ARTESOL Newsletter - Spring 2005

Argentina TESOL http://www.artesol.8k.com

E-ARTESOL NEWSLETTER artesol@bcl.edu.ar

Volume 16, No. 30

Personería Jurídica IGJ 464.

SPRING 2005 parametric variation, an issue teachers of English to Spanish speakers quite often need to deal with. Next, Sebastian Amado explains in The Principle of Co-operation how we can transmit to our students that there seems to be a way of speaking which we all accept as standard behavior by showing that speakers, guided by specific maxims, are usually assumed to be telling the truth, supplying the right amount of information, trying not to digress, and be clear.

Then we comment on our 19th. Argentina TESOL Convention, with Robert Frost’s line And Miles to go before I sleep as its motto, held at the Escuela Superior de Lenguas Extranjeras, Universidad del Aconcagua, Mendoza, last July 1-2. Jodi Crandall, Professor of Education, CoDirector of the MA Program in ESOL/Bilingual Education, and Director of the interdisciplinary Doctoral Program in Language, Literacy, and Culture at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, was the guest speaker. Finally, our regular announcements of forthcoming events will help you prepare to participate in good time.

Dear ARTESOLERS, ARTESOL´s first newsletter came out in 1988. Times change and so does our newsletter; this is our electronic publication. We hope we can provide our readers with the same quality publication we have had over the years. We invite all Artesol members to share our newsletter with other colleagues and participate by sending contributions for our next issue.

The current issue was possible thanks to the cooperation and contribution of: Sebastian Amado, Elida Messina, Patricia Orsi, and Julieta Picco.

CONTENTS Page 1: From the editors- Submission guidelines Pages 2-6: Interference of L1 in Universal Grammar Parametric Resetting: Omission of the Subject in Sentences at Beginner Level. A Case Study By Julieta Picco Pages 6-8: The Principle of Co-operation

by Sebastián Amado Pages 8-9: 19th. Argentina TESOL Convention.

Pages 9-10: A Annnnoouunncceem meennttss -- TESOL Matters.

Submission guidelines Topic: We especially encourage articles related to classroom practice and classroom research.

Length: 600-1000 words Format specifications: All articles should be submitted in Times New Roman 12.

They should be single- spaced and charts or diagrams should be on a separate document Deadline for our next issue is June 15, 2006. Submit your contributions to artesol@bcl.edu.ar

From the editors: Thank you, ARTESOL members, for your contributions. In Interference of L1 in Universal Grammar Parametric Resetting: Omission of the Subject in Sentences at Beginner Level, Julieta Picco presents a thorough and enlightening analysis of omission of the subject in declarative sentences in English made by a Spanishspeaking L2 learner in the light of 1

interference from the L1 system, and have therefore been termed

Interference of L1 in Universal

interlingual.

Grammar Parametric Resetting:

Transfer1 is generally understood as “transfer of structure,” arising when the learner uses some L1 feature, be it

Omission of the Subject in Sentences at

phonological, lexical, grammatical or pragmatic, rather than that

Beginner Level.

of the TL (Lott, 1983 in Ellis 1995:59). As Corder (1978, in Armendáriz: 75) puts it, the learner makes sense of a new

A Case Study by Julieta Picco

experience (L2) by using what he already knows about language

Abstract

(L1).

The purpose of this research paper is to analyze

In a much influential research paper, White (1986, in

instances of subject omission in L2 English

Fernández 2000) proposed that language transfer could fall

declarative sentences by an L1 Spanish-

within the scope of explanations of L2 oriented towards

speaking learner. The study was conducted in

linguistic universals by suggesting that Universal Grammar (UG)

the light of Universal Grammar parametric-

may be able to explain incidences of interference from the L1.

resetting. Transfer errors were expected

The concept of UG was defined by Chomsky (1976, in Cook

initially due to interference of the L1, a pro-

1988) as “the system of principles, conditions and rules that are

drop language, in the L2, a non- pro-drop

elements or properties of all human languages.” Principles refer

language. The subject was asked to write a

to highly abstract properties of grammar which apply to language

composition and to carry out a grammaticality

in general, from which individual rules are derived. Parameters

judgment task. The results obtained seem to

refer to principles with a limited set of options for each language,

support the initial hypothesis stated.

