, the
learning style preference means of the NNSs who had lived and
studied in the U.S. the longest more closely resembled the
preference means of native speakers of English.
Language Background
Nine language backgrounds, including English, were analyzed;
Table 3 gives an overview of major, minor, and negative learning
style preferences of students from the nine language backgrounds.
TABLE 3
Learning Style Preference Means According to Language Background
Learning style
Language Visual Auditory Kinesthetic Tactile Group Individual
Arabic 13.75 14.06 15.09 14.53 11.51 12.84

Spanish 13.39 13.29 15.11 14.18 10.79 12.79
Japanese 12.52 12.67 13.29 13.32 10.35 12.05
Malay 12.84 13.14 14.33 13.54 12.75 11.65
Chinese 13.55 14.09 14.62 14.52 11,15 12.41
Korean 14.07 13.73 14.58 14.48 11.42 12.46
Thai 13.40 12.83 14.63 14.09 11.49 12.94
Indonesian 13.41 13.78 13.90 13.47 11.15 13.07
English 12.12 13.82 13.64 12.69 10.08 13.13
Note: Preference means 13.50 and above = major learning style preference; means of
11.50–13.49 = minor learning style preference; means of 11.49 or less = negative
learning style preference.
Visual learning. Of all language backgrounds, Korean students were

the most visual in their learning style preferences; they were
significantly more visual than U.S. and Japanese students (Scheffé
test, p < .05). Arabic and Chinese language groups were also strong
visual learners. The selection of visual learning as a minor rather
than a major preference by native speakers of English appears to
conflict with previous learning style research, much of which
reports that “mainstream culture emphasizes visual learning through
the written word” (Bennett, 1979, p. 266).
96 TESOL QUARTERLY
Auditory learning. Japanese speakers were the least auditory of all
learners and were significantly less auditory than Arabic and
Chinese speakers (Scheffé test, p < .05), who expressed a strong
preference for auditory learning. Considering that the Arabic sound
system most closely parallels English, this result is not surprising.
However, the choice of auditory learning by Chinese speakers as a
major learning style and the rather similar preference means of the
Korean, Indonesian, and English speakers, all of whom chose
auditory learning as a major learning style, are results that bear close
examination in future research. Thai, Malay, and Spanish students
identified auditory learning as a minor learning style.
Kinesthetic learning. Most ESL students strongly preferred
kinesthetic learning as a major learning style. However, Japanese
speakers were significantly less kinesthetic than Arabic, Spanish,
Chinese, Korean, and Thai speakers (Scheffé test, p < .05). The
strength of most ESL student preference means for kinesthetic
learning (i.e., experiential, total physical involvement in learning)
has implications for both teachers and students in intensive English
language programs. Moreover, although the native speakers of
English had the second lowest preference mean in this area, the
mean is still indicative of a major learning style preference; it
appears that U.S. university students also strongly prefer
experiential learning.
Tactile learning. Native speakers of English were less tactile in their
learning style preferences than all NNS language backgrounds and
were significantly less tactile than Arabic, Chinese, Korean, and
Spanish speakers (Scheffé test, p < .05). The strong tactile learning
style preference expressed by most NNSs, coupled with the equally
strong preference for kinesthetic learning, has implications for
materials development and for teacher training in intensive English
language programs. However, the fact that native speakers of
English chose tactile learning only as a minor learning style, as well
as the trend toward lower preference means for tactile learning for
NNSs who had studied longer in the United States (see above), may
indicate that NNSs should be encouraged to adapt their tactile
preference to one that more closely parallels that of English
speakers. Additional research might focus on how often U.S.
academic classes (including laboratory work) employ tactile
learning.
Group and individual learning. Every language background,
including English, gave group work a minor or a negative
preference mean. English speakers rated group work lower than all

other language groups and significantly lower than Malay speakers
(Scheffé test, p < .05). Research with native speakers of English
appears to parallel these findings. In a study of secondary school
students, Vigna and Martin (1982) found that 84% of the students
preferred to work alone. It is important to consider how much
group work is done in university classes and in intensive English
language programs. If virtually none of the respondents chose
group learning as a major learning preference and if many of those
respondents indicated that group learning was a negative style,
some reexamination of curricula and teaching methods by both ESL
and university teachers may be in order.
None of the language groups showed a strong (major) preference
for individual learning; however, English speakers rated individual
learning the highest, while Malaysian students, whose preference
mean for group learning was the highest among the nine language
backgrounds, had the lowest preference mean for individual
learning. It is probable that culture—in particular, previous
educational experience—enters into student learning style
preferences for group and individual learning. Additional research
will help to identify those cultural and educational differences.
Overview of ESL Learning Style Preferences

Table 3 shows some interesting trends. Arabic, Chinese, and
Korean students appear to have multiple major learning style
preferences. For the Arabic and Chinese speakers, these results may
be due to the multiple cultures involved: Both language groups
included students from several countries. Another reason may be
that some language and cultural groups (e.g., Korean) may be
predisposed toward very positive responses on questionnaires,
while others (e.g., native speakers of English) appear to respond
across all available options (positive to negative).
For reasons yet unknown (although culture may certainly play a
role), Japanese speakers did not, as a group, identify a single major
learning style; that may be why they differed significantly in so
many of the statistical analyses. On the other hand, Spanish speakers
were definite in their choice of preferences: They chose kinesthetic
and tactile as major learning styles; group learning as a negative
style; and visual, auditory, and individual learning as minor learning
styles. Malay and Thai speakers appear to have similar learning
styles; moreover, Malay and Arabic speakers were the only groups
to identify group learning as a minor (rather than a negative)
learning style. Finally, Indonesian speakers appear to be most
closely related to native English speakers; both groups chose
98 TESOL QUARTERLY
auditory and kinesthetic as major learning styles, group learning as
a negative style, and visual, tactile, and individual learning as minor
styles.
The results of the ESL learning style questionnaire seem to
parallel, support, and add to previous research in several ways:
1. ESL students often differ significantly in various ways from
native speakers of English in their perceptual learning styles.
2. ESL students from different language (and by extension
different educational and cultural) backgrounds sometimes
differ significantly from each other in their learning style
preferences.
3. Analysis of other variables, such as sex, length of time spent in
the United States, major field, and level of education, indicates
that they differ significantly in their relationship to various
learning style preferences.
4. The data suggest that as ESL students adapt to the U.S. academic
environment, some modifications and extensions of learning
styles may occur.
ISSUES RELATED TO THE USE OF THE DATA

Two theoretical problems arise in applying the results of this
learning style preference study to NNSs: (a) how to “match”
students’ learning style preferences with “teacher styles” and (b)
whether or not student learning style preferences are malleable.
Matching of Student and Teacher “Styles”

Research with secondary students (Hodges, 1982) has demon-
strated that “approximately 90% of traditional classroom instruction
is geared to the auditory learner. Teachers talk to their students, ask
questions, and discuss facts. However . . . only 20% to 30% of any
large group could remember 75% of what was presented through
discussion” (pp. 30-31). To solve this problem, some learning style
theorists suggest matching teachers’ and students’ styles. In this way,
students are exposed to teaching styles that are consistent with their
learning styles (Barbe, Swassing, & Milone, 1979; Dunn, 1984; Dunn
& Dunn, 1979; Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1978; Gregorc, 1979b; Hunt,
1979). G. Gonzalez (1977) urges teachers in bilingual classrooms to
identify individual variables and determine various approaches to
achieve interaction.

However, others (Cronbach & Snow, 1977), while agreeing that
the development of effective teaching behaviors is essential to
student achievement (Brophy, 1986), believe that basing instruc-
tional adaptation on student preferences does not improve learning
and may be detrimental. From the educator’s viewpoint, schools
exist to serve both society and the individual; striking that balance
must necessarily limit individualized education (Davidman, 1981).
Moreover, even if researchers and educators successfully develop
learning style assessment procedures, specify learning outcomes,
and relate educational experience to them, the actual impact on
classroom teaching may be limited unless teachers can be
persuaded to use that knowledge (Grasha, 1984). One solution to
this problem might be to educate teachers about the possible
impact of teaching and learning styles and at the same time to
develop a “culture-sensitive pedagogy” (Laboratory of Compara-
tive Human Cognition, 1986).
Adaptation of Student Learning Styles

Researchers have discovered that for both native English-
speaking and bilingual/NNS elementary school children, learning
styles can change as the child develops (Barbe & Milone, 1981; M.
Ramírez & Castenada, 1974). However, earlier studies reported that
with secondary and postsecondary students, learning styles, like
aptitude, were immutable, that they remained consistent, regardless
of the subject taught or the environment (Copenhaver, 1979;
Reinert, 1976).
More recent research has demonstrated that young adult and
adult learning styles are moderately strong habits rather than
intractable biological attributes, and thus they can be modified and
extended (Davidman, 1981). According to Schmeck (1981), context
and task influence the learning styles of native speakers of English;
many individuals can change their strategies in response to the
unique contextual demands of the instruction, the context, and the
task. Dorsey and Pierson (1984) conclude that age and prior work
experience influence learning styles, and their data indicate that the
adult, especially after age 33, learns better by doing (kinesthetic
learning). Finally, Fourier (1984) suggests that more mature
students “learn intuitively to adjust to instructor cognitive styles”
(p. 153).
In bicultural and multicultural environments, Tarone (1979)
found that style shifting occurs when the same person responds to
different contexts, and Cohen (1984) indicated that second
language learners can use strategies which have been shown to be
100 TESOL QUARTERLY

successful to accelerate learning. Recent research results by
O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Küpper, and Russo (1985)
and O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Russo, and Küpper
(1985) suggest that second language learners can improve their
language performance by being trained to use specific strategies.
IMPLICATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

If educators can assume that learning styles are adaptable, that
learning style preferences can be identified and modified, and that
unconscious or subconscious learning styles can become conscious
learning strategies, then students, native speakers of English as well
as NNSs, should be exposed to the concept of learning styles.
Research with native speakers of English strongly suggests that the
ability of students to employ multiple learning styles results in
greater classroom success (Cronbach & Snow, 1977; Stewart, 1981).
Consequently, students should have the opportunity to assess
their own learning style preferences and should be encouraged to
diversify those preferences. Friedman and Alley (1984) suggest that
teacher guidance can initially motivate students to identify and
utilize their preferred learning styles and to take deliberate
advantage of those preferences. If teachers can show students the
variety and versatility of learning styles by providing experiences in
different teaching styles, the resulting awareness and expansion of
student learning styles may better allow students to meet the
demands of academic teaching methods and assignments (Grasha,
1972).
Thus, one goal of instruction could be to help students identify
and assess their individual learning styles. Another could be to allow
students to sample unfamiliar teaching and learning styles. Indeed,
a teacher who can “purposefully exhibit a wide range of teaching
styles is potentially able to accomplish more than a teacher whose
repertoire is relatively limited” (Smith & Renzulli, 1984, p. 49).
Another curricular solution might be to devise alternative
instructional situations to accommodate the variations in learning
styles that may exist in a classroom. Of course, designing and
implementing the curricular alternatives require skills in a variety of
teaching styles as well as the ability to manage the complexities of
such a classroom.
For NNSs, the concept of learning style preferences may be
completely new. The fact that students learn in different ways and
the possibility that students can adapt to a variety of instructional
modes may come both as a surprise and a relief. Students whose
previous education differed radically from the U.S. academic

environment may benefit particularly from a discussion of learning
styles, a self-assessment instrument, and experience with alternative
styles that will help them function better in a university classroom.
Moreover, the understanding and use of different teaching styles by
the instructor, as well as the awareness of individual learning styles
by the student, may influence success in the classroom.
There are, of course, dangers in the misuse of learning style
assessment, diagnosis, and prescription. First, turning questionnaire
results into stereotypes used to pigeonhole individuals or cultural
groups denies students the opportunity to develop fully. Moreover,
the variables that affect learning in general education, and in second
language learning in particular, are complex. A multiplicity of
interacting factors must be taken into account: the compensating
role of motivation, the nature of the learning task, the relationship
between teacher and student, and other situational variables (Doyle
& Rutherford, 1984). In short, learning style preferences of students
cannot be the sole basis for designing instruction, and prescription
based on diagnosis must be tentative, varied, monitored, and
verified (Gregorc, 1979a, p. 236).
In addition to the problem of the complexity of identifying
learning styles, Corbett and Smith (1984) discuss the problem of the
reliability of such learning style instruments as the Edmonds
Learning Style Identification Exercise (Reinert, 1970). Their study
showed that individual variation tended to be consistent and
therefore suggestive of external reliability but that group variation
lacked consistency and therefore tended to be less reliable. Gregorc
(1979b) lists three shortcomings of existing self-assessment
instruments: (a) The instruments are exclusive (i. e., they focus on
certain variables); (b) the students may not self-report accurately;
and (c) the students have adapted for so long that they may report
on adapted preferences. Finally, McLaughlin (1981), in discussing
the problems of analyzing inventory data, states that research
has tended to identify people on the basis of socioeconomic status,
ethnicity, or IQ, rather than functional characteristics such as cognitive
style, motivation, and temperament. Perhaps the most important future
development is the determination of those functional characteristics
that, interacting with specific treatments, influence learning. (p. 345)
For all of these reasons, both teachers and students involved in
identifying and using information on learning styles should proceed
with caution and be aware that no single diagnostic instrument can
solve all learning problems.
102 TESOL QUARTERLY

Many variables related to the learning styles of NNSs need
further research and analysis. Future research projects might
attempt to replicate this study and to assess the accuracy of student
self-assessment through classroom observation and testing.
Additional refinement of student variables and subgroups, as well
as the addition of new variables, would extend the research.
Translation of the questionnaire into students’ native languages so
that it can be administered to NNSs whose English is at an
elementary level would provide baseline data for a longitudinal
study of those students’ learning style preferences. Questions
concerning the evolution, modification, and/or expansion of
learning styles, and the relationship of such changes to cultural
adjustment, must be answered: Do the learning styles of NNSs
change as they adjust to U.S. academic classes/teachers? Do
students from some cultures or some major fields of study adjust
more easily or have fewer adjustments to make?
The relationships between teaching and learning styles and
developmental processes also need to be studied. For example,
should beginning language learners be taught initially in their
preferred learning styles in order, perhaps, to reduce what Krashen
(1982) calls the affective filter? Certainly, work should proceed
toward integrating the complex construct of learning. Second
language researchers should focus on the long-term goal of an
integrated student profile—cognitive, affective, perceptual, and
environmental. They should move beyond impressionistic, often
redundant descriptions and toward assessment procedures that will
increase the student’s independence and initiative in learning.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to Colorado State University (CSU) for the Faculty Research Grant
that provided funding for this research; to graduate students in the MA in TEFL
program at CSU—Sherry Taylor, Carol Hansen, and Susan Parks—for their
assistance in the research; to Professors Ken Berry and Doug Sjogren for their
advice on statistical analysis; and to Judy Burmeister for her administrative and
computer skills.

