This page intentionally left blank

Developing professional-level language proficiency

This comprehensive book examines approaches to teaching students who aim

to make the leap from “Advanced” or “Superior” proficiency in a foreign
language to “Distinguished” or “near-native” ability. While there are copious
publications on classroom techniques and methods for lower levels of instruc-
tion, virtually nothing exists about this transition, which is vital for those who
intend to use foreign languages in high-level international arenas. Written by
leading practitioners in this area of foreign language teaching, this book aims
to fill the gap and assist those developing language programs that lead from
the “Advanced” to the “Distinguished” level.
r Divided into three parts which provide information on different aspects of
teaching at this level:
– theory of advanced language teaching
– nine sample programs
– description of highly advanced learners based on long-term experience
and empirical research
r Presents programs in seven languages – Arabic, Chinese, English, French,
German, Russian, Spanish
r Content is both theoretical and pragmatic

betty lou leaver is Director of the Center for the Advancement of

Distinguished Language Proficiency at San Diego State University. She has
published extensively in the area of foreign and second language acquisi-
tion (theory, teaching, learning, research), Russian culture and linguistics, and
general learning theory.

boris shekhtman is President of the Specialized Language Training

Center, and Lecturer in the Department of Modern Languages at Howard
University. He has more than fifteen years of experience in teaching Russian
to Superior-level students and has also lectured on methodology and area
studies. Among his publications are books for helping students to improve
their linguistic and sociolinguistic skills.
Developing Professional-Level
Language Proficiency

Edited by
Betty Lou Leaver
Center for the Advancement
of Distinguished Language Proficiency
San Diego State University

and

Boris Shekhtman
Specialized Language Training Center
         
The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom

  

The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK
40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA
477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia
Ruiz de Alarcón 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain
Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa

http://www.cambridge.org

© Cambridge University Press 2004

First published in printed format 2002

ISBN 0-511-03055-X eBook (Adobe Reader)

ISBN 0-521-81657-2 hardback
ISBN 0-521-01685-1 paperback
 Contents

Notes on contributors page vii

Foreword xi
richard d. brecht
Acknowledgments xiv

I Principles, practices, and theory

1 Principles and practices in teaching Superior-level language
skills: not just more of the same 3
betty lou leaver and boris shekhtman
2 Toward academic-level foreign language abilities:
reconsidering foundational assumptions, expanding
pedagogical options 34
heidi byrnes

II Programs
3 Contexts for advanced foreign language learning: a report on an
immersion institute 61
heidi byrnes
4 Bridging the gap between language for general purposes
and language for work: an intensive Superior-level
language/skill course for teachers, translators, and
interpreters 77
claudia angelelli and christian degueldre
5 Learning Chinese in China: programs for developing
Superior- to Distinguished-level Chinese language
proficiency in China and Taiwan 96
cornelius c. kubler

v
vi List of contents

6 Developing professional-level oral proficiency: the Shekhtman

Method of Communicative teaching 119
boris shekhtman and betty lou leaver
with natalia lord, ekaterina kuznetsova,
and elena ovtcharenko
7 The LangNet “Reading to the Four” Project: applied
technology at higher levels of language learning 141
catherine w. ingold
8 In the quest for the Level 4+ in Arabic: training Level 2–3
learners in independent reading 156
elsaid badawi
9 Teaching high-level writing skills in English at a Danish
university 177
tim caudery
10 Heritage speakers as learners at the Superior level: differences
and similarities between Spanish and Russian student
populations 197
claudia angelelli and olga kagan
11 Teaching Russian language teachers in eight summer
Institutes in Russian language and culture 219
zita dabars and olga kagan

III Learners and users

12 Understanding the learner at the Superior–Distinguished
threshold 245
madeline e. ehrman
13 Preliminary qualitative findings from a study of the processes
leading to the Advanced Professional Proficiency Level (ILR 4) 260
betty lou leaver with sabine atwell

References 280
Index 296
 Notes on contributors

claudia angelelli (Ph.D., Stanford University) is Assistant Professor at

San Diego State University. Earlier she was a Lecturer in Spanish at Stanford,
and Assistant Professor at the Graduate School of Languages and Educational
Linguistics and Visiting Professor of Translation and Interpretation at the
Monterey Institute of International Studies. She has also taught in Argentina,
Peru, and Puerto Rico.
Her e-mail address is [email protected].
sabine atwell (MA, University of Nevada) is Director of Tester Training
and Education at the Defense Language Institute. Prior to that, she held
positions as a teacher of German, curriculum developer, faculty developer,
and language program manager. She earlier taught French and German at the
University of Nevada, Reno.
Her e-mail address is [email protected].
elsaid badawi (Ph.D., London University) is Professor and Director of
the American Language Institute (ALI) and Co-Director of CASA at the
American University in Cairo. A member of the Presidential Council for
Higher Education and the Higher Council for Arts and Literature in Egypt,
he is advisor to many international organizations. His publications include
Levels of Arabic in Egypt and Dictionary of Egyptian Arabic.
His e-mail address is [email protected].
richard brecht (Ph.D., Harvard University) is Director of the National
Foreign Language Center, Professor of Russian at the University of Maryland,
and Visiting Professor at Bryn Mawr College. He has authored numerous
books and articles and has received awards from a number of national and
international organizations in the language field.
His e-mail address is [email protected].
heidi byrnes (Ph.D., Georgetown University) is Professor of German/
Linguistics at Georgetown University. Her research focus is the acquisi-
tion of academic literacy by adult instructed learners. Her department has

vii
viii Notes on contributors

implemented an integrated content-oriented and task-based curriculum, using

literacy and genre as constructs. She is currently writing a book on principles
and practices for curriculum construction.
Her e-mail address is [email protected].
tim caudery (Ph.D., University of Aarhus, Denmark) is Associate Professor
at the University of Aarhus, where he has taught in the English Department
since 1988 and where his main research interests are in the area of ELT.
Previously, he taught English to adults in Sweden, and served as Director of
English Studies at The English Institute, Nicosia.
His e-mail address is [email protected].
zita dabars (Ph.D., Indiana University), now retired, was Director of the
Center of Russian Language and Culture (CORLAC), Friends School,
Baltimore. She also was the Project Director and Co-Director of NEH/
CORLAC Institutes in Russian Language and Culture. Among her pub-
lications are a book on culture and three textbooks with accompanying
workbooks (3) and videotapes (4).
Her e-mail address is [email protected].
christian degueldre (MA, Université de l’État à Mons, Belgium) is Pro-
gram Head in the French Department at the Graduate School of Translation
and Interpretation (T&I) at the Monterey Institute of International Studies.
He has taught T&I in English, French, and Spanish for twenty years in the
USA and Korea and has extensive experience in interpretation in over forty
countries, including for many heads of state.
His e-mail address is [email protected].
madeline ehrman (Ph.D., The Union Institute) is Director of Research,
Evaluation, and Development at the Foreign Service Institute, and Senior
Associate, National Foreign Language Center. Her publications combine a
background in applied linguistics with clinical psychology, e.g. the books
Understanding Second Language Learning Difficulties and Interpersonal
Dynamics in Second Language Education.
Her e-mail is [email protected].
catherine w. ingold (Ph.D., University of Virginia) is Deputy Director
of the National Foreign Language Center in Washington, DC. Much of her
career has been in higher education administration, including successive
service as Language Department Chairman, Dean of Arts and Sciences, and
Provost of Gallaudet University, and as President of the American University
of Paris.
Her e-mail address is [email protected].
 Notes on contributors ix

olga kagan (Ph.D., Pushkin Institute, Moscow) is the Director, Language

Resource Program, and Coordinator of the Russian Language Program,
UCLA. Among her jointly authored and edited publications are The Learning
and Teaching of Slavic Languages and Cultures, Uchimsya uchit’ (We Are
Learning to Teach), V Puti (On the Way), and Russian For Russians.
Her e-mail address is [email protected].
cornelius c. kubler (Ph.D., Cornell University) is Stanfield Professor of
Asian Studies at Williams College. He was formerly Chair of Asian & African
Languages at the Foreign Service Institute and Principal of FSI’s advanced
field school in Taiwan. He has written over forty publications on Chinese
language and linguistics.
His e-mail address is [email protected].
ekaterina kuznetsova is a Senior Instructor at the Specialized Language
Training Center. Prior to that, she served as Instructor of Russian as a Foreign
Language at Saratov State University (Russia), Senior Instructor of EFL at
Saratov Law College, and Instructor of EFL at Saratov State University, and
as a translator for several organizations in Russia and the USA.
Her e-mail address is [email protected].
betty lou leaver (Ph.D., Pushkin Institute, Moscow) is Director of the
Center for the Advancement of Distinguished Language Proficiency at San
Diego State University. She has served as Language Program Manager, NASA;
President, American Global Studies Institute; Dean, Schools of Central
European and Slavic Languages, Defense Language Institute; and Russian
Language Training Supervisor, Foreign Service Institute. She has written
more than 100 publications.
Her e-mail address is [email protected].
natalia lord (MA, Fordham University) is Senior Coordinating Instructor
of Russian at the Foreign Service Institute. She has also taught at Howard
University. One of the two developers of the first advanced course to be
taught at the FSI, she has worked with Superior-level students since the
mid 1980s. Her publications include Mark Smith’s Diary (a cross-culture
textbook, 1985).
Her e-mail address is [email protected].
elena ovtcharenko (Ph.D., Leningrad State University) is Assistant
Professor of Russian at George Washington University and Senior Instructor
of Russian at the World Bank.
Her e-mail address is [email protected].
x Notes on contributors

boris shekhtman (MA, Grozny Pedagogical Institute, Grozny, Russia) is

President, Specialized Language Training Center in Rockville, Maryland,
and Lecturer in the Department of Modern Languages and Literature at
Howard University. Prior to that, he taught at the Foreign Service Institute
and earned the Una Cox Chapman Award for teaching excellence. He has
also lectured extensively in the USA and England.
His e-mail address is [email protected].
 Foreword

In nations around the world, the study of a second or third language is the norm,
often beginning in elementary school and continuing through secondary school
and into the university. The result is that by the time they graduate from the
system students often reach a degree of functional competence that enables them
to use the language – often English – in their personal and professional lives.
By contrast, in English-speaking countries like the United States, the study
of Languages Other Than English (LOTEs) does not occupy a central place
in the educational system, nor does it typically result in usable competence.
The education system in the United States often struggles simply to justify and
then provide instruction in LOTEs since the need for such competence is less
obvious to US educational policy makers and to the general citizenry in light
of the perceived status of English around the world.
Developments in recent times seem to be changing the situation in English-
speaking countries, where globalization and immigration have produced a sea
change with regard to language use and learning. If one takes the USA as an
example, the need for language competence in the public and private sectors
is dire, as demand is exploding and the supply is patently inadequate.1 The
problem is that the US educational system is simply not structured to meet
current – let alone anticipated – language demand, as too few students study a
LOTE for long enough to reach any level of functional competence (Brecht and
Rivers, 2000). While a strategic solution to this problem is obviously warranted,
the immediate need in the USA is for programming in schools, colleges, and
universities capable of producing high-level language competency across a
range of critical languages and relevant professions with a growing global
practice. However, language educators in US schools, colleges, and universities
have almost no experience in such programming, given the fact that to this
point they have not enjoyed the luxury of working in a system that has students
spending years studying one language. Nor are language educators in non-
English-speaking countries necessarily of much assistance in this regard, for
traditionally they have been able to rely upon an early start and rich extramural
1 Examples of current shortfalls in language expertise in the USA were recently chronicled in a
front-page article in the New York Times (Schemo, April 16, 2001).

xi
xii Foreword

exposure to produce competency in, say, English without needing to develop

rigorous models of instruction and learning at the highest levels of proficiency
(Theo van Els, personal communication, April 19, 2001).
The relative insufficiency of programming experience at the highest levels of
proficiency has resulted in a significant dearth of knowledge about learning and
teaching at these levels. The current volume begins to fill this void by providing,
for the first time, a record of the literature on the subject of learning and teach-
ing at the Superior/Distinguished level in ILR/ACTFL2 terms, together with
clear examples of best practice of the relatively few efforts in this area.3 Such
information is particularly valuable for program managers who are attempting
to meet the unprecedented demand for high-level language programming in-
stead of being concerned exclusively with beginning and intermediate levels of
instruction, where significant experience and a growing body of research does
already exist.
Indeed, researchers in second language acquisition (SLA) have focused
mainly on classroom learning and learners at the beginning and intermedi-
ate levels and have devoted some attention to somewhat more advanced levels
in immersion environments. Such research concentrations are understandable,
given the fact that these environments and levels are where the students and the
data are. However, the literature on SLA contains very little, if anything, about
learners and learning at the highest, Superior/Distinguished level. Experience,
though, tells us that, outside of the extraordinary, like the programs described in
this volume, the few students who manage to reach true, high-level functional
proficiency do so mostly on their own, with relatively little programmatic assis-
tance and usually on the basis of a protracted stay in the country where the target
language is spoken. The challenge, then, is to actually build language programs
in our schools, colleges, and universities that can be relied upon consistently
to produce students with this level of competence, whether the learning is in
the classroom, in the study-abroad environment, or in a distributed education
mode where learners are responsible for management of their own growing
knowledge and proficiency.
Such programming involves unprecedented research and development chal-
lenges in learner diagnosis, in specification of learning tasks, in flexible and
responsive programming especially for small classes and individual learners,
and in assessment of attained competence. The current collection of chapters by
authors with actual experience at this level is a necessary first step in providing
teachers and program managers with emerging and fundamental information
2 The commonly accepted metric in the USA is the Interagency Language Roundtable / American
Council on Teaching Foreign Languages standard.
3 In these chapters one can see instances of practice that is capable of such high-level program-
ming, whether in government agencies, in private language instruction providers, in study-abroad
programs, or in the extraordinary university language program.
 Foreword xiii

they need to begin to understand the issues and to design and build such
advanced-level programming. This volume also presents to the SLA scholarly
community new directions for research aimed at meeting the need for empirical
evidence concerning performance at this level and the learning tasks involved
to reach it.
In spite of the growing acute need for expertise at the ILR/ACTFL Superior
(and even higher) level, most language programs even in US colleges and uni-
versities are content to settle for ILR/ACTFL Advanced as a reasonable goal
for students in their program. This is not surprising; it is even reasonable, given
the fact that most students have had only a year or two of language before they
arrive on campus and most will take little, if any, more before they graduate.4
Nevertheless, it is time to raise the bar, to aim for higher levels of proficiency
among graduates reliant primarily on formal educational systems. Such raised
attainment is actually possible even in the USA because of the large numbers
of heritage language learners enrolled in these institutions and in their lan-
guage courses; because of the growing numbers of students with opportunity
to study and work abroad; and because of the improvement of language pro-
gramming particularly at the school level. These factors suggest that programs
can in fact plan to build upon the proficiency of entering students and provide
them by graduation with truly functional language skills. The current volume
can begin to show the way, as well as serve to encourage the belief that the
Superior/Distinguished level is attainable and even programmable in a formal
educational system.5
If this volume indeed provides the information that managers, teachers, and
learners need in order to pursue higher levels of language competence, and
if it serves as a call to raise the bar in language programs, then it can render
a vital service to the language profession, particularly in the USA and other
English-speaking countries. I believe it does, and I believe it can.

National Foreign Language Center richard d. brecht

4 See the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) and the American Council
on Education (ACE) for the latest accounts of language, taking in US schools, colleges, and
universities (Wirt [2001]).
5 In the USA, the National Security Education Program in collaboration with the National Foreign
Language Center has recently launched a national effort to establish a small set of university
“flagship” language programs that are capable of graduating students in critical languages at the
Superior Level.
 Acknowledgments

Many people have contributed to the editors’ ability to present these Superior–
Distinguished programs in book form. They include teachers and administrators
experienced in developing this level of proficiency who have shared not only in-
formation but also ideas with us. They include as well a large number of Level 4
language users, who have shared their learning experiences – challenges as well
as successes. Unfortunately, not all to whom we are indebted can be named here.
We can, however, name a few who have helped in exceptional ways. Renée
Meyer and James Bernhardt voluntarily read chapter after chapter and provided
invaluable feedback both on content and on format. Also, three Cambridge
University Press proposal readers gave marvelous suggestions for additions to
the book – and we were fortunate enough to be able to follow through on most
of these.
We have very much enjoyed working with Kate Brett, our Cambridge
University Press editor. She, as much as anyone else, has made this book a
reality.
Books would not come into being without significant behind-the-scenes sup-
port. Carl Leaver prepared all the graphics, and Fawn Leaver proofread the
original manuscript. Many thanks to both of them.
Finally, we must also thank the authors. A number of them read each other’s
work and provided very helpful commentary. Editors cannot do the job alone,
and in this case, the support of the authors was keenly felt and much appreciated.
For our readers who would like to know more about teaching at upper levels
of proficiency, we have included information about how to contact the various
authors. In addition, readers may interact with others teaching at this level, as
well as find additional information, on a web page devoted to advanced SLA:
www.mindsolutionsinternational.com.

The publisher has used its best endeavors to ensure that the URLs for external
web sites referred to in this book are correct and active at the time of going
to press. However, the publisher has no responsibility for the websites and can
make no guarantee that a site will remain live or that the content is or will
remain appropriate.

xiv
Part I

Principles, practices, and theory

1 Principles and practices in teaching
Superior-level language skills: Not just
more of the same

Betty Lou Leaver and Boris Shekhtman

Historically, few students achieve Superior and Distinguished levels of profi-

ciency in any foreign language. In fact, relatively few courses even propose
to bring students to the Superior level, at which students can expect to use
the language professionally while having obviously less than native control of
linguistic and cultural elements, let alone the Distinguished level, at which stu-
dents begin to approach the level of an educated native speaker.(These levels are
called Level 3 and Level 4, respectively, on the 5-level US government scale,
which is presented later in this chapter.) For many years, there has been a tacit
assumption among foreign language educators and administrators that language
programs cannot be expected to bring students any further in the classroom than
the Advanced High level. Consequently, few teachers have much experience in
teaching students at the Superior level, yet there is a growing awareness of the
need to do so. This book focuses on just that part of the language-teaching spec-
trum: successfully assisting Superior-level students to reach the Distinguished
level. Its goal is to provide theory and successful models for teachers who find
themselves faced with this task.