“built-in switches” in the child’s mind, each to be turned to suit

Introduction

the language that is heard (Cook, 1988: 74). These parameters account for cross-linguistic variation.

Since the 1960s, when the field of Second Language

Since Cook (2000: 1) stated that “the relationship between

Acquisition (SLA) established itself, two broad issues have

two languages in the same mind is at the heart of SLA”, an

permeated the discipline: the description and explanation of the

important point to consider in L2 acquisition is the fact that the

process of acquisition of a second language. In other words,

L2 learner already possesses instantiations of UG in his L1, i.e.

researchers have sought to find answers to the questions of what

he has already activated UG in acquiring his MT, certain

and how learners acquire a language other than their mother

parameter-settings have been adopted for some principles, and

tongue. In 1972, Selinker coined the term interlanguage (IL) to

such choices bear a number of consequences for the grammar of

refer to “the systematic knowledge of an L2 which is

his MT. This concept of parametric variation is indeed a crucial

independent of both the learner’s L1 and the target language”

one since in many L2 situations learners will have to face the

(Ellis, 1995: 710). By independent it is meant that the IL system

differences in parameter-setting in their L1 and L2, or the

presents features of its own, not borrowed from either of the

activation or not of some principle in any of the two languages

other languages.

involved.

The notion of IL rests on the assumption that the L2

Three main positions as to the involvement of UG in such

learner makes use of a number of strategies that help him

cases can be identified in the literature. A group of researchers

progress through a series of interim stages in his route towards

proposed a “no parameter-resetting” hypothesis (No Access to

the acquisition of target language (TL) competence. In passing

UG Model), so that L2 learners, in spite of being subject to UG

along this IL continuum, the L2 learner is seen as actively

principles, cannot reset parameters (Clashen and Muysken 1989;

constructing hypotheses as to how the TL works. Naturally, as

Liceras et. al. 1997; Tsimpli and Roussou, 1991 in White

not all his predictions prove right, he produces errors, i.e.

1998:3). Others have argued that L2 settings are attainable

“deviations from TL rules arising from lack of knowledge”

without prior adoption of L1 settings (Flynn 1987; Epstein,

(Corder, 1967 in Ellis 1995: 51). The study of learners’ error-

Flynn and Martohardjono, 1996 in White 1998:3) thus

Error Analysis-, and especially the attempts to account for why

minimizing or denying the role of the L1 (Direct Access to UG

learners make them, seems to provide a very useful insight into

Model). A third group of researchers maintain that L1 settings

the processes at work in the formation of IL Grammars.

prevail initially, with later or subsequent acquisition of other

The Ontogeny Model of SLA explains IL as dual in nature

values (Indirect Access to UG Model).

because IL Grammars reveal, according to it, developmental errors and transfer errors (O’Grady & Dobrovolsky, 1997: 478).

1

The term transfer will be retained here in spite of the criticism raised at it (see Cook 2000 for a full account).

While the former involve the kind of errors children acquiring their L1 make, i.e. they are intralingual in nature, the latter reflect

2

Among these, Lydia White (1986, in Fernández 2000) has Methodology The subject, a fifteen- year old Spanish-speaking male,

proposed that in those cases where there is a difference between L1 and L2 parameter-setting, such difference may cause

was chosen at random from a group of 26 students currently

particular difficulties for the L2 learner, leading to the transfer of

studying at a private school in the city of Santa Fe. He is in a 1st.

the L1 parameter value into the L2. As White herself explains it,

Polimodal class and attends classes of English as a foreign language twice a week, in two lessons of 40 and 80 minutes

Because positive evidence in the L1 has caused a parameter to be set one way, it may not be immediately obvious to the learner that the L2 data motivate a different setting.

(1986 in Fernández 2000:31) (Emphasis added)

each. He reported starting to learn English in 1999. According to the Canadian Language Benchmarks 2 his competence could be described as follows: Listening/ Speaking: Stage 1 Benchmark 2.

Reading/ Writing: Stage 1 Benchmark 3.

One area where languages show variation is that The data were collected cross-sectionally. A combination

concerning the “pro-drop” parameter. Some languages, such as

of clinical elicitation plus a specially designed instrument

Spanish, allow for the formation of subjectless declarative

(grammaticality judgment task) was used to ensure as little

sentences, i.e. without apparent subjects. Other languages are

intervention by the researcher as possible, and to tap on the

non- pro-drop since they do not permit null subject sentences,

learner’s grammatical intuitions as to the well-formedness of

English being a point in case (Cook, 1988: 38).

certain English sentences (Larsen-Freeman and Long 1991).