THE AUTHOR
Joy Reid is the Academic Administrator of the Intensive English Program at
Colorado State University. She has published three ESL composition textbooks as
well as research in the use of computers in composition.
R E F E R E N C E S
Abraham, R.G. (1983). Relationships between use of the strategy of
monitoring and cognitive style. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
6, 1 7 - 3 2 .
dAnglejan, A., Painchaud, G., & Renaud, C. (1986). Beyond the language
classroom: A study of communicative ability in adult immigrants
following intensive instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 1 8 5 - 2 0 6 .
Babich, A. M., Burdine, P., Allbright, L., & Randol, P. (1975). Center for
Innovative Teaching Experience learning styles instrument. Wichita:
Murdock Teacher Center.
Ballinger, R., & Ballinger, V. (1982). Steps in managing the diagnostic-
prescriptive process in the foreign language classroom. In J. W. Keefe
(Ed.), Student learning styles and brain behavior: Programs,
instrumentation, research (pp. 33-37). Reston, VA: National Association
of Secondary School Principals.
Barbe, W. B., & Milone, M. N., Jr. (1981). What we know about modality
strengths. Educational Leadership, 38, 378-380
Barbe, W. B., Swassing, R. H., & Milone, M. N., Jr. (1979). Teaching
through modality strengths: Concepts and practices. Columbus, OH:
Zaner-Bloser.
Bassano, S. (1986). Helping learners adapt to unfamiliar methods. ELT
Journal, 40, 13-19.
Bennett, C. (1979). Teaching students as they would be taught: The
importance of cultural perspective. Educational Leadership, 36 ,259-268.
Bialystok, E. (1985). The compatibility of teaching and learning strategies.
Applied Linguistics, 6 255-262.
Bialystok, E., & Frolich, M. (1978). Variables of classroom achievement in
second language learning. Modern Language Journal, 62, 327-336.
Birckbichler, D., & Omaggio, A. (1978). Diagnosing and responding to
individual learner needs. Modern Language Journal, 62, 336-344.
Birkey, C.J.M. (1984). Future directions for adult education and adult
educators. ]ournal of Teacher Education, 35, 25-29.
Brophy, J. (1986). Teacher influences on student achievement. American
Psychologist, 41, 1069-1077.
Brown, H.D. (1974). Affective variables in second language acquisition.
Language Learning, 23, 231-243.
Carbo, M. (1983). Research in reading and learning style: Implications for
exceptional children. Exceptional Children, 49, 486-494.
Carbo, M. (1984). Research in learning style and reading: Implications for
instruction. Theory Into Practice, 23, 72-76.
104 TESOL QUARTERLY

Carver, D. (1984). Plans, learner strategies, and self-direction in language
learning. System, 12, 123-131.
Cavanaugh, D.P. (1981). Student learning styles: A diagnostic/prescriptive
approach to instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 62, 202-203.
Chapelle, C., & Roberts, C. (1986). Ambiguity tolerance and field
independence as predictors of proficiency in English as a second
language. Language Learning, 36, 27-45.
Cohen, A. (1984). Studying second-language learning strategies: How do
we get the information? Applied Linguistics, 5, 101-112.
Copenhaver, R. W. (1979). The consistency of student learning styles as
students move from English to mathematics. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Indiana University.
Corbett, S. S., & Smith, W.F. (1984). Identifying student learning styles:
Proceed with caution! Modern Language Journal, 68, 212-221.
Cronbach, L.J., & Snow, R.E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods:
A handbook for research on interactions. New York: Irvington.
Davidman, L. (1981). Learning style: The myth, the panacea, the wisdom.
Phi Delta Kappan, 62, 6 4 1 - 6 4 5 .
Domino, G. (1979). Interactive effects of achievement orientation and
teaching style on academic achievement. ACT Research Report, 39, 1-9.
Dorsey, O. L., & Pierson, M.J. (1984). A descriptive study of adult learning
styles in a non-traditional education program. Lifelong Learning: An
Omnibus of Practice and Research, 7, 8-11.
Douglass, C.B. (1979). Making biology easier to understand. The American
Biology Teacher, 4, 277-299.
Doyle, W., & Rutherford, B. (1984). Classroom research on matching
learning and teaching styles. Theory Into Practice, 23, 20-25.
Dunn, R. (1983). Learning style and its relation to exceptionality at both
ends of the spectrum. Exceptional Children, 49, 496-506.
Dunn, R. (1984). Learning style: State of the scene. Theory Into Practice,
23, 1 0 - 1 9 .
Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1972). Practical approaches to individualizing
instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Dunn, R. S., & Dunn, K.J. (1979). Learning styles/teaching styles: Should
they . . . can they . . . be matched? Educational Leadership, 36, 238-244.
Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G.E. (1975). The learning style inventory.
Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.
Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G.E. (1978). Teaching students through their
individual learning styles. Reston, VA: Reston Publishing.
Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G.E. (1979). The productivity environmental
preference survey. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.
Ely, C. (1986). An analysis of discomfort, risktaking, sociability, and
motivation in the L2 classroom. Language Learning, 36, 238-244.
Farr, B.J. (1971). Individual differences in learning: Predicting one’s more
effective learning modality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Catholic
University.

Fischer, B., & Fischer, L. (1979). Styles in teaching and learning.
E d u c a t i o n a l L e a d e r s h i p , 3 6 , 245-254. .
Flaugher, R. (1971). Patterns of test performance by high school students
of four ethnic identities (Research Report RB-71-25). Princeton, NJ:
Educational Testing Service.
Fourier, M.J. (1984). Disclosure of cognitive style information: Effects on
achievement of adult learners. Adult Education Quarterly, 34, 147-154.
Friedman, P., & Alley, R. (1984). Learning/teaching styles: Applying the
principles. Theory Into Practice, 23, 77-81.
Garger, S., & Guild, P. (1984). Learning styles: The crucial differences.
Curriculum Review, 23, 9-12.
Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (1980). Individual differences in second
language learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1, 95-110.
Glick, J. (1975). Cognitive development in cross-cultural perspective. In
F.D. Horowitz (Ed.), Review of child development research (pp. 595-
654). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gonzales, R. R., & Roll, S. (1985). Relationship between acculturation,
cognitive style, and intelligence. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
16, 190-205.
Gonzalez, G. (1977). Teaching bilingual children. In Bilingual education:
Current perspectives: Vol. 2. Linguistics (pp. 53-59). Arlington, VA:
Center for Applied Linguistics.
Grasha, A.F. (1972). Observations on relating teaching goals to student
response styles and classroom methods. American Psychologist, 27, 144-
147.
Grasha, A.F. (1984). Learning styles: The journey from Greenwich
Observatory (1796) to the college classroom (1984). Improving College
and University Teaching, 32, 46-53.
Gregorc, A.F. (1979a). Learning/teaching styles: Potent forces behind
them. Educational Leadership, 36, 234-236.
Gregorc, A.F. (1979b). Learning/teaching styles: Their nature and effects.
In J. W. Keefe (Ed.), Student learning styles: Diagnosing and prescribing
programs (pp. 19-26). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary
School Principals.
Gregorc, A. F., & Butler, K.A. (1984, April). Learning is a matter of style.
journal of the American Vocational Association, 59, pp. 27-29.
Hansen, J., & Stansfield, C. (1981). Relationship of field dependent-
independent cognitive styles to foreign language achievement.
Hansen, J., & Stansfield, C. (1982). Student-teacher cognitive styles and
foreign language achievement: A preliminary study. Modern Language
Journal, 66, 263-273.
Hatch, E. (1974, June). Second language learning universals? Working
Papers on Bilingualism, 3, pp. 1-17.
Heyde, A. (1977). The relationship between self-esteem and the oral
production of a second language. In H.D. Brown, C.A. Yorio, & R.H.
Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL ’77 (pp. 226-240). Washington, DC: TESOL.
106 TESOL QUARTERLY

Hill, J. (1971). Personalized education programs utilizing cognitive style
mapping. Bloomfield Hills, MI: Oakland Community College.
Hodges, H. (1982). Madison Prep—Alternatives through learning styles. In
J.W. Keefe (Ed.), Student learning styles and brain behavior: Programs,
instrumentation, research (pp. 28-31). Reston, VA: National Association
Hosenfeld, C. (1979). A learning-teaching view of second language
acquisition. Foreign Language Annals, 12, 5 1 - 5 4 .
Hunt, D.E. (1979). Learning style and student needs: An introduction to
conceptual level. In J. W. Keefe (Ed.), Student learning styles:
Diagnosing and prescribing programs (pp. 27-38). Reston, VA: National
Association of Secondary School Principals.
Kagan, J. (1966). Reflection-impulsivity: The generality and dynamics of
conceptual tempo. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 71, 1 7 - 2 4 .
Kagan, J., & Messer, S.G. (1975). A reply to “Some misgivings about the
matching familiar figures test as a measurement of reflection-
impulsivity.” Developmental Psychology, 11, 2 4 4 - 2 4 8 .
Keefe, J.W. (1979a). Learning style: An overview. In J. W. Keefe (Ed.),
Student learning styles: Diagnosing and prescribing programs (pp. 1-17).
Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Keefe, J. W. (Ed.). (1979b). Student learning styles: Diagnosing and
prescribing programs. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary
School Principals.
Keefe, J. W. (Ed.). (1982). Student learning styles and brain behavior:
Programs, instrumentation, research. Reston, VA: National Association
Kolb, D.A. (1976). The learning style inventory. Boston: McBer.
Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source o f
learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition.
New York: Pergamon.
Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition. (1986). Contributions of
cross-cultural research to educational practice. American Psychologist,
41, 1049-1058.
Lesser, G. S., Fifer, G., & Clark, D.H. (1965). Mental abilities of children
from different social-class and cultural groups. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 30(4, Serial No. 102).
McLaughlin, B. (1981). Theory and research in second language learning:
An emerging paradigm. Language Learning, 30, 331-350.
Messick, S., & Associates (Eds.). (1976). Individuality in learning. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Naiman, N., Fröhlich, M., & Todesco, A. (1975). The good second
language learner. TESL Talk, 5 (l), 58-75.
Omaggio, A.C. (1978, May). Successful language learners: What do we
know about them? ERIC/CLL News BuUetin, pp. 2-3.

O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Küpper, L., &
Russo, R. (1985). Learning strategies used by beginning and
intermediate ESL students. L a n g u a g e L e a r n i n g , 3 5 , 2 1 - 4 6 .
O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R. P., &
Küpper, L. (1985). Learning strategy applications with students of
English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 5 5 7 - 5 8 4 .
Oxford-Carpenter, R. (1985). Second language learning strategies: What
the research has to say. ERIC/CLL News Bulletin, 9 (l), 1,3-4.
Pettigrew, F., & Zakrajsek, D. (1984). A profile of learning style
preferences among physical education majors. The Physical Educator,
41, 8 5 -89.
Pizzo, J. (1982). Learning styles: Teaching through small group techniques.
Early Years, 12(9), 32-35.
Price, G. E., Dunn, R., & Sanders, W. (1980). Reading achievement and
learning style characteristics. The Clearing House, 5, 223-226.
Ramírez, A.G. (1986). Language learning strategies used by adolescents
studying French in New York schools. Foreign Language Annals, 19,
131-138.
Ramíez, M., & Castenada, A. (1974). Cultural democracy, bicognitive
de ve l opm e nt , and e duc a ti o n . N e w Y o r k : A c a d e m i c P r e s s .
Ramírez, M., & Price-Williams, D. (1974). Cognitive styles of children of
three ethnic groups in the United States. .Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 5 (2), 14-74.
Reid, J. (1983, May). Perceptual learning style preferences of international
students. Paper presented at the National NAFSA Conference,
Cincinnati.
Reinert, H. (1970). The Edmonds learning style identification exercise.
Edmonds, WA: Edmonds School District.
Reinert, H. (1976). One picture is worth a thousand words? Not
necessarily. Modern Language Journal, 60, 1 6 0 - 1 6 8 .
Sapp, G. L., Elliott, G. R., & Bounds, S. (1983). Dealing with diversity
among college students. Practice and Application, 22(2), 80-85.
Schmeck, R.R. (1981). Improving learning by improving thinking.
Educational Leadership, 38, 3 8 4 - 3 8 5 .
Schmeck, R. R., & Grove, E. (1979). Academic achievement and individual
differences in learning processes. Applied Psychological Measurement,
3, 43-49.
Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Smith, L. H., & Renzulli, J.S. (1984). Learning style preferences: A practical
approach for teachers. Theory Into Practice, 23, 44-50.
Stewart, E.D. (1851). Learning styles among gifted/talented students:
Instructional technique preferences. Exceptional Children, 48, 134-138.
Tarone, E. (1979). Interlanguage as chameleon. Language Learning, 29,
181-191.
108 TESOL QUARTERLY

Tarone, E., Swain, M., & Fathman, A. (1976). Some limitations to the
classroom applications of second language acquisition research. TESOL
Quarterly, 10, 19-32.
Tucker, G. R., Hamayan, E., & Genesee, F. (1976). Affective, cognitive,
and social factors in second language acquisition. Canadian Modern
Language Review, 32, 214-226.
Vigna, R. A., & Martin, M.K. (1982). Learning styles at Bishop Carroll High
School. In J.W. Keefe (Ed.), Student learning styles and brain behavior:
Programs, instrumentation, research (pp. 38-42). Reston, VA: National
Association of Secondary School Principals.
Wagner, D. A., Messick, B. M., & Spratt, J. (1986). Studying literacy in
Morocco. In B.B. Schieffelin & P. Gilmore (Eds.), The acquisition of
literacy: Ethnographic perspectives (pp. 233-260). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Walker, T. J., Merryman,J.E.,& Staszkiewicz, M. (1984). Identifying
learning styles to increase cognitive achievement in a vocational teacher
education program. Journal of lndustriul Teacher Education, 22, 27-40.
Wenden, A. (1984). Literature review: The process of intervention.
Wenden, A. (1986a). Helping L2 learners think about learning. ELT
Journal, 40, 3-9.
Wenden, A. (1986b). What do L2 learners know about their language
learning: A second look at retrospective accounts. Applied Linguistics, 7,
186-205.
Witkin, H.A. (1976). Cognitive style in academic performance and in
teacher-student relations. In S. Messick & Associates (Eds.), Individual-
ity in learning ( p p . 3 8 - 7 2 ) . S a n F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s .
Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P.W. (1977). Field
dependent and field independent cognitive styles and their educational
implications. Review of Educational Research, 47, 1 - 6 4 .
Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Oltman, P., Goodenough, D. R., Friedman, F.,
Owen, D. R., & Raskin, E. (1977). Role of field dependent and field
independent cognitive styles in academic evolution. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 69, 197-211.
Wong, O.K. (1985). A paradigm of resonant teaching for Asian LEP
students. Illinois TESOL/BE Newsletter, 13 (1), 2.
Wong Fillmore, L.W. (1976). The second time around: Cognitive and
social strategies in language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Stanford University.
Wong Fillmore, L.W. (1986, October). Cultural factors in second language
learning. Paper presented at the Fourth Rocky Mountain Regional
TESOL Conference, Albuquerque.
Zampagna, J., Gentile, R. J., Papila, A., & Silber, G.R. (1976). Relationships
between learning styles and learning environments. Modern Language
Journal, 60, 443-447.

APPENDIX
Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire
Name Age Date

Native Country Native Language
Graduate Undergraduate Male Female
How long did you study English in your country?
How long have you been living in the U. S.?
How long have you studied English in the U. S.?
What is your major field?
Most recent TOEFL score? Date of TOEFL
Directions: People learn in many different ways. For example, some

people learn primarily with their eyes (visual learners) or with
their ears (auditory learners); some people prefer to learn by
experience and/or by “hands-on” tasks (kinesthetic or tactile
learners); some people learn better when they work alone,
while others prefer to learn in groups.
This questionnaire has been designed to help you identify the
way(s) you learn best—the way(s) you prefer to learn.
Read each statement on the following pages. Please respond to
the statements AS THEY APPLY TO YOUR STUDY OF
ENGLISH. Decide whether you agree or disagree with each
statement. For example, if you strongly agree, m a r k :
please respond to each statement quickly, without too much

thought. Try not to change your responses after you choose
them. Please use a pen to mark your choices.
110 TESOL QUARTERLY

Questionnaire Statements
1. When the teacher tells me the instructions, I understand better.
2. I prefer to learn by doing something in class.
3. I get more work done when I work with others.
4. I learn more when I study with a group.
5. In class, I learn best when I work with others.
6. I learn better by reading what the teacher writes on the chalkboard.
7. When someone tells me how to do something in class, I learn it better.
8. When I do things in class, I learn better.
9. I remember things I have heard in class better than things I have read.
10. When I read instructions, I remember them better.
11. I learn more when I can make a model of something.
12. I understand better when I read instructions.
13. When I study alone, I remember things better.
14. I learn more when I make something for a class project.
15. I enjoy learning in class by doing experiments.
16. I learn better when I make drawings as I study.
17. I learn better in class when the teacher gives a lecture.
18. When I work alone, I learn better.
19. I understand things better in class when I participate in role playing.
20. I learn better in class when I listen to someone.
21. I enjoy working on an assignment with two or three classmates.
22. When I build something, I remember what I have learned better.
23. I prefer to study with others.
24. I learn better by reading than by listening to someone.
25. I enjoy making something for a class project.
26. I learn best in class when I can participate in related activities.
27. In class, I work better when I work alone.
28. I prefer working on projects by myself.
29. I learn more by reading textbooks than by listening to lectures.
30. I prefer to work by myself.

The English Language Amendment:

A Case Study on Language and Politics
ELLIOT L. JUDD
University of Illinois at Chicago
English language teaching has always been affected by the

political system. This article discusses the English Language
Amendment (ELA), a proposed constitutional amendment before
Congress which states that English should be made the “official”
language of the United States. A brief historical background is
provided, followed by a discussion of arguments for and against
the ELA. The motives behind the ELA are examined, and an
assessment of how the bill affects ESL professionals is outlined.
The goals of the article are to alert readers to the dangers of the
ELA, to counter arguments made by its supporters, and to urge
opposition to the Amendment.
A language is more than a grammatical or communicative system.

It is a symbolic system laden with emotional attachments that can
arouse the deepest passions. Such feelings about a language are not
only individual in nature; often they develop collectively into a
group ideology and as such can affect the language policy of a
country. Composed of a mixture of historical facts, mythology, and
half-truths, the ideology often becomes a rationale either for
existing language policy decisions or for efforts to create new policy
directions. This article is a study of one such case: the English
Language Amendment (ELA) currently before the U.S. Congress.
The attempt by the proponents of this constitutional amendment to
make English the “official” language of the United States has
engendered bitter debate between the supporters and detractors of
the concept and has spawned a series of similar proposals for
making English the official language in various states and
municipalities, the most recent instance occurring in California with
the passage of Proposition 63.
This article first provides a brief historical overview of the ELA
and discusses its status as of June 1986. Second, it presents the
arguments of the proponents of the constitutional amendment and
113
a series of counterarguments raised by opponents of the ELA. The
wider motives and issues associated with the ELA are then
analyzed. The article concludes with a discussion of how the ELA
and other such attempts at language policy potentially affect the
lives of English teachers and students both in the United States and
elsewhere. It should be stated at the outset that while I have
attempted to present arguments fairly, I strongly believe that the
ELA is a dangerous piece of legislation and should be opposed in all
its forms. I hope to convince those who read this article to adopt a
similar stance.
WHAT IS THE ELA?