The direction from which we have come

In analyzing how best to teach students at the Superior level, it may be helpful
to look at teaching practices in general. Specifically, what are the underly-
ing philosophies of today’s foreign language education (FLED), what are the
theories of second language acquisition (SLA), what has research shown us
about language learning, and what are the methods that guide our instruction –
and how do these assumptions, ideas, knowledge, and practices influence the
teaching of students at Superior levels of proficiency?

A paradigmatic overview
Since the early 1960s, foreign language educators have experienced a paradigm
shift not only in their specialty fields but also across all sociological phenomena.
3
4 Betty Lou Leaver and Boris Shekhtman

Given a world that has become interdependent, the replacement of an industrial

society with a technological and service industry in most developed countries,
and a change in educational philosophy (not once but twice), it is no surprise that
foreign language teachers would be hard-pressed to keep up with the changing –
and escalating – demands to produce increasingly more proficient graduates in a
world where language skills now play more of a pragmatic than an academic role
and where language teaching practices, as a whole, have changed substantively
in keeping with the so-called “New Paradigm.”
We did not reach this state overnight. Rather, a number of steps led to our
current beliefs, knowledge, and methods in foreign language education. Each of
these steps holds important implications for teaching Superior-level students.
They include a changing educational philosophy in keeping with social changes,
a natural evolution in teaching methods as a result of new linguistic research, a
growing understanding of the psychology of learning, and the appearance of a
new paradigm.

Educational philosophy
Educational philosophy is shaped less by research in learning and teaching and
more by the sociological and political needs of a given society. In the USA,
we have seen at least three educational philosophies: transmission (passing
the canon from one generation to the next), transaction (developing problem-
solving skills), and transformation (personal growth) (J. P. Miller and Seller
[1985]). While there has been a historical, i.e., chronological, order to the
appearance of these philosophies, all do simultaneously exist today. Table 1.1
compares the “pure” forms of each of these philosophies as typically reflected
in language classrooms.
At lower levels of proficiency, contemporary foreign language programs in
the USA tend to reflect principles and practices associated with the transaction
philosophy. This philosophy is seen most frequently in industrial and tech-
nological societies (although, interestingly, many foreign language and other
educational programs in European countries remain in the transmission mode).
In transaction classrooms, students learn how to solve problems, innovate, im-
plement ideas, and make things work: in short, to “do,” as opposed to “know.”
The knowledge of facts loses importance, the assumption being that if students
know how to use resources, they will be able to locate any facts needed. In prac-
tice, classwork tends to be pragmatic. In foreign language classrooms, that has
meant task-based, content-based, problem-based, and project-based learning,
as well as the use of activities, such as role plays, and an emphasis on notions
and functions. The nature of a transaction philosophy causes educators to focus
on assessing the student program and program success based on outcomes of the
classroom. In foreign language classrooms, assessments have most frequently
taken the form of proficiency, prochievement (proficiency tests that use only
 Principles and practices in teaching Superior-level language 5

Table 1.1

Philosophy Transmission Transaction Transformation

Goal To “know” To “do” To “create”
(knowledge) (skill) (ability)
Theory Mastery Learning Experiential Learning Humanistic Learning
(Bloom, 1968) (Dewey, 1938) (Rogers, 1968)
Class work Exercises, use of Tasks, projects, role Self-directed study,
teacher-made playing, use of student-selected
materials authentic materials materials
Home assignments Written exercises Projects, tasks Research
Role of teacher Knower Facilitator Advisor
Grouping Whole class Small groups Independent work
Type of tests Achievement tests Proficiency tests Self-assessments
Syllabus design Form-based, theme- Notional --functional, Learner-centered
based task-based, content-
based

materials and topics that students have worked with in the classroom), or per-
formance tests. The development of national standards (ACTFL [1999]) is yet
another example of transaction. These standards, in principle, do not focus on
a corpus of knowledge but on a range of skills although knowledge may be
required in order to demonstrate skill.
At the Superior level of instruction, the philosophical framework tends to be
quite different. Most effective Superior-level programs, to wit those described
in this volume, combine elements of all three philosophies, from teacher-
controlled development of automaticity to fully independent learning. The
knowledge, skills, and abilities needed at the Distinguished level may be the cat-
alyst for the unification of seemingly incompatible philosophies and for the
reemergence of a focus on conscious knowledge – at this level not that of the
canon but a much deeper and broader cross-cultural understanding, greater lin-
guistic and metalinguistic sophistication, and omnipresent metacognition as the
predominant learning strategy.

Linguistics and methods

Since the early 1960s, methods that treated foreign language as a mechanism
for converting information encoded in one linguistic system into the forms of
another linguistic system have been ever better informed by theory and research
in both general learning and SLA. In very recent years, SLA has become a
discipline unto itself, and non-applied linguistic theory and research has had
6 Betty Lou Leaver and Boris Shekhtman

a decreasing influence on English as a Second Language (ESL) and Foreign

Language (L2) teaching methods.1
That does not mean, however, that FLED practices have become any less
focused on learning needs at lower levels of proficiency, rather than considering
an ultimate goal of near-native proficiency from the very beginning (see Byrnes,
Chapter 2, for a more detailed discussion). As a result, few methods contain
essential elements for teaching very advanced students, and many practices set
the student up for increasingly retarded progress as s/he climbs the proficiency
ladder. Table 1.2 depicts the evolution of methods in the USA; it describes repre-
sentative methods and identifies, where applicable, the deterrents to developing
near-native levels of proficiency (Level 4 [of five levels] on the US government
scale) in the practices of each method.
As can be seen, no method to date has proved to be a perfect vessel for carrying
students to Level-4 proficiency. It is not surprising, then, that each of the authors
in Part II of this volume describes programs that are highly eclectic in nature.
Course content and teaching practice are determined not by textbook design
or teaching method, but by the specific needs of students. Further, since some
teaching practices seem to set students up to fossilize at Levels 2 (Higgs and
Clifford [1982]) and 3 (Soudakoff [2001]), and not only in grammatical accuracy
but also in emerging sociolinguistic and sociocultural (and other) competences
that never finish developing, a number of the chapter authors have instituted
teaching practices in their programs aimed at remediation of problems caused
by one or another teaching method, e.g., ingrained error and unsophisticated
strategy use (especially the overuse of compensation strategies) associated with
communicative methods and inexperience with authentic culture and materials
typical of cognitive code methods.

Psychological research
As psychologists have learned more about the functioning of the human brain,
foreign language educators have been given more sophisticated tools for deter-
mining appropriate methods for classroom instruction. Unfortunately, language
educators have been slow to incorporate these discoveries into classrooms for
two reasons: (1) the discoveries have not been framed in ways that relate di-
rectly to language teaching, and (2) they often question long-practiced beliefs.
We present a few current neuropsychological findings here as examples. How-
ever, there are many more findings in the literature of neuroscience that have
direct application to teaching any level of proficiency, including the Superior
level, and these, too, warrant consideration by classroom teachers.
1 Here we are talking about the relationship between theory and practice in the USA and not
necessarily that found elsewhere. For example, in some European countries and in Eurasia in
general, theory and practice are often distinct fields, whereas the trend in the USA has generally
been to apply theory (linguistic or, especially, SLA) to the classroom.
 Principles and practices in teaching Superior-level language 7

Table 1.2

Typical Deterrents to
Kind of method Description Activities
results Level 4
Grammar-- Learning of Ability to read in Translation; Lack of cultural
translation grammar rules; L2 and render written grammar context; emphasis
practices L2 and content in L1 and vocabulary on written skills
checks exercises; over oral ones;
comprehension decontextualized emphasis on
of L2 through L1 vocabulary language usage
learning over language use
Structural Stimulus--response Automatization Repetition drills; Underdeveloped
approaches approach to of responses in substitution drills ability to handle
learning (e.g., known and for grammar and authentic and
Audio-Lingual rehearsed vocabulary; unexpected
Method, Direct situations dialogue situations and
Method) memorization materials

Cognitive code Based on the Understand and Grammar Slow

understanding of see linguistic exercises; Q&A development of
language as a systems exercises with oral skills;
system of rules (accuracy) teacher-made inexperience with
through reading/listening authentic culture
deductive materials; and its artifacts
approaches to communication
learning (e.g., via manipulation
Silent Way, of forms
MMC)
Communicative Loose collection Ability to Role plays; tasks; Overemphasis on
approaches of methods (e.g., negotiate projects; strategic
TPR, Natural meaning cooperative competence;
Approach) (fluency) learning underdeveloped
oriented toward activities; precision and
interpersonal reading/hearing formal language
communication authentic texts proficiency

The first reference is to the work of Ojemann, a neurosurgeon whose experi-

mentation with epileptics uncovered the fact that first and second (and foreign)
language centers are not co-located and that cell distribution and density is dis-
similar (Calvin and Ojemann [1994]). These discoveries would seem to have
direct implications for two groups of language teachers: (1) those working with
beginners using methods based on information from first-language acquisition
(e.g., the Natural Approach) and (2) those working with Superior-level students
who need to reach near-native proficiency. The former group might consider
the significance of differing L1–L2 brain structures for assessing the validity
of L2 teaching practices that emulate L1 language acquisition. The latter group
8 Betty Lou Leaver and Boris Shekhtman

might look at brain structure information obtained on coordinate and compound

bilinguals to inform some of their own teaching practices. While there is not yet
enough information to dictate teaching techniques, there is enough information
to guide (or, rather, redirect) foreign language education theory.
We would also reference the work in memory research (Reiser [1991]) that
has questioned long-held but erroneous beliefs and promulgated new models
for the conceptualization of memory functioning.2 Where we once thought that
information was stored as wholes, then recalled, we now know several important
things about memory that have direct application to learning foreign languages.
Some of the most important are summarized below.
1. Information must pass through sentient memory. For language students, this
usually means that unless they pay attention to and understand what it is
they are seeing or hearing, input does not turn into intake.
2. Information is stored componentially in diverse locations (form, function,
pronunciation, and context are not one category once language enters storage;
even if vocabulary is lexicalized within a specific content or context). With
syntax, morphology, and lexicon separated neural components, students may
be able to negotiate meaning with gross grammatical error (Allott [1989]).
3. Stored information can be overwritten. For lawyers, this translates into un-
reliability of eyewitness accounts (Luus and Wells [1991]). In the language
classroom, this can translate into a special form of “forgetfulness”: at lower
levels, when students learn the past tense forms, present tense forms can
sometimes become inaccessible; at higher levels, formal language, instead
of becoming synonymous with other registers (and available as alternative
expressions), can, upon occasion, replace those other registers, especially
while the individual student’s interlanguage is struggling with forms in free
variation during development periods.
4. Reconstruction, rather than recall, is the process used by the working, or ac-
tivated, memory. Therefore, teachers can expect students to make mistakes,
which no amount of overt correction will prevent. (We are not talking here
about errors – instances where students do not know the correct forms –
which can be corrected through overt instruction and practice, i.e. develop-
ing greater automaticity [see discussion below of acquisition of linguistic
competence at the SD level]. Rather, we are talking about miscues and slips
of the tongue that occur in native language speech as well as foreign lan-
guage speech. Sometimes a piece of information – an individual morpheme
or lexeme, for example – can become temporarily irretrievable and result in
grammatically or lexically flawed speech, including sometimes lower levels
of speech than one normally expects from students at the SD level.

2 We refer readers who desire more details about contemporary memory research as applied to
language learning and teaching to work by Stevick (1996).
 Principles and practices in teaching Superior-level language 9

5. Many noncognitive factors affect memory. These include diet, exercise, and
biorhythm, among others.
We would be remiss not to mention the traditional dichotomies of memory
types: procedural memory (based on repetition of physical actions, such as those
needed to drive a car) versus declarative memory (based on the knowledge
of facts), as well as the difference between episodic memory (based on the
perception, understanding, storage, and reconstruction of specific events, as well
as words and facts directly or coincidentally associated with those events) and
semantic memory (based on the encoding of thoughts and concepts into words
used in rules-based phraseology, the decoding of words used in rules-based
phraseology into thoughts and concepts, and the reconstruction of phraseology).
Much of the current debate over direct instruction (DeKeyser [1998]) centers
around the promotion of the requirement of one kind of memory over another
for language acquisition. Traditional teaching methods depend on declarative
memory, Audio-Lingual Method (ALM) on procedural memory, and many
contemporary methods on episodic or semantic memory or some combination
of the two. In reality, direct instruction does have a place, as does incidental
learning. “Teaching in front” can be as important as “leading from behind.”
Level 4 users report the importance of all these experiences and approaches
in attaining Distinguished-level proficiency (Leaver and Atwell [this volume]).
Methodological demagoguery of any type rarely works, and, more often than
not, the kind of eclecticism needed is highly variable, depending on individual
students or groups of students.

Concepts of communicative competence

In using the term, communicative competence, we refer to the concept proposed
by Hymes (1971) and defined within a language-learning framework by Spolsky
(1978). That concept is generally realized in the classroom as “the ability to
communicate with native speakers in real-life situations – authentic interper-
sonal communication that cannot be separated from the cultural, paralinguistic,
and nonverbal aspects of language” (Stryker and Leaver [1997a, p. 12]).
As the concept of communicative competence settled deeper into the col-
lective consciousness of the FLED community, analyses of the components
of communicative competence suggested that it was not a unified whole but a
composite of subcompetences. Canale and Swain (1980) identified four such
components: grammatical (or linguistic) competence (ability to comprehend
and manipulate the lexical and grammatical structures of a language), dis-
course competence (the ability to understand and apply culturally appropriate
text structure), sociolinguistic competence (ability to understand and use the
social rules of linguistic interaction for a given society), and strategic compe-
tence (the ability to apply appropriate learning strategies for acquisition of new
languages and for coping with unknown language).
10 Betty Lou Leaver and Boris Shekhtman

Although the segmentation of the concept of communicative competence into

components has limitations (Byrnes [chapter 2, this volume]), it does provide
a framework in which to shed light on the varying needs of students, as they
progress from Novice to Distinguished levels of proficiency. While all students
at all levels of proficiency need to develop all components of communicative
competence, students at lower levels (Novice through Advanced High) appear
to need the compensation aspects of strategic competence most of all, especially
if they are enrolled in programs that introduce authentic materials at early stages
of instruction (Stryker and Leaver [1997b]). Superior-level students, however,
usually possess a fair amount of strategic competence (which they need to
change from mostly compensatory to mostly metacognitive) and, to a lesser
extent, sociolinguistic competence, which they must continue to develop. What
they may need is more attention to linguistic and discourse competence (Ingold
[this volume]; Dabars and Kagan [this volume]), especially to formal language
(Leaver and Atwell [this volume]), and to something beyond the Canale–Swain
construct.
That “something” may be the social and sociocultural components suggested
by Mitrofanova (1996) and colleagues. Social competence is described as the
readiness to engage in conversation (and we would add that for Level 4 speakers,
this usually means the ability to use the language comfortably under conditions
of stress, illness, or fatigue) and sociocultural competence as the integration of
cultural elements into language use.3
Another added component may also be emotional competence (Eshkembeeva
[1997]). An important factor in communicating competently is being able to
express one’s personality in the foreign language so as to project one’s true
essence (characteristic of Distinguished levels of proficiency) and not one’s
adopted essence that results from cultural mimicry (typical of Advanced and
Superior levels) nor an absence of unique personality that results from lack of
linguistic skill (observed at Novice and Intermediate levels).
While all students need most of the components of communicative compe-
tence at any given time, there is a changing balance that occurs with proficiency
gain. Figure 1.1 shows what we see as the relative balance of componential
saliency along the continuum from Levels 0 to 4.

The Proficiency Movement

The push for proficiency – its definition and measurement – originally came
from US government agencies, first and foremost among them the Foreign
3 While some might argue that readiness to engage in conversation implies a personality character-
istic (extroversion), not a language competence, and can at least make a prima facie case for their
assertions, there is nevertheless some merit to considering the existence of social competence as
a possible component of communicative competence. In fact there is more than some merit to
this because many introverts develop social competence in the interests of other goals, such as
language learning (Madeline Ehrman, personal communication, September 9, 2001).
 Principles and practices in teaching Superior-level language 11

Figure 1.1 Need for an engagement of communicative competence components along

the L2 learning continuum

Service Institute (FSI), the training arm of the US Department of State. The
original intent in proposing language proficiency levels was to provide a means
to identify, assess, and label foreign language skills with the goal of matching
job requirements and employee capability. For the purpose of identifying and
assigning labels for levels, an oral test, the Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI),
based on skill descriptions, was designed (Frith [1980]). Thus, the Proficiency
Movement by design was informed by testing approaches, which in turn and
secondarily influenced teaching practices.4 Table 1.3 summarizes the ILR lev-
els under discussion in this volume – Advanced High, or Level 2+, through
Distinguished, or Level 4. The ILR scale was developed as a way to quantify
measures of quality. This becomes clear as one progresses through the various
proficiency levels. It is not a matter of simply increasing the number of struc-
tures and vocabulary controlled – although that is part of proficiency – but of
the way in which language is processed.
The Proficiency Movement formally began within academia at a meeting
with James Frith (then Dean at the Foreign Service Institute), James Alatis

4 An unfortunate outgrowth of this phenomenon has been the attempt by some teachers to “teach
the test.” In some cases, this means practicing the test format and the kinds of test items in
multiple attempts to raise student scores. In other cases, this means designing a syllabus whose
content is determined by test content. While on the surface, preparing students for a test may
appear innocuous and one could even argue that a test that is truly a “proficiency” test cannot be
“studied” or prepared for, the reality is that familiarity with test format, principles, and content
can, indeed, put “prepared” students in a position to receive a higher score than equally proficient
students who have not been prepared. The question of the tail (test) wagging the dog (teaching
practices and syllabus design) has periodically been a hotly debated issue since the development
of Oral Proficiency Interviews and other proficiency tests.
12 Betty Lou Leaver and Boris Shekhtman

Table 1.3

Level Listening Speaking Reading Writing

Understands social Satisfies work Reads factual, Writes with some
and work demands requirements with non-technical precision and in
2+ and concrete usually acceptable language, grasping some detail about
topics related to and effective main and most common
interests language subsidiary ideas topics
Prepares effective
Understands all Speaks with Reads a variety of
formal and
the essentials of enough precision authentic prose on
informal written
standard speech, to participate in unfamiliar
3 including technical practical, social, subjects with
exchanges on
practical, social,
aspects of and professional near-complete
and professional
professional field conversations comprehension
topics
Comprehends Accomplishes a Comprehends a Writes in a few
forms and styles wide range of variety of styles prose styles
3+ of speech pertinent sophisticated and and forms pertinent to
to professional demanding pertinent to professional and
needs professional tasks professional needs education needs
Understands all Speaks fluently Reads fluently and Writes
forms and styles and accurately on accurately all professionally and
4 of speech pertinent all levels pertinent forms of language accurately in a
to professional to professional pertinent to variety of prose
needs needs professional needs styles