A cluster of properties are assumed to be both related and

Despite the criticism raised at grammaticality judgment tasks

attributed to the operation of the pro-drop parameter, namely, the

(see Ellis 1995 for a full account), they are assumed to be a valid

ability to omit subject pronouns, free word order SV or VS in

means of obtaining insights into the learner’s linguistic system

declarative sentences, and the ability to extract subjects out of

(c.f. Chaudron 1983; Gass 1983, in White 1986, in Fernández

clauses containing a complementiser (that- trace violations).

2000). The subject was asked to perform two tasks, the first of

These properties are illustrated in the following examples: a)

which involved writing a free composition on his daily routine

Anda muy ocupada.

(see Appendix 1), and the second of which involved a

* Is very busy.

grammaticality judgment task (GJT). For the GJT the subject

She is very busy. b)

was given ten written sentences (see Appendix 2), four of which

Vino Juan.

were grammatical and six ungrammatical. Some of the

* Came Juan.

ungrammatical sentences were extracted from the composition he

Juan came. c)

had written previously and adapted. To avoid restrictive terms

¿Quién dijiste que vino?

such as correct/ incorrect that could have an influence on the

* Who did you say that came?

subject’s answers, the terms acceptable/unacceptable were

Who did you say came?

preferred and the category not sure was also included (Sharwood

(Examples taken from White 1986).

Smith, 1994: 78).

A number of studies besides White’s (1985; 1986 in Ellis Results The written data produced by the subject in his

1995: 445) have been carried out to test for the availability of UG in L2 learners by investigating whether they were capable of

composition (see Appendix 1) provide enough evidence of

parameter re-setting or not. One general finding is that learners

instances of omission errors (Dulay, Burt and Krashen 1982, in

with pro-drop L1 languages tend to omit subject pronouns in the

Ellis 1995: 56). These are defined as “the absence of an item that

non-pro-drop L2 initially (Phinney 1987; Hilles 1991, in Ellis

must appear in a well-formed utterance”.

1995: 446-47; Bruera and Bulatovich 2000; Galazo and López

In the examples under analysis, the omission of subject

Irigoyen 2001). However, Lakshmanan’s study (1991) provides

pronouns is evidently clear.

counter-evidence (Ellis, 1995: 447).

As for the GJT administered, the results of the responses

The aim of this paper is to analyse instances of omission

to ungrammatical sentences with missing subject pronouns are

of the subject in declarative sentences in English made by a

shown in Table 1.

Spanish-speaking L2 learner in the light of parametric variation as outlined above. Transfer errors are to be expected initially if the learner applies the L1 parameter-setting (pro-drop) onto the L2 data (non- pro-drop). The analysis of free inversion of subject and verb, and that-trace violations by L1 Spanish-speaking

2

learners of L2 English is beyond the scope of the present work.

3

www.language.ca/

1 3 5 6 8 9

Table 1- Responses to Ungrammatical Sentences with Missing Subjects Sentences Acceptable Unacceptable Not Sure X X X X X X

non-pathological individuals, meta-linguistic ones have been shown not to be uniformly distributed across the species.

Moreover, she maintains that, Faced with a sentence in isolation, speakers

are

much

better

at

imagining an appropriate social /situational context in which it

Since the sentences are ungrammatical in English, a

might occur felicitously than at

response of unacceptable is the right answer. Notably, the

imagining an appropriate discourse

subject accepted most ungrammatical sentences as grammatically

context (Price 1996: 2).

correct in English (66%). He only gave one response of not sure

This might help explain why the subject chose to correct

and judged only one sentence as grammatically not acceptable.

the content of sentence 5, instead of the grammar mistake. He

The results of the responses to grammatical sentences with

may have wanted to express an idea that would suit his

subject pronouns present are shown in Table 2.

experience, to provide a situational context that would reflect the way in which he spends his free time.