The English Language Amendment currently exists in two forms.
The Senate version, officially known as Senate Joint Resolution 20
(S.J. Res. 20) of the 99th Congress (the 2-year Congressional session
beginning in January 1985 and ending in December 1986), reads as
follows:
SECTION l—The English language shall be the official language of the
United States.
SECTION 2—The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article
by appropriate legislation.
This seemingly plain and simple proposal was introduced into the
Senate on January 22, 1985 (Congressional Record, 131, pp. S515-
S519 [daily ed. January 22, 1985]), by Senator Symms (R-Idaho),
with support from Senators Burdick (D-North Dakota), Denton (R-
Alabama), McClure (R-Idaho), East (R-North Carolina), Zorinsky
(D-Nebraska), and Abdnor (R-South Dakota). Since that time,
Senators Helms (R-North Carolina), Mattingly (R-Georgia), Kasten
(R-Wisconsin), Johnston (D-Louisiana), Hecht and Laxalt (R-
Nevada), Goldwater (R-Arizona), and Thurmond (R-South Caro-
lina) have been added as cosponsors of S.J. Res. 20 (as of October
15, 1986).
The House of Representatives version of the English Language
Amendment, known as House Joint Resolution 96 (H.R.J. Res. 96),
was introduced in the 99th Congress on January 24, 1985
(Congressional Record, 131, p. H167 [daily ed. January 24, 1985]),
by Representative Shumway (R-California), with the support of
Representatives Badham, McCandless, and Packard (R-California);
Hansen and Nielson (R-Utah); Hyde and Porter (R-Illinois);
Kindness (R-Ohio); McCollum (R-Florida); Rudd (R-Arizona);
Sundquist (R-Tennessee); and Whitehurst (R-Virginia). Since its
introduction, an additional 30 Republicans and 7 Democrats have
114 TESOL QUARTERLY

been added as cosponsors (as of October 15, 1986). They are
Armey, Barton, and DeLay (R-Texas) and Wilson (D-Texas);
Burton (R-Indiana); Bentley and Holt (R-Maryland); Carney and
Solomon (R-New York); Chappie, Dornan, and Moorhead (R-
California); Broyhill, Cobey, and Hendon (R-North Carolina) and
Valentine (D-North Carolina); Crane and Grotberg (R-Illinois) and
Lipinski (D-Illinois); Franklin and Lott (R-Mississippi) and
Montgomery (D-Mississippi); Emerson (R-Missouri) and Skelton
(D-Missouri); Hartnett (R-South Carolina); Monson (R-Utah); Gallo
and Saxton (R-New Jersey); Smith (R-Oregon); Smith (R-
Nebraska); Whittaker (R-Kansas); Wylie (R-Ohio); Edwards (R-
Oklahoma); Bilirakis (R-Florida); Bliley (R-Virginia) and Daniel
(D-Virginia); and Nichols (D-Alabama).
H.R.J. Res. 96 is more explicit in its wording than its Senate
counterpart:
SECTION 1—The English language shall be the official language in the
United States.
SECTION 2—Neither the United States nor any State shall require by
law, ordinance, regulation, order, decree, program, or policy, the use in
the United States of America any language other than English.
SECTION 3—This article shall not prohibit any law, ordinance,
regulation, order, decree, program, or policy requiring educational
instruction in a language other than English for the purpose of making
students who use a language other than English proficient in English.
SECTION 4—The Congress and the States may enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
The debate over whether English should be the official language
of the United States is not new. It was first raised by the Founding
Fathers of the country at the time of independence. Ultimately, the
issue was resolved by not declaring an official language, although
the United States was far from a monolingual country at the time of
its independence. The reasons for not naming an official language
included a belief in tolerance for linguistic diversity within the
population, the economic and social value of foreign language
knowledge to the citizenry, and a desire not to restrict the linguistic
and cultural freedom of those living in the new country. Language
use was considered a matter of personal choice to be made by each
individual and not an issue for governmental intervention. Freedom
of choice in language, as in other matters, also had the pragmatic
advantages of serving to attract new immigrants to the young nation
and of disseminating information on the new country to those who
spoke languages other than English (Heath, 1976, 1977).
THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AMENDMENT 115

Following this early debate, the issue of a national language for
the United States remained quiescent until quite recently. That is
not to say that language rights for non-English speakers have never
been an issue. A historical analysis shows that in the roughly 200-
year period between the initial, Revolutionary-era debate and the
current revival of the issue, the country has undergone periods
ranging from tolerance of the use of languages other than English,
in both the pre-Civil War era and in the 1960s, to attempts at
linguistic and cultural repression of those who spoke non-English
tongues, most notably in the period during and immediately after
World War I (see Heath, 1976, 1977; Leibowitz, 1969, 1971, 1976;
Marshall, 1986). Furthermore, attempts at literacy requirements and
quota systems for immigrants attest to antiforeigner sentiments in
the United States, especially against non-Northern European
groups. Yet, in Congress itself, the issue of a national language was
not specifically raised, nor were there any legislative proposals
either to designate English as the official language or to bar
officially any other languages. The Supreme Court did rule against
state attempts to ban foreign languages in the schools, most notably
in Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), but these cases involved state efforts
to impose language restrictions, not an attempt to change the U.S.
Constitution.
The reemergence of the movement for making English the
official language of the United States occurred on April 27, 1981,
when Senator Hayakawa (R-California) proposed a constitutional
amendment known as S.J. Res. 72 (Congressional Record, 127, p.
S3999 [daily ed. April 27, 1981]). This resolution not only declared
English to be the official language, but also forbade both the federal
government or any state from making or enforcing “any law which
requires the use of any language other than English” and applied
this prohibition to “laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, programs,
and policies” by both state and federal governing bodies as well as
to “orders and decrees by any court of the United States or any
State.” The amendment would have allowed languages other than
English in “educational instruction” as a “transitional method of
making students who use a language other than English proficient in
English.”
The proposed amendment was never debated in any Congres-
sional forum, and no action was taken. According to Marshall (1986,
pp. 24-25), the Hayakawa bill suffered from wording problems and
would not only have outlawed bilingual ballots and maintenance
forms of bilingual education, as Hayakawa intended, but also
opened the possibility of banning both foreign language instruction
in general and the use of languages other than English for reasons of
116 TESOL QUARTERLY

health and public safety. Despite receiving no attention in Congress,
S.J. Res. 72 signaled the reopening of the debate on the
constitutional question naming English as the official language.
Following Hayakawa’s retirement from the Senate, the amend-
ment was again introduced in 1983, by Representative Shumway in
the House as H.R.J. Res. 169 (Congressional Record, 129, p. H777
[daily ed. March 2, 1983]) and by Senator Huddleston (D-
Kentucky) in the Senate as S.J. Res. 167 (Congressional Record, 129,
p. 12635 [daily ed. September 21, 1983]). The language of those two
resolutions is identical to the two forms of the ELA currently
proposed in Congress. Senator Hatch (R-Utah) did convene a l-day
hearing on S.J. Res. 167 on June 12, 1984, but the amendment was
never voted on, nor were any hearings held or votes taken in the
House of Representatives. Huddleston was defeated in his 1984
senatorial race, and the same amendment was reintroduced by
Senator Symms in 1985 as S.J. Res. 20. Shumway also reintroduced
his version of the ELA in 1985. As of October 1986, the 99th
Congress had not acted on either proposed amendment.
WHY THE ELA?

The proponents of the ELA have advanced several arguments in
support of a constitutional amendment designating English as the
official language of the United States. One reason cited is that the
English language is a source of national unity in this country and
that it has always been incumbent on people immigrating to the
United States to learn English. For example, former Senator
Abdnor (Congressional Record, 1985b) stated, “It is the English
language which unites us all as citizens of this great Nation” (pp.
S712-S713). The English language, according to this argument, has
been a traditional source of stability in this country. Former Senator
Huddleston (English Language Amendment, 1984) expressed this
view by saying:
For over 200 years, the United States has enjoyed the blessing of one
primary language that is spoken and understood by most of its citizens.
The previous unquestioned acceptance of this language by immigrants
from every linguistic and cultural background has enabled us to come
together and prosper as one people. It has allowed us to discuss our
differences, to argue about problems, and to compromise on solutions.
Moreover, it has allowed us to develop a stable and cohesive society that
is the envy of many fractured ones. (p. 15)
Connected with the historical argument of national unity is the
advancement of the melting-pot model for American society. The

proponents of this ideology believe that linguistic and cultural
assimilation of groups into American society is beneficial to the
social, economic, and political unity of the country and that English
is the language that all must adopt. Thus, laws (and rules,
regulations, and policies) that promote the use of languages other
than English are harmful to the country, while those that force
adoption of English are beneficial and serve to promote the
melting-pot goal. The following statements by Senator Denton
(English Language Amendment, 1984) and Representative
Shumway (English Language Amendment, 1984), respectively, are
typical expressions of these sentiments:
America is a nation of immigrants. Our greatness has stemmed from our
ability to assimilate vast numbers of people from many different
cultures. (p. 12)
We are enhancing these dissimilarities between immigrants and the
mainstream of American life, thereby inhibiting the vital acculturation
that must occur. (p. 70)
Some supporters of the ELA believe that declaring English as the
official language supports cultural pluralism in the United States,
rather than the melting pot. In Senator Symms’s (English Language
Amendment, 1984) words:
The Amendment preempts any further attempt to politicize language. It
would not threaten the vulnerable American tradition of polycultural-
ism. Ironically, only a common tongue can preserve that tradition. Only
a common tongue can bind together a nation made up of little nations.
(p. 46)
It should be noted, however, that Senator Symms (Congressional
Record, 1985a), while praising the merits of polyculturalism in his
1984 statement, extolled the virtues of the melting pot in the
following year, when he introduced S.J. Res. 20:
The American people are impatient with us. All around them they see
the result of language policies that Congress has imposed, policies that
challenge the uniqueness of English in our national life. We have
removed the heat from the “melting pot,” and the melting seems to have
nearly stopped. Many Americans now feel like strangers in their own
neighborhoods, aliens in their own country. (p. S515)
In general, though, advocates of the ELA do not support cultural
pluralism; they see the melting pot as the ideal American philosophy
and goal. They seem to fear that if non-English-speaking
communities flourish, the United States runs the risk of encouraging
political disunity and even potential disintegration. Former Senator
Huddleston (English Language Amendment, 1984) argued that
118 TESOL QUARTERLY

failure to declare English as the official language would result in
“ethnic confrontation and cultural separatism” (p. 23). Senator
Symms (English Language Amendment, 1984) stated that “without
a common tongue, the United States faces the prospect of
Balkanization and linguistic separation” (p. 44). Similar claims were
echoed by Gerda Bikales (1986; English Language Amendment,
1984, pp. 106-112), the Executive Director of U.S. English, the
major lobbying group formed for the express purpose of passing
the ELA.
Justification for the fears of disunity and separatism in the United
States is ostensibly bolstered by the experiences of other multi-
lingual countries. The proponents of the ELA consistently point to
cases of polarization, ethnic antagonisms, and demands for political
autonomy in countries like Canada, Belgium, and Sri Lanka. They
claim that a similar fate awaits the United States unless English is
constitutionally declared the official language (Bikales, 1986;
Congressional Record, 1985a, 1985c; English Language Amend-
ment, 1984).
Another series of arguments mustered by the proponents of the
ELA relate to discrimination and segregation. They claim that
current policies which allow for the use of languages other than
English encourage immigrants not to learn English. As a result, these
people, in Representative Shumway’s (English Language Amend-
ment, 1984) words, are kept on “the fringe of America’s English-
speaking mainstream” ( P P. 71-72) and encounter social and
economic discrimination because of their ignorance of the English
language. They remain segregated from the dominant English-
speaking majority and cannot fully participate in the vast riches that
American society has to offer. Only by declaring English the official
language and abolishing federal and state policies that encourage
the use of languages other than English will people be forced to
learn English. Thus, in the view of ELA supporters, a constitutional
amendment making English the official language is a way of
abolishing discrimination and segregation caused by language, just
as similar earlier constitutional amendments abolished discrimina-
tion based on race (English Language Amendment, 1984, p. 26).
Typical of this position is a statement by Senator Denton (English
Language Amendment, 1984):
The bilingual policy of the government is discriminatory in nature.
There is no room for upward mobility in a society if one does not speak
the language. Were English to become the official language of the
United States, however, all immigrants, all of our citizens, would be
stimulated to learn English. (p. 10)

Those supporting the ELA are quick to remind people that they
are not against certain uses of languages other than English in the
United States. They support foreign language instruction and the
use of languages other than English in cases of public safety and
health services. They also see nothing wrong in the use of court
interpreters for people who do not speak English or in the
government’s use of languages other than English for matters
relating to international affairs and diplomacy (Bikales, 1986;
Congressional Record, 1985a, 1985c; English Language Amend-
ment, 1984). However, they feel that laws, regulations, and rules
permitting or encouraging the use of languages other than English
have been overapplied in many other areas and that this discourages
people from learning English, since they can obtain services without
mastering the language. Furthermore, some supporters see these
laws and policies as just another attempt by the federal government
to impose bureaucratic regulations on local authorities and to hinder
individual communities from devising their own solutions to local
problems (English Language Amendment, 1984).
The two policies that supporters of the ELA find most irksome
are those relating to bilingual education and the bilingual ballot.
Most ELA proponents claim that they are not against all forms of
bilingual education. Many believe that the Bilingual Education Act
(Public Law 90-247,81 Stat. 743,816 [January 2, 1968]), which was
designed to provide a transitional method of education for non-
English speakers, has been converted, into a program advocating
maintenance of native languages and cultures at the expense of
learning English. They feel such a program causes children not to
learn English and not to become a part of the wider American
society.
Conversely, a policy of transitional bilingual education with no
provisions for native culture or language maintenance and no
teaching of the content areas in languages other than English will,
according to Senator Symms (Congressional Record, 1985c),
“reestablish Congress’ original intent in passing the Bilingual
Education Act of 1968; to teach students English as rapidly as
possible so that they may more fully enjoy the blessings America
offers” (p. S1555). According to Representative Shumway (English
Language Amendment, 1984), this would “make clear to immigrant
parents and children alike that mastery of English is indispensable
for one’s becoming a full member of American society” (p. 71).
In Senator Symms’s (English Language Amendment, 1984) view,
current federal policy on bilingual education is causing students to
become “illiterate in two languages” and is deceiving parents and
cheating children “of their future when we lull them into thinking
120 TESOL QUARTERLY

that English is not necessary to make it in America” (p. 46). Studies
are cited by the pro-ELA, antibilingual education forces to show
that the current bilingual policy is failing and that new
governmental policies need to be adopted (English Language
Amendment, 1984). Their general position on bilingual education
can best be summed up by Senator Burdick (English Language
Amendment, 1984):
The goal for all non-English-speaking Americans should be to learn
English. To the extent that bilingual education achieves this goal, it is
good. But to the extent that bilingual education stalls this process, and to
the extent that it allows a person to get along comfortably without
knowing English, it is bad. (p. 41)
The provision for bilingual ballots began in 1975 as an
amendment to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Extension, Public
Law 94-73, 89 Stat. 400 [August 6, 1975]) to provide access to
election materials in communities with a considerable number of
non-English speakers. Supporters of the ELA are unanimous in their
opposition to such ballots. They argue that people cannot make an
informed choice in elections if they do not know English, that such
ballots make minority members easy prey to bloc voting by special
interest groups, that in effect the provision is contradictory to
citizenship laws which require fluency in English, and that such a
provision inhibits the learning of English, since there is no incentive
to learn English if ballots are provided in another language (Bikales,
1986; Congressional Record, 1985a, 1985c; English Language
Amendment, 1984). Former Senator Huddleston’s (English
Language Amendment, 1984) words are typical of this stance:
By failing to provide a positive incentive for voting citizens to learn
English, we are denying them full participation in the political process.
Instead, we are making them dependent upon a few interpreters or go-
betweens for information as to how they should vote. Although this
process helps to preserve minority voting blocs, it seriously undercuts
the democratic concept that every voting individual should be as fully
informed as possible about the issues and the candidates. (p. 20)
Thus, bilingual education and bilingual ballots are seen by ELA
supporters as the beginning of the societal disunity discussed earlier.
To quote former Senator Huddleston (English Language Amend-
ment, 1984) again:
I see bilingual education and the misuse of it, and the bilingual ballot as
just an early manifestation of a much deeper and serious problem, and
that is the whole question of a bilingual or multicultural society in this
country. And while we might pass legislation that would address those

two situations, it seems to me that the proper way to settle the question
for future generations is to go the constitutional route of designating
English as the official language of the country. (p. 37)
OPPOSING ARGUMENTS
Those who challenge the need for a constitutional amendment to
make English the official language do so on several grounds. Some
challenge the facts presented by ELA supporters, and the ELA
lobby group U.S. English, as an “odd mixture of shallow in-
formation, misinformation, tangled logic, illogic and xenophobia”
(Donohue, 1985, p. 100). Some question the motives behind the
ELA, while others raise legal questions arising from a new
constitutional amendment.
Substantive Challenges
One point often raised by the opposition is the historical
reasoning behind the ELA. They point out that the United States has
always been a multilingual country (see Fishman, Nahirny,
Hofman, & Hayden, 1966; Kloss, 1977) and that there has never
been any social and political disunity arising out of language. The
closest thing to a separatist movement was the Civil War, but
language was not an issue in that conflict. The claim that the United
States is now experiencing a rise in the number of non-English-
speaking immigrants ignores historical evidence, as does the claim
that previous groups of immigrants abandoned their native
languages and adopted the English language and American culture.
The assertion that the U.S. is a melting pot has been widely
challenged as misrepresenting historical reality: At best, we can say
that the “melting” in the U.S. has varied with the group under
analysis, where its settlements were situated, how receptive the
wider society was to the alien group, and a host of other factors. A
blanket generalization that either linguistic/cultural assimilation or
monolingualism is a force in American political stability is a
misinformed representation of historical reality or a conscious
attempt to ignore reality.
ELA supporters also are misinformed or demonstrate a lack of
understanding when they draw analogies with multilingual
countries in other parts of the world and claim parallels to what
might happen in the United States. Canada, the favorite example of
the ELA advocates, does not present a situation comparable with
that in the U.S. First of all, Canada is an officially bilingual country;
the United States is not. Second, the complaints of the francophone
122 TESOL QUARTERLY