(Georgetown University), and heads of the American Associations of Teachers

of various foreign languages and the American Council on Teaching Foreign
Languages (ACTFL) in 1980, at which ACTFL agreed to accept responsibility
for the OPI workshops for teachers that FSI had been conducting (Hancock
and Scebold [2000]). ACTFL subsequently developed standards for academia
accounting for the less intensive nature of most academic programs and the
ensuing need for more categories at the lower levels of proficiency and fewer at
the higher levels. Table 1.4 illustrates the relationship between the two scales and
reflects the newly issued ACTFL guidelines (Breiner-Sanders et al. [2000]). The
changes from the provisional guidelines issued in 1986 were the reconstitution
of the two Advanced levels (Advanced and Advanced Plus) into three levels and
the dropping of the proposed (but nearly never used) Distinguished level. For
the purposes of this book, we have retained the earlier nomenclature in order
to distinguish between students at Level 3 (which we refer to as Superior level)
and those at Level 4 (which we refer to as Distinguished level).
Over time, the Proficiency Movement and the subsequent development of
communicative approaches to teaching have focused on improving students’
 Principles and practices in teaching Superior-level language 13

Table 1.4

Level ILR ACTFL

Functionally Native
5 Proficiency
Superior
Advanced Professional (formerly
4+ Proficiency, Plus Distinguished)
Advanced Professional
4 Proficiency
General Professional
3+ Proficiency, Plus
Superior
General Professional
3 Proficiency
Limited Working
2+ Proficiency, Plus
Advanced High

Advanced Mid
Limited Working
2 Proficiency
Advanced Low

Elementary
1+ Proficiency, Plus
Intermediate High

Intermediate Mid
Elementary
1 Proficiency
Intermediate Low
Memorized
0+ Proficiency
Novice High

Novice Mid
0 No Proficiency
Novice Low

ability to use the foreign language rather than to know information about the
foreign language. In most institutions that have moved from structural teaching
approaches to communicative teaching approaches, student achievement has
significantly improved (Corin [1997]; Klee and Tedick [1997]; Leaver [1997];
Stryker [1997]), as measured by performance on an Oral Proficiency Interview
(OPI) or similar instrument.
Ironically, however, the very movement that introduced concepts of using
language to achieve communicative goals spawned teaching practices that may
be ineffective at higher levels while highly effective at lower levels. The authors
14 Betty Lou Leaver and Boris Shekhtman

of several chapters in this volume discuss this rather unexpected phenomenon

and the reasons for it. We suggest that perhaps different attributes are needed
for success at early levels of language study and success at much higher levels, a
hypothesis embraced by most of the chapter authors, all of whom have worked
with students at beginning, as well as near-native levels of proficiency.

Contemporary FLED
Given proficiency-oriented goals and a focus on the development of commu-
nicative competence, most FLED programs share a number of characteristics
that differentiate today’s cutting-edge programs from those of yesteryear. These
characteristics include authenticity in task and language, a role for content,
attention to learner differences, incorporation of elements of schema theory,
use of higher-order thinking skills, and application of adult learning theory.

Authenticity. In ever larger numbers, language programs and teachers are turn-
ing to authentic materials (prepared by native speakers for native speakers) for
use in the classroom at increasingly lower levels of proficiency. Some task-based
programs have even used almost solely authentic texts from the very first day
of language instruction (Maly [1993]). In Superior-level programs, authentic
materials are essential and even unavoidable and are used in a number of ways:
(1) text, discourse, and linguistic analysis; (2) source of expressions for acqui-
sition; and (3) information. Truly authentic tasks (e.g., for journalism students,
interviewing two statesmen on a controversial topic and preparing a balanced ar-
ticle for publication), as opposed to pedagogical tasks that make use of authentic
materials but do not necessarily reflect real-life use of language (e.g., comparing
articles in which the opinions of the two statesmen above have been reported),
become more realizable at the Superior level. Nearly all the authors in this vol-
ume describe programs that require students to perform tasks while in training
that closely resemble tasks they are undertaking or will undertake on the job.
Some are advocates of a task-based approach to teaching; others simply find
that language and job performance are often intertwined at the Superior level.

Content. Chaput (2000) points out that foreign language studies are the only
university-level subjects that do not focus on specific content. At least, that was
the case before the introduction of Languages Across the Curriculum (LAC)
programs and other content-mediated communicative approaches. At lower
proficiency levels, students benefit when new vocabulary and grammar is em-
bedded in real content and real contexts. For students at the Superior level,
language and content are inextricably intertwined by necessity.
The kinds of content in foreign language study vary tremendously at the
Superior level. In all cases, a knowledge of literature and culture is unavoid-
able; even military institutions include reading and discussion of literature and
 Principles and practices in teaching Superior-level language 15

learning about culture in their Superior-level programs. The Caspian Naval

Academy’s Russian program is an example. In this program, Red Army offi-
cers from Azerbaijan learned Russian through the study of classical literature
with military themes, in addition to the use of actual military communications
(Aliev and Leaver [1994]). Most Superior–Distinguished (SD) programs in-
clude content that is directly related to students’ job needs, and that content
can be scientific, humanistic, journalistic, diplomatic, or military, among many
other options that are restricted only by the number of professions in which there
is an opportunity for international employment – nearly any industry today.

Learner-centered instruction. In recent years, more teachers are beginning to

understand and accept the importance of learner variables in the language acqui-
sition process (Brown [1994]; Ehrman [1996]; Leaver [1998]; Nunan [1988];
Oxford [1990]), although program sensitivity to learner differences is not part
of the New Paradigm per se. Learner-centered instruction refers to more than
just understanding learning styles and developing students’ repertoire of learn-
ing strategies. It also refers to accommodating students’ needs and empowering
students to be participants in the learning process. All of the programs described
in this volume are learner-centered.
Today’s study of motivation began with the suggestion that students can be
motivated either integratively (desire to be part of the culture) or instrumen-
tally (need for the language for professional purposes) (Gardner and Lambert
[1972]). Although there appears to be a firmly held belief among many foreign
language teachers that integrative motivation produces higher levels of profi-
ciency, early empirical evidence suggests a more complex situation; in fact,
instrumental motivation may be more frequently associated with the successful
high-level acquisition of some languages (e.g., Americans learning Russian)
and integrative with others (Europeans learning English) (Leaver and Atwell
[this volume]). Other, more complex models, have been subsequently sug-
gested, along the lines of various types of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations,
that better delineate individual differences (for a discussion, see Ehrman, this
volume); even so, no one form of motivation over another has been empirically
shown to be a determinant for reaching Level 4.
Motivation, it now appears, is but one of many individual variables that influ-
ence the success of language learning. Anxious students can filter their language
learning experience through such thick shielding that often immense amounts
of comprehensible input result in limited intake (Horwitz [1988]). Risk-takers
in terms of language learning progress more quickly and experience greater en-
joyment than do their non-risk-taking peers (Beebe [1988]; Pellegrino [1999]).
Within classrooms, many interpersonal and small-group issues can enhance
or impair the efforts of any individual student in the “visible classroom” (the
overt relationships) who reacts poorly to the “invisible classroom” (ubiquitous
16 Betty Lou Leaver and Boris Shekhtman

but covert group dynamics), to use the concept and terminology advanced by
Ehrman and Dörnyei (1998), i.e., the significance of small-group dynamics and
rapport may be greater than many teachers realize.
Again, the vast majority of research on these variables has been conducted on
groups of students with mixed backgrounds and at lower levels of proficiency.
In our seventeen-year experience in extensive and intensive work with Superior-
level students, learners at this level, especially those studying in courses and
groups, tend to have a different set of anxieties, most of which are more closely
tied to linguistic aspects of job performance than to the intellectual risk-
taking required of language learning in general. Some groups, such as teachers,
however, may have group-specific affective impediments, as Dabars and Kagan
(this volume) point out.

Schema. Schema theory has for some time informed communicative teaching
practices. Although schema theory is often attributed to the New Paradigm,
the first mention of schema is by Sir Francis Head (1920). By schema, Head
refers to the background knowledge and sets of concepts that learners already
possess. New information is understood via the concepts already acquired – or
not understood due to lack of sufficient schema.
For foreign language students, content schemata, cultural schemata, and
linguistic schemata are all essential for accurate communication. Research sug-
gests that in many, if not most, cases, especially at lower levels of proficiency,
lack of linguistic schemata is generally less an impediment than lack of content
schemata in comprehension in both L1 and L2 (R. Gläser as cited in Hirsch
[1987]). In fact, knowledge of content can help students fill in the linguistic
gaps.
In the case of Superior-level students, both cultural and linguistic schemata
are more extensive and more sophisticated than one finds in a beginning learner.
For that reason, new content can be learned via already-possessed linguistic
and cultural schemata, making many more authentic materials and situations
accessible to Superior-level students. At this level, given the nature of tasks
typically assigned and the precision with which they need to be completed,
linguistic schemata tend to play a far more significant role than at lower levels
of proficiency. Equally important is attention to sociocultural, sociolinguistic,
and discourse schemata, as most of the authors in this volume point out.

Higher-order thinking. Bloom (1956) posited a hierarchy of thinking skills

that he called a “Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.” In this system, higher-
order thinking skills (HOTS), such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation create
more powerful learning circumstances than do the lower-order thinking skills
(LOTS), such as memorization, comprehension, and application. Although most
language teachers nowadays, especially those who use task-based instruction
 Principles and practices in teaching Superior-level language 17

EVALUATION
Determining the
value or
significance of
information.

SYNTHESIS
Creating new entities based
on component pieces.

HOTS ANALYSIS
Breaking information into its
component parts.

APPLICATION
Transferring information
to simulated situations. LOTS
COMPREHENSION
Understanding materials,
but not otherwise processing
them.

MEMORIZATION
Learning information by
rote, sometimes without
comprehension.

Figure 1.2

as a method, incorporate higher-order thinking skills as a matter of course, we

reproduce Bloom’s hierarchy in Figure 1.2 for those who may not know it.
While higher-order thinking is the preference of many teachers at any level of
proficiency, at the Superior level higher-order thinking is essential to students’
learning – and, in our experience, is often demanded by students. By way of
example, we cite the numerous programs presented in this volume, most of
which incorporate higher-order thinking skills in the tasks and activities used
in instruction.

Adult learning. In this volume, we speak exclusively about the adult learner.
There is a clear reason for this: on the proficiency scales used, Level 4 / Distin-
guished proficiency clearly requires the linguistic maturity exhibited principally
in the L2 adult population. In fact, a child, who has not achieved Piaget’s formal
operations (Piaget [1967]) and the requisite knowledge and experience, would
not be able to speak at the equivalent of the Level 4 and beyond in his or her
native language. To date, no study or test, to our knowledge, has shown a child
at Level 4.
In working with adults, many foreign language educators recommend the ap-
plication of students’ knowledge and the personalization of questions and other
tasks, in order to take into account adults’ schemata, which are highly complex
and sophisticated. Knowles (1990) suggests that adult students, unlike children,
need to have control over their learning – much in the way that some foreign
18 Betty Lou Leaver and Boris Shekhtman

language educators over the past several years have advocated developing life-
long language-learning skills in students (Brecht and Walton [1994]), designing
learner-centered classrooms (Nunan [1988]), and empowering students to be
in better control of their own cognitive processes and classroom behaviors
(Oxford and Leaver [1996]). Learner-centeredness and personalization look
very different at Superior levels than they do at lower levels of proficiency.
Where lower levels might introduce open discussion, at Superior levels dis-
course assumes quite different traits, as described in various chapters in this
volume. Teacher–student interactions change from master–apprentice to near-
peers with the same mission (see, for example, Ehrman’s discussion of Curran’s
theories on this topic in Chapter 12).
Interestingly, the myth that adult learners are less efficient language learners
than children is being systematically debunked (Schleppegrell [1987]). Children
who learn their first language to educated native levels can take up to eighteen
years to do so. Further, children learning a second language in-country get
far more hours on task with the second language than do adult learners, who,
for the most part, are occupied with jobs and families where they use L1. A
child’s greater accuracy in phonetics due to lack of brain lateralization aside,
the adult, with his or her greater number of schemata and limited time on task,
may actually be the more efficient language learner. Regardless of which side of
this argument a teacher supports, few would deny that adults need an approach
to language instruction that differs from children’s needs.
One of the major distinctions between children and adults – ultimately an
impediment to adult acquisition of near-native skills in L2 – is the far greater
number of L1 schemata possessed by adults. The result is the tendency of adults
to subordinate L2 information to L1 schemata, following Piagetan theory that
new information is acquired by linking it to already-known information (Piaget
and Inhelder [1973]), a trait that allows for more rapid acquisition of the second
language, yet at the same time creating an interlanguage that is neither L1 nor L2
but a learner’s approximation of L2, usually based on L1 with varying amounts
of L1 interference.5 The obvious conclusion is that comprehensible input may
not always be enough for adults since input, even when understood, can be
interpreted in accordance with an interlanguage rather than the second language.
The task of the Superior-level student is to replace a faulty interlanguage with
an idiolect that subordinates itself only to the rules of L2.

A programmatic overview
Superior-level learning takes place in a variety of venues. A number of unique
programs have been successful at developing Distinguished levels of proficiency.
5 In cases where students are studying L3 and L4, interlanguage may also be based on other foreign
languages, as well as the student’s native language.
 Principles and practices in teaching Superior-level language 19

In this volume, we present programs conducted in generic foreign language

classrooms and in-country settings. Both venues share many characteristics,
and all programs depend on extensive in-country experience (or its equiva-
lent, such as extensive interaction with the émigré community) and classroom
learning. Most teachers of Superior-level students find that these students have
usually already been in a country where their language of study is spoken
(Leaver and Bilstein [2000]). In fact, for acquisition of some components of
communicative competence, in-country experience or its equivalent appears to
be necessary (James Bernhardt, personal communication, March 27, 1999).
Although the authors of the chapters in this volume have diverse opinions
about the role of grammar in Novice through Advanced levels of instruction
and how error correction should be handled at those levels, they are uniform
in considering the development of accuracy and sophistication in grammati-
cal expression to be essential in reaching Distinguished levels of proficiency.
At Superior levels, the issue of explicit instruction versus implicit acquisition
(VanPatten [1998]) is no longer the burning question that it has been at Novice
and Intermediate (and even Advanced) levels. It is at the higher levels of L1
proficiency that elementary and secondary schools explicitly teach students the
formal elements of language in keeping with the spoken and written norms of
that society. Often, teaching Superior-level students boils down to identifying
acquired inaccuracies and retraining for accuracy, along with the acquisition
of formal registers (Kubler, Shekhtman et al., and Caudery [all this volume]).
Explicit instruction, in the experience of all the chapter authors, has been re-
quired to reach the Distinguished level efficiently, and each of the authors
provides a rationale for explicit instruction at very high levels of proficiency
(including authors who do not use much explicit instruction at lower levels of
proficiency).

Classroom-based language instruction

Although some may insist that Superior and Distinguished levels of language
proficiency cannot be achieved in the classroom, many Level-4 users who did not
have instruction at the Superior level feel that such instruction would have been
useful (Leaver and Atwell, this volume). The students in the programs described
in this book, as well as other programs, have been able to reach these levels in
the classroom; included in this volume are details of an immersion institute for
German Teaching Assistants at Georgetown University (Byrnes [Chapter 3]),
a course for improving language skills of students enrolled in Translation and
Interpretation programs in French and Spanish at the Monterey Institute of
International Studies (Angelelli and Degueldre), Chinese programs in China for
students from the United States (Kubler), Russian courses in the United States
that utilize the émigré community (Shekhtman et al.), a thirty-year-old reading
program for foreign students in Cairo, Egypt (Badawi), a model for teaching
20 Betty Lou Leaver and Boris Shekhtman

writing (Caudery), programs for heritage speakers (Angelelli and Kagan), and
a US-based program conducted eight times for teachers of Russian (Dabars and
Kagan).

Technology-based instruction
Increasingly, the use of technology has provided a wide variety of opportuni-
ties for language teachers to adapt, augment, and supplement their classroom
lessons. Homework assignments that require use of the Internet develop stu-
dents’ skills in navigating through authentic web sites in search of authentic
materials for what is quite often an authentic search. The expanding plethora
of technological support, however, like textbooks, nearly exclusively addresses
students at lower levels of proficiency. While highly autonomous learners at the
SD level can find many ways on their own to use the Internet to improve their
linguistic skills, to our knowledge, no specific materials or programs have been
developed with SD students in mind, with one exception: LangNet. The LangNet
“Reading to the Four” Project is described by Ingold in Chapter 7 of this volume.

Toward an understanding of the Superior level for foreign

language instruction
In teaching and supervising language programs at very advanced levels of in-
struction, we have noticed that a qualitative difference exists between teaching
students at lower levels of proficiency and teaching Superior-level students.
There is a clear difference also between the teaching and learning needs of
any one student just starting out and that same student at the Superior level.
At the lower levels, students need to acquire the basic linguistic system and
some understanding of culture. At the higher levels, they need to acquire the
uncommon, as well as the common, and the infrequent as well as the frequent,
in linguistic, discourse, and sociolinguistic expression. Further, the emphasis on
cultural appropriateness in the definition of higher proficiency levels presumes
substantial interaction with native speakers, which is not a typical experience
of basic and intermediate students. These needs and our experience lead us
to suggest two characteristics that distinguish students at the Superior level of
foreign language proficiency: linguistic experience and communicative focus.

Linguistic experience
Linguistic experience assumes that no student reaches the Superior-level class-
room without prior language-learning experience and that this experience
shapes that student’s expectations for continued instruction. For that reason,
Superior-level students typically have strong linguistic convictions. Their for-
eign language experience is rich and their range of strategies for classroom
 Principles and practices in teaching Superior-level language 21

learning broad. As a result, their evaluation of instructor performance is fre-

quently critical. This attitude can either damage the rapport in the classroom
(when students are unused to or disagree with the teaching method) or signi-
ficantly enhance it (when students recognize an individual teacher’s skill).
Affectively, these students often bring great goal orientation and perceive ev-
erything outside their specific area of interest to be distractive. Cognitively,
Superior-level students bring a wealth of schemata to the learning task, but the
nature of those schemata differs among students. Given these characteristics
of Superior-level students, most Superior-level courses with which we are fa-
miliar allow students choices in content and/or adapt instruction to the specific
learning needs of the students in the classroom.