Table 2 – Responses to Grammatical Sentences with Subject Pronouns Present Sentences Acceptable Unacceptable Not Sure 2 X

paper is that, within a Government Theory framework, an empty

4

X

(1998: 35), Government refers to “a particular syntactic

7

X

10

One possible explanation to the issue explored in this category (pro) must be properly governed. According to Cook relationship of high abstraction between a ‘governor’ and an element that it governs.” If something governs the subject of a

X

sentence it seems to be that the abstract element Inflection As a response of acceptable is the right one because the

(INFL), which does not itself occur in the surface sentence, could

sentences are grammatically correct in English, figures show that

be a proper governor (Cook 1998: 36). In turn, INFL is made up

the subject identified 50% of the grammatical sentences as such,

of Tense (TNS), a technical notion that marks present/past

while he failed to identify the other 50% by providing responses

distinctions, and Agreement (AGR) that indicates whether

of not sure to sentences that are correct in English.

singular or plural; i.e. the traditional number category, is required.

As can be seen, the subject was highly inaccurate at identifying the ungrammaticality of missing subjects in English.

As pro-drop languages allow for the formation of

He also failed to recognize grammatically correct sentences in

sentences with null subjects, it follows that in these languages the

English in half of the cases.

empty category pro is properly governed by the AGR feature of INFL.

Regarding the issue of correction, the subject corrected the

pro INFL mirar TV.

only sentence he judged as unacceptable (sentence 5). He failed to understand that he had to correct only grammar points, not the

In non-pro-drop languages null subject sentences are not

content of the sentences, but, interestingly enough, his correction

usually allowed (imperatives being an exception), so INFL is not

shows he failed to recognize the sentence as grammatically

a proper governor because the empty category pro is not properly

incorrect in English by producing “*In my free time listen to

governed. pro INFL watch TV.

music and play tennis.” However, it should be pointed out that, according to Piaget (Williams and Burden, 1997: 22) the onset of

Pro-drop languages are associated to a rich morphological

formal operational thinking, i.e. the capacity for abstract

system. In the case of Spanish, all morphological forms in the

reasoning, should not happen before the adolescent years and

present tense are said to be complex (Cook and Newson 1996, in

will tend to vary across individuals and subject areas, e.g. being

Bruera and Bulatovich 2000) because the six forms of the

able to think at a high level of abstraction mathematically will

paradigm are different: 1st. pers. sing.

Mir-o

According to Price (1996), the speakers of a language are

2nd. pers. sing.

Mir-as

capable of developing meta-linguistic intuitions about it, i.e.

3rd. pers. sing.

Mir-a

conscious reflections about and opinions of primary intuitions.

1st. pers. pl.

Mir-amos

not necessarily reflect an ability to think linguistically.

nd

Primary intuitions would equate the Chomskyan concept of

2 . pers. pl.

Mir-áis

competence that permits us to produce and understand the

3rd. pers. pl.

Mir-an

sentences of our language (Price 1996: 13). Price holds that,

Therefore, a sentence like “Miro TV todas las tardes”

while primary linguistic intuitions are evenly distributed across

indicates that the subject is first person singular although no

4

subject is actually present. A subjectless English sentence such

together with a reconsideration of the role of GJTs as valid

as “Watch TV every afternoon” does not provide any of this

instruments when dealing with adolescent subjects.

information since English, being a non-pro-drop language, tends to have weaker morphology: only one out of the six forms in the

Julieta Picco julietapicco@hotmail.com Teacher of English graduated from Instituto Superior del Profesorado Nº8 "Alte. Guillermo Brown," Santa Fe. Licenciada en Inglés from UNL. Teacher of English at ICANA and Colegio Los Robles, Buenos Aires.

paradigm (3rd. pers. sing.) is different: 1st. pers. sing. nd

I Watch

2 . pers. sing.

You Watch

3rd. pers. sing.

He/She/It Watches

1st. pers. pl.

We Watch

References

2nd. pers. pl.

You Watch

3rd. pers. pl.

They Watch

Armendáriz, A. M. (2002) Seminario: Adquisición del Lenguaje. Licenciatura en Inglés. Santa Fe: Universidad Nacional del Litoral.

On the basis of the results obtained, it seems that the

Bruera S. and Bulatovich M. (2000) The Omission of the

subject in the present study still evidences interference problems

Subject in Sentences at Beginner Level- A Case Study. Second

from the MT, a morphologically uniform language, in the

Language Acquisition. Volume II. Licenciatura en Inglés. Santa

understanding and production of the FL, a non-morphologically

Fe: Universidad Nacional del Litoral.

uniform language.