population arose from cases of linguistic repression of French
Canadians rather than from tolerance of the use of the French
language (Maldoff, 1986). Third, in Quebec we are talking not
about minority language rights, but majority rights (for French
speakers). Finally, when linguistic rights were guaranteed, as well as
improvements made in the social, economic, and political status of
French Canadians within and outside of Quebec, talk of secession
seemed to abate. The truth is that the claims that political disunity
within Canada would lead to open rebellion never materialized. In
short, there are great differences between Canada and the United
States, making comparative analysis difficult, if not totally suspect.
Comparing the situation in the U.S. to that in Belgium and other
countries is equally suspect (Beadsmore & Willemyns, 1986).
Extreme caution must be exercised to avoid overgeneralizations
when comparisons are made between countries. Granted, there
may be examples of civil wars based on linguistic differences
between rival groups, such as currently occurring in Sri Lanka, but
is language the source of the problem? Are there no other reasons
for these divisions, such as social, economic, or political inequality
or repression? Are linguistic differences the source of all problems
or merely a manifestation of other forms of unequal treatment? Can
we say that officially multilingual countries are inherently more
unstable than monolingual ones? If so, how do we explain the
stability of Switzerland or Sweden? For that matter, we should also
point out that civil wars, political instability, and killings may occur
within groups which speak the same language, as is currently
happening in several Central American countries and Northern
Ireland. The point is that it is dangerous to make statements of
direct causality between multilingualism and political instability or
to draw analogies and make predictions based on nonanalogous
situations.
Related to the issue of national unity is the assumption made by
supporters of the ELA that political, economic, and social stability
can be achieved by restrictions on policies involving language use.
Implicit in this assumption is the notion that people are not learning
English because of certain governmental policies and statutes but
that they would do so if such regulations were abolished. There is,
in fact, no evidence to substantiate this notion. Is there information
to show that immigrants of previous generations were any more
successful at mastering English than those who arrived after the
adoption of such policies? Are the policies themselves a direct cause
of nonmastery of English? Is there any research evidence available
to lead us to assume that abolition of these statutes will result in the

mastery of English? What we have is a series of assumptions that are
unproven at best and dubious at worst.
Let us now turn to the specific policies to which ELA supporters
object. First is the issue of bilingual education. Has bilingual
education been proven to be unsuccessful in teaching English to
nonnative speakers? The evidence is inconclusive. In reviewing the
literature, we find both favorable and unfavorable studies (for two
positive and two negative views, see Baker & de Kanter, 1983;
Cummins, 1986; Danoff, 1978; Troike, 1978). In other words, there
are no studies which demonstrate definitively that bilingual
education is a failure in terms of better English language mastery,
nor are there studies which show that monolingual programs lead to
better mastery of English than bilingual programs.
Furthermore, there are no definitive studies showing the
effectiveness of maintenance versus transitional bilingual education
programs or showing that either one impedes English language
acquisition. It is also premature to denounce programs in which
subject-area material is taught in the student’s native language as a
way of acquiring either knowledge in general or mastery of English
in particular. In addition, despite the assertions of some ELA
supporters, there is no evidence whatsoever for the claim that a
bicultural component within a bilingual education program creates
less incentive to learn English, makes children and their parents less
loyal to the United States, or is the first step toward a separatist
movement in the country. (See Cummins, 1986, and Hakuta, 1986,
for discussions of differences in bilingual education programs and
favorable arguments for bilingual education and native language
instruction. ) In short, these charges are unsupported by evidence
and may create negative reactions against bilingual education
programs and those who support and attend them.
In the area of the bilingual ballot, we again find arguments that on
the surface appear to be unimpeachable, but with further probing
their validity is called into question. Certainly, in a democracy, it
would be extremely desirable to have the widest voting participa-
tion possible and to have the electorate as informed as possible. The
question is whether the bilingual ballot expands or limits these
goals.
Advocates of the ELA claim that those who do not speak English
cannot be well informed on the issues to be voted. But are the issues
presented through non-English media less detailed and accurate
than those covered by the English media? Is the average English-
speaking voter better informed? There is an additional claim that
the bilingual ballot leads to manipulation by self-serving ethnic
politicians and to bloc voting. Bloc voting is not a new phenomenon
124 TESOL QUARTERLY

in the United States, nor is it limited to non-English speakers. Ethnic
groups, regardless of their English abilities, may indeed vote in
blocs, but so do religious groups, occupational groups, and a host of
one-issue groups. Again, charges are being leveled at non-English
speakers without substantial proof being offered.
Finally, we must remember that many of the provisions accorded
to non-English speakers during the last two decades—bilingual
education, court translators, bilingual ballots, bilingual health
workers, and so on—were designed to place these groups on an
equal footing with those who are fluent in English. The proponents
of the ELA warn us that such language uses lead to disunity,
separatism, and bias. Abolishing these provisions would be equally
likely to lead to the same results—dissatisfaction among a segment
of the population because they feel that they are not being accorded
equal treatment under the law. The sociopolitical discontent of the
1960s and 1970s indicates that oftentimes, separatist movements
and/or civil unrest are provoked by sentiments of rejection based
on nonparticipation and lack of recognition.
The Wording of an Amendment

Beyond the general issue of whether or not to make English the
official language of the United States, questions can be raised about
the specific wording of the two proposed amendments themselves.
The wording issue is an important one, since an amendment to the
U.S. Constitution represents the highest source of law in the country
and forms the basis for judicial debate. All federal and state laws
must conform to the U.S. Constitution; failure to do so makes a
statute null and void. Since precise wording is crucial in law and
since much of legal debate revolves around the interpretation of
words and phrases, careful analysis should be devoted to an
examination of how the two versions of the ELA are phrased.
S.J. Res. 20, the simpler of the two proposals, containing only two
sections, states only that English is to be the official language and
that Congress shall be given power to “enforce this article by
appropriate legislation. ” This, on the surface of it, is a seemingly
harmless, vague statement. Yet simplicity and vagueness can also
lead to great trouble and debate, for law is interpreted not only
according to what is said but to what is omitted.
Charles V. Dale, an attorney at the American Law Division of the
Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, did an
analysis of S.J. Res. 167 of the 98th Congress, which is identical in
wording to S.J. Res. 20 currently before Congress. According to his
analysis, the first section alone, which declares English as the

official language, does not “have any practical legal effect.” It does
not per se “mandate or prohibit anything, ” nor does it “imply the
wholesale repeal or nullification of existing federal or state laws and
regulations that require or permit the use of non-English for various
purposes” (English Language Amendment, 1984, pp. 32-33).
Dale’s (English Language Amendment, 1984) analysis of the
second section of the amendment, dealing with Congress’s ability to
make legislation to enforce the official language declaration, states:
Congress would possess broad discretionary powers under the
amendment to determine what laws are appropriate to enforce the
constitutional declaration of English as the official language, even
arguably to the point of requiring that English be used in certain settings,
(p. 33)
This means that Congress could not only restrict bilingual education
to being transitional or eliminate bilingual ballots, as supporters of
the ELA desire, but, despite claims to the contrary by ELA
advocates, could also make laws forbidding foreign language
instruction totally, prohibiting the use of languages other than
English in matters relating to public safety and health, disallowing
languages other than English in public meetings, and banning any
other type of non-English language use. Such legislative enact-
ments, although perhaps unlikely to occur in the near future, are still
possible owing to the vague wording of the amendment. Should the
makeup of the Congress shift radically in the future, there is no
guarantee within the amendment to prevent such legislation.
Of course, should these types of restrictive laws be passed, some
constitutional constraints might be possible, since, according to
Dale (English Language Amendment, 1984), other “competing
constitutional interests may be at stake” (p. 34). To be more
specific, suppose Congress, under the provision granted by the
ELA, passed a law forbidding public expression in any other
language but English. While legal under the ELA, such a law could
be challenged as violating the provisions of free speech under the
First Amendment of the Constitution. When two constitutional
amendments are in conflict, eventually the U.S. Supreme Court or
lower federal courts would have to adjudicate which of the
amendments took precedence. How the courts would rule would
be, according to Dale, “an open question” (p. 34). Thus, the ELA
could open a “Pandora’s box” and lead to restrictions of civil rights
and individual liberties which many might view as contrary to
American values. On the other hand, if the ELA were not passed,
clearly provisions of the First Amendment or any other relevant
amendment would take precedence over any federal, state, or local
126 TESOL QUARTERLY

attempt to impose severe language restrictions on the American
people.
A similar analysis was done by Dale (English Language
Amendment, 1984) of H.R.J. Res. 169, which is identical to the
current H.R.J. Res. 96. Despite its being more specific in allowing
transitional bilingual education in Section 3 and in applying the
Amendment’s provisions to state and local authorities, Dale
concludes that the House’s version is open to the same legal issues as
the Senate’s version. Thus, ELA supporters and lobbyists have
presented both incorrect and incomplete information. The former
involves their claim that their constitutional amendment would not
prohibit certain foreign language activities, such as court
interpretation, foreign language teaching, and public safety and
health issues. In fact, those matters are not legally guaranteed and
are open to judicial rulings. By not discussing other legal
ramifications (such as those cited earlier) arising from the wording
of the amendments they support, ELA advocates have not
presented the complete picture. Since a constitutional amendment
is the most extreme legal proposal that can be made in the United
States, great care must be given to each word and phrase contained
in it. To the average layperson, such a matter often goes unnoticed;
yet, it merits careful attention, scrutiny, and public debate.
Unfortunately, in the current debate on the ELA, the legal issues are
rarely discussed.
Why a Constitutional Amendment?

One additional question that must be asked of ELA supporters is,
Why is a constitutional amendment needed? If supporters feel that
certain provisions in the law have been abused, why not abolish
those statutes through the legislative process? Why not abolish the
bilingual ballot provision of the Voting Rights Act or change the
Bilingual Education Act to make transitional programs the only
possible option and eliminate provisions such as bicultural
education, which is regarded with such distaste? The answer,
according to some writers, is that there are some other motives
behind the ELA (see Maldoff, 1986; McArthur, 1986).
One answer seems to lie in an understanding of the supporters of
the ELA. As Appendixes A and B demonstrate, most supporters are
from states or districts with small numbers of non-English speakers.
Also, despite claims to the contrary, a majority of the ELA sponsors
are not supportive of any type of language or international studies,
as shown by the figures compiled by the Council for Languages and
Other International Studies. However, the most revealing

information is the ratings on political ideology compiled by
Americans for Democratic Action, the liberal rating group, and
Americans for Constitutional Action, a conservative rating group.
These ratings reveal that most of the ELA supporters are extremely
conservative.
Why is the ELA attractive? It seems to me that conservatives
currently are trying to create a view of the country that espouses a
return to some mythical America when life was simpler, people
more patriotic, the family a more cohesive unit, and everyone
believed in the same thing. It does not matter if such an America
ever existed; it is a nostalgic view that many find appealing. When
life has been complicated and stressful, appealing to a simplistic
ideology is much easier than trying to solve complex problems.
Foreigners are regarded with distrust by many in this country—
people say that they take away jobs from Americans both
domestically and abroad; that they want special privileges and are
given breaks that previous generations never had; that they are a
source of social unrest, crime, bad values, and so on. Illiteracy is a
serious problem, as is illegal immigration. Bikales (English
Language Amendment, 1984) describes the national scene in this
manner:
We have changed since the case was made for homogeneity. We are no
longer a contiguous Nation, but one spread out far into the Pacific and
beyond Canada’s north. We no longer share common ancestors, and our
common spiritual ancestors, the heroes of American history, have been
kicked off their pedestals. We speak a multitude of languages and insist
on voting in them and on educating our children in them. Religion is no
longer a common tie. We have remained steadfast in our beliefs in
democratic government, it is true, but the emphasis has shifted entirely
to assertions of individual rights, and the individual’s obligations to the
collective seem all but forgotten. Manners, customs, and lifestyles have
never been so varied. The criterion of a common history of war and
suffering followed by a happy outcome, so meaningful to the
generations that fought the Revolutionary War, means little to
Americans who mostly remember unpopular wars with confused
outcomes, and finally, far from forgetting past wrongs, we resurrect
every hurt, every past injustice, to every group in American society, and
each group makes sure that these are magnified and used to political
advantage, rather than forgotten. (p. 105)
People have learned that it is unwise to state explicitly that
foreigners are undesirable, especially those from Asia and Latin
America. Such a statement might be called racist. It is safer to fault
new arrivals with failing to learn English, being unpatriotic, being
uninformed voters, and desiring to maintain their own values
128 TESOL QUARTERLY

(Veltman, 1986). Whether these charges are valid or merely masks
for cruder sentiments is a question worth asking.
THE ELA AND US

How does the ELA affect our profession? I have argued
elsewhere (Judd, 1984) that TESOL is a political act and that as
educators (in the widest sense of the word), we are part of the
political process, whether we like it or not. For those of us working
in the United States, the ELA would definitely affect both how we
teach and the general environment in which we function. We would
be forced to return to a philosophy of ESL as “Americanization,”
our goal being one of trying to assimilate our students into American
culture as well as to teach the language. We would only be allowed
to use our students’ native languages if it served these Americaniza-
tion goals.
Furthermore, since we are the frontline soldiers, we would be
held accountable by those who favor such a policy—either we
implement the policy and receive public support or fail to
implement it and get blamed if our students do not learn English.
For those who oppose the ELA and the philosophy behind it, the
question is even more disturbing. If we implement the policy, we
run the risk of alienating ourselves from our students, but if we do
not, we could find our own jobs and programs at stake. We may
have to choose between violation of conscience and violation of job
responsibilities.
For those in our profession outside the United States, the specific
issue of the ELA may not appear to be of concern. Yet, it still offers
an interesting case study on how language and politics interact. As
such, it should make all of us aware of how tenuous the relationship
is between education and ideology.
The ELA debate should be of concern to those of us engaged in
research. It shows how we often fail to disseminate the findings of
our studies to those who make policy. The debate can also point to
directions for future research projects, since studies are still needed
in many areas in order to support or refute claims made by ELA
supporters and opponents. As we have seen, many of the claims
being made are merely hypotheses and need either validation or
denial based on fact, not conjecture. Finally, the ELA issue should
be a sober warning to all those engaged in research. Even when
studies are available on language policy issues, they are often
ignored by policymakers who already have predisposed ideologies
and biases.

The ELA should serve to propel all of us into sociopolitical action:
We must speak out against the ELA in all its forms and become
advocates for legislation that positively affects our political and
professional lives. We must also become advocates for our students
and their rights. We must go on record, both individually and
collectively, opposing the ELA and other legislation that threatens
us and those we teach.
CONCLUSION
The odds are currently against passage of the English Language
Amendment. The process of passing amendments was intended to
be a difficult one, requiring a two-thirds vote in each body of
Congress and ratification by three fifths of the state legislatures.
Groups with larger constituencies and more support have borne
witness to how hard it is to get a new amendment passed, especially
if the topic is controversial, such as the recent attempt at passage of
the Equal Rights Amendment. The ELA has had less support in
Congress and certainly has not received as much public exposure as
many other issues being proposed for the amendment process
(women’s rights, abortion, school prayer, etc.); thus, there is no
immediate chance of passage.
On the other hand, several states either have recently passed their
own versions of the ELA or are currently debating such laws. How
these laws will affect existing state procedures and whether or not
such restrictions, if imposed, will stand up to judicial challenges
remain to be seen. However, since the ELA has served as a device
for raising antiforeign feelings in this country and appeals to people
who either fear or detest foreign languages and culture and/or
profess a certain ideology that many deem threatening to
progressive social policy and civil liberties, the real threat may not
be the legislation itself but the hostilities that evolve from it. This is
something to concern us as professionals who deal with people from
non-English language backgrounds, and it merits both our
professional and personal attention.
We are all concerned with students’ learning English, and we all
desire an informed electorate which votes wisely on the issues at
hand. No one desires political, economic, or social disunity, for we
would all suffer under those conditions. On the other hand, most of
us enjoy a multilingual, multicultural America and consider it a
blessing rather than a curse. What we need is sound, workable
solutions to problems of illiteracy, poverty, and dissatisfaction in
the United States. What we do not need is simplistic reasoning and
narrow ideological pronouncements, which do not solve the social
130 TESOL QUARTERLY

issues of our time, but only generate distrust, hatred, and false
charges against fellow citizens. ELA supporters are often quoted as
saying that their motto is “one nation . . . indivisible”; unfortunately,
they have forgotten the second part of the quotation, “with liberty
and iustice for all.”
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank the following people for their suggestions and encouragement
in the preparation of this article: Teddy Bofman, Jodi Crandall, Penny Eckert, Jean
Handscombe, John Haskell, Kathy Reyen Judd, and two anonymous readers for
the TESOL Quarterly.
THE AUTHOR
Elliot L. Judd is Assistant Professor of Linguistics at the University of Illinois at
Chicago. He has written several articles on language policies and politics and their
influence on ESL/EFL. He is a member of the Executive Board of TESOL.
REFERENCES
Baker, K., & de Kanter, A. (Eds.). (1983). Bilingual education: A
reappraisal of federal policy, L e x i n g t o n , M A : D . C . H e a t h .
Barone, M., & Ulifusa, G. (1985). The almanac of American politics: 1986.
Washington, DC: National Journal.
Beadsmore, H., & Willemyns, R. (1986). Comment. International Journal
of the Sociology of Language, 60: Language Rights and the English
Language Amendment, 117-128.
Bikales, G. (1986). Comment: The other side. International .lournal of the
Sociology of Language, 60: Language Rights and the English Language
Amendment, 77-85.
Congressional Record, 131, pp. S515-S519 (daily ed. January 22, 1985)
(statement of Sen. Symms). (1985a). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Congressional Record, 131, pp. S712-S713 (daily ed. January 24, 1985)
(statement of Sen. Abdnor). (1985b). Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office.
Congressional record, 131, pp. S1555-S1556 (daily ed. February 20, 1985)
(statement of Sen. Symms). (1985c). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Council for Languages and Other International Studies. (1986, June 24).
Congressional voting record. Washington, DC: Author.

Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: A framework for
intervention. Harvard Education Review, 56, 18-36.
Danoff, M. (1978). Evaluation of the impact of ESEA Title VII Spanish/
English bilingual education programs. Palo Alto, CA: American Institute
for Research.
Donohue, T. (1985). U.S. English: Its life and work. International journal
of the Sociology of Language, 56: Sociolinguistic Perspectives on
Theoretical and Applied Issues, 99-112.
English Language Amendment, 1984: Hearings on S.J. Res. 167 Before the
Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
98th Cong., 2nd Sess. 1284 (1984). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Fishman, J. A., Nahirny, V. C., Hofman, J. E., & Hayden, R.G. (1966).
Language loyalty in the United States: The maintenance and
perpetuation of non-English mother tongues by American ethnic and
religious groups. The Hague: Mouton.
Hakuta, K. (1986). The mirror of language: The debate on bilingualism.
New York: Basic Books.
Heath, S. (1976). A national language academy?: Debate in the new nation.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 11, 9-43.
Heath, S. (1977). Our language heritage: A historical perspective. In J.K.
Phillips (Ed.), The language connection: From the classroom to the
world (pp. 23-51). Skokie, IL: National Textbook.
Judd, E. (1984). TESOL as a political act: A moral question. In J.
Handscombe, R.A. Orem, & B.P. Taylor (Eds.), On TESOL ’83 (pp.
265-273). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Kloss, H. (1977). The American bilingual tradition. Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Leibowitz, A. (1969). English literacy: Legal sanctions for discrimination.
Notre Dame Lawyer, 45, 7 - 6 7 .
Leibowitz, A. (1971). Educational policy and political acceptance: The
imposition of English as the language of instruction in American schools.
Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Leibowitz, A. (1976). Language and the law: The exercise of political
power through official designation of language. In W.M. O’Barr & J.F.
O’Barr (Eds.), Language and politics (pp. 449-476). The Hague: Mouton.
Maldoff, E. (1986). Comment: A Canadian response. International .journal
of the Sociology of Language, 60: Language Rights and the English
Language Amendment, 105-114.
Marshall, D. (1986). The question of an official language: Language rights
and the English Language Amendment. International Journal of the
Sociology of Language, 60: Language Rights and the English Language
Amendment, 7-75.
McArthur, T, (1986). Comment: Worried about something else.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 60: Language Rights
and the English Language Amendment, 8 7 - 9 1 .
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).
132 TESOL QUARTERLY

Troike, R. (1978). Research evidence for the effectiveness of bilingual
education. Los Angeles: National Dissemination and Assessment Center.
Veltman, C. (1986). Comment. International Journal of the Sociology of
Language, 60: Language Rights and the English Language Amendment,
177-181.
APPENDIX A
Profile of U.S. Senators Sponsoring S.J. Res. 20
% of Voting Age Pop.

Amer.
Name State Party ADA% ACA% CLOIS% Hisp. Ind. Asian

APPENDIX B
Profile of U.S. Representatives Sponsoring H.R.J. Res. 96
% of Voting Age Pop,

Amer.
Name State Party ADA% ACA% CLOIS% Hisp. Ind. Asian
Nichols
* Rudd
* Badham
Chappie
Dornan
* McCandless
Moorhead
* Packard
* Shumway
Bilirakis
* McCollum
Crane
Grotberg
* Hyde
Lipinski
* Porter
Burton
Whittaker
Bentley
Holt
Franklin
Lott
Montgomery
Emerson
Skelton
Smith
Gallo
Saxton
Carney
Solomon
Broyhill
Cobey
Hendon
Valentine
* Kindness
Wylie
Edwards
Smith
Hartnett
* Sundquist
Armey
Barton
DeLay
Wilson
* Hansen
1!34 TESOL QUARTERLY

% of Voting Age Pop.
Note: * = original cosponsor of resolution; R = Republican; D= Democrat; Hisp=

Hispanic; Amer. Ind. = American Indian; ADA% = 1984 rating by the Americans for
Democratic Action (a liberal rating group); ACA% = 1984 rating by the Americans for
Constitutional Action (a conservative rating group); CLOIS% = 1986 rating (70% or
more considered supportive) of the Council for Languages and Other International
Studies (a lobbying group of major language organizations). Population figures are
based on the 1980 Census, All figures except CLOIS% are from Barone and Ulifusa
(1985); CLOIS% figures are from the Council for Languages and Other International
Studies (1986).

International Association of
Teachers of English as a Foreign
Language
Subscription Rates
and details of the
Twenty-first International Conference

to be held in Westende-Middelkerke
Belgium
12-14 April 1987

From: IATEFL
3 Kingsdown Chambers, Kingsdown Park Tankerton,
Whitstable, Kent, CT5 2DJ
REVIEWS
The TESOL Quarterly welcomes evaluative reviews of publications of relevance
to TESOL professionals. In addition to textbooks and reference materials, these
include computer and video software, testing instruments, and other forms of
nonprint materials.
Edited by VIVIAN ZAMEL

University of Massachusetts/Boston
Language and Content

Bernard A. Mohan. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1986. Pp. xii +
143.
Language and Content has appeared at a time when language

teachers have become increasingly aware of the advantages of
teaching language through subject matter. Language for specific
purposes courses, language immersion programs, and courses in
which content such as literature or culture is the focus are all
examples of the current trend toward teaching language through
content. Mohan’s book not only affirms the importance and
effectiveness of teaching through content, but it also provides a
much needed organizing framework for developing content-based
language curricula.
In content-based second language and foreign language courses,
the target language is the medium, not the focus of instruction. The
content classroom provides a context for communication about
subject matter through the target language. Support for this
approach to language teaching and learning comes primarily from
the relative success, especially for majority language children, of
Canadian and U.S. language immersion programs (Cummins, 1979;
Genesee, 1985). It is important to note that the more successful
programs have been of the immersion (not submersion) type in
which the learners share the same first language.
On the theoretical side, Krashen (1982) argues that subject-matter
teaching can potentially meet his criteria for “optimal input.”
Linguistic input can be made comprehensible by the teacher; the
content of a subject-matter course is intrinsically interesting, or at
least relevant, to the learner; course content is not grammatically
sequenced and provides a great amount of input; and, according to
Krashen, subject-matter teachers can keep anxiety to a minimum by
137
focusing on the content rather than on the medium of instruction.
Maley (1983) likewise acknowledges the importance of an
awareness that the target language is a means to an end, not an end
in itself.
Cook (1983) examines various kinds of content in the language
classroom. He points out that typical language teaching content is
imaginary rather than real, and he suggests that several alternatives
to imaginary content be explored. Among the real content
alternatives presented are teaching an academic subject in the target
language (see Widdowson, 1978), using real life experiences of the
learners as course content, using language itself as course content,
using the culture of the target language as content, and using facts
about real life as the focus of the language course.
Although it is apparent that language teachers and researchers
have realized the importance of content in the language learning
process, a comprehensive framework connecting language,
thinking, and content has been lacking. Mohan’s book, Language
and Content, provides precisely such a framework. Through the
concept of an activity, he demonstrates how the language teacher
can use a knowledge framework to organize the integration of
language and content teaching.
The concept of an activity and the related knowledge structures
are central to Mohan’s connection between language and content.
The term activity has a much broader meaning in this context than
simply doing something: “An activity is a combination of action and
theoretical understanding. . . . Activity is a broad integrating idea
relevant to all teaching and learning, and it can take a wide variety
of forms. Of course, it need not involve physical action” (pp. 42-45).
According to Mohan, an activity can be divided into a practical,
direct action situation and the more theoretical, general background
information that relates to the specific situation.
The following original example of two students’ unsuccessful
attempt to start a car can be used to illustrate Mohan’s concept of an
activity. The action situation is broken down into three parts:
description, sequence, and choice. Salient moments of the action
can be isolated and described in detail: At one point the two
students are sitting in a car trying to start it. At another they are
looking under the hood to see what the problem is. At another they
are looking at a clock to see what time it is. These discrete moments
comprise a sequence of events which can be narrated: The students
get into the car and try to start it. When the car fails to start, they get
out to look under the hood, and so on. The situation also entails
choice: When it becomes apparent that the car will not start, the two
students are faced with a variety of options. Among them might be
138 TESOL QUARTERLY

calling a garage or starting service for help, calling someone they
know, or perhaps postponing the car problem to a later time when
they can look at it themselves.
In Mohan’s scheme, the practical knowledge structures are
complemented by three theoretical structures: classification,
principles, and evaluation. In order to illustrate the application of
the theoretical, general structures to this specific “no-start” situation,
let us assume that the two students have decided to repair the car
themselves. The background knowledge required in the repair
process includes the structures of classification, principles, and
evaluation. The students in this no-start situation would classify the
cause of the problem into one of two categories: (a) a fuel system
disturbance or (b) an electrical system disturbance. The compo-
nents of the respective fuel and electrical systems could then be
further classified; for example, the fuel system is composed of a
tank, a pump, and a carburetor, while the electrical system is
composed of a battery and a starter in one subsystem, and a coil, a
distributor, and spark plugs in another. Further classification would
also be possible. The principles of internal combustion represent the
second theoretical knowledge structure. These two students would
heed the general principles of cause-effect in attempting to solve
the no-start problem. Finally, a decision about the best course of
action would entail the knowledge structure of evaluation, The
students would make an informed decision about what to do, based
on a variety of criteria. Perhaps the cost of the repair would exceed
the value of the car. Perhaps the time required to find the cause of
the problem would be more than they were willing to invest. These
kinds of decisions would be examples of evaluation.
The activity outlined above, like all other activities, can be
exploited for language and content teaching. The direct action
situation clearly lends itself to a typical cartoon sequence, photo
story, role play, or flowchart. What is different in Mohan’s approach
is that the three knowledge structures (description, sequence, and
choice) are not regarded as situation-specific, as they might be, for
example, in a functional-notional approach. Mohan argues that
these particular structures can be applied to all other action
situations as well. The role of the general, background knowledge
structures is also crucial both in the learning of language and in the
learning of content. These structures, like the practical knowledge
structures, belong intrinsically to an activity. The practical
structures relate to experiential, hands-on learning, while the
theoretical structures relate to expository, verbal learning.
According to Mohan, both types of knowledge, the latter being
REVIEWS 139
more difficult for the learner to grasp, are essential in the learning
process.
The implications of this approach for the language classroom are
clear. The knowledge structures implicit in an activity provide not
only a means of organizing, but also a means of sequencing content
for language learners. Mohan suggests three principles for
sequencing content within his proposed framework. The first is that
learning experiences should move from practical to theoretical.
Learners gain new knowledge initially through direct experience
and observation and then make the transition to more abstract
thinking about an activity. The second principle for sequencing
involves choosing content topics which develop from the practical
and immediate toward the more theoretical and abstract. The third
principle relates to the nature of classroom discourse. Mohan argues
that it is essential to begin classroom teaching with situational,
context-bound language and then move in the direction of language
use related to content in more abstract, context-free settings. These
sequencing principles contrast sharply with grammatical sequenc-
ing and illustrate the importance of a direction-oriented curriculum,
that is, from practical to theoretical, in which the teaching of both
language and content is fully integrated.
Language and Content deserves high praise as an attempt to
demonstrate explicitly the connections between language and
content through a comprehensive organizing framework. The text is
readable and provides many examples to illustrate the principles
advocated by the author. Each chapter is clearly organized around
specific concepts. The summaries at the ends of chapters raise the
issues presented and lead the reader into the stimulating
accompanying exercises. Carefully chosen lists for further reading,
with short abstracts, follow the exercises. These reading lists reflect
the author’s interdisciplinary approach to the teaching of language
and content.
The book is filled with clear examples illustrating how the
organizing framework works. The examples show the important
role that visuals can play at all levels in the curriculum. Of particular
interest is Mohan’s use of flowcharts as an aid to learning as well as
to materials development. Because of the excellent sample materials
and the exercises accompanied by reading lists for each chapter,
Language and Content is not only valuable as a reference book for
language teachers, but would also be an appropriate choice for a
teacher education course on curriculum development.
Although the book’s usefulness to the language teaching field is
unquestionable, it is important to draw attention to some of its
weaknesses. One basic problem is the author’s assumption that the
140 TESOL QUARTERLY

knowledge structures included in his organizing framework are
indeed the relevant structures. What evidence is there that there are
three, and only three, relevant practical knowledge structures
complemented by three theoretical knowledge structures which are
implicit in all activities? Mohan provides a rationale for this
assumption in the appendix for chapter 2 (pp. 47-49). His choice of
knowledge structures should be regarded as a reasonable starting
point for further investigation, but it is important to note that it is
often difficult to separate knowledge structures from each other.
This, in turn, can make the task of materials development
formidable. Mohan’s scheme is plagued by the same difficulties that
have been encountered in earlier attempts to isolate clear rhetorical
patterns in language which can be used for language teaching
purposes.
A second assumption made in this approach to the integration of
language and content is that moving from the practical to the
theoretical is the direction most desirable for teaching and learning.
Is this direction best for all learners, or do some learn better when
they begin from a theoretical base? The level of maturity of the
learner, individual learning strategies, and previous learning
experience may play important roles in optimal sequencing. One
would want to be fully persuaded in favor of the “practical first”
position before making an extensive investment of resources in
developing appropriate teaching materials.
While the book is attractive and well designed, two technical
shortcomings should be pointed out. The first is an editing oversight
between pages 57 and 58, where a portion of the text is missing. The
second is the lack of a general index, a critical shortcoming, since
the book will certainly be useful for reference purposes.
My major disappointment with the book is the final chapter,
“Where Language and Content Should Not Be Confused.” This
chapter focuses on the need to keep language and content separate
in the testing process. Although the ideal of not subjecting students
to unfair, biased evaluation of content in language tests and
language in content tests is noble, this chapter represents an ironic
twist to the integrative approach advocated throughout the book. It
is a distracting chapter which could easily have been omitted or
replaced by a view of testing that integrates language and content.
Mohan concedes that language and content are difficult to separate,
but rather than accepting this and calling for innovative ways of
evaluating language as a medium in context, he reverts to traditional
concepts of language testing and only cautions the reader to be
aware of the potential overlap of language and content knowledge
in tests. He devotes one of the later sections of the chapter to an
REVIEWS 141
analysis of the difference between factual and semantic inference,
when it would have seemed more appropriate to discuss the
implications of his curriculum model for evaluation.
Graham and Beardsley (1986), suggesting that currently available
evaluation measures are only partially adequate for courses in
which language and content teaching are integrated, point out the
need for appropriate means of evaluation of language in content-
based courses. The work of Carroll (1980) on language evaluation in
context and analyses of the role of evaluation in integrated
language/content courses (see, e.g., Lange & Crawford-Lange,
1984) provide bases for the development of more innovative and
appropriate means of testing. Mohan’s knowledge structure scheme
offers an organizing frame in which an approach to curriculum and
evaluation could be developed. Although the obstacles to this type
of testing are great, especially in the tradition of discrete-point
evaluation, the appropriateness of such an approach cannot be
disputed. Through his arguments for recognition of the interrelated
nature of language and content, the author has helped sort out a
difficult curricular issue for language teachers; I am only
disappointed that he failed to extend this thinking to evaluation as
well.
Mohan identifies his immediate audience as those who are
involved with ESL and content teaching; however, the implications
of the knowledge framework obviously reach beyond ESL to all
second and foreign language teaching. The systematic integration
of language and content provides a realistic alternative to traditional
classroom approaches for all language teachers. In sum, this book
successfully takes on the formidable challenge of providing the
necessary link between language and content teaching. It is highly
recommended reading not only for ESL teachers, but also for the
wider audience of all language teaching professionals.
REFERENCES
Carroll, B.J. (1980). Testing communicative performance: An interim
study. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Cook, V.J. (1983). What should language teaching be about? ELT Journal,
37, 229-234.
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational
development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49,
222-251.
Genesee, F. (1985). Second language learning through immersion: A
review of U.S. programs. Review of Educational Research, 55, 541-561.
142 TESOL QUARTERLY