Communicative focus
The term, Communicative Focus (CF), is introduced here by the authors in an
attempt to provide a means for identifying levels of communicative effectiveness
of the language itself. CF refers to the relative proportion of idea and language
mechanics in the process of communication. For example, the native speaker
communicates without conscious focus on language (i.e., the idea, or what the
person wants to say, is of utmost importance). The native speaker, then, has high
CF. In contrast, beginning students typically talk with pauses and difficulties,
search for words, and deliberately think about the grammar they use (at the
extreme, the idea may become inexpressible due to the emphasis placed on
mechanics or how the person wants or can say something). These students have
very low CF. As students gain in proficiency, their CF increases, and the balance
of attention changes from mechanics to ideas. This is not to say that the language
user with high CF never selectively chooses words or expressions. However,
he or she does so under the full influence of the ideational and sociolinguistic–
sociocultural (situational appropriateness) plane. (See Leaver and Atwell, this
volume, for a fuller discussion.) Nor is this to say that the lower-proficiency
language learner is unconcerned with the expression of ideas. However, the
cognitive resources required for intelligible communication may prevent the
learner from being able to say exactly what he or she means.

The significance of CF for students

The basic-course student focuses on how to say what he or she wants to com-
municate. For him or her, how is usually more important than what; in other
words, the mechanical plane of communication is more important than the
ideational plane.6 Communication in such instances is viewed as a process of
6 In fact, some well-intentioned teachers of beginning students, anxious to develop their fluency,
may tell them not to worry about accuracy of content, just to say what it is that they know how to
say, bending the truth to do so. While this might, indeed, build some kinds of fluency (or practice
certain forms), it can lead students away from developing high CF.
22 Betty Lou Leaver and Boris Shekhtman

stringing together linguistic units in a fashion that meets certain prescriptions

or applies a set of lexicalizations to a known situation. In either case, the CF of
the basic-course student is of necessity relatively low.
The Superior-level student already knows how to say what he or she wants to
communicate. At this level, what is more important than how. In other words,
the ideational plane becomes more important to the learner than the mechanical
plane, choices related to which having developed into habits. His or her CF is
correspondingly high. The high-CF student who is operating at the Superior
level (Level 3) in focusing on the “what” or the ideational plane of communica-
tion may still exhibit relatively low levels of sociolinguistic and sociocultural
competence.
Distinguished-level students have an even stronger ideational focus. At the
same time, they have nearly full access to the mechanical aspects of the lan-
guage, choosing to pay attention to language mechanics when they want to
sound erudite, need to make a point very precisely (as is the case of people who
must negotiate intergovernmental agreements), are talking with someone with
lesser language skills but for whom the target language serves as the lingua
franca, are preparing an article for publication, are giving a lecture to a group
of native speakers, or are serving as a high-level interpreter or translator, among
many situations in which precision in word choice and structure is essential.
At the highest levels, students have at their fingertips multiple correct struc-
tures to express the same idea, as well as a sense of how to build their own unique
structures in pertinent situations, and are searching for phraseology, as well as
discourse type, that will best meet their communicative need on a sociolinguis-
tic, sociocultural, and emotional basis appropriate to the cultural situation and
goal of their communication – or, in the case of translators and interpreters,
that will best express the message, intent, and personality of a speaker or the
innuendoes of a document. Thus, the words and grammar have become impor-
tant again, but in the same way that they are important to the well-educated
native speaker: how best to express oneself in order to convince, persuade, con-
vey information, or achieve any other particular communicative need. On the
receptive level, words also become important again, but in the same sense that
they are important to the native speaker: a new word is a “find,” intriguing, and,
while not interfering with communication, attracts a moment of attention from
the listener.

The influence of CF on instruction

An important part of developing communicative skills is providing students
with more sophisticated and appropriate strategies than the ones they have used
at lower levels. Such strategies are mostly metacognitive in nature, rather than
purely cognitive or compensatory. Examples include planning and evaluation,
as well as eliciting help in comprehending from a native speaker in natural and
 Principles and practices in teaching Superior-level language 23

unnoticeable ways that do not impede the flow of thought, acting as an equal
partner linguistically with native speakers, and entering and exiting a group
discussion among native speakers appropriately.
Developing high CF typically requires that students acquire regular, irregu-
lar, archaic, and idiosyncratic possibilities of the linguistic system as it is used
across a broad set of genres and in a broad set of situations. This demands atten-
tion in and outside the classroom to cultural appropriateness of expression, the
elimination of acquired inaccuracies in structure and pronunciation, the devel-
opment of greater lexical precision, work on text organization and other forms
of discourse competence, finding a sense of self in expression (emotional com-
petence), and increasing willingness to speak in a wide range of circumstances
and situations (social competence).

Appropriateness of expression. With the exception of some heritage speakers,

Superior-level students are no longer true foreigners, but they are not native
speakers, either. They are in between. As such, they approximate, but do not
equal, native speakers. On the one hand, they have the ability to comprehend
many sociolinguistic and sociocultural references, including some nonstandard
dialects and slang. On the other hand, they miss certain subtleties and nuances
connected with those references and nonstandard speech elements.
Since language does not exist without context and context is cultural, a student
whose foreign language is very good may still have communication problems
due to an incorrect interpretation of his/her interlocutor’s behavior. This is
natural; there are many differences in accepted behavioral norms in various
cultures. Even people with a shared native language can speak in different
“tongues,” as is the case for British and American English or for the many
versions of the Spanish language. If differences among people with the same
language can complicate communication, then differences among people with
different languages and from different societies can be quite striking. In addition
to purely behavioral differences, there are many communication problems that
arise from cultural influences on the linguistic code. Cultural components of
language influence its grammar logic, semantics, and idiomatic expressions.
The social and political environment of a given society can penetrate language
to such a point that many lexical units and phraseologies of that language are
extremely difficult for a foreigner’s comprehension.
Up to and through the Advanced-High level of proficiency, students do not
need extensive and specific cultural information. They have a more essential
requirement: to build a toolbox of the basic and intermediate structures of the
foreign language while more often than not necessarily ignoring much of the
language’s richness and uniqueness. Moreover, they are not capable of receiving
cultural specificity in the target language because their level of vocabulary is
not extensive enough.
24 Betty Lou Leaver and Boris Shekhtman

In contrast, sophisticated sociocultural and sociolinguistic information for

Superior-level students is essential. While enrolled in a language program,
students may receive this information and training through many channels:
books and articles on intercultural differences, special sociolinguistic exercises,
more attention to idiomatic contents of the language, organized or serendipitous
meetings with native speakers, special tests, tasks, and study abroad or its
equivalent. At this level, the need for development of sociocultural competence
is a guiding principle for the selection of teaching materials.
At lower levels of proficiency, students’ focus is on the standard features of
language – and must be. Sensitivity to dialect and register can only be developed
on the base of the standard language. At the Distinguished level, students not
only understand dialectal difference but comprehend idiolectal differences, as
well. As such, they display sensitivity to what idiolects say about a person’s
educational level, values, and general behavioral interactions and expectations.
For example, the use of a more sophisticated word colors one’s perception of
a person, as does the use of coarse words or obscenities. Superior-level stu-
dents also develop their own idiolect. This idiolect reflects social norms of
the foreign culture, and by the time a given student reaches the Distinguished
level, his or her idiolect reflects his or her own linguistic proclivities in any
language. If students are erudite in their native language, they exhibit erudition
in the foreign language. If they are descriptive in their speech in their native
language, they develop culturally appropriate descriptive strategies in the for-
eign language. If they punctuate their native speech with humor and sarcasm,
they punctuate the foreign language with culturally appropriate versions of
the same.

Linguistic competence: sophistication and accuracy of structure. At the

Superior level, grammatical accuracy is not a tautology, and grammatical flu-
ency is not an oxymoron, as they often are at lower levels of language profi-
ciency. Grammatical accuracy, without any doubt, is the most important element
of high CF. Poor control of grammar is the main reason why students cannot
concentrate on “what” to say and must deal with the “how” of communication.
Superior-level students typically have an excellent theoretical knowledge of all
parts of grammar: parts of speech, syntax, morphology, and sometimes even
linguistic history. They do not need additional grammar explanation. They do
not need an explanation of their mistakes: they know why they make them, and
it is usually due to carelessness in applying the rules or a slip of the tongue. At
the same time, they still do make mistakes because their automatic control of
some grammar features is not good enough. So, although Superior-level stu-
dents’ grammar level does not inhibit adequate communication, it still troubles
them, and sometimes, especially when they are under psychological pressure,
lack of automaticity even lowers their CF.
 Principles and practices in teaching Superior-level language 25

Thus, an essential task for a language instructor when he or she begins to

work with Superior-level students is to help each to: (1) identify the gram-
mar features that have been learned but not acquired, (2) reacquire language
features that have been acquired inaccurately, and (3) develop the essential
sophisticated grammar structures that remain unfamiliar to him/her. For this
reason, a diagnostic approach to teaching is essential. In establishing an ap-
propriate grammatical diagnosis, it may help to consider that Superior-level
students, in general, display three types of grammar patterns:
1. Automatic and correct;
2. Automatic but not correct;
3. Not automatic.
The first type means that a student can provide an appropriate pattern im-
mediately and correctly and at the speed of a native speaker. DeKeyser (1997)
suggests that this occurs when “declarative knowledge is turned into qualita-
tively different procedural knowledge” (p. 214) through quantity of practice.
The second type means that a student can provide an appropriate pattern
immediately and at the speed of a native speaker but with a mistake (slip of
the tongue) or error (feature incorrectly intuited). Sometimes, this results from
overgeneralization (Logan [1988]) and sometimes from lack of focus on form
(i.e. lack of knowledge) (Long [1988]). Knowledge, as well as memory, in-
fluences the decision-making process about grammaticality, and students who
have focused on form have been shown to outperform those with no focus
on form in transferring understanding of grammaticality to new situations
(i.e. reducing error) (Robinson [1997]).
The third type means that a student cannot provide an appropriate pattern.
There are many reasons for this, including not having seen the grammatical
feature before, having developed interlanguage rules that do not match L2
rules, and a focus on mechanics over ideation, among other possibilities.
The diagnostic approach has three valuable features. First, it identifies the
mechanism of fluency in foreign language. A student speaks fluently and readily
when he uses only the first and the second types of grammar patterns. The less
a student uses the third pattern, the higher his or her CF. Thus, the identification
of three types of grammar patterns can guide teachers in improving students’
CF through the appropriate selection of individualized exercises and activities.
Second, this approach defines the mutual tasks of a student and language
instructor: to reduce the number of Type 2 mistakes, to make Type 3 pat-
terns more automatic, and to introduce a specified quantity of new grammar
patterns to a student. The fluency level of Advanced-High students, while by
definition strong, depends to a great extent on the method used in their pre-
vious classrooms. Students trained in grammar–translation or cognitive code
approaches to language teaching tend to sacrifice fluency for accuracy. Those
raised on communicative approaches to language teaching tend to be “awfully”
26 Betty Lou Leaver and Boris Shekhtman

fluent – with “awful” referring to lack of grammatical control. Further, learn-

ing style preferences can influence the fluency of students at this level. On the
one hand, students who, by nature, focus on the forest and miss the trees,
especially those previously taught in communicative classrooms, may dis-
play more fluency than otherwise expected. On the other hand, students who
see all the trees but cannot find the forest, especially those previously taught
in grammar–translation environments, may have highly impaired fluency but
strong accuracy.
Third, this approach contributes to the development of synonymous expres-
sion, which is essential to the development of Distinguished-level proficiency.
Synonymous grammatical expressions are dependent on the possession of sev-
eral automatic and correct ways to express the same thought, giving students
a choice in which one they use. The process of selecting among synony-
mous forms becomes one that allows the student to display his or her per-
sonality (or emotional competence), situational sensitivities, and command of
register.

Precision of lexicon. An essentialand significant task for instructors of Superior-

level students is to provide activities that promote the acquisition of an in-
creasingly greater active vocabulary both in terms of quantity of lexical items
and quality (sophistication) of expression. Attention now shifts to the forma-
tion of words and to the ability of students to determine the meaning of new
words, not by using context as much as by using an already-developed un-
derstanding of the linguistic framework of the language – a sensitivity to the
morphemes and syntagms of the foreign language, as well as an intuition of
the multiple meanings of words and their correct (grammatical and cultural)
usage.
Another crucial change lies in the storage of the words in long-term mem-
ory. For adequate progress toward a near-native goal, a Superior-level student
needs to be acquiring a large number of new words consistently. A language
instructor equipped with techniques that avoid reliance on direct memorization
(i.e., reliance on repetition) and providing exercises requiring association makes
the process of storage (and subsequent recall/reconstruction) easier for students.7
There are many ways to do this, beginning with word games and finishing with
preparation of professional reports on important topics. Several chapter authors
provide examples.
7 Although most textbooks still approach vocabulary via direct memorization, Terrell (1986) sug-
gested that only vocabulary that is “bound” remains in memory and that binding occurs through
subordination of meaningful new information to extant schemata, in essence repeating the claims
of Piaget and Inhelder (1973). Psychological research (Atkins and Baddeley [1998]) also has
found association to be more effective than repetition. Natural repetition that includes associ-
ations with context creates a form of “hidden” memory work, calling the memory into action
without obvious dependence on the rote strength that underlies the former.
 Principles and practices in teaching Superior-level language 27

Discourse competence. Discourse competence at the Superior level means

the ability to understand and construct full texts. At Distinguished levels, those
texts can be very long manuscripts, as in the case of reading or writing books
or dissertations. Professional redaction activity might also be expected from
a Level 4 in limited environments. Discourse competence is needed both for
handling lengthy texts, which usually have a different structure from the shorter
texts used at lower levels of proficiency, and for producing texts that include
all the communication management devices and discourse devices present in
literary and professional texts produced by native speakers.
Students at the Distinguished level also differ from their Superior-level peers
in their ability to handle formal and informal language and to switch back
and forth with ease. Formal language is rarely developed through travel and
living abroad. It comes, instead, from professional work abroad, enrollment
in foreign degree programs, or L2 classrooms. Classrooms (as described in
this volume) help students develop formal language by requiring in-class pre-
sentations (Angelelli and Degueldre, Dabars and Kagan), presentations to the
émigré community and extensive internships with native speakers (Angelelli
and Degueldre, Shekhtman et al.), and the preparation of articles or materials
for formal or informal “publishing” (Caudery, Dabars and Kagan).

Emotional competence. Although nothing, as far as we know, has been written

about the emotional component of communicative competence, as proposed and
defined by Eshkembeeva (1997), nearly every Advanced-level student reports
the acquisition of a new persona together with the acquisition of a new lan-
guage. At the Distinguished level, however, something new appears to happen
in many, if not most, cases: a blending of the previously separated native and
target personalities and a stabilizing of behaviors, values, and responses across
intercultural boundaries (Leaver and Atwell, this volume). This composite is
generally accepted within either culture. In other words, while a student might
have an English and a French personality at lower levels of proficiency (includ-
ing through the Superior level), when students reach the Distinguished level,
they have managed to coalesce both their personalities into one. The merger re-
flects the Distinguished-level student’s true identity and is accurately perceived
by speakers of both English and French thanks to the student’s ability to use
different (and culturally appropriate) behaviors and language in expressing that
personality in each of the cultures.

Social competence. Social competence goes beyond simple willingness to en-

ter into social and linguistic contact with another speaker of the target language.8
8 Willingness to enter into communication has at least two sources: personality and social compe-
tence. In the former case, it is unrealistic to expect students to display behaviors in L2 situations
that they do not display in L1 situations.
28 Betty Lou Leaver and Boris Shekhtman

It includes the willingness and ability to enter into unexpected, as well as

planned, contact – situations where control may well be out of the hands of
the student. Examples might be honoring a request to make an unplanned pre-
sentation to a group and, more commonly, the need to offer an impromptu but
elaborate toast at a formal gathering. It also includes exhibiting the same level
of willingness as native speakers. Some cultures are more extroverted (or intro-
verted) than others, and the Distinguished-level student “feels” this difference.
Distinguished-level students are also more likely than even Superior-level
students to be willing to talk, even after a grueling day of work or under stress
of any non-linguistic sort. The effort required to speak the foreign language at
this level is hardly distinguishable from the effort required to speak the native
language.

Where we seem to be going

As classrooms oriented toward the development of proficiency help students
reach increasingly higher levels of communicative competence than in the past,
it is likely that language programs will enroll more Superior-level students and,
therefore, the need for teaching at this level will increase. Further, an increas-
ingly smaller and more global world means that there will be an increasing
need for higher levels of foreign language proficiency in future years than ever
before. The issues that will be important to educating all students successfully
at these levels will reflect the changes in teaching approaches at lower levels.
These approaches will influence the ways in which teachers teach Superior-level
students.

Issues in teaching at the Superior level

An educational philosophy of transaction has moved the goal of teaching from
developing linguistic knowledge to being able to accomplish tasks, with or
without a linguistic base. Unfortunately, many teachers of lower-level students
argue over whether they should teach grammar when they should be asking how
and when to teach it. Teachers who argue for the development of strategic com-
petence over linguistic competence intensify the naturally occurring imbalance
between these two components of communicative competence at lower levels
of proficiency where language use is required in real-life or simulated real-life
environments. As a result, more and more students appear to be reaching the
Advanced level of proficiency without the strong grammatical base that is re-
quired to reach Superior and Distinguished levels. As a result, SD teachers often
include lower-proficiency activities in the Superior-level classroom to make up
for omissions in previous language teaching that now impede the develop-
ment of higher levels of proficiency (Soudakoff [2001]). While Superior-level
 Principles and practices in teaching Superior-level language 29

students can circumvent the need for well-developed discourse competence by

following models (e.g., extant documents in the workplace), Distinguished-
level students are often the officials who must draft these documents/models.
Nearly all SD teachers base their instruction not on a textbook but on authen-
tic materials that often come from students’ professional fields. While many
students meet such materials long before they reach the Superior level, at lower
levels of proficiency tasks usually require students to skim and scan in order to
understand general meaning and obtain essential information for accomplishing
a specific performance. At higher levels, understanding general meaning is more
often than not a given, and the task focuses on form, genre, text organization,
authorial intent, and interpretation of nuance, as well as overall meaning.
In working with authentic materials and texts, Superior-level students have
to understand genre. Government protocols, for example, are prepared differ-
ently from business contracts. Additionally, Distinguished-level students have
to understand cross-cultural differences in discourse. Therefore, selection of
texts becomes broader at the Superior level, and students, for the most part,
can use authentic texts for gaining new content knowledge, often without
the need for pre-reading or pre-listening activities. Not only do these needs
have an impact on instructional method and activities, but they also create a
difficulty for teachers that occurs much more rarely at lower levels of profi-
ciency: lack of textual resources. Sometimes, students can help locate authentic
texts. In other cases, access to appropriate materials may be restricted. Further,
because of the significant differences in thematic needs represented in each
classroom, Superior-level instructors may not be in the same position to share
materials among themselves as are teachers of students at lower proficiency
levels.
Perhaps surprisingly, individualization becomes even more important in the
Superior-level classroom than in classes for students at lower proficiency levels.
Although learning styles may become less important, students already having
developed skill at foreign language acquisition and, therefore, being able to
be flexible in the style in which they take input, teachers need to know the
background knowledge of their students, as well as their specific goals, for
most students have become or are becoming rather specialized at this level.