Cook, V. (1988) Chomsky´s Universal Grammar: an Introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Conclusion It was anticipated that this study would attempt to explain

Cook, V. (July 2000) "Is Transfer the Right Word?" at

transfer errors in the understanding and production of an L1

homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/

Spanish-speaking subject learning English as an L2 from the

Writings/Papers/Transfer2000.htm

theoretical perspective of UG parameter- resetting.

The results from the written composition and the sentences

Ellis, R. (1995) The Study of Second Language Acquisition.

lacking subject pronouns reveal the subject is, in most cases,

Oxford: OUP.

resorting to his L1 parameter setting to make sense of the L2

Fernández, D. (2000) Estudios Lingüísticos: Introducción a

data. It appears then that the omission of subjects in L2 sentences

las Competencias Académicas Universitarias e Inglés con

is directly related to the possibility of having such omissions in

Propósitos Académicos. Santa Fe: Universidad Nacional del

the L1. A sentence like “Los lunes y miércoles voy al club” is

Litoral.

grammatically correct in Spanish, while its English counterpart

Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M.H. (1991) An Introduction

“* On Mondays and Wednesdays go to the club” is not.

to Second Language Acquisition Research. London: Longman

However, it should be taken into account that the present

O´Grady, W. & Dobrovolsky, M. (eds) (1997)

research paper was carried out from the Indirect Access to UG position according to which the L2 learner takes the L1

Contemporary Linguistics: an Introduction. 3rd ed. New York:

instantiation of UG as a springboard, and makes use of the

St. Martin Press.

principles and parameters in the L2 in the same way as in the L1

Prince, E. (1996) On the Nature of Metalinguistic Intuitions

(Cook,1988: 182). This does not rule out the possibility of

and its Methodological Implications for Pragmatic Research in

conducting similar case studies in the light of the Direct Access

Jornades de Corpus Lingüístics 1996-1997. Barcelona:

and No Access to UG perspectives.

Universitat Pompeu Fabra.

It should be also considered that, as it was anticipated in Sharwood Smith, M. (1994) Second Language Learning:

the analysis and interpretation of the results, learners differ in the

Theoretical Foundations. London: Longman.

degree of abstract thinking they are capable of. It might be the case that the subject under study has not reached yet a level of

White, L. (1998) “Universal Grammar in Second Language

linguistic abstract thinking high enough to be able to handle

Acquisition. The Nature of Interlanguage Representations.” At

GJTs as they require providing metalinguistic judgements and http: // nflrc.Hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW09/white.pdf

being capable of verbalizing them: he may lack metalinguistic awareness, i.e. it may be that the subject still cannot use language

Williams, M. and R. Burden (1997) Psychology for

as code to talk about language as an object of study.

Language Teachers. Cambridge: C.U.P.

The results of the present study are by no means conclusive. Further research needs to be done at beginner levels of proficiency to either support or deny the claims raised here,

5

Appendix 1

7. I buy a lot of CDs

Sentences extracted from the composition on his daily routine

when I have

written by the subject:

money.

1.

2.

Go to the club on Monday, Wednesday, Friday

8. On

and Saturday.

Sundays

Also stay with my friends and play truco,

stay with my

basketball and football.

family.

9. People

3.

In my free time watch TV, play ping-pong and

often go to

play on the computer.

4.

the movies

On Sunday stay with my family and go to the

on Tuesdays

countryside.

because is cheaper.

Appendix 2

10.

Decide which of the following sentences are grammatically

Sometimes

acceptable and which ones are grammatically unacceptable.

he meets his

Mark your choice with an [X] under the corresponding column.

friends at

If you are not sure, mark the corresponding slot. Then provide

the disco.

the right sentence. You have 10 minutes to complete the task. ***

The Principle of Co-operation Sentences

Acceptable Unacceptable I’m not sure

Correction

by Sebastián Amado

1. On

There is an important pragmatic principle underlying human communication which is worth our attention as ESL or EFL teachers: the Cooperative Principle. First, because it helps us raise our students’ awareness into the language they use both in and outside the bounds of the classroom.

And second, because it is an essential tool for us, language teachers, since through it we are able to exploit certain nuances in language which have implications in language teaching and language in use.

Mondays and Wednesdays go to the club.