Graham, J. G., & Beardsley, R.S. (1986). English for specific purposes:
Content, language, and communication in a pharmacy course model.
TESOL Quarterly, 20, 227-246.
Krashen, S.D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language
acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Lange, D. L., & Crawford-Lange, L.M. (1984). Doing the unthinkable in
the second language classroom: The integration of language and culture.
In T.V. Higgs (Ed.), Teaching for proficiency: The organizing principle
(pp. 139-177). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.
Maley, A. (1983). New lamps for old: Realism and surrealism in foreign
language teaching. ELT Journal, 37, 295-303.
Widdowson, H. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford:
WILLIAM PERRY
University of Minnesota
PAIRallels: Narratives for Pair Work

Michael Rost and John Lance. Tucson: Lingual House, 1984.
Student’s Book, pp. 71; Teacher’s Manual, pp. 48; 2 Cassettes.
■ PAIRallels is well suited as a supplementary text for those

teachers who stimulate second language development by providing
their students with opportunities for self-expression and personal
involvement in the classroom. It is based on a communicative
syllabus that focuses on the use of language as a medium for
exchanging real information.
There are eight units, each based on a different theme. Students
are asked to solve a robbery, give marital advice, and even offer
opinions about child-rearing practices. Since most ESL classes
include students from a variety of ethnic backgrounds, the topics
become even more interesting as students share their cultural
experiences and background knowledge, increasing the interplay
among group members. Another advantage of this text is that the
units can be used independently of one another; they are not
sequenced according to content development or linguistic
complexity. Teachers can select units solely on the basis of their
lesson plans.
The units are introduced by statements or questions about a
problem, such as asking students to find out about a mysterious
phenomenon at a London train station. This serves not only to
initiate a series of tasks, but, more important, to trigger students’
imagination. The subsequent stimuli, a variety of reading and
REVIEWS 143
listening selections and pictures, provide clues and pieces of
evidence that are used in solving the problem. Each unit concludes
with the authors’ interpretation of the solution or outcome. This is
not to suggest that there is only one correct answer; in fact, Rost and
Lance state that other conclusions are possible and that these should
be judged by class members on the basis of evidence and
supporting statements made in the small groups.
A wide variety of reading, listening, and speaking activities are
interwoven throughout each unit in order to recycle and reinforce
content. Students are exposed to many types of functional reading
that adults are likely to encounter (e.g., tickets, newspaper articles
and ads, résumés, television program guides). In addition, these
examples provide a means by which to introduce reading realia
from the local community into the classroom.
Speech samples from the accompanying tapes provide exposure
to a variety of regional accents, registers, and paralinguistic
features, as illustrated by an informal chat between an Australian
mother and son, on the one hand, and a police interrogation of a
New York millionaire, on the other. The language is “alive” with
idioms, ellipses, and false starts, yet a generous sprinkling of
repetitions, redundancies, and paraphrasings makes the content
quite accessible to less proficient nonnative speakers. Listening
segments range from monologues to one-sided telephone
conversations to dialogues. A most interesting and creative variation
of the listening tasks is the use of Cassettes A and B in an
information gap exercise. Each tape has slightly different bits of
information that must be synthesized to arrive at a feasible solution.
Two other useful features of this multiskills text are prereading
questions and listening guides. Students are directed to read to find
certain clues, thus using reading for its intended purpose, to get
information. A simple checking exercise is used to help students
follow the flow of conversation during an aural segment. Oral skills
are also constantly practiced as students share information, express
personal viewpoints, and negotiate meaning to build consensus and
agree upon a single, representative position.
Unfortunately, PAIRallels does not include a writing component.
However, numerous activities throughout the book could naturally
lead into diverse, creative writing assignments. For example,
instead of simply inferring the contents of a previous letter in small
discussion groups, as is suggested in PAIRallels, students could
compose their own letters and use their own writing as a basis for
discussion. As students are given ample exposure to different oral
and written genres and tasks, they can also practice various
authentic writing activities.
144 TESOL QUARTERLY

Another shortcoming of the book is the limited practice it offers
in grammar (e.g., dictation exercises from listening passages) and
vocabulary (e.g., the use of context clues to define words).
However, the authors seem to view the teaching of grammar and
vocabulary, in this instance at least, as secondary: “While PAIRallels
emphasizes the development of strategies in listening and reading,
this course also contains practice material for focus on grammar and
vocabulary” (p. 4). In fact, these exercises do not appear to reflect
the authors’ views of second language teaching. Perhaps the
intention was to broaden the appeal of the book by inviting those
who subscribe to a structural syllabus to attempt a more
communicative approach to teaching.
The accompanying teacher’s manual contains useful additional
information and suggestions to help the instructor fully utilize the
text. A synopsis of the story is provided at the beginning of each
chapter, so that from the start, teachers can give their students
cultural and content schemata to help them understand more fully
the information to be used in solving the problem. In addition, the
teacher’s manual provides answers to the questions in the text and
supplementary questions that can prompt further discussion and
interpretation of facts and opinions.
This text is highly recommended to ESL/EFL teachers not only
as supplementary material that provides real language practice, but
also as a model of one attempt to utilize findings from current
second language acquisition research and ESL methodology in
teaching materials. Research in our field indicates the positive
effects of student talk and interaction on second language
acquisition (Doughty & Pica, 1986; Long, 1981; Long & Porter,
1985). PAIRallels incorporates these findings into activities that
require students to use the language to negotiate and solve problems
among themselves. The activities are most effectively carried out in
small groups. Hence, the teacher does not control “air time,” and
students are allowed the opportunity to work with the language to
arrive at a mutual understanding. Rost and Lance also refer to ESL
methodologists’ principles for communicative exercises (Johnson,
1982; Savignon, 1983). The activities serve as points of departure;
from here, the use of data from information-transfer activities can
be expanded, and newly discovered clues can be shared to arrive at
conclusions. In general, the communicative activities use language
to convey new information and are assessed according to content
and not syntactic properties.
Like all texts, PAIRallels is targeted for specific student
populations. It is most appropriate for intermediate, nonacademic
adult ESL classes. The language is not contrived either by
REVIEWS 145
restricting vocabulary or simplifying syntax for beginning ESL
students. Rather, it is intended for more mature students who have
communicative ability in English and who have opinions or
concerns about issues relevant to the topics in each unit. Finally, the
book is most suitable for school settings that are nonacademic and
geared toward life skills.
The cost of the entire set ($41.95) may seem expensive for a
supplementary resource, but student books can be purchased
individually ($6.95). These materials are well worth their price, as
PAIRallels brings 30 hours of high-interest communicative English
practice into the classroom.
REFERENCES
Doughty, C., & Pica, T. (1986). “Information gap” tasks: Do they facilitate
comprehension? TESOL Quarterly, 20, 305-325.
Johnson, K. (1982). Communicative syllabus design and methodology.
New York: Pergamon Press.
Long, M.H. (1981). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. In
H. Winitz (Ed.), Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Native
Language and Foreign Language Acquisition, 379, 250-278.
Long, M. H., & Porter, P.A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and
second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207-228.
Savignon, S. (1983). Communicative competence: Classroom theory and
practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
GAIL KIMZIN
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching

Diane Larsen-Freeman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986. Pp.
xv + 142.
This book is the fourth in a new series, Teaching Techniques in

English as a Second Language, edited by Russell N. Campbell and
William E. Rutherford which is designed to meet the needs of
practicing and student teachers of ESL. The main aim of the
series—to invite leading scholars to discuss current theories in terms
of their practical applicability for classroom teaching and
learning—is laudable and timely. Most second language acquisition
(SLA) theorizing in recent years has not addressed the classroom
setting, either as a source of data or as a place where findings can be
applied (notable exceptions are Krashen’s [1982] Monitor Theory
146 TESOL QUARTERLY

and Ellis’s [1984] Variable Competence Model); as a consequence,
there is a growing sense of alienation between teachers and
theorists. A second aim of the series is to “present practical
information that relates directly to daily classroom instruction”
(p. vii). In this regard, the series can be compared with, for
example, the Cambridge Handbooks for Language Teachers.
In terms of these two aims of the series, the present book
addresses the second rather than the first. It does not intend to assess
the relevance of current SLA theories to day-to-day second
language classroom concerns; rather, it looks at several well-known
language teaching methodologies and presents practical informa-
tion about them. In this sense the book can be compared with other
books which look at different language teaching approaches or
methods, such as Blair (1982), Oller and Richard-Amato (1983), and
Richards and Rodgers (1986).
This book is different from those just mentioned in that it uses a
rigid framework of discussion which is repeated for all eight
methods or approaches treated. This framework facilitates a
conceptualization—albeit a somewhat stereotypical one—of each
method along a range of key features. Table 1 lists the eight
methods chosen for analysis and presents information about the
classroom lessons which are used to illustrate them.
TABLE 1
The Eight Methods Analyzed in Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching
Sample lesson
Method Location Age Level
The Grammar-Translation Method Colombia Adults High intermediate

The Direct Method Italy Teenagers End of first year
The Audio-Lingual Method Mali Teenagers Beginners
The Silent Way Brazil Teenagers Beginners (first day)
Suggestopedia Egypt Adults Beginners (first day)
Community Language Learning Indonesia Adults Beginners (first day)
The Total Physical Response Method Sweden Adults Beginners (first day)
The Communicative Approach U.S.A. Adults High intermediate
Two points must be made about these illustrative lessons:

1. Whereas the choice of location is admirably varied, the choice of
levels is problematic, In particular, first-day beginners’ lessons
are chosen to illustrate all four “innovative” or “unconventional”
methods. This is unfortunate, since the relevance of these
methods beyond some initial phase of instruction is often
REVIEWS 147
questioned. Although Larsen-Freeman claims that “once the
principles are clear, they can be applied to any other level class
in any other situation” (p. 2), the book offers no practical
demonstrations or other evidence of this.
2. The descriptions are constructed (or, in two cases, based on
lessons reported elsewhere); that is, they are not actual lessons.
They presumably derive from the author’s experience and from
perceptions of what “typical” exemplifications of the methods
would, or actually do, look like. The fact that the lessons are not
authentic but rather idealized and therefore hypothetical
(however plausible) applications of methodological principles
seriously weakens their value in terms of classroom research and
analysis. It introduces a circularity into the framework of the
book: The lessons are constructed to illustrate the principles and
are then used as a basis for elucidating those principles. This
circularity pulls the rug from under one of the main potential
strengths of the approach: a discussion of methodological
principles in terms of actual classroom practices.
Furthermore, the hypothetical nature of the data at times makes
the lessons look rather artificial. As an example, in the grammar-
translation lesson the students consistently ask questions in the
target language, while the teacher answers in the native language.
In my experience it is much more likely to be the other way
around, with the teacher using the target language and the
students tending to slip back into the native language frequently
(see, e.g., actual classroom data reported by Sticchi Damiani,
1983).
The framework for the discussion of each method is as follows:
1. Introduction: origin and rationale
2. Experience: anecdotal description of a (generally fictitious)
lesson
3. Thinking about the experience: discussion of observations and
the principles underlying them
4. Reviewing the principles: questions concerning roles, interaction,
areas of emphasis, and so on (see below)
5. Reviewing the techniques: main strengths of the approach and
suggestions for use
6. Conclusion: summary of basic principles and pointers for
assessing value and usefulness
7. Activities: understanding check and classroom tasks
8. Extra reading
148 TESOL QUARTERLY

The book is most obviously useful for teachers-in-training or
practicing teachers who have direct access to classrooms. Larsen-
Freeman takes pains not to judge the different methods, but to let
them speak for themselves. This makes it possible for teachers “to
evaluate each method in the light of their own beliefs and
experience” (p. xii). Therefore, although the book looks deceptively
simple on first examination, it relies heavily upon the ability to
examine, compare, and justify beliefs and to extract relevant issues
from classroom experience. Many beginning and even experienced
teachers have great difficulty with this and need well-planned
methods courses to train for professional awareness and self-
monitoring.
To be more than a fairly simple and straightforward reader on
second language methods, the book therefore demands a context of
teacher training which goes beyond the content- and knowledge-
based curricula which still predominate in second language training
programs. Moreover, it requires an emphasis on the awareness
training Larsen-Freeman (1983) has described elsewhere. Other-
wise, answers to central questions such as the following will either
be trivial and superficial or inappropriately demanding: Are
structure drills valuable pedagogical activities? Do you believe
teaching should be subordinated to learning? Do you think that
students should be given responsibility for, in effect, creating the
syllabus? Does it make any sense to delay the teaching of speaking
in the target language?
Questions such as these–and they abound in the final sections of
every chapter—can of course be discussed at different levels. In the
first place, they can be discussed in the light of findings and
hypotheses suggested by current SLA theories, but this is clearly not
what Larsen-Freeman aims for. (Ellis, 1985, is a more appropriate
source for discussions at this more theoretical level. ) Second (and
this is Larsen-Freeman’s intention), they can be discussed in
practical classroom terms, in the light of experience and daily
teaching. In making this choice, the book fails to bridge the gap
between current SLA theory and classroom practice, but rather
operates at a level which largely ignores current theoretical issues.
This can be regarded as either a strength or a weakness, depending
on one’s concern for the theoretical underpinnings of second
language learning and teaching.
The principles of the methods are derived from observations
about each sample lesson presented and are listed as a number of
points. These principles are then summarized in the answers to the
following 10 questions, which are repeated in every chapter:
REVIEWS 149
1. What are the goals of teachers who use [the method]?
2. What is the role of the teacher? What is the role of the students?
3. What are some characteristics of the teaching/learning process?
4. What is the nature of student-teacher interaction? What is the nature
of student-student interaction?
5. How are the feelings of the students dealt with?
6. How is language viewed? How is culture viewed?
7. What areas of language are emphasized? What language skills are
emphasized?
8. What is the role of the students’ native language?
9. How is evaluation accomplished?
10. How does the teacher respond to student errors?
By comparing the answers to these questions for all eight
methods, the reader can evaluate the relative strengths and
emphases of the methods. Yet it is not always easy to get to the
salient differences among the methods, and at times one has the
feeling that their commonality is greater than their variance. For
example, in answer to the first question, concerning the teacher’s
goals, seven out of eight methods are reported as regarding
communicating in the target language as central. Differences
appear to be mainly in terms of preferences for certain techniques,
types of materials, teaching styles, and so on, and these often look
like trademarks or selling points for the methods. They appear
relatively ephemeral in nature, not altering the fundamental
sameness that runs through much of the illustrative material.
Although most of Larsen-Freeman’s questions and activities are
basic and probing, more could have been done to differentiate
trivial from fundamental differences. As it is, the danger remains
that some of the methods will be differentiated merely in terms of
a few salient techniques or gimmicks, whether soft music, warm
and reassuring teachers’ voices, colored rods, or implausible
commands. Readers may conclude that the Silent Way, Suggestope-
dia, Community Language Learning, and the Total Physical
Response method are not “methods” (coherent sets of principles
and techniques) in the same way that grammar-translation, the
Direct Method, the audiolingual method, and the communicative
approach are. As mentioned, the fact that the lessons illustrating the
first four methods are all first lessons for beginners may reinforce
the criticism that these methods are little more than interesting ideas
which can be useful during the early stages of instruction.
Whatever methods are selected for inclusion in a book, it will be
impossible to satisfy everybody. In his review of Oller and Richard-
150 TESOL Q[JARTERLY

Amato’s Methods That Work (1983), Stern (1985) argues that “far
too much attention is paid to gimmicky methods and none to the
highly sophisticated and interesting developments of language
teaching in Europe” (p. 250). The same can be said about Larsen-
Freeman’s book, although this would not have mattered if the
pedagogical intention of critical examination and self-evaluation
had been successfully realized. Despite the many promising aspects
of the approach, it is unlikely that the book will bring about the
heightened level of awareness that the author clearly hopes for. As
mentioned above, the book requires a program which puts
awareness training in the center (see Larsen-Freeman, 1983, for an
excellent description of such a program), but in most current
settings it cannot provide more than modest and uncontroversial
input.
Nevertheless, the book provides useful and practical information
about the methods discussed. It is unfortunate that in spite of the
rigid framework, students are not given enough guidance to achieve
a coherent view of the issues involved. It would have been useful,
for example, to list, perhaps by way of a summary, the salient
characteristics in the form of one or more diagrams, so that a direct
and critical comparison would have been easier.
As it is, Larsen-Freeman presents an unfinished job, leaving the
reader much work in terms of discrimination and application. This
is probably intentional, since Larsen-Freeman, rather than playing
the “doubting game,” advocates playing the “believing game, ”
which is to “take each method one at a time and try to believe in it
in order to understand it” (p. 141). This is certainly more productive
than the belittling comments one frequently hears about some of the
methods discussed (e.g., “the touchy-feely methods”), but teachers
must be able to take the essential next step: objective and
comparative assessment. I am not sure if the book does enough to
encourage that step.
I am playing the doubting game now and would like to balance
this by saying that it would certainly be worth working through the
book systematically during an inservice or graduate practicum
course. This is the only way in which such doubts can be resolved.
Such work must be supplemented, however, by giving the trainees
or teachers the tools by which to evaluate their own and each other’s
performance in class. I would therefore use the book in conjunction
with work on classroom research methods, perhaps selecting Cohen
and Manion (1985) as a complementary text.
Larsen-Freeman’s book will be useful for teachers in training who
are able to apply systematically aspects of different methods during
their practice teaching. However, if the discussion had been based
REVIEWS 151
on reports of actual lessons rather than on constructed ones, it
would have been easier to note definite advantages over the
comparable books mentioned earlier (Blair, 1982; Oller & Richard-
Amato, 1983; Richards & Rodgers, 1986). Neither the present book
nor any of the others are adequate practical tools to promote the
critical analysis of classroom data, coupled with the training in self-
monitoring, which are needed in teacher preparation. If Larsen-
Freeman’s book is to be used to address such needs, much careful
planning and follow-up will be necessary. For example, a series of
teaching tasks following the suggestions made in this book,
combined with methodical classroom analysis, might be a
challenging new way to approach the practicum component of
second language training, often one of the more problematic and
unsatisfactory aspects of training programs.
REFERENCES
Blair, R. W. (Ed.). (1982). Innovative approaches to language teaching.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1985). Research methods in education. London:
Croom Helm.
Ellis, R. (1984). Classroom second language development. O x f o r d :
Pergamon Press.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford:
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition.
Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1983). Training teachers or educating a teacher. In
J.E. Alatis, H.H. Stern, & P. Strevens (Eds.), Georgetown University
Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1983 (pp. 2 6 4 - 2 7 4 ) .
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Oller, J. W., Jr., & Richard-Amato, P.A. (Eds.). (1983). Methods that work:
A smorgasbord of ideas for language teachers. Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. (1986). Approaches and methods in
language teaching: A description and analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Stern, H.H. (1985). [Review of Methods that work: A smorgasbord of
ideas for language teachers]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7,
249-251.
Sticchi Damiani, M. (1983). L’inglese a scuola: Radiografia di due classi
[English in school: Audiotapes of two classes]. Lecce, Italy: Milella.
LEO A.W. van LIER