Issues in staffing at the Superior level

Staffing Superior-level programs can be a challenge, as any administrator of
programs at this level can attest. Teachers must be able to do all the things that
teachers of students at lower levels of proficiency can do and know all the things
that those teachers know. In addition, they often need specific content knowledge
(or the skills and strategies to teach content in which they are not specialists),
linguistic knowledge equivalent to an educated native speaker (or very close),
30 Betty Lou Leaver and Boris Shekhtman

contemporary knowledge of the target culture (implying a willingness to invest

the time and energy that it takes to stay au courant), and good diagnostic skills.

Content knowledge
Because student goals at higher proficiency levels often focus on specific
content – diplomacy, aeronautics, negotiation, business, social consciousness
(for journalists), and interpretation skills, among many other possible special-
izations – programs are more often than not content-based. This can put an onus
on the teacher, who often knows less than the students about the content area,
including specific vocabulary. In fact, some teachers in programs that include
both Superior-level programs and programs at the Novice, Intermediate, and
Advanced levels of proficiency, elect not to teach the Superior-level courses
because they consider their lack of content knowledge to be a handicap.
Those teachers without content knowledge who do teach at the Superior
level have one of two choices, the same two choices that most content-based
program instructors face: learn the content or rely on the knowledge of the
students. Either approach is reasonable. Either approach works. Sometimes it
is not possible for a teacher to learn as much information about the topic as is
needed in order to teach the class because there is not enough time to do so.
Other times it is not feasible for the teacher to learn the information because
the topic is quite esoteric. In those instances, teachers need to be comfortable at
accepting students’ knowledge of the topic and providing the linguistic support
for students to gain greater proficiency in the topic. While the content schemata
may be high among students, most often the linguistic skill is not at the level
needed. Teachers who find themselves in the position of having or wanting to
teach a Superior-level course must decide which option they will choose.
Sometimes program managers are lucky. They find specialists in the content
area who are also language teachers. This is absolutely the ideal. However, this
is not the norm. Typically, the trade-off is language-teaching experience versus
content knowledge, and each administrator must decide how best to staff his or
her program, keeping this reality in view.

Linguistic knowledge
More important than content knowledge is linguistic knowledge. Since teaching
at the Superior level requires direct assistance to students in improving their
linguistic competence, as well as improving sociolinguistic and sociocultural
competence, the former of which requires erudition in the target language and
the latter of which requires erudition in the target culture, the obvious question
is: can non-native speakers teach Superior-level courses? The teachers of most
of the Superior-level programs presented in this volume are native speakers
of the languages that they teach. In a very few cases, the courses were taught
by very proficient, near-native speakers. The latter, however, have had direct
 Principles and practices in teaching Superior-level language 31

access to native speakers and have most often taught with native speakers in
a four-handed teaching situation. A successful exception is the program for
teachers described by Dabars and Kagan. The comment made by an external
evaluator who observed a grammar class taught to teachers in Russian by a
non-native professor with nativelike language skills makes a case in favor of
such non-native speakers as teachers at Superior levels: they serve as models
and inspiration for students aspiring to reach the same level of proficiency.

Being au courant
In order to teach at the Superior level, simply being a native speaker is not
enough. The teacher must be au courant with sociocultural, sociolinguistic,
and a range of other aspects of life in the target culture, such as history, current
affairs, politics, economics, and customs. Further, knowledge of the current
jargon and slang among a variety of social groups is required.
Teachers can stay au courant only if they are interested in self-growth. Con-
sidering how little we still know about teaching at the Superior level, we are
likely only to develop good programs and progress in theory if the teachers of
these programs are oriented toward personal growth, change and progress in
theory, and research in second language acquisition at the very advanced levels.

Diagnostic skills
Teachers at the Superior level must also have very good diagnostic skills. Teach-
ing at this level is far more than enacting a particular method, more than good
presentations, and more than group instruction. Rather, teachers must be able
to focus on individual learners, determine their current proficiency levels not
only on an accepted proficiency rating scale but also in terms of the relative
development of the various components of communicative competence, and
prepare individualized instruction that enhances all the components of commu-
nicative competence and strengthens any particular weaknesses in vocabulary
and grammar. If there are affective or linguistic impediments to a student’s ad-
vancement, Superior-level teachers must be able to identify them and find ways
to overcome them.

Issues in testing at the Superior level

Tests at the Superior level must assess all the components of communicative
competence, not just linguistic competence. For that reason, achievement tests
are rarely used by teachers in Superior-level programs. If tests are used – and
in many programs tests are not used – they are typically of the content-specific
variety. Prochievement tests, hybrid achievement–proficiency tests using unfa-
miliar authentic materials about previously studied topics, have attained some
popularity in recent years in programs for lower levels of proficiency that use
32 Betty Lou Leaver and Boris Shekhtman

task-based and content-based approaches to teaching, but are necessarily less

common as classroom tests at the Superior level. More common are tests that
require students to demonstrate their ability to use the foreign language to ac-
complish work tasks, i.e., work tests. As graduation requirements or proficiency
level checks, often both global and specific proficiency tests are used. While
specific proficiency tests are still very much unknown in the FLED profession,
teachers at Superior levels are beginning to find that they do need some kinds of
content-specific testing related to students’ content area specializations in ad-
dition to the more traditional global proficiency test, such as the ILR or ACTFL
test. The result is usually a test that is prepared by the individual teacher, al-
though a few specific proficiency tests are beginning to be developed9 and may
serve as models for a wide range of specific proficiency tests used for students
in Language for Special Purposes (LSP) programs, as well as those at Superior
levels of study, in the not-so-distant future.
Because many Superior-level courses are LSP in nature, concentrating on
a narrow range of topics, some teachers contend that these courses produce
“hothouse specials,” i.e., students whose language skills are at Level 3+ or 4
in a narrow content area but not across the board. However, it may be quite
natural, as students approach native levels of language proficiency, for some
content areas to be much better developed than others – and this parallels L1
development. Native speakers can handle some topics much more eloquently
than others, depending on their areas of specialization, interests, experiences,
social class, and geographic location.
Testing is needed not only for determination of accomplishment or current
skill levels but also for placement, curricular design, and individualization.
Nearly all the authors of this volume point out the importance to the development
of an effective program of being able to diagnose student needs. Testing issues
at Superior levels have been less researched than at lower proficiency levels,
partly because of lack of subjects and partly because of the complexity of testing
at that level.10 If we are serious, however, about developing Distinguished-
level skills in students, then we need a reliable and valid means of measuring
those skills, not only in terms of global proficiency, for which the ILR OPI
9 Examples include two tests developed by the American Council of Teachers of Russian: (1) to
measure proficiency in Russian in financial matters, and (2) to measure proficiency in Russian
and English in aeronautics and space communication. The former, a specific proficiency test
developed for the International Monetary Fund, requires students to perform work-related tasks
and scores the performance in accordance with the scoring criteria from the ACTFL test. The
latter, a specific proficiency test developed for NASA, requires students to answer questions or
make presentations related to space operations and scores the responses in accordance with the
scoring criteria from the ACTFL test. The first test would also be considered a performance test,
the second more a traditional proficiency test.
10 At the time of this writing, the Defense Language Institute had just undertaken a comprehensive
initiative to develop proficiency tests for identifying language users at Levels 3, 4, and 5.
 Principles and practices in teaching Superior-level language 33

appears adequate for the moment, but also in terms of diagnosing weak areas
and assessing differences between global and specific proficiency.

Conclusion
The teaching of Superior-level skills is virgin territory. Few are attempting to
accomplish it, although many more would like to. Therefore, there are more
questions than answers, more theory than practice, and more anecdote than
research in this area. The various chapters in this book attempt to begin to fill
the void by providing models of successful programs.
As a profession, we need to consider a commitment to taking students beyond
the Advanced level. In a world that is ever more frequently demanding near-
native skills, our clinging to the tacit (and false) assumption that the Advanced-
High or even Superior level is the limit to which we can teach students denies
many students the chance to develop the skills they need for professional work
because we, as a profession, fail to provide programs for them.
If we are to begin to bring students to the higher levels that a few in our pro-
fession have already demonstrated are possible, we need to develop an agenda
to study the Superior-level student in greater depth. The editors and authors of
this volume hope that the philosophies, experiences, and practices presented
here will create an imperative to do so.
2 Toward academic-level foreign language
abilities: Reconsidering foundational
assumptions, expanding pedagogical options

Heidi Byrnes

Among the most enduring and pronounced disjunctures in American college

foreign language (FL) programs is that between the lofty desire for students to
attain upper levels of performance in a second language (L2) and realities on
the ground. On the one hand, the ideal of upper-level L2 abilities – henceforth
generically referred to as advanced second language (AL2) use1 – is alive and
well as indicated in departmental mission and goals statements and also in the
profession’s continued insistence on “near-native abilities” in candidates for
faculty positions (Koike and Liskin-Gasparro [1999]). On the other hand, we
know that the first few semesters at best enable students to acquire basic inter-
actional facility in the L2 and that the subsequent content courses rarely even
state appropriate acquisitional goals much less incorporate explicit instructional
interventions that target AL2 learning.
However, a mismatch that may have been tolerable in the past may no longer
be workable in the future, as external demands press in on the profession,
with serious consequences for FL departments, including the outsourcing of
language instruction, the dramatic reorganization of some departments, and
even their closing (Schneider [2001]). For the real meaning to FL departments
of the much-hailed globalization, the greater ethnic and linguistic diversity of
nations, and the demands for more democratization around the world may not

1 In choosing the generic reference AL2 I face the dilemma that the profession lacks appropriate
terminology for designating the level of language that is the focus of this chapter. I am reluctant
to employ the terminology of Advanced Plus, Superior, or Distinguished that has gained cur-
rency through the ACTFL or ILR oral proficiency assessment rating scale for several reasons:
(1) in nongovernmental educational settings and also in the second language acquisition (SLA)
research community these terms carry strong associations with rating scales whose construct of
proficiency has been subjected to extensive critical analyses (see Bachman [1990]; McNamara
[1996]; Young and He [1998]); (2) these terms imply a priority for assessment-derived fea-
tures of interlanguage while I am primarily concerned with L2 developmental and instructional
issues; and (3) their impact in foreign language education (FLED) has been to privilege a par-
ticular system of assessment and a particular mode of language use, namely oral language, that
is itself unnecessarily limiting of advanced L2 learning. I trust that the chapter will provide
both sufficient elaboration and sufficient specificity to justify the otherwise awkward term AL2
abilities.

34
 Toward academic-level foreign language abilities 35

simply be that societies require a multilingual citizenry but that this citizenry
of the future requires upper levels of language abilities so as to be able to
use an L2 competently in a wide variety of public and professional contexts
and not only in private settings among family and friends. The question then
becomes: how might college FL departments re-imagine themselves so as to
be able to respond to the challenge of facilitating the development of AL2
abilities, a re-envisioning that would necessitate reflection about their nature,
about actionable plans, and about viable and successful practices in support of
reaching that goal?
I have begun to address these issues elsewhere by focusing on two areas
of undergraduate education: curriculum and pedagogy. Specifically, I have ad-
vocated a focus on constructing curricula as carefully considered sequences
of educational events, in contrast with mere aggregations of courses (Byrnes
[1998]). I have urged reconstitution of college FL programs through integrated,
content-oriented, and task-based curricula in order to replace the current split
into “language courses” and “content courses,” a program bifurcation which
gives short shrift to the complex phenomenon of adult L2 learning (Byrnes
[1999, 2000a]). Finally, I have recommended that college FL programs rethink
their pedagogical practices by linking content and language form in a fashion
that facilitates continued and balanced long-term L2 development in terms of
accuracy, fluency, and complexity of language use (2001a).
Given societal demand for AL2 abilities, a focus on curriculum is justified
for the following reasons: first, serious curriculum construction is inherently
oriented toward fostering AL2 abilities; second, curriculum planning neces-
sarily demands consideration of the long-term and intricately nonlinear nature
of adult instructed L2 learning, as captured by the term interlanguage; and,
third, any in-depth discussion of AL2 abilities requires that one reflect on how
learners best reach them. Together, these issues require decisions on curricular
sequencing and on suitable instructional interventions in order to avoid pre-
mature stabilization of interlanguage forms (Byrnes [2001b]; Byrnes and Kord
[2001]; Doughty [1998]; Doughty and Williams [1998]).
In light of these considerations as well as my experiences and insights in
conjunction with the comprehensive curriculum renewal project in my home
department, the German Department at Georgetown University,2 I begin by
characterizing what I take to be the prevailing view of “advancedness” in foreign
language education (FLED). Since I suggest that it draws on a theoretically
and empirically insufficiently comprehensive understanding of the nature of
language and language acquisition, I subsequently explore a profile for the
advanced learner which might address these perceived shortcomings. On that
2 This three-year project, implemented between 1997 and 2000 and entitled “Developing Multi-
ple Literacies,” is extensively documented on the department’s web site: www.georgetown.edu/
departments/german/curriculum/curriculum.html.
36 Heidi Byrnes

basis, I propose some principles for teaching the AL2 learner. My contribution in
Part II of this volume reports on how these considerations informed an intensive
eight-day immersion institute for graduate students of German. I conclude with
observations that link the project of AL2 learning and use to larger educational
concerns from the learners’ and from the teachers’ perspective and also to larger
epistemological issues that, ultimately, pertain to the workings of civil society
and, more deeply, to our self-understanding.

The advanced learner: Current assumptions and

pervasive metaphors

The influence of the ACTFL Guidelines

Where the FL profession has considered AL2 abilities, it has done so largely
under the influence of the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and their mode of
testing oral abilities in the Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI).3 Indeed, ways of
imagining any advanced L2 abilities, not just speaking, essentially derive from
that document and its associated practices. As a consequence, the profession
has come to characterize advanced learners broadly in the following terms: they
possess an ability to use language in paragraph and discourse length, to describe
and narrate in different time frames, to address concrete and abstract topics, to
support an opinion and hypothesize about non-present events, experiences, and
issues, and can do so with only minor infractions against accuracy, with few vi-
olations of an expected level of fluency, and in a sociolinguistically appropriate
fashion (see Breiner-Sanders et al. [2000]; also the introductory chapter of this
volume, by Leaver and Shekhtman). Beyond that, the language abilities desig-
nated by “Advanced High,” “Superior,” and “Distinguished” on the ACTFL and
ILR scales highlight the importance of the environment in which such language
is likely to be used, namely diverse professional contexts that will require ever
greater breadth, depth, and quality of expressiveness, and, consequently, greater
cultural appropriateness and personal confidence, even including some aspects
of dealing with dialectal variants as these characterize many linguistic-cultural
groups.
Given the extent to which the above features have been naturalized in FLED
and have become major guideposts for professional action (e.g., in K-12 curricu-
lar statements, as outcomes statements for collegiate L2 requirements, as spec-
ifying suitability or outcomes for study abroad, as graduation requirements), it
is appropriate to query: what notion of language and of the AL2 learner is being
projected, explicitly and implicitly, with these descriptors and, more generally,

3 For a brief history of that connection and its influence on the notion of “near-native abilities,” at
least among collegiate FL faculty, see Koike and Liskin-Gasparro (1999).
 Toward academic-level foreign language abilities 37

with the proficiency framework from which these descriptors hail? Four aspects
stand out.

An additive and componential notion of language

Language acquisition is essentially described as “more” and “better” incorpo-
ration of various separate attributes that make up language performance. Those
attributes include, most particularly, grammatical and lexical accuracy, fluency,
and also complexity, as well as sociolinguistic and pragmatic competence within
a cultural context. A similarly additive dimension holds for length of utterance –
from sentence, to paragraph, to discourse – and, implicitly, for contexts of use,
private and public. In their approach, the Guidelines are reminiscent of the
theoretical bases established at the beginning of the communicative turn in
US L2 education by Canale and Swain’s seminal article (1980). Their proposal
analyzed language performance by way of four components – grammatical or
linguistic competence, discourse competence, sociolinguistic competence, and
strategic competence – and seemingly arrayed them in a hierarchical progres-
sion. It thus constituted a do-able challenge for the then dominant forms-focus
in US FLED thinking as it shifted toward the newly advocated communicative
orientation.
However, such an interpretation failed to understand that an emphasis on
communication seriously challenged and even contradicted prevailing notions
regarding the nature of language and language teaching. Perhaps it could not
be otherwise, given the predominance of beginning and intermediate levels
in US FLED teaching and research with its propensity to foreground formal
accuracy and various compensatory and facilitative learner strategies. This was
the usual sense given to Canale and Swain’s strategic competence, despite
numerous adjustments to that construct, particularly in the testing commu-
nity (cf. Bachman [1990]; McNamara [1996]; Young and He [1998]). At the
same time, discourse and sociolinguistic competence, the other aspects of
communicative ability, received scant attention. Since few professionals had
instructional experience at the advanced level, these terms retained their long-
established additive meanings.