2. Julia works in an office. She is a secretary.

I teach pragmatics in teacher training colleges and this principle is the core of the subject. But this principle may also be taught and adapted to fit any language environment, the condition being that the students are advanced students of the language.

3. Also stay with my friends and play cards.

4. It rains

This principle is made up of some maxims or guidelines that speakers usually abide by either at a superficial, literal, or textual level or at a deeper or sub-textual one. This latter level of interpretation usually gives rise to inferences on the part of the listener to be able to grasp the speaker’s intended message. In either level of analysis of the principle the speaker is assumed to be co-operating.

every day in winter.

5. In my free time watch TV and play on the computer.

I will focus my attention in this article on how people seem to follow these maxims or to show maxim-type behavior at a textual or literal level;

6. She can sing but can’t dance.

6

amount of awareness speakers have of the cooperation that takes place when two people are chatting. First, we have quantity hedges that indicate, as Yule (1996) points out, that speakers wish to convey the right amount of information not more or less- to the listeners. Expressions in the language may include: ‘as you may know’, ‘to cut a long story short’ and so on. Second, there are quality hedges, which indicate that the speaker wishes to tell the truth - mainly when he does not have all the information at his disposal. Examples: “as far as I’m concerned”, “I guess...” etc. Third, markers of relevance may indicate either that the speaker has moved away from the topic of conversation - or may be about to - and wishes to return. Examples: “anyway”, “I don’t know if this relevant but...” And finally we have manner hedges that indicate that speakers wish to be clear even when they feel that that they are not being altogether transparent. Examples: “this may be a bit misleading but...”, “perhaps this is not clear but...” and so on.

that is, I will show co-operative language used by people in following these maxims.

The principle may be introduced in three stages: the prediction, theoretical, and practice stages.

Prediction Stage Here I try to elicit the ideas they may have revolving around the word ‘co-operation’. Once they are asked what they make of it, their feedback starts rolling. Their answers may range from “cooperation means helping others” to “co-operating implies putting yourself in the shoes of others” and many other invaluable comments. The exploitation of their predictions and feedback is very rich and may even take a whole class before the introduction of the principle per se in the theoretical stage.

Theoretical Stage Here I explain briefly the principle of Co-operation proper.

Practice Stage The Co-operative Principle How to adapt the principle to fit your own teaching situation? Since this principle of communication is a theory of how people use the language, we may turn the whole activity into a language exercise proper. For instance, as we are introducing the markers of relevance, we could always teach “red herrings” or afterthoughts in the language class (when to use them and how); or the opposite, while we are introducing different “red herrings” in our language class, we may have them spot some maxim-type behavior-mainly, relevance.

It is a tacit agreement present in human discourse which is made up of four maxims which participants in conversation usually follow.

According to Grice, as discussed by Brown and Yule (1983), the maxims are of: •

•

• •

“Quantity: make your contribution as informative as is required for the current purposes of the exchange. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

Quality: do not say what you believe to be false. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

Relation: be relevant (stick to the topic of conversation- my addition).

Manner: be perspicuous. Avoid obscurity.

Be brief (avoid unnecessary wordiness).

Be orderly.”

Activity: Create different contexts or mini dialogues in which you may use the following “red herrings” or afterthoughts.

List • •

To put it more simply for them, I usually say that speakers, guided by these maxims, are usually assumed to be telling the truth, supplying the right amount of information, trying to stick to the topic of conversation (not digress), and last but not least, be clear. In other words, there seems to be an accepted way of speaking which we all accept as standard behavior.

• •

By the way, ...

Anyway, ...(to change the topic, sometimes to divert attention) Can we talk about...? (often used when you are fed up with the existing topic) That reminds me, I...

All these expressions --whose parenthetical explanations are not given to students at first -embedded in the principle indicate that participants are aware of the relevance maxim and the possible digressions in conversation. These markers, however, contribute to the language class proper since no sooner do we ask them to look at the list than they start to create different situations in which they would use these expressions. For example, I remember one student saying after too much conversation about the principle: “Sorry! Can we

Co-operative Markers The principle may be seen in full operation when students are exposed to certain spoken texts or dialogues; they see or encounter expressionstechnically known as hedges - that indicate the

7

talk about...?” meaning that he was very tired of this topic of conversation and it was a hint for me to move on to another topic. This feedback is invaluable.

some doubts about how and when to use them. Just as students access these language expressions, so they grasp the social implications these have in everyday conversation.

As we are 0teaching markers of quality and manner, we may also have our students think of the many ways of expressing ‘opinions’ in the language , or ways of ‘speculating’ or ‘degrees of certainty’ on the part of the speaker. We could always exploit them as such in the language class and ask our students to create different scenarios for the expressions. This is an enriching language exercise.

In a nutshell, all these linguistic markers and hedges in the language indicate that speakers wish to cooperate. In other words, these expressions seem to confirm Grice’s theory that there exists an underlying social principle that rules communication.

Sebastián Amado is a teacher trainer at Ward Teacher Training College, Buenos Aires, Argentina, where he teaches two subjects: Linguistics and Language III. At present he is specializing in Grammar II at IES, Lenguas Vivas, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Activity: Create different scenarios in which you would use the following expressions List Certain • •

References upon request: sebastianamado@argentina.com

He must be...

He must have been

75 % certain • •

He may well be...

There’s every chance that.../of her...

ARTESOL’s 19th Argentina TESOL Convention was held at the Escuela Superior de Lenguas Extranjeras.

Universidad del Aconcagua, Mendoza, Argentina on Friday, July 1 – Saturday July 2, 2005. “And Miles to go before I sleep” from

Possible • •

She/it could/may/might (be)...

She/it could/may/might have (been)...

Robert Frost’s poem Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening was its motto

Unlikely • •

I doubt whether/if/that...

I’ll be surprised if... (+present tense)

Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening

By Robert Frost

Impossible • •

Whose woods these are I think I know.

His house is in the village though; He will not see me stopping here To watch his woods fill up with snow.

My little horse must think it queer To stop without a farmhouse near Between the woods and frozen lake The darkest evening of the year.

He gives his harness bells a shake To ask if there is some mistake.

The only other sound's the sweep Of easy wind and downy flake.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep.

But I have promises to keep, And miles to go before I sleep, And miles to go before I sleep. ________________________________

He/it can’t (be)...

He/it can’t have (been)...

Speculating or showing different degrees of ‘certainty’ is another way speakers use to show awareness of the quality maxim and of the sincerity that underlies human communication.

This two fold activity, like the others, is well worth tackling in any advanced language class because they practice different modals like may, might, could and must and their corresponding modalities: possibility, remote possibility and certainty. Besides, they plunge into and deal with certain modality nuances like present and past ‘certainty’ (must and must have), present and past ‘impossibility’ (can’t and can’t have), the use of the verb ‘doubt’ and many other useful expressions like ‘there’s little chance that...’ that they may have 8

Keynote Speaker Jo Ann (Jodi) Crandall Jo Ann (Jodi) Crandall is Professor of Education, CoDirector of the MA Program in ESOL/Bilingual Education, and Director of the interdisciplinary PhD Program in Language, Literacy, and Culture at the University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC).

We had wonderful and diverse presentations

She is the author of more than 100 books, articles, chapters, and monographs on language teacher education, program design, and educational policy, with a special focus on content-based instruction. Her recent publications include Case Studies in Content Based Instruction in Higher Education Settings and Case Studies in Content-Based Instruction in K-12 Settings (co-edited with Dorit Kaufman), published by TESOL. Dr. Crandall has been President of TESOL, and its Washington area affiliate (WATESOL), and of the American Association of Applied Linguistics (AAAL).

She is the recipient of the AAAL Outstanding Scholarship and Service Award, the James E. Alatis Award for TESOL, the University of Maryland Regents Award, and the Alumna of the Year Award for the College of Arts & Sciences at Ohio University. Dr. Crandall received a BA degree in English and Spanish from Ohio University, an MA in American Literature from the University of Maryland, College Park, and an MS and phd in Sociolinguistics from Georgetown University.

Jodi Crandall - Plenary session

Sunny-patio coffee breaks

Artesolers at UDA, Mendoza

Publishers were there too!

Poster Sessions were amazing!!

ARGENTINA TESOL Organizing Committee would like to express special recognition for their support and participation to the following people and organizations: The Cultural Section of the Embassy of the United States for sponsoring Jo Ann Crandall’s presentation.

Escuela Superior de Lenguas Extranjeras, Universidad del Aconcagua, Mendoza Dr Jo Ann Crandall for joining us!

AMICANA Ms Gloria Ginevra, ARTESOL Liason in Mendoza THOMSON for always contributing to a better organization of the ARTESOL Convention Express Publishing Macmillan Publishers S.A. Oxford University AQA Jet Net - Learning Adriana Cantú – Cursos de Inglés en el Exterior ARTESOL Presenters Coro de la Universidad del Aconcagua Ms Dulce Genco And members and friends of ARTESOL Convention Organizing Committee.

A photo with the presenter

Power Point Presentations were a novelty!

More photos @ http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/artesol/l

A AN NN NO OU UN NC CE EM ME EN NT TSS Argentina TESOL ARTESOL is looking for contributions to be published in our next newsletter. Submit articles, comments or announcements to: artesol@bcl.edu.ar before June 15, 2006.

We will appreciate your suggestions and contributions.

ARTESOL Membership Enjoy the benefits of a prestigious professional association. Encourage your colleagues to become ARTESOL members.

ARTESOL Call for Participation 9

and current (renewing) members may join or renew in either of these categories, provided they are native-born current resident or a legal current resident of a qualifying eligible country. All Sothern Cone countries qualify for this benefit!!!!

ARTESOL is looking for: 1.- Web master to update, improve and maintain ARTESOL Web site. Applicants must have Internet access and experience uploading photos and text on the Web.

Global Individual Membership (GMI): $40 per year.

2.- Representatives at teacher training schools to act as liason between ARTESOL and student teachers. Applicants must be students in the last two years of Profesorados or Traductorados.

The GMI member category includes one year full membership in TESOL (includes print and electronic offerings). Cost per year: $40. GMI members may subscribe to TESOL Quarterly for an additional $45 per year or add additional interest sections or caucuses for $8 each.

3.- Newsletter readers to proof read ARTESOL electronic newsletter before it goes out to members. All applicants must be ARTESOL members.

Applicants must submit a biodata and a brief statement of purpose saying why they think they can fulfill the position. artesol@bcl.edu.ar

Global Electronic Membership (GME): $25 for two years; includes electronic benefits only.

The GME member category includes two full years of membership for only $25*. This is an electroniconly category: you must have a valid e-mail address in order to receive benefits by e-mail. The print magazine Essential Teacher is not included. GME members may add on electronic access to TESOL Quarterly (electronic only; no print copies included) for an additional $40 for 2 years. Additional interest sections or caucuses may be added for $8 each and include electronic benefits. No print materials are mailed for members choosing this category.* 0This is a special dues price available for an initial period only. After the introductory two-year period for the global electronic membership, each subsequent year at the GME level will be billed at $25 per year (plus an optional $20 per year for TESOL Quarterly electronic-only access).

All positions are ad honorem and for one year period.

ARTESOL Web site: http://www.artesol.8k.com TTEESSO OLL M Maatttteerrss VISIT: http://www.tesol.org A Affffiilliiaattee N Neew wss

SSoouutthheerrnn C Coonnee The 2005 Tesol Southern Cone Convention was held in Asunci贸n, Paraguay on July 20, 21 and 22, 2005 at the "Instituto Superior de Educaci贸n Dr. Raul Pe帽a".

How to Join TESOL or Renew Your Membership in a Global Membership Category

Next Tesol Southern Cone Convention 2007 will be held in Buenos Aires, Argentina

To renew in either the GMI or GME member category, you must use a special membership invoice available upon request or online at http://www.tesol.org/globalmembers. If you have any questions about this information, please contact members@tesol.org or TESOL, attention Global Memberships, at the main TESOL address.

TESOL Membership Category Incentives Complimentary Memberships All affiliates in good standing have the right to grant three complimentary TESOL memberships to affiliate members in good standing.

Current TESOL members or Affiliate Board Members do not qualify for this incentive.

TESOL Awards and Grants Explore the Awards and Grants http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/seccss.asp?TRACKID =&CID=125&DID=1595

About TESOL's Global Membership Categories ARTESOL Board members work voluntarily on their own free will and time and try to do their best to put this convention together for the benefit of the ESL teaching community. We appreciate your understanding for any involuntary delay, miscommunication or outright mistake

TESOL is pleased to announce two new membership options to anyone who is either a native-born current resident of or a current legal resident of any country where the gross national income (GNI) per capita is US$15,000 or less as identified by the United Nations. Both categories carry full membership rights and privileges but with varying member benefits. Both new (prospective) 10