Monterey Institute of International Studies
152 TESOL QUARTERLY

BRIEF REPORTS AND SUMMARIES
The TESOL Quarterly invites readers to submit short reports and updates on their
work. These summaries may address any areas of interest to Quarterly readers.
Authors’ addresses are printed with these reports to enable interested readers to
contact the authors for more details.
Edited by D. SCOTT ENRIGHT

Georgia State University
Computer-Readable Corpora of Spelling Errors
ROGER MITTON
University of London
■ A collection of computer-readable files of English spelling errors has

been available since 1985 from the Oxford Text Archive (Mitton, 1985).
Nearly all the errors in the initial collection were made by native speakers
of English. The collection has now been extended to include several files
of errors made by nonnative speakers, as well as two more files of errors
made by native speakers. Some of the files are large, containing well over
10,000 errors, and the collection forms a research resource potentially of
some value for the study of spelling problems. Below are brief descriptions
of each file; a computer-readable document which accompanies the error
files gives more detail.
1. Exams: Over 14,000 misspellings taken from scripts submitted in
English examinations by overseas students in 18 countries: Argentina,
Brunei, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Holland, Italy, Jamaica,
Japan, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Spain,
Sweden, and Zimbabwe. Each file contains errors from 50 or 100
scripts. The scripts were made available for this exercise by the
University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate and the
University of London Schools Examinations Board.
2. Abo: Misspellings collected from Finnish-speaking and Swedish-
speaking Finns in a series of tests conducted in the 1970s by Drs. Rolf
Palmberg and Håkan Ringbom of the Abo Akademi, Finland
(Palmberg & Granfors, 1976; Ringbom, 1977).
3. Appling: Two small files of data collected by students of the Applied
Linguistics Department of Birkbeck College in the course of their work
as teachers of English.
4. Bloor: A small file of errors taken from the written work of 12 Algerian
students. The file was supplied by Meriel Bloor.
153
5. Suomi: Errors from test papers written by 60 Finnish speakers and 45
Swedish speakers, aged 15-16 years. The data formed part of a thesis
(Suomi, 1984).
6. Telemark: Errors from examination papers written by 145 advanced
Norwegian students of English at Telemark College, Norway. They
were recorded in a study by Røttingen (1983).
7. Tesdell: Errors from writing samples from 56 students at Iowa State
University in 1981-1982. The material was collected by Tesdell (1984).
8. Masters: Misspellings of about 260 words made in spelling tests by 600
native English-speaking students in Iowa in the 1920s—200 eighth
graders, 200 high-school seniors, and 200 college seniors—collected by
Masters (1927).
9. Upward: Misspellings taken from answers to a questionnaire completed
by about 160 native English-speaking 15-year-olds in Nottingham. The
material was supplied by Chris Upward of the Department of Modern
Languages, Aston University.
The error corpora and the accompanying document are available on
magnetic tape, at a small charge, from the Oxford Text Archive. Inquiries
should be made to the Oxford Text Archive, 13 Banbury Road, Oxford
0X2 6NN, U.K. It would be appreciated if researchers who make use of
any of this material would acknowledge both the collection and, where
appropriate, the suppliers of the original corpora.l
REFERENCES
Masters, H.V. (1927). A study of spelling errors [Monograph]. University of Iowa
Studies in Education, 4 (4).
Mitton, J.R. (1985). A collection of computer-readable corpora of English spelling
errors. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 2, 275-279.
Palmberg, R., & Granfors, T. (1976). Errors made by Finns and Swedish-speaking
Finns learning English at commercial-college level.AFTIL (Arbetsgruppen f&
tillampad lingvistik vid engelska institutionen vid Åbo Akademi), 5, 14-53. Åbo
Akademi, Finland)
Ringbom, H. (1977). Spelling errors and foreign language learning strategies. In R.
Palmberg & H. Ringbom (Eds.), Papers from the Conference on Contrastive
Linguistics and Error Analysis (Publications of the Research Institute of the Abo
Akademi Foundation No. 19) (pp. 101-111). Åbo, Finland: Abo Akademi.
Røttingen, N. (1983). A typology of grammatical and orthographic errors made by
advanced Norwegian learners of English as a foreign language. Telemark,
Norway: Telemark College.
1
The author would like to acknowledge the help of Philip Baker and the Data preparation
Service of Birkbeck College, University of London—Lin Bailey, Sheila Hailey, and Barbara
Whitmore. The research project was funded by the Leverhulme Trust.
154 TESOL QUARTERLY

Suomi, R. (1984). Spelling errors and interference errors in English made by Finns
and Swedish-speaking Finns in the 9th form of comprehensive school.
Unpublished master’s thesis, Åbo Akademi, Åbo, Finland.
Tesdell, L.S. (1984). ESL spelling errors. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 333-334.
Author’s Address: Department of Computer Science, Birkbeck College,

University of London, Malet Street, London WCIE 7HX
BRIEF REPORTS AND SUMMARIES 155

TESOL Publications is pleased to announce
Selected Articles from

the TESOL Newsletter
1966-1983
Edited by John F. Haskell
Contains more than 100 articles in the areas of

Methodology, Professional Preparation, Language and
Culture, Linguistics and Grammar, Standard English as a
Second Dialect, Language Assessment, Composition,
English for Special Purposes, Reading and Vocabulary,
Classroom Practices and more.
Includes index of Newsletter articles by issue.
$15.00 Members, $16.50 Non-Members

Plus $1.50 postage and handling. All orders must be pre-
paid.
T E s 0 L
1118 22nd Street, N.W., Washington, DC. 20037
U.S.A.
THE FORUM
The TESOL Quarterly invites commentary on current trends or practices in the
TESOL profession. It also welcomes responses or rebuttals to any articles or
remarks published here in The Forum or elsewhere in the Quarterly.
Comments on Martha C. Bennington

and Jack C. Richards’s “Pronunciation
Revisited
A Reader Reacts. . .
Whassa Mispernunciation ?
FRANCIS CARTIER
Pacific Grove, California
Speech therapists have long recognized that mispronunciations

differ from misarticulations and must be handled in different ways.
This distinction is not always made by ESL/EFL teachers. In their
excellent article in the TESOL Quarterly (Vol. 20, No. 2, June 1986),
Martha Pennington and Jack Richards use the word pronunciation
as though it were equivalent to phonology. Such a broad definition
obscures an important distinction that could have significant
practical implications for EFL/ESL instructors and students.
In my experience, both in speech therapy and EFL, it is useful to
define articulation errors as those which result from lack of mastery
of some phonological feature(s) of the language, and pronunciation
errors as those which result from lack of mastery of a particular
word or phrase.
To the therapist, an articulatory disorder is signaled by consistent
substitution, omission, or distortion of a particular phoneme,
allophone, juncture, or whatever. Such problems obviously require
much more attention to the causes of the errors and specific
techniques for correction. A mispronunciation, on the other hand, is
ordinarily more easily corrected.
When an instructor lumps misarticulations and mispronunciations
under a single name, there is some risk that a student’s articulatory
problem may be treated as a mere mispronunciation (with reduced
157
chances of success) or that a mispronunciation may receive an
“overkill” of correction as an articulatory problem.
Pennington and Richards’s article is an important contribution,
especially in its advocacy of a phonetic rather than a merely
phonemic approach to language learning, but from the viewpoint
expressed here, it is mostly about articulation—not pronunciation.
Some may call my concerns merely “semantic” and quote Juliet’s
“what’s in a name?” We tend to forget the irony that it was Juliet’s
tragedy to bear the name of Capulet. Shakespeare’s message is that
names do matter.
The Authors Respond. . .
MARTHA C. PENNINGTON and JACK C. RICHARDS

University of Hawaii at Manoa
The topic of our article refers to pronunciation as a component of

a language teaching curriculum, and we argue that adequate
treatment of pronunciation depends on recognition of its various
dimensions—articulatory (and coarticulatory), sociolinguistic,
affective, cognitive, and so on. While a distinction between
“mistakes” and “errors” is often made in error-analysis studies (see
Corder, 1967) and a distinction has been drawn between (learned)
“rules” and (automatic) “processes” in phonology (see Bjarkman,
1986), the distinction made by Francis Cartier between “pronunci-
ation” and “articulation’’—though perhaps recognized in speech
therapy—is not in common use in TESL/TEFL. Hence, we feel that
pronunciation has been used appropriately as a cover term in the
context of language teaching pedagogy, which is the focus of our
article.
REFERENCES
Bjarkman, P.C. (1986). Natural phonology and strategies for teaching
English/Spanish pronunciation. In P.C. Bjarkman & V. Rasken (Eds.),
The real world linguist (pp. 77-115). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Corder, S.P. (1967). The significance of learner’s errors. International
Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161-169.
158 TESOL QUARTERLY

Artificial Unintelligence:
Computer Uses in Language Learning
JOHN HIGGINS
University of Bristol
Many approaches to language teaching assume a teacher is both

proficient in the subject matter and intelligent about deciding how
to present it, while also assuming a learner with no proficiency and
no intelligence. Under such a model, nothing is learned unless it is
explicitly taught; learners have to be given, since they cannot take.
Paradoxically, if one adopts an approach which respects the
learner’s intelligence, it may turn out that the learner wants and
needs an unintelligent partner, a partner who will behave in a totally
predictable and rule-governed way.
GOD AND NATURE

Some evidence in support of this is offered by Rinvolucri (1984)
in a recent article describing experiments in adapting computer
exercises to ordinary blackboard classrooms, in other words,
playing computer games without a computer. The exercises
involved reconstructing a masked-out text by trying to guess the
words in it or trying to guess the title of a text from seeing a tiny
fragment of it displayed. What Rinvolucri’s teachers discovered was
that they could not face the class; in a period of sustained guessing,
the involuntary signals of approval and disapproval which the
teachers transmitted were destroying the exploratory instinct and
actually reducing motivation and success. The teachers had to break
eye contact and turn their backs on the students (personal
communication, April 1984).
One way of describing this phenomenon is to say that teachers
facing the class play the role of GOD, loving, caring, guiding,
knowing, chiding. Teachers with their backs to the class are in the
role of NATURE, cruel and unforgiving, sometimes appearing
arbitrary but in fact governed rigidly by laws of cause and effect.
Computers can readily be given the role of NATURE if we use
them as “unintelligent partners” rather than as pseudointelligent
tutors. Machines give us the power to dabble, experiment, waste
time, but not to bend rules, get shortcut solutions, or get away with
errors. It worries me that people who clamor for artificial
intelligence solutions to language learning problems may not fully
understand the nature of this power. Computers are responsive
THE FORUM 159

devices, with no desire to talk to us, to initiate conversation. Such
devices can be of enormous use, provided that we take on the
responsibility of initiating and that we get into the habit of asking
lots of questions.
THE COMPUTER AS DEMONSTRATOR

Perhaps the most neglected role of the ones we can readily give
to computers is that of demonstrator. This first occurred to me 5
years ago when I was writing my very first BASIC program, a little
exercise on word order. The screen displayed four animals,
elephant, crocodile, cat, and mouse, crudely drawn in character
graphics, and assembled a question in the form of “What has the cat
eaten?” or “What has eaten the cat?” The user would answer “The
mouse” to the first question or “The crocodile” with the second type ,
of question. The answers to “What has eaten the elephant?” and
“What has the mouse eaten?” would be “Nothing.” As I was putting
this together, I said to myself, let’s have 10 items in the exercise, and
we had better have 2 examples. Then I stopped to ask myself, why
2 examples? why not 3? or 300? Since the machine could generate
examples randomly forever, why should I decide in advance when
the user should switch from observing to doing?
For learners often want to be receptive, want relief from being
challenged and potentially humiliated. They may need drill and
practice but with an important reservation. Drill as a service, drill
on demand but only on demand, is a very different entity from drill
which is structured and imposed by an outside agency. Drill itself
can become a form of linguistic play, and play is the missing
element in much organized learning, an element the computer can
give back to us. And to a great extent, what I am proposing is not
that the machine should drill the learner but that the learner should
drill the machine.
This can be illustrated with a program written during a
programming course in Yugoslavia several years ago which I
designed as a memory aid for learning the days of the week in
Serbo-Croatian. How nice it would be to have a slave to tell me
what I wanted to know in context on demand and then to test me if,
but only if, I wanted to be tested. So I asked one of my Serbian
students to help me write the program I call SERBDAYS, and this
is what we produced.
160 TESOL QUARTERLY

* * * * * * * * * * *
* *
* Danas je petak. *
* Sutra je subota. *
* Juce je bio cetvrtak. *
* *
* * * * * * * * * * *
L = left M = menu R = right
The user points the arrow at a day, and the three relevant
sentences (“Today is . . ./ Tomorrow is . . ./ Yesterday was . . .”)
come up in the box. One can spend as long as one likes just shifting
the arrow and looking at what comes up. The program also
incorporates a testing phase in which the word for the relevant day
in the first sentence is blanked out and has to be typed in. The
unusual thing about this phase is that the input is controlled so that
only the correct letter is accepted. If you press something else,
nothing happens at all: No bells ring; no little messages appear
telling you what a bad girl or boy you are. Similarly, no
congratulations appear when you get it right. If I employ a slave, I
do not want the slave to criticize me or to congratulate me. I just
want the slave to obey orders and report facts. I do not want my
computer to be user-friendly, or to put it another way, I do not want
my slave to be master-friendly.
The demonstrator role extends to that of playmate or stooge in
the kind of program in which we ask the machine to produce
language randomly. We then look at what it produces, laughing at
what is ridiculous, pondering over what is accidentally profound.
The best known form for such programs to take is the poetry
generator, but I always feel disappointed that so much attention
goes to free-form poetry when the machine can very readily
produce simpler and more everyday language. All it is doing, after
all, is making selections from a substitution table, and these can take
the form of conversation, of zany narratives as in the game of
MADLIB, or of anything else.
Muriel Higgins and I have been working on a suite of such
programs called NONSEQUENCES. The machine assembles new
proverbs, original advice for tourists in London, pithy proverbial
Scottish wisdom, or samples of reported conversation. With an
THE FORUM 161

editor, it can handle a great variety of sentence or discourse types,
anything indeed that is on a structural syllabus, but the mode of use
reverses the roles, turning the learner into the drillmaster. The
machine simply churns out samples, while the learners look at the
output, decide what they like and want to preserve on the printer,
and reject anything which is dull or simply inconsequential. With
the PROVERBS component, I have run competitive sessions in
which each group of learners tries to assemble the 10 best new
proverbs and submits its collection to the vote of the whole class.
Here is a sample of the sort of printout the program gives.
Roadworks promise frustration.
Roadworks are worse than a boring seminar.
The Olympic Games are worse than a coincidence.
Love and marriage are like the weather forecast.
The next stage, of course, is to ask learners to supply new
components to extend the data list. When they do this, they may
well find that what they have put in leads to ungrammatical
language (the group will quickly spot this even if an individual does
not). This may give them insights into the grammar or semantics of
the piece of language, which they might not have got so easily from
a teacher’s correction of their own mistakes.
PARSING
Even though the programs I am talking about synthesize
language, I doubt whether anyone would describe them as
artificially intelligent. The process of synthesis is entirely rule-
bound, and the machine has no means of “understanding” what it is
“saying.” Yet there is intelligence present during the interaction—
the learners’ intelligence in assessing, responding to, criticizing, or
enjoying what the machine sets up—and it seems that the learners’
recognition of the machine’s stupidity is a factor in releasing their
own intelligence and zest for experiment.
One gets a little closer to the domain of artificial intelligence if
one designs programs in which the communication is more
genuinely two-way, programs in which the learner has to get
messages across to the machine as well as receive messages from it.
This means equipping the machine with a parser. The parser,
however, does not need to be perfect, provided that we have not
endowed the machine with an aura of omniscience. Users will be
perfectly ready to modify their language and try other formulations
to find ones which work as long as they see the machine as basically
162 TESOL QUARTERLY