A privileging of the formal features of the language

It seems, then, that an additive and hierarchical notion of language acquisition
is closely tied to an emphasis on formal accuracy. However, since competent
language use quite assuredly does require accurate use of the lexicogrammar of
a language, the issues cannot lie in the that of emphasizing accuracy but in the
how. Specifically, an appropriate emphasis on formal features requires a larger
frame of reference, permitting nuanced interpretation that provides a context for
the occurrence of approximative forms and a basis for the creation and practice
of instructional interventions. In my estimation, it is precisely this fundamental
38 Heidi Byrnes

reconsideration of the nature and function of formal features within language

use and their role and significance in L2 acquisition and pedagogy that the pro-
fession by-passed as it “implemented proficiency” in an astoundingly short time.
One can conclude that the “Proficiency Movement” brought about enor-
mously beneficial changes, particularly in teacher education, pedagogical
approaches, materials development, and assessment, even as it hindered an
expansion of the profession’s interpretive horizons. Let me provide just one
example: one of the most enduring debates in communicative language teaching
concerns the role of grammar. Almost inevitably, grammar is viewed in opposi-
tional terms to communication that is encapsulated in the term “fluency,” where
fluency, in turn, is largely equated with temporal fluency (e.g., no unaccept-
able pausing behavior, no inappropriate level of self-correction and fractured
syntax). As communicative language teaching gained wide acceptance, the two
opposing sides made their own peculiar truce: both steadfastly affirmed that ac-
curacy and fluency were necessary for language acquisition to proceed, a stance
that could leave nearly everything in place, with communication added to it.
Though even the delimited assessment practice of the OPI provided ample
evidence, discussion did not explore the deeper meaning of the phenomenon
that both features of learner language, accuracy and fluency, are shaped by
the nature of the tasks being performed, the kinds of meanings learners are
attempting to convey, at what levels of formality toward their interlocutor, and
within what communicative context (e.g., public or private). In other words,
language performance at the very least is not entirely driven by abstract formal
capabilities in and of themselves; it is also, in yet to be specified ways, influ-
enced by situated and goal-oriented meaning conveyance. It is just this kind of
nuanced specification that teachers require in order to develop their own rich
understandings of the delicate and changing relationship between accuracy and
fluency along the acquisitional path (Skehan [1998]). For with it they can make
informed, situated choices so that students’ language use at a time can continue
to lead to language development over time, the heart of instruction that can
foster learner development to AL2 abilities.

The dominance of interactive speech

While separate guidelines exist for all modalities, the speaking component be-
came paradigmatic for how the Proficiency Movement was received in non-
governmental FLED. A direct consequence is the privileging of conversa-
tional (interpersonal) language in unmarked encounters among equals, rarely
in marked formal events, and in pragmatic encounters, either of a factual,
information-gathering nature or with a transactional goal (e.g., obtaining var-
ious goods and services). True, typically even adult learners initially acquire
what J. P. Gee (1998) refers to as the primary discourses of familiarity among
family and friends, generally within settings that are presumed to be known
 Toward academic-level foreign language abilities 39

or at least highly predictable. However, by not referring to the unmistakable

qualitative differences between these primary discourses and the secondary dis-
courses of public life in a vast range of settings – not just “more and better” –
the Guidelines do not explore the cognitive and semiotic needs and capabilities
that characterize the AL2 learner (Halliday [1993]).
A more indirect but equally serious negative consequence is that the additive
construct underlying the speaking guidelines strongly affected how FL profes-
sionals approached the other modalities. Accordingly, the reading guidelines
were severely criticized early on for their disregard of the cognitive abilities
(in L1) that the learner brought to the reading task, their assumption of a tex-
tual hierarchy according to a typology of texts, their insufficiently developed,
even seriously misconstrued notion of comprehension, and, ultimately, their
inappropriate pedagogical recommendations.4 More recently, similar concerns
have been raised, even for Novice and Intermediate-level learners, for writ-
ing development that “may not challenge the full writing potential of novice
FL writers, especially if the language in question shares an alphabet with the
students’ native language” (Way, Joiner, and Seaman [2000, pp. 178–179]).
In sum, by referring to language primarily as oral, interactive language of fa-
miliarity, Guidelines-derived notions seem to have a tendency to underestimate,
through their representations of the nature of adult L2 learning, the learners’
acquisitional potential. This is a serious issue in and of itself. It is particu-
larly consequential given the short time allocated within American FLED for
attaining usable and, more important, upper levels of L2 ability.

The influence of assessment and particular assessment practices

As is well known, the proficiency construct was derived from assessment prac-
tices (for a brief overview, see Koike and Liskin-Gasparro [1999]). On an ab-
stract level, the fundamental differences as well as the facilitative and detrimen-
tal connections between assessment and instruction are, of course, well known
(Shohamy [1998]). In professional practice, however, an uncritical linking of
assessment to goals setting, to curriculum construction, and to instructional
practice amazingly swiftly foregrounded the latter, detrimental consequences.
One way to undo these would be to see the implicational hierarchies used in
much assessment, along with their breakdown of large performance categories
into separate criteria, as reflecting highly specific interests and needs of assess-
ment. By contrast, language itself, language learning, and language teaching are
characterized by a host of facilitative and dynamic interrelationships that taxo-
nomic treatments can all too easily conceal. Misinterpretations not only result
in potentially less efficient L2 learning for individual learners. More seriously,
they affect how the entire FL profession sets its sights, that is, what L2 abilities

4 Representative of many of these criticisms is Lee and Musumeci (1988).

40 Heidi Byrnes

it believes instructed L2 learning can reasonably attain. Almost by definition,

L2 classrooms have become deficitary environments which continually convey
to their learners this message: if you want to acquire the L2, don’t stay here but
immerse yourself in the culture.
Naturally, the impact of that stance is the more detrimental and far-reaching
the more we aim toward upper levels of L2 ability. For example, when some
aspects of language use are characterized as discourse and sociolinguistic com-
petence and these “advanced” abilities are deferred until after “mastery” of
morpho-syntactic formal features, we disable L2 learners from experiencing
their own evolving L2 use as predicated by meaning-driven choices, thus inher-
ently discursive and socially constructed, and not merely a rule-driven, formal
exercise of being “right.”

Let me summarize where consideration of these four perspectives has led us.
I have suggested that one reason for the impasse regarding AL2 learning is
insufficiently robust assumptions about advancedness that build on an additive
and componential notion of language. That notion, furthermore, is strength-
ened by a conceptualization of the relationship between knowledge, meaning,
and language that has dominated Western philosophy and, by implication, lin-
guistics since antiquity (see Christie [1989]; and the “General Orientation” in
Halliday and Martin [1993]). In particular, the field has treated language as
separate from knowledge and, in turn, knowledge as existing “out there” prior
to and separate from language. As a result, most theorizing has constructed
linguistic patterns distinctly and independently from individual and cultural
knowledge, thereby enabling a focus on the interrelated system of signs, di-
achronically and synchronically investigated, that could be remarkably devoid
of meaning, function, and use in a sociocultural context. Language thereby
becomes a tool, an instrument, and being able to use a language, and, by im-
plication, to acquire an L2, becomes a “skill.” Focal attention can then shift
from the sociocultural context of meaning-making and choices in the life world
through and with language to accuracy of language in terms of an idealized
norm. That norm, of course, refers to an abstract system of signs which itself is
the result of a linguistic analysis that removes itself and its findings from a so-
ciocultural context of human meaning-making. As Christie expresses the issue
in the context of L1 education, this instrumentalist approach does not acknowl-
edge “that the development of the desired mental skills is entirely dependent on
the mastery of the linguistic patterns in which these skills are realized. Equally
rarely is it acknowledged that ‘knowledge’ itself is constructed in varying pat-
terns of discourse” (1989, p. 153). In other words, we have misrepresented both
language and knowledge, a realization that confronts not only education and
linguistics – particularly cognitive, functional, and sociolinguistics – but also
philosophy.
 Toward academic-level foreign language abilities 41

To the extent that the Guidelines and their ILR predecessor and current
companion constitute the FL profession’s primary vision of L2 learning, they
present a flawed understanding of the relation between language, knowledge,
and culture, and also provide an insufficiently comprehensive and insufficiently
sophisticated framework for teaching and learning. Insufficient and in need of
reconsideration in particular is the profile of advanced learners. To varying de-
grees we, the authors of the chapters in this volume, realize and make reference
to this fact. At the same time, our recommendations to counteract this legacy
are fragile, inasmuch as we build on previous instruction that may well have
been less than optimal, perhaps even detrimental to the goal of AL2 acquisi-
tion. However, their transitional status can also be seen positively, reflecting
the profession’s gradual ability to expand its imagination of what instructed L2
learning at all levels might be. In a reversal of customary practice, the following
section explores possible avenues for that necessary reconsideration by using
the AL2 learner as the point of departure.

Profiling the AL2 learner: an expanded conceptual base

The advanced L2 learner as a multicompetent speaker

As we reconsider how we might facilitate the attainment of AL2 abilities, we
must first clarify the goals to which such learning aspires. At present, very
advanced abilities have almost completely been understood in terms of the
native speaker.5 While that seems an innocent teleology, in reality the “native
speaker” was imagined by way of a norm- and system-reference that bespeaks
certain interests. For example, in the theory of transformational-generative
grammar an idealized native speaker, wholly unperturbed by performance con-
straints, enabled statements about the nature of language which claimed not
only descriptive but explanatory adequacy, a highly desirable designation in the
pecking order of academic inquiry. In assessment practice and, by implication,
within the FL profession, that native speaker is best known as the educated
native speaker of the ILR/ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines from whom the
learner who wishes to reach the top rungs of the hierarchical ladder should
be indistinguishable.
Since the persistence of a “foreign accent” is the most readily identifiable
obstacle to this lofty goal – after all, proficiency-tester lore has it that only

5 For the remainder of my reflections I use the term speaker in a generic fashion to refer to the
ability to use a language, native or otherwise. However, as the paper makes clear, efficient and
effective language acquisition by adults requires the total integration of all modalities right from
the start. More important, the potential for acquiring advanced abilities depends on increasingly
greater emphasis on the forms of semiosis preferred in the secondary discourses of public life
which, not surprisingly, are the forms of written language.
42 Heidi Byrnes

God and mothers create such speakers – a biological predisposition of human

development captured by the critical period hypothesis holds remarkable sway.
Although more recent research has suggested more nuanced interpretations
for long-held research findings that seemingly precluded upper levels of per-
formance in an L2 beyond the critical period (see particularly Bialystok and
Hakuta [1994]; Birdsong [1992, 1999]), two assumptions about L2 learning
persist: first, that such indistinguishability should, indeed, be the goal for L2
learning; and, second, that L2 learning involves, indeed requires, a virtual ef-
facement of the learner’s L1 abilities and predispositions.
Both assumptions have been subjected to extensive critique. For example, a
theoretical clean distinction between competence and performance is already
highly suspect from the standpoint of acquisition. Further, as Fillmore notes in
light of variation in language behavior, “in a situation in which language use
plays an essential role in a speaker’s engagement in a matrix of human actions,
however, the distinction [between competence and performance] seems not to be
particularly helpful” (1979, p. 91). Finally, research by Birdsong (1999), Cook
(1992 and 1999), and Coppieters (1987) indicates that non-native users can
differ significantly in their underlying representations or grammatical intuitions
about the L2, even when their performance is accepted by native speakers as
being of native quality. Put simplistically, all L2 users, regardless of levels of
ability, differ from monolinguals because they have an L1. This leads Cook
(1992) to posit a “multicompetence” that recognizes not only the inescapable
fact of L1 influence but, indeed, the desirability of a multicompetent individual
as contrasted with an “ersatz native.” Restating the goals of L2 learning in
this fashion exposes the idealized goal of the native speaker, or of nativelike
performance for the L2 learner, as at heart privileging monolingualism. The
extent to which that is an interest of the nation-state which uses that ideology
for identity, influence, and domination through language norms is worthy of
some reflection, particularly at a time when the nation-state itself is being
reconstituted.
Aside from reducing the potential for bigotry against non-native minorities
(Valdés [1999]), these insights permit an important resituating of the goals of L2
instruction in terms of the L2 user as an “intercultural speaker . . . not an imita-
tion L1 user” (Cook [1999, p. 203]) or, worded differently, as a multicompetent
user of an L2 in his or her own right (1992). Attenuating, perhaps even reversing,
the previous characterization of non-native speakers as defective or failing, we
can see them as engaging in multiple interpretive border crossings and forms
of translation precisely because they have an outsider perspective (Kramsch
[1997]). Far from an insignificant play with words, such reconsiderations open
up numerous programmatic and pedagogical possibilities, including, in a curi-
ous twist, the possibility of improving the educational support for L2 learners
 Toward academic-level foreign language abilities 43

to acquire AL2 abilities at a higher rate and level of success than has heretofore
been the case.6
How might knowledge/content and language be related to our concern with
the AL2 learner? I begin to answer this question from the perspective of language
processing as cognitive grammar explicates it. The subsequent section explores
the possibilities of a genre and literacy approach. I conclude with remarks about
the notion of cognitive fluency on the one hand, and about variation, identity,
and voice on the other, where all these aspects are intimately related to the
notion of choice in L2 use.

Linking knowledge and language – thinking for speaking

Key to a linking of language and knowledge is the nature of meaning. Refut-
ing the objectivist tradition which excludes “ideas” or “concepts” from analy-
sis, Langacker and other cognitive grammarians (as contrasted with cognitive
linguists and cognitive scientists like Fodor) focus on cognitive phenomena
(Langacker [1987, 1988a, 1988b]). These are explicated in terms of concep-
tualization, which includes both intellectual as well as sensory, emotive, and
kinesthetic sensations. Part of overall psychological organization rather than
separate from it, language is at its core a symbolic system, with its grammar not
best described in terms of generativity, as though the expressions of language
were a fixed algorithmic set that responds to conditions of logic and truth, but
as a symbolic resource which speakers use as part of their general categorizing
and problem-solving abilities. Thus, important notions are those of “construal”
or “imagery,” that is, interpretive and situated meaning-making, since “the se-
mantic value of an expression does not reside solely in the inherent properties
of the entities or situation it describes, but crucially involves as well the way we
choose to think about this entity or situation and mentally portray it” (1988a,
pp. 6–7).7
This approach evokes a number of consequences. First, since semantic struc-
ture is not universal but in important ways language-specific, we must find
ways of deeply engaging learners in situated meaning-making that enables and
requires them to draw upon the full body of their native speakers’ knowledge
and cognitive abilities, most particularly their interpretation of what Langacker
6 As its title, “Developing Multiple Literacies,” indicates, the desirability of such a multicompe-
tence provides the ideational frame of reference for the reconceptualized undergraduate curricu-
lum of the German Department at Georgetown University.
7 A particularly interesting discussion and application of these issues to advanced language learning
in the lexicogrammatical sphere of prefixed German verbs is that by Sprang (2002, in preparation),
who locates her study of advanced learners of German within this framework and, accordingly,
plans her instructional interventions around an explicit link between the potentialities of concept
formation and the acquisition of complex language forms.
44 Heidi Byrnes

calls the “usage event” which leads to an utterance. In processing their L2 utter-
ance they make choices regarding the preferred or most appropriate construal
of the situation, drawing on the resources provided by the formal inventory of
the L2, which, of course, permits variant possibilities (Chafe [1998]). In other
words, contrary to past practice, well-formedness or, to use our preferred term,
“accuracy,” is not exhausted at the form level nor is it an absolute. The essen-
tial incorporation of the situation of use forbids that interpretation, as does the
nature of language as a symbolic resource that offers highly conventionalized,
nonetheless diverse meaning-making possibilities through semantic, phonolog-
ical, and symbolic units.
For example, the same objective circumstance may be expressed in quite
different ways:
(e) Russia invaded Afghanistan;
(e') Afghanistan was invaded by Russia.

These two phrases constitute a significant semantic contrast rather than being
relegated to the status of a mere, almost whimsical, syntactic transformation
(example taken from Langacker [1988a, p. 7]). In each case, the speaker chooses
to foreground and emphasize a different aspect of the entity or situation being
described. In a given context, one or the other may be more appropriate and
more “correct,” or simply more what the speaker intended to convey.
Second, grammar and lexicon, semantics and pragmatics, semantics and
grammar, and literal and figurative, idiomatic, or metaphorical language are
difficult to distinguish meaningfully. Specifically, despite a long tradition of
the centrality of syntax and, correlatively, of lexicon as “really an appendix
of grammar, a list of basic irregularities” (Bloomfield [1933, p. 274]), neither
the dichotomous distinctions nor the autonomous components are justified as
they stand. Indeed, while symbolic units (e.g., in “grammar” or “lexicon”) do
have conventional values, what Langacker calls “compositional values,” these
typically underspecify the contextual value they have in a given utterance, the
way they are actually understood in use. There is always a gradient between
what remains “outside” of linguistic expression, that is, what is “contextual” or
“non-compositional,” and what is actually expressed in language. On the ex-
pressive plane, we encounter yet another continuum, inasmuch as “the sym-
bolic units characterizing grammatical structure form a continuum with lexicon:
while they differ from typical lexical items with respect to such factors as com-
plexity and abstraction, the differences are only a matter of degree, and lexical
items themselves range widely along these parameters“ (Langacker [1988a,
p. 19]).
Finally, well-formedness or “accuracy” is also neither an absolute nor pri-
marily a matter of the form level. Quite the opposite is true, a judgment that
 Toward academic-level foreign language abilities 45

pertains less to the significance of formal accuracy and more to the speaker’s
conceptual meaning-making capacity and interests through the symbolic re-
sources of a language. Therefore, a concern with learner centeredness might
most appropriately be a concern with a learner acquiring the richness of the L2
system’s symbolic resources rather than with learners “creatively” expressing
personal meanings or applying their own learning strategies and styles, a fre-
quent interpretation in FLED. A concern with accuracy might then be in terms
of possible and acceptable learner choices within the nexus of intended mean-
ings, available resources, and privileged forms of expression as the L2 speech
community has evolved them.
Practical implications of such a shift for all L2 learning, but particularly for
AL2 learning, become apparent in Slobin’s crosslinguistic studies of online
processing (1996a, 1996b, 1998). Just like cognitivist grammarians, he con-
cludes that “thinking for speaking” (1996a, 1998) is shaped by the nature of
the resources languages make available. Different from simplistic notions of
linguistic relativity, linguistic determinism, or skill use, this research acknowl-
edges that language resource potentials do influence, because of their degree
of codability, how speakers encode particular events in online processing. For
example, Slobin’s explorations of motion events confirm a two-way distinction
already posited in Talmy’s extensive typology of languages according to vari-
ous conceptual domains, such as aspect, change of state, action correlation, and
event realization (1991): (1) verb-framed languages, in which the preferred pat-
tern for framing motion events is the use of a path verb with an optional manner
adjunct (e.g., “enter running”), and (2) satellite-framed languages, in which path
is lexicalized in an element associated with the verb, leaving the verb free to en-
code manner (e.g., “run in”) (Slobin [1998]). As a consequence, satellite-framed
languages have a larger and more differentiated lexicon of manner verbs and use
those verbs more frequently across a range of situations. Moreover, as the data
were elicited through picture narratives, speakers’ different gesture patterns
provided evidence for different mental imagery and memory of descriptions of
motion events, with satellite-framed languages devoting more attention to their
manner dimension. Finally, beyond the sentence level, Slobin’s investigation of
translations of literary texts between Spanish and English (1996b) confirmed a
preference in oral narratives whereby speakers of English, a satellite language,
may devote more narrative attention to the dynamics of movement because of
the availability of verbs of motion (often conflated with manner) while Spanish-
speakers seem to be led (or constrained) by their language to devote somewhat
more attention to static scene-setting. As a result, “the problem facing the
Spanish translator . . . is whether or not to allot a separate clause to each of the
path segments that are associated with a single verb in the English original”
(p. 211). More precisely, the dilemma is this: “A faithful translation is either not
46 Heidi Byrnes

readily accessible, due to lexical and syntactic constraints, and/or it would be

too extended, thereby foregrounding materials that are naturally backgrounded
in the original” (p. 210).8
Perceptive language educators have, of course, always known of the signif-
icant difference between the “packaging” of thoughts in languages and what
thoughts are so packaged in the first place. Likewise, those whose education
emphasized literature and careful textual analysis have been well aware of the
different rhetorical preferences that engendered a different “feel” of a particular
thought or entire narrative in different languages. From the standpoint of peda-
gogy, however, the challenge is how best to convey these insights to our learners.
A first, somewhat uncomfortable conclusion might be that the frequent admo-
nition that students should “simply think in the language” and not translate but
work by intuitive feel is an insufficiently informed and inadequate way of sup-
porting their desire to attain AL2 abilities, particularly in an instructed setting.
More specifically, we might follow Slobin’s recommendation (1988) for a
framework of thinking for talking and listening, thinking for writing and read-
ing, thinking for translating, and listening and reading for remembering. One
consequence would be to reconsider reading instruction in ways beneficial for
the AL2 learner. As currently constituted, its principal instructional “metaphors”
are scripts, frames, and schemata. However, these tend to overlook the intricate
relationship between the conceptual and the lexicogrammatical formal linguis-
tic level. As Kintsch (1988) shows, when scripts and frames are conceived
in terms of a top-down predictive, expectation-based way of processing texts,
which only resorts to bottom-up processing when it encounters unexpected dif-
ficulties, they are “simply not workable: if they are powerful enough, they are
too inflexible, and if they are general enough, they fail in their constraining
function” (p. 164). Instead, he proposes a construction–integration model that
“combines a construction process in which a text base is constructed from the
linguistic input as well as from the comprehender’s knowledge base, with an
integration phase, in which this text base is integrated into a coherent whole”
(ibid.). Word identification is much more deeply embedded in discourse un-
derstanding than previously understood and knowledge that is eventually ac-
tivated depends on the discourse context in terms of the “neighborhood” in
the text, rather than in terms of a long-term memory net that exists sepa-
rate from a discursive context. Once again, simply espousing a processing
and communicative orientation is inadequate. What is called for is elaboration
of the intimate relationship between language and the life world and a deep
understanding of the nature of human semiosis, prototypically instantiated by
language.
8 A similar analysis, this time pairing English and German, is offered by Carroll (1997 and 2000).
With a shift toward phraseology, Teliya et al. (1998) investigate the cultural infusion of lexical
collocations in the context of Russian.
 Toward academic-level foreign language abilities 47

Genre as typified rhetorical actions in recurrent social situations9

At present, that relationship between knowledge and language is perhaps best
explored in the new genre studies which begin with socially contextualized
meaning-making as definitional for the human capacity to be a “languaging”
species (Becker [1995]).10 Among its most elaborated forms is that of systemic
functional linguistics which underscores the symbiotic relationship between
human activity and language. Its foundational assumption regarding language,
ideas, and the performance of activities is that we must think “the very existence
of one is the condition for the existence of the other” (Hasan [1995, p. 184]).
In line with the embeddedness of language within the life-world, Halliday
proposes an explicitly social approach to language. To him, a functional anal-
ysis of language must seek to account for how language is actually used since
“every text – that is, everything that is said or written – unfolds in some con-
text of use . . . language has evolved to satisfy human needs; and the way it is
organized is functional with respect to these needs – it is not arbitrary” (1985,
p. xiii). Therefore, language is not a system of forms to which meanings are then
attached, but “a system of meanings, accompanied by forms through which the
meanings can be realized” (p. iv). In other words, the Saussurean dictum of the
arbitrariness of the sign which has influenced so much twentieth-century think-
ing, including American structuralism, the grammatical system most frequently
used in FLED, holds only in a general way with regard to the potentialities of
human semogenesis for a range of construals of reality. It does not hold for the
actual social practices of language use in a particular community.
To be able to serve human life, language must express two general kinds
of functions: an ideational or reflective, which allows us to understand our
environment, and an interpersonal or active, which allows us to act on others,
where both of these metafunctions are held together and operationalized by a
third metafunctional component, the textual. In this fashion, language creates
a semiotic world of its own, a universe that exists only at the level of meaning
but serves both as means and as model, or metaphor, for the world of action
and experience. Where might the above-mentioned model of reality construed
in and through language come from? In the most general sense, it arises from
a social context with its acts of meaning and these are themselves occasioned
by the need “for carrying out some social action, by co-actants in some social
relation, placed in some semiotic contact. The meaning potential of language
and its lexicogrammatical resources must be such as to enable its speakers
to construe these important aspects of their social experience [bold-facing in
original]” (Hasan [1999, p. 62]). Meanings in specific utterances are then the

9 The following section follows the arguments in Byrnes (2001a).

10 Becker uses this felicitous term to realign the privileged focus on language as a system in terms
of an “attunement between a person and a context” (p. 9).
48 Heidi Byrnes

result of additional choices being made within a network of interlocking options

that language, seen as a network of relations, makes available.
Closer analysis, particularly of the languages of literate societies, reveals
the elaboration of two basic forms of semiosis that inhere in these semiotic
practices. Halliday calls them the congruent forms of semiosis, the grammar of
everyday life action and experience, which emphasize function, process, and
flow, and the synoptic forms of semiosis, which emphasize stasis, structure,
and “thinginess.” Over time, the latter increasingly came to dominate in public
and written language, thereby gradually reconstruing life from the primacy
of doing and happening to a reality as object. In other words, the world is
now experienced in metaphorical terms – as Halliday puts it, as a text – as
a consequence of which dramatically different knowledge potentialities are
created (1993).
The new genre studies recognize this by placing the notion of genre in the
context of recurrent social situations (Berkenkotter and Huckin [1995]; Christie
[1999]; Freedman and Medway [1994a, 1994b]; Halliday and Martin [1993];
Huckin [1995]; Hyon [1996]; Martin [1985, 1999]; C. B. Miller [1984]). Seen
in this fashion, genres are the result of typified rhetorical action, which, in
their totality, embody an aspect of cultural rationality. Genres arise as a result
of particular conditions of speech and a particular function (scientific, tech-
nical, commentarial, business, everyday). They thus constitute “certain rela-
tively stable thematic, compositional, and stylistic types of utterance” (Bakhtin
[1986a, p. 64]). However, while Bakhtin’s observations were largely concep-
tual, systemic-functional linguistics can draw on a powerful semantic analysis
of the grammar of English, particularly with regard to the analysis of contexts
of situation in terms of registers or genres. This analysis is based on the dimen-
sions of “field” (the social activity that is taking place which often determines
what we commonly refer to as its content), “tenor” (the relationship between
the participants, including their roles and statuses), and “mode” (the part that
language is playing in the situation, including the channel).
Within that framework, a number of broad concerns for AL2 can readily
be addressed: first and foremost, the inherent cultural embeddedness of lan-
guage use; second, the well-known tension in human language between cen-
trifugal forces, which reflect the specificity of individual consciousnesses, and
centripetal forces, whose shared center instantiates the possibility of commu-
nication within a cultural-linguistic community in the first place; and third, the
well-known fact that, for very advanced learners, much like for native speakers,
the ability to be full participants in the discourses of the L2 culture is a matter
of practical command of the generic forms used in the given spheres, which
both specify what can be meant in certain contexts and how it can be meant.
As Bakhtin comments, observed shortcomings are “not a matter of an impov-
erished vocabulary or of style, taken abstractly: this is entirely a matter of the
 Toward academic-level foreign language abilities 49

inability to command a repertoire of genres of social conversation, the lack of

a sufficient supply of those ideas about the whole of the utterance that help to
cast one’s speech quickly and naturally in certain compositional and stylistic
forms” (1986a, p. 80).
Finally, a particular advantage of genre studies that as yet remains unex-
plored for L2 learning in the USA11 is its ready connection to concerns of
literacy. As explicated for US L1 educational contexts by J. P. Gee (1986, 1990,
1998) and placed into larger societal issues by the New London Group (1996),
literacy studies make a distinction that accords well with the two Hallidayan
foundational types of semiosis. For example, in answer to the question, “What
is literacy?” (1998), Gee distinguishes between “primary discourses” of famil-
iarity that all of us acquire largely unconsciously in the process of socialization
into our culture and social contexts and “secondary discourses” that “involve
social institutions beyond the family . . . no matter how much they also involve
the family” (p. 56). The ability to control such discourses is developed, of-
ten quite explicitly, “in association with and by having access to and practice
with” what he calls the secondary institutions of schools, workplaces, stores,
government offices, businesses, and churches (ibid.).
Together, this twofold discourse capability becomes the foundation of Gee’s
definition of literacy, the “control of secondary uses of language (i.e., uses of
language in secondary discourses)” (ibid.). Its importance in an educational
context that is largely dominated by essayist prose texts is heightened even
more when one considers that in such texts
the important relationships to be signaled are those between sentence and sentence, not
those between speakers nor those between sentence and speaker . . . A significant aspect
of essayist prose style is the fictionalization of both the audience and the author. The
reader of an essayist text is not an ordinary human being, but an idealization, a rational
mind formed by the rational body of knowledge of which the essay is a part. By the
same token the author is a fiction, since the process of writing and editing essayist texts
leads to an effacement of individual and idiosyncratic identity. (Gee [1986, p. 736])

It is not difficult to see that the heavy emphasis in communicative language

teaching on interaction and on oral language amounts to an extraordinary priv-
ileging of discourses of familiarity. By comparison, the desired secondary
discourses of public life, particularly the discourses of the professions, the
academy, and civil society, are largely disregarded. In so doing FLED runs the
risk of seriously misrepresenting a key ability on the part of AL2 users, namely
to make appropriate choices between two major forms of semiosis in an elab-
orated array of genres where the public genres often favor stasis-oriented over

11 As Hyon indicates, within the Australian context this approach has been used primarily for L1
education, but also for adult English as a Second Language (ESL) education. I am also aware
of some pre-collegiate uses for L2 pedagogy.
50 Heidi Byrnes

process-oriented thinking. Additionally, they are characterized by highly elab-

orated means of organizing the text itself at all its levels, in terms of theme and
rheme, or givenness and new information, so as to assure efficient and effective
communication with others who, more often than not, do not share one’s own in-
terpretive, and, that is, “textual,” assumptions about the world (Halliday [2000]).
By contrast with this genre approach to AL2 abilities, much has been made
of the AL2 learner’s insufficient command of specialized vocabulary. However,
in one of the most specialized environments, the natural sciences, Bazerman
(1988) identifies the experimental report as one of the most remarkable literary
accomplishments which, through its particular genre formation, was able to
facilitate immense control over the material world in which we reside. At the
lexicogrammatical level, Halliday and Martin (1993) single out the unique shift
from verbal to nominal structures, what they refer to as “grammatical metaphor,”
as one of the key facilitators of our ability to see the world in a fashion that
allows us to hold, measure, and experiment with it, as we remove it from the
messiness of the singularity of any process in time and space and make it an
object and thereby “objective.” It is this shift in semiosis, a cognitive-linguistic
phenomenon, rather than the acquisition of specialized vocabulary, that poses
the most serious problems for competent command of scientific literacy.

Cognitive fluency, identity, and voice: the ability to make choices

To conclude this exploration of a new profile for AL2 learners I return once
more to their ability to make situated meaning-making choices, best captured
by Halliday’s systemic theory of language as “a theory of meaning as choice, by
which a language . . . is interpreted as networks of interlocking options: ‘either
this, or that, or the other,’ ‘either more like the one or more like the other,’ and
so on” (1985, p. xiv). AL2 users do just that: they make numerous interlocking
choices regarding the topical focus and how that extends over longer discursive
stretches in terms of certain genre requirements (the “field”), in the interpreta-
tion of and communicative significance of social relationships that are played
out between the real or imagined communicative partners (the “tenor”), and,
of course, on the lexicogrammatical plane. Altogether they are learning to deal
with typified social action through and with language in response to recurring
social contexts, a point that is well captured by the concept of genre which both
facilitates and constrains communicative choice and thereby enables creative
freedoms and the possibility for valid meaning-making (Freedman [1999]).
In particular, a message can be “either about doing, or about thinking or
about being; if it is about doing, this is either plain action or action on some-
thing; if acting on something it is either creating or dealing with something
already created” (Halliday [1985, p. xiv]). These choices are meaning-driven
and occur within conventions of use that have high probabilistic values but
 Toward academic-level foreign language abilities 51

which, nevertheless, show flexibility and variation. Only within this framed
flexibility can individual voice and identity occur and be gained – not by being
creative in a sociolinguistically non-recognizable fashion. In fact, access to the
conversational forum, acceptance of one’s contributions to it, and the ability
to use the forum for one’s interests and with one’s own voice depend on a
sufficiently elaborated knowledge of conventions of use in the first place. In
this fashion, identity, through membership in a discourse community, and in-
dividual place and voice are acquired, differentially played out under different
circumstances for different purposes, and maintained.
We can, however, also associate notions of choice with fluency, as Fillmore
(1979) does when he lists various “fluencies” that pertain to choices at different
levels of meaning-making, e.g., control of processes for creating new expres-
sions; knowledge of the cognitive or semantic “schemata” for which the lan-
guage has provided linguistic encodings, that is, of certain preferred knowledge
schemata; knowledge of the various interactional schemata for conversations,
including indirect forms of communication; knowledge of different discourse
schemata, particularly the story; and knowledge of the appropriateness of cer-
tain registers and styles within certain social contexts. All these aspects are
central to the kind of fluency we associate with AL2 use (Riggenbach [2000]).
There is yet another aspect to choice and fluency, highlighted by Pawley
and Syder’s (1983) seminal article, an early precursor to the current interest
in phraseology or formulaic language, both as efficient processing and as in-
struments that mark culturally salient phenomena (e.g., Cowie [1998]; Gläser
[1998]; Howarth [1998a, 1998b]; Pawley and Syder [2000]; Teliya et al. [1998];
Weinert [1995]). As they argue convincingly, a key puzzle for linguistic theory
and for the learner is the dilemma between nativelike selection and nativelike
fluency. The phenomenon to be explained is that many sequences that would
be perfectly accurate from the standpoint of rule generalization are simply not
among the preferred choices of a user community – “we don’t say it that way” –
which poses the challenge that learners need to learn much more than how to
construct grammatically well-formed sentences. Crucially, they require access
to an extended stock of lexicalized sentences and semi-lexicalized sequences
as the community has developed them, as well as a refined awareness of the
status of “rules,” a continuum from fully productive rules of sentence formation
and rules of low productivity. In other words, from the standpoint of process-
ing, the L2 learner requires two types of processing capabilities, first, analytic
and rule-governed approaches that guide online processing and help to enhance
accuracy and, perhaps, push complexity, and, second, memory- and instance-
based processing of a significant repertoire of language chunks that enhance
temporal fluency (Skehan [1998]).
We thus arrive at this important descriptor of the AL2 user: (1) someone who
is able to draw on a sizable repertoire of fixed or chunked language forms that
52 Heidi Byrnes

will ensure the sociocultural appropriateness and acceptability of utterances

while, simultaneously, enhancing their fluency, and (2) someone who also has
a good command, including a significant level of metalinguistic awareness, of
the meaning–form relationships that are encoded with various degrees of fixity
and fluidity at the lexicogrammatical level, thereby giving the impression of
fluent but also thought-ful, online, situated creation of meaning-ful language.
Using Segalowitz’s terms, such a speaker would be distinguished by both cog-
nitive fluency which “refers to the efficiency of the operation of the cognitive
mechanisms underlying performance” and performance fluency, “the observ-
able speed, fluidity, and accuracy” (2000, p. 202).

Principles for teaching at the Advanced level

From the previous discussion, I highlight four aspects for a pedagogy for AL2
learning: a cognitive focus on the learner; explicit genre-based teaching; mod-
eling, coaching, and scaffolding; and task-based pedagogies. Though treatment
of each of these areas inherently involves a critique of current practice, my
greater interest is in how we might amend our thinking and our practices.

A cognitive learner focus

Since concepts and cognition are central to language use, we must find ways
of engaging the learner cognitively. Beyond learner background, interests, and
goals, the cognitive focus I intend arises from careful consideration of features
of AL2 language use and ways of facilitating it for the learners. For example,
assuming that professional-level use in a spoken environment is a goal, then
extensive reading is called for, followed by carefully targeted speaking tasks
that are based on a sophisticated awareness of genre and that elicit text-based
understanding and interpretation of the text, thereby simultaneously enhancing
content and language acquisition.12
Such genre-based, cognitively engaging language instruction requires us to
confront a number of problematic assumptions about the AL2 learner, among
them fossilization and the notion of limited processing capacity. Fossilization
generally refers to “being stuck,” as it were, in various areas of language form;
rarely do we use the term to acknowledge that, not infrequently, we are also deal-
ing with “fossilized” abilities with regard to meaning-making. In both senses
of the word, however, we might be reaping what we sowed earlier on. Though
we should proceed in this fashion from the beginning, at the very latest at
the AL2 level we must engage learners cognitively-linguistically so they may

12 See the report on an upper-level class focus on discourse and genre taught by Crane, in Byrnes,
Crane, and Sprang (2002, forthcoming).
 Toward academic-level foreign language abilities 53

understand language and L2 learning as meaning-making through thought-ful

choices through and with typified formal features. While such pedagogies would
seem to address only macro aspects of L2 learning, my experience has been that
a culture of attentiveness and thoughtfulness transfers as well into micro-level
aspects of accuracy, including form-monitoring at the inflectional level, the
concerns lists and memorization tend to address.
An approach of thoughtful choices would also require us to reconsider a
second widespread assumption, that of learners’ limited processing capacity,
frequently interpreted as an either-or focus on meaning or form. Of course,
human memory is limited. However, at the AL2 level there would be little further
progress unless learners were, under carefully crafted pedagogical conditions,
capable of attending simultaneously to both meaning and form in ways that dif-
fer qualitatively and quantitatively from earlier levels of ability. An instructional
approach that is predicated on thinking for speaking explores and nurtures that
possibility by creating pedagogies that foster awareness of intricate meaning–
form relationships at various levels, from genre, to register, to the paragraph and
lexicogrammatical level, arrayed on a gradient of cognitive processing rather
than on formal difficulty. What Bernhardt and Kamil (1995) indicate for reading
even at the lower levels, namely that we must get beyond conventional either-
or understandings of a Linguistic Threshold Hypothesis alongside a Linguistic
Interdependence Hypothesis, applies with particular force at the advanced level
and in all modalities.

Explicit teaching
Reflection on AL2 learning should also enable us to overcome another unfor-
tunate byproduct both of our programmatic emphasis on the initial stages of L2
learning and of the dictums of unsubstantiated “natural” methodologies. I am
referring to the remarkable abdication of responsibility for devising explicit
pedagogical interventions for AL2 learning. Held up against the constant foil
of “naturalness” and “naturalistic acquisition,” the scope of what classrooms can
accomplish has, over time, seriously eroded. However, as Kubler (this volume)
argues convincingly, we are coming to realize that, while an in-country experi-
ence leads to greater temporal fluency and a higher level of comfort, it does not
in and of itself facilitate the qualitative shift in language use that AL2 abilities
require.
Indeed, judging from the experience in L1 education that devotes years to
enabling native-speaker learners to acquire a number of critical public genres
in the L1 (e.g., writing a report, producing a summary, presenting a proposal),
one should expect particularly thoughtful interventions to be required in the
L2 context. A genre approach, in both oral and written genres, that includes
such trajectories as “from private to public, from concrete to abstract, from
54 Heidi Byrnes

sequential or descriptive to analytical and evaluative,” using a range of topical

areas, shows much promise. It uses to greatest advantage what the classroom
can do particularly well, perhaps does exclusively, while offering what learners
at this level need (for examples see Freedman and Medway [1994a, 1994b], and
Jones et al. [1989]; also Christie [1989, 1999]; Martin [1985]). As noted, those
“desired needs” are at a stratum between cognition and a specific language,
therefore are generalizable only up to a certain point. For that reason, extensive
engagement with, not merely comprehension-oriented exposure to, texts is cru-
cial. When these texts are arranged in thematic units, they are particularly suited
for facilitating the acquisition both of register- and genre-appropriate textual
organization and also of the characteristic lexicogrammatical collocations of a
particular genre and topical area.

A pedagogy of modeling, coaching, scaffolding

In line with the complex relationship between rule-governed and memory-based
processing and the overwhelmingly context-dependent nature of language use,
modeling becomes a particularly desirable pedagogical stance. To begin with,
the fallback position of explaining language use according to rules is often
not available because many of the phenomena that require refinement have
not been appropriately analyzed in most languages.13 Where they have, they
tend to suggest fixed norms when contextualized choice is at play. Second,
if learners are to be able to make good choices, they need to learn to make
them in terms of goals and outcomes in contexts and with tasks that closely
resemble the actual contexts of use from the cognitive standpoint. Thus, Collins,
Brown, and Newman (1989) propose the concept of “cognitive apprenticeship”
which is “aimed primarily at teaching the processes that experts use to handle
complex tasks” (p. 457). By focusing on learning-through-guided-experience,
that approach permits an externalization of processes that would otherwise re-
main internal and covert. It aims at reflection on the difference between expert
and less expert task performance, on discussion and assessment of task perfor-
mance, and on increasing the complexity of tasks as a consequence of greater
cognitive and metacognitive abilities that come about through the alternation
of roles between teachers and learners. All of these features foster attention,
awareness, and internalization of cognitive processes, and success that itself
bolsters motivation.14 Again, modeling that creates high levels of saliency and,
therefore, high levels of attention, can also help address flawed formal L2 use
13 See, however, the functional grammars of English by Givón (1993) and by Martin (1992), and
the new three-volume German grammar, also with a functional orientation, by Zifonun et al.
(1997), all indicating the gradual shift, at least in theoretical circles, toward such forms of
language analysis.
14 See Sprang’s contribution regarding the acquisition of complex lexicogrammatical features in
Byrnes, Crane, and Sprang (2002, forthcoming), which uses careful modeling and scaffolding
techniques.
 Toward academic-level foreign language abilities 55

at the local level of morphology and syntax for which we have otherwise pre-
scribed rote learning. Most important, the classroom is no longer described as
deficitary inasmuch as it does not emulate or replicate the “real world”; instead,
it is a very real world of its own, with very real opportunities for enhancing
learning, particularly AL2 learning.

A task-based pedagogy
My final pedagogical recommendation pertains to the notion of task, particularly
the division into authentic and pedagogical task and the three characteristics of
task difficulty, task complexity, and conditions of task performance as affecting
language use and language development.15
The concept of pedagogical task was posited primarily as a way to bridge
between the real world and the classroom by determining how instruction would
prepare students to deal with that real world (see particularly Long [1998]).
Typically, this propaedeutic function of pedagogical tasks was handled through
identifying subcomponents of the full task and devising instructional contexts
that would stage them in a fashion that held meaning and task accomplishment
as central.16 By comparison, the notion of task is likely to have greatest merit for
AL2 learning in a more holistic sense, such that instruction would continually
and richly endow the L2 classroom with the reality of “imagined textual worlds,”
the kind of cultural knowledge that characterizes adult literate members of the
L2 society. In that case, the tasks performed by AL2 learners would hardly
differ, in terms of cognitive-linguistic engagement, from those required in the L1
environment, where proposals are written for a business venture, presentations
ending in question-and-answer periods are given at conferences, briefings about
complex issues are prepared for superiors, and summaries of arguments, pro
and con, are written for public debates.
Beyond the cultural situatedness, what the classroom lacks, of course, is
urgency and motivation for the same level of personal investment. However,
my experience is that very advanced learners are extraordinarily open to
“imaginatively rehearsing” all of these “performances,” precisely because they
know them to be complex and necessary in the “real world.” To the extent that
such affective and intellectual engagement is, indeed, a critical component for
the acquisition of public L2 literacies, the classroom setting can “become” a
corporate training center where such abilities are practiced, or an office where
key presentations are carefully planned and vetted with colleagues, or important
documents are talked through, drafted, and critiqued.

15 A good overview of issues can be obtained from Crookes (1986), and Crookes and Gass (1993),
Doughty and Williams (1998), Long (1998), Robinson (2001), and Skehan (1998). The most
recent book-length treatment is Bygate, Skehan, and Swain (2001).
16 For an interesting extension of the notion of “task” into project-based teaching, see Turnbull
(1999).
56 Heidi Byrnes

Thus, using “authentic tasks” is really only part of the story: the fuller story
requires awareness of the kind of “imagined world” AL2 use requires and how
to build that up with exquisite pedagogical finesse so that learners can take on,
to the greatest extent possible, the roles, rights, and responsibilities they would
have in these matters in the discourse community that otherwise performs such
tasks in the real world. This is so since the genre-based language use we want
to foster and facilitate – we have referred to that in terms of “field,” “tenor,” and
“mode” – critically depends on such situated discursive authenticity. The hori-
zon of instruction must be toward creating and upholding the virtual reality of
those tasks, a project that is likely to be the more successful the more “context”
can be created over an extended instructional period. After all, these role rela-
tionships and intertextualities require time to take on a life of their own so as to
affect language use. The result: a virtual discourse community in the classroom.
While the above observations referred to task at the macro level, task also
functions at the micro-level of psycholinguistic processing, through the con-
cepts of task difficulty, task complexity, and the impact of task performance
conditions (see especially Robinson [2001]; and Skehan [1998]).17 In particu-
lar, (1) the notion of inherent task complexity and the identification of factors
contributing to complexity addresses what are essentially cognitive burdens
(e.g., familiar vs. unfamiliar; here and now vs. remote; concrete vs. abstract;
simple retrieval vs. transformation); (2) the notion of task difficulty refers to
individual learner factors, such as aptitude, confidence, motivation, and also
proficiency level; and (3) task conditions affect the perceived difficulty during
the performance of a task (e.g., time pressure, modality, language use, support,
surprise, control, and stakes). As Robinson (2001) has found, “the complexity
of tasks does exert a considerable influence on learner production . . . [which
argues that] sequencing of tasks on the basis of their cognitive complexity is
to be preferred over sequencing decisions based on task difficulty or task con-
ditions” (p. 51). In turn, aspects of task difficulty and task performance can
inform pedagogical decision-making in a particular classroom setting with its
specific goals, specific learners, and specific considerations of the instructional
sequence. For instance, is it the pedagogical intention that learners should reach
toward new L2 capabilities or are they to shore up fragile existing ones by care-
fully refocusing their attention to fluency, accuracy, or complexity of language?
In the end, as Skehan notes:
This perspective implies that in addition to having principles for the selection and im-
plementation of individual tasks, sequences of tasks should also be examined for the
cumulative impact that they will have. In this way, knowledge about task properties and
implementation alternatives can ensure that the flow of tasks and their use is not going
to make it more likely that unbalanced development will occur. (1998, p. 50)
17 I have addressed these matters for their implications for curriculum and instruction in Byrnes
(2000a).
 Toward academic-level foreign language abilities 57

In Skehan’s words, the emphasis has to be that of “bridging the gap between
ongoing performance and sustained development” since it is by no means clear
whether “introducing focus on form at a time will have a beneficial impact on
interlanguage development over time” (p. 293, emphasis in original).
Summarizing these issues, Skehan (p. 129) lists five principles for task-
based instruction which would enhance the desired dual processing capacity:
(1) choose a range of target structures; (2) choose tasks which recognize that
some forms have a particularly high usefulness for expressing certain mean-
ings; (3) select and sequence tasks to achieve balanced language development
between accuracy, fluency, and complexity with their different processing re-
quirements; (4) maximize the chances of focus on form through attentional
manipulation; and (5) use cycles of accountability that reflect back on what
was accomplished with certain pedagogical tasks. The explicit goal is balanced
development in terms of accuracy, fluency, and complexity of L2 use.

Concluding reflections
Let me close with three points that place my interest in AL2 abilities into a
larger context.
First, what is at stake can only be captured by a new and affirming stance to-
ward language learning and teaching. However, the issue is not a simple-minded
“we also contribute to students’ intellectual formation,” a stance that reveals
a distressing scholarly insecurity and victim mentality. Instead, at stake is the
possibility of a kind of “thoughtfulness,” by both the learners and their teachers.
Halliday points to the symbiotic relationship between meaning/knowledge and
language as a social phenomenon. Slobin characterizes language processing
itself as thinking for speaking. Noteworthy as well is the expanding discussion
on the dialogic nature of meaning-making, a notion well explored by Bakhtin
(1986b) and expanded to an understanding of texts as “thinking devices” or as
generators of meaning (Lotman [1988]), to education (Wertsch [1990]), and to
all aspects of moral life and public discourse (Taylor [1991]).
In the realm of L2 instruction, my concern with thoughtfulness turned to liter-
acy and genre studies, focusing on goals and pedagogies. In terms of goals, this
has been well explicated in the L1 context by the New London Group (1996).
What needs to be added, given our multicultural and global environments, is
the possibility for linking L1 and L2 in mutually enriching ways, in terms
of multiple literacies, elevating to the socio-political environment what Cook
(1992, 1999) argued on the individual level. At the level of pedagogy beyond
the genre-based pedagogies that apply to L1 and L2 language learning, partic-
ularly insightful observations come from Readings (1996) who in his much-
discussed analysis of “the university in ruins” devotes much attention to the
58 Heidi Byrnes

need for a thought-ful pedagogy. Here we might wish to think of teaching and
learning as “sites of obligation, as loci of ethical practices . . . Teaching thus
becomes answerable to the question of justice, rather than to the criteria for
truth . . . Teaching should cease to be about merely the transmission of informa-
tion and the emancipation of the autonomous subject, and instead should be-
come a site of obligation that exceeds the individuals’ consciousness of justice”
(p. 154).
Second, and expanding on the previous thoughts of dialogic inquiry, AL2
instruction must explore aspects of collaboration and joint construction. While
collaboration is often thought of only as a flattening out of hierarchy, perhaps
a more interesting interpretation of collaboration in the teaching context is that
of “cognitive mentorship” alongside the already existing term “cognitive ap-
prenticeship.” It is an interpretation that would give real meaning to Vygotsky’s
notion of the Zone of Proximal Development which, unlike its frequent in-
terpretation in terms of Krashen’s comprehensible input, an intrapersonal and
inaccessible phenomenon, is foundationally an interpersonal phenomenon and
therefore to be performed overtly.
Finally, I am concerned with advanced language learning because it addresses
the relationship of knowledge and language in terms of meaning-making in the
life-world. In that project, it has much affinity with the interests of philosophi-
cal hermeneutics, as these have been most prominently explicated by Husserl,
Gadamer, and Heidegger. In this day and age, AL2 must be of concern to FLED
since advanced second language ability and literacy are, to a significant extent,
based on the highly specific literacy of the natural sciences, with all the con-
sequences that entails (Byrnes [2001a]; Halliday and Martin [1993]). We must
come to understand the situated and interested provenance of that language
use. More generally, we need to consider these matters for their larger societal
implications, particularly for theory construction, but also in the context of the
life-world as individuals understand it to make meaning of their lives and for
the cultural praxis of societies (Heelan [1998]; Heelan and Schulkin [1998]).
As Gadamer suggests, we might be able to address some of the greatest short-
comings of the modern proclivity for universal objectification of everything,
including understanding language as a subjective tool for understanding, if we
were to consider the possibility that “beings in the world” are disclosed by lan-
guage, that there is a “‘language of things,’ which wants to be heard in the way
in which things bring themselves to expression in language” (1976, p. 81). We
might then be able to come to real self-understanding, which would include an
understanding of the position of knowledge and the role of language in culture
and human history.
Part II

Programs
3 Contexts for advanced foreign language learning:
A report on an immersion institute

Heidi Byrnes

Among the many consequences of the communicative turn in foreign language

education (FLED) we must count the demand for high levels of teachers’ second
language (L2) abilities where instruction is characterized by interactive com-
munication and extensive engagement with authentic texts in all modalities,
rather than by the conveyance of rule-governed formal knowledge. Although
professional-level L2 performance had been a tacit and firm assumption, that
confidence received a serious blow when, in conjunction with the Proficiency
Movement, many states encountered acute licencing and recertification dif-
ficulties because teachers were not assessed at the mandated level, usually
“Advanced” according to the ACTFL Guidelines. Higher education, too, has
encountered this gap between desired L2 abilities for its faculty and reality,
though it relegates these matters to the privacy, if not to say, secrecy, of the
hiring process rather than to official assessment (Koike and Liskin-Gasparro
[1999]). Taken together, the uncomfortable admission of insufficient compe-
tence of L2 instructors at all educational levels with its obvious implications
for classrooms and the field as a whole, not to mention the deep disappointment
and, at times, anger of the teachers and faculty candidates themselves, have led
professional organizations to make the issue a priority in future planning.
For obvious reasons, graduate foreign language departments play a pivotal
role in crafting solutions due to their educational interests and their responsibil-
ities toward their non-native graduate students. Yet few devote explicit attention
to developing such solutions, despite long-standing calls for incorporating as-
pects of advanced second language (AL2) learning into graduate education
(e.g., James [1989]; Swaffar [1991]). Typically such efforts are thwarted by
the privileged content demands as graduate programs prepare their students to
become competent researchers and scholars, as well as by the pervasive be-
lief, despite overwhelming counter-evidence, that academic L2 abilities should
somehow have been acquired by students in their undergraduate studies.
Gradually, however, at the margins of FLED, creative action is being taken.
This chapter reports on one such delimited, though, I believe, instructive, pro-
gram, an eight-day immersion institute for very advanced graduate students
of German who had been selected from a national applicant pool. Occurring

61
62 Heidi Byrnes

during the summer of 1998,1 the event itself was an explicit response to reports
of worrisome German language abilities of non-native graduate students and
possible actions the American Association of Teachers of German (AATG)
might take (Byrnes [1996]). It reflects as well the context of efforts in my home
department, the German Department at Georgetown University, to revamp its
entire undergraduate program into an integrated content-oriented and task-based
educational environment that explicitly targets upper levels of ability as its pro-
gram goal. Over its three-year implementational phase, this project, entitled
“Developing Multiple Literacies,” yielded increasingly higher levels of aware-
ness in faculty and graduate students not only about the nature of AL2 abili-
ties, but also about pedagogical needs that must be met and opportunities that
can be pursued in order to foster students’ L2 learning to academic levels of
performance.2
In Chapter 2 of this volume I began to lay out ways in which both of these
areas might be addressed, in terms of a necessary reconsideration of founda-
tional assumptions about AL2 abilities and about the advanced learners them-
selves and in terms of directions for expanding suitable pedagogies. In partic-
ular, I suggested and discussed four areas for enlarging available pedagogical
options: (1) a genre and discourse orientation that cognitively engages learn-
ers through pedagogical interventions that continually draw attention to links
between meaning and form at all levels of language use; (2) an explicit commit-
ment to teaching the AL2 learner the features of major genres that characterize
discourse in various public and professional environments, as contrasted with
those that are prevalent in private familiar, interactive language use; (3) a ped-
agogy of modeling, coaching, and scaffolding that recommends itself for the
macro generic aspects of AL2 language use that learners must acquire and also
for diverse sentence-level phenomena, particularly an extensive repertoire of
collocations at the lexicogrammatical level and fine-tuning of morphological
and syntactic competence; and (4) a task-based pedagogy that situates task in
two ways, into the larger context of the entire L2 class as an imagined tex-
tual community that can then motivate the culturally grounded language use
that AL2 must target, and a pedagogical approach that is refined by awareness
1 The institute took place from May 26 to June 2, 1998, on the campus of Georgetown University
and was funded by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) for a total of twelve
students. It was the first and thus far the only time that this German government organization
which otherwise focuses on faculty exchanges and graduate-level research funded an event
that explicitly targeted the enhancement of upper-level academic German-language abilities of
non-native speakers. Subsequently, the opportunity for repeating or