stupid. In the process they start thinking about the nature of
communication in a new way; they realize that they have to take the
listener or reader into account when they speak or write.
My current work is concerned with devising very simple parsers
to cope with user input to logic games and other kinds of
exploratory programs. One of these is for a program called
TIGLET, in which a tiger cub asks for food and the user must offer
it different things to eat. The program works with a classified
vocabulary in which every kind of food belongs to one major type,
such as meat or dairy product; is associated with one or more
adjectives, such as sour or expensive; and is also associated with its
typical colors. At the beginning of the game, TIGLET chooses a
category, an adjective, and a color, He will answer ”1 like that” if the
food matches on one count, “I quite like that” if it matches on two,
“I love that” if it matches on all three, “I don’t like that” if he cannot
find a match, and “I have never tasted that” if the user enters a food
outside the known vocabulary. The user is trying to guess the three
categories; it is interesting that the most useful information comes
from what TIGLET refuses rather than from what TIGLET likes.
The learner is also trying to communicate in a subset of natural
English which TIGLET has been “taught” through the parser. It is
a very limited, brute-force parser, needing only to cope with about
300 words and expecting nearly every sentence to be an offer,
which greatly simplifies the semantics. The limitations of the parser,
the fact that it does not cope with every possible way of making an
offer, need not be a drawback, provided that it can handle notions
of quantity and count versus noncount.
There is more to TIGLET, however, than just the logic game; one
can also teach him new vocabulary and therefore new ways of
classifying food. This, from the evidence of early trials, is the most
engrossing part of the activity, since it forces learners to think about
the consequences of description. Is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable
or both? What colors can an apple have? Should one include brown,
since rotten apples go brown? TIGLET won’t help with answers; he
just waits to be taught. Whatever the learners learn has to be learned
from experience or induced from the output they eventually get
from the program.
OVERT INDUCTION
If one wants to classify acts of reasoning and learning into
deduction and induction, that is, as moving from general to
particular or from particular to general, then there is little doubt that
TIGLET and his kind belong to the inductive approach. TIGLET
THE FORUM 163

supplies examples and data, but the user has to create the larger
classifications and principles that will make sense of them. Learning
can—usually does—involve both deductive and inductive proce-
dures, but styles of teaching usually show a preference for one or
the other. I think there can be little doubt that a stongly inductive
style of teaching (notice I do not say “learning”) is rather rare,
though one could perhaps find it in the Silent Way, in the Total
Physical Response method, or in a whole-hearted application of
Krashen’s Natural Approach. Such inductive approaches, however,
share the characteristic of being carried out in an unaware fashion;
the learner is being encouraged to think about the meanings to be
conveyed and not about the means of conveying them. The kind of
exploratory and problem-solving approach which I have been
describing differs by encouraging reflection about the means, an
overt analysis of language itself,
This in some ways parallels the difference between the two major
deductive approaches: structural, or drill-based, which promotes
habit formation while suppressing conscious analysis of language,
and cognitive code, which allows attention to be given to the means
as well as to the end. We could display this classification as a grid:
Deductive Inductive
Unaware Pattern practice Immersion

Aware Cognitive code Exploratory
The explicit and aware use of induction is not common in

language teaching, except perhaps in the Silent Way. Perhaps we
could relate this to the other element which is missing from much
formal tuition but which is very common in infant learning—
conscious linguistic play. Play, however, needs a playmate, a
mother, say, or a sibling or a friend. Teachers are not really fitted
for this role; they are too intelligent and take too many initiatives.
They bend the rules of the game, often in a well-meaning effort to
help.
But that is something the computer will not do. It follows the
rules; it is too stupid to do anything else. What we have to realize is
that its very stupidity can be turned into an asset, since it releases the
learner’s intelligence, the learner’s hunger for self-knowledge, and
the instinct to explore. Until we know that we can make demands
on a slave, however unreasonable, we will refrain from demanding
164 TESOL QUARTERLY

enough. What the machine can do for us is turn language learning
into an experimental subject, a subject in which the learner tries
things out, measures the effect of linguistic choices, and derives
perceptions and insights by making sense of authentic data, data
which the machine can organize. Just as chemistry students have
their chemistry laboratory, so the computer can provide us with a
language laboratory, namely an experimental environment for
language learning. What we currently call a language laboratory is
nothing of the kind, since no experiments occur in it; regardless of
what you say into the microphone, the tape will give you its
prerecorded response. Computers, in contrast, facilitate and
encourage experiment. I would hesitate to say that they are going to
make language learning easier, but I am sure that they will make it
more exciting.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This is a revised version of a paper presented at the 20th Annual TESOL
Convention, Anaheim, CA, March 3-8, 1986.
REFERENCE
Rinvolucri, M. (1984). Computer ideas for the chalkboard classroom.
Practical English Teacher, 5(4), 19-20.
THE FORUM 165

INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS
EDITORIAL POLICY
The TESOL Quarterly, a professional, refereed journal, encourages submis-
sion of previously unpublished articles on topics of significance to
individuals concerned with the teaching of English as a second or foreign
language and of standard English as a second dialect. As a publication which
represents a variety of cross-disciplinary interests, both theoretical and
practical, the Quarterly invites manuscripts on a wide range of topics,
especially in the following areas:
1. psychology and sociology of language 3. testing and evaluation
learning and teaching; issues in research 4. professional
and research methodology preparation
2. curriculum design and development; 5. language planning
instructional methods, materials, and 6. professional standards
techniques
Because the Quarterly is committed to publishing manuscripts which con-
tribute to bridging theory and practice in our profession, it particularly
welcomes submissions which draw on relevant research in such areas as
anthropology, applied and theoretical linguistics, communication, education,
English education (including reading and writing theory), psycholinguistics,
psychology, first and second language acquisition, sociolinguistics, and
sociology and which then address implications and applications of that
research to issues in our profession. The Quarterly prefers that all submissions
be written so that their content is accessible to a broad readership, including
those individuals who may not have familiarity with the subject matter
addressed.
GENERAL INFORMATION FOR AUTHORS
1. The TESOL Quarterly invites submissions in four categories:
Full-length articles. Manuscripts should usually be no longer than 20
double-spaced pages. Submit three copies plus three copies of an infor-
mative abstract of not more than two hundred words to the Editor of the
TESOL Quarterly:
Stephen J. Gaies
Department of English
University of Northern Iowa
Cedar Falls, IA 50614 U.S.A.
Reviews. The TESOL Quarterly invites reviews of textbooks, scholarly
works related to the profession, tests, other instructional materials (such as
computer software, videotaped materials, and other non-print materials),
and other journals concerned with issues relevant to our profession. Com-
parative reviews, which include a discussion of more than one publication,
167
and review articles, which discuss materials in greater depth than in a
typical review, are particularly welcome. Reviews should generally be
no longer than 5 double-spaced pages, although comparative reviews or
review articles may be somewhat longer. Submit two copies of reviews
to the Review Editor:
Vivian Zamel
English Department
University of Massachusetts/Boston
Harbor Campus
Boston, MA 02125
Brief Reports and Summaries. The TESOL Quarterly also invites short
descriptions of completed work or work in progress on any aspect of
theory and practice in our profession. Reports of work in the areas of
curriculum and materials development, methodology, teaching, testing,
teacher preparation, and administration are encouraged, as are reports
of research projects of a pilot nature or which focus on topics of
specialized interest. In all cases, the discussion of issues should be
supported by empirical evidence, collected through either formal or
informal investigation. Although all reports and summaries submitted to
this section will be considered, preference will be given to manuscripts
of 5 double-spaced pages or fewer (including references and notes).
Longer articles do not appear in this section and should be submitted to
the Editor of the TESOL Quarterly for review. Send two copies of
reports and summaries to the Editor, Brief Reports and Summaries:
D. Scott Enright
Department of Early Childhood Education
University Plaza
Georgia State University
Atlanta, GA 30303
The Forum. The TESOL Quarterly welcomes comments and reactions
from readers regarding specific aspects or practices of our profession.
Responses to published articles and reviews are also welcome. Contribu-
tions to The Forum should generally be no longer than 5 double-spaced
pages. Submit two copies to the Editor of the TESOL Quarterly at the
above address.
2. All submissions to the Quarterly should conform to the requirements of
the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association
(Third Edition), which can be obtained from the Order Department,
American Psychological Association, 1200 Seventeenth Street, N. W.,
Washington, D.C. 20036. The Publication Manual is also available in
many libraries and bookstores.
3. All submissions to the TESOL Quarterly should be accompanied by a
cover Ietter which includes a full mailing address and both a daytime and
an evening telephone number.
4. Authors of full-length articles should include two copies of a very brief
biographical statement (in sentence form, maximum 50 words), plus any
168 TESOL QUARTERLY
special notations or acknowledgments which they would like to have
included. Double spacing should be used throughout.
5. The TESOL Quarterly provides 25 free reprints of published full-length
articles and 10 reprints of published reviews.
6. Manuscripts submitted to the TESOL Quarterly cannot be returned to
authors. Authors should be sure to keep a copy for themselves.
7. It is understood that manuscripts submitted to the TESOL Quarterly
have not been previously published and are not under consideration for
publication elsewhere.
8. It is the responsibility of the author(s) of a manuscript submitted to the
TESOL Quarterly to indicate to the Editor the existence of any work
already published (or under consideration for publication elsewhere)
by the author(s) which is similar in content to that of the manuscript.
9. The Editor of the TESOL Quarterly reserves the right to make editorial
changes in any manuscript accepted for publication to enhance clarity
or style. The author will be consulted only if the editing has been
substantial.
INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS 169

PUBLICATIONS RECEIVED
Publishers are invited to send copies of their new materials to the TESOL Central
Office, Georgetown University, Suite 205, 1118 22nd Street, N. W., Washington,
D.C. 20037. Packages should be labeled REVIEW COPIES.
TESOL Quarterly readers are invited to contribute evaluative reviews, compara-
tive reviews, and review articles for consideration for publication in the Review
section of the Quarterly. These should be sent to the TESOL Quarterly Review
Editor, Vivian Zamel, University of Massachusetts/Boston.
TESOL gratefully acknowledges receipt of the following publications.
Abbs, B., & Freebairn, I. (1986). Hancock, O. (1987). Reading skills for
Discoveries (Teacher’s Book 1 & college students. Englewood Cliffs,
Student’s Book 1). Harlow, England: NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Longman. Harley, B. (1986), Age in second
Ackert, P. (1987).Cause and effect: language acquisition (Multilingual
Intermediate reading practice Matters, 22). Clevedon, England:
(Student’s Book & Instructor’s Man- Multilingual Matters.
ual). Cambridge, MA: Newbury Harris, T. (1986). Practical English
House. (2nd cd.). San Diego: Harcourt
Benson, M., Benson, E., & Ilson, R. Brace Jovanovich.
(1986). The BB1 combinatory dic-
tionary of English: A guide to word Howard, J. (1987). Idioms in American
combinations. Amsterdam: John life. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Benjamins. Hall.
Bergh, G. (1986). The neuropsycholog- Jernudd, B. H., & Ibrahim, M. H.
ical status of Swedish-English (Eds.). (1986). Aspects of Arabic
subsidiary bilinguals. Gothenburg sociolinguistics. International Jour-
Studies in English, 61. nal of the Sociology of Language, 61.
Byrne, D. (1986). Teaching oral En- Kapili, L. V., & Kapili, B. H. (1985).
glish. Harlow, England: Longman. Understanding American sentences.
Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1986). San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovano-
Bilingualism in education: Aspects of vich. -
theory, research, and practice. Har- Ladomery, G. (Ed.). (1986). Appren-
1ow, England: Longman. dere. Come?: Metodi e problemi
Elsworth, S. (1986). Discoveries (Ac- dell’apprendimento auto-diretto
tivity Book 1). Harlow, England: [Learning. How?: Methods and
Longman. problems in self-directed learning].
Favourite fairy tales (6 Storybooks, 2 Rome: La Goliardica—Editrice Uni-
Videocassettes, & 2 Audiocassettes). versitaria di Roma.
(1986). Harlow, England: Longman.
Ferreira, L. A. (1984). Express English: Lefkowitz, N. (1986). From process to
Transitions 1 & 2 (Intermediate product: Beginning-intermediate
Student Books 1 & 2). Cambridge, writing skills for students of ESL.
MA: Newbury House. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gairns, R., & Redman, S. (1986). Mullen, J. L. (1987). College reading
Working with words. Cambridge: and learning skills. Englewood
Cambridge University Press. Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Graham, S. Y., & Curtis, W. J. (1986). Neufeld, J. K. (1987). A handbook for
Harbrace ESL workbook. S a n technical communication. Engle-
Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
171
Pickett, W. (1987). Far from home: Steinberg, R. (1987). Prentice-Hall’s
Basic reading and word study. Cam- practice tests for the TOEFL. Engle-
bridge, MA: Newbury House. wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Stempleski, S., Rice, A., & Falsetti, J.
The research bulletin 1986 edition: In (1986). Getting together: An ESL
the service of English lanuage conversation book. San Diego: Har-
research in Egypt. Cairo: Ain hams court Brace Jovanovich.
University, Center for Developing Sutman, F. X., Allen, V. F., & Shoe-
English Language Teaching. maker, F. (1986). Learning English
through science: A guide to collabo-
Selfe, C. L. (1986). Computer-assisted ration for science teachers, English
instruction in composition: Create teachers, and teachers of English as a
your own. Urbana, IL: National second language. Washington, DC:
Council of Teachers of English. National Science Teachers Associa-
Snyder, B., & Auerbach, B. (1986 .
Bridges from sentence to paragraph.
San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovano-
vich. American Library.
172 TESOL QUARTERLY

Vol 21 1

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Vol 21 1

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

VOLUMES MENU

The Growth of Professionalism in TESOL:

BRIEF REPORTS AND SUMMARIES

Information for contributors 167

Volume 21 of the TESOL Quarterly begins with contributions on a

The Growth of Professionalism

Stephen Gaies, TESOL Quarterly Editor, has invited me to start

THE GROWTH OF PROFESSIONALISM IN TESOL 11

THE GROWTH OF PROFESSIONALISM IN TESOL 13

TIIE GROWTH OF PROFESSIONALISM IN TESOL 15

THE GROWTH OF PROFESSIONALISM IN TESOL 17

THE GROWTH OF PROFESSIONALISM IN TESOL 19

ESL: The Regular Classroom

A large number of limited English proficient (LEP) students in the

Despite the increase in the number of trained ESL specialists over

ESL AND THE REGULAR CLASSROOM TEACHER 23

ESL AND THE REGULAR CLASSROOM TEACHER 25

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Note Total number of responses for this question was 152

No doubt some of the responses to this question reflect

Note: Total number of responses for this question was 100.

A few comments suggested that LEP students miss out on content

ESL AND THE REGULAR CLASSROOM TEACHER 27

Techniques on how to teach content to LEP students 1 88

ESL AND THE REGULAR CLASSROOM TEACHER 29

LEP Students and Their Parents

ESL AND THE REGULAR CLASSROOM TEACHER 31

ESL AND THE REGULAR CLASSROOM TEACHER 33

ESL AND THE REGULAR CLASSROOM TEACHER 35

ESL AND THE REGULAR CLASSROOM TEACHER 37

ESL AND THE REGULAR CLASSROOM TEACHER 39

Utilizing the Literatures in

Teaching research English, particularly the writing of papers, to

THE CASE FOR TEACHING THE RESEARCH PAPER

UTILIZING THE LITERATURES IN TEACHING THE RESEARCH PAPER 43

APPROACHING THE RESEARCH PAPER

UTILIZING THE LITERATURES

UTILIZING THE LITERATURES IN TEACHING THE RESEARCI1 PAPER 45

UTILIZING THE LITERATURES IN TEACHING THE RESEARCH PAPER 47

UTILIZING THE LITERATURES IN TEACHING THE RESEARCH PAPER 49

The four sample studies reviewed in this section indicate in their

UTILIZING THE LITERATURES IN TEACHING THE RESEARCH PAPER 51

UTILIZING THE LITERATURES IN TEACHING THE RESEARCH PAPER 53

English for Academic Purposes

UTILIZING THE LITERATURES IN TEACHING THE RESEARCH PAPER 55

UTILIZING THE LITERATURES IN TEACHING THE RESEARCH PAPER 57

UTILIZING TIiE LITERATURES IN TEACHING TIIE RESEARCII PAPER 59

UTILIZING THE LITERATURES IN TEACHING THE RESEARCH PAPER 61

UTILIZING THE LITERATURES IN TEACHING THE RESEARCH PAPER 63

UTILIZING THE LITERATURES IN TEACHING THE RESEARCH PAPER 65

UTILIZING THE LITERATURES IN TEACHING THE RESEARCH PAPER 67

Expressing Temporal Frequency

Semantic approaches to the organization of language teaching, or

THE SELECTION OF LINGUISTIC DEVICES TO BE TAUGHT

THE NOTION OF FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE

TEMPORAL FREQUENCY IN ACADEMIC ENGLISH 71

Three Methods to Identify Linguistic Devices

TEMPORAL FREQUENCY IN ACADEMIC ENGLISH 73

as biweekly, every now and then, infrequent, nightly, now and

Thus, some of the examples produced by informants illustrate a

TEMPORAL FREQUENCY IN ACADEMIC ENGLISH 75

Frequency of Use in Written Academic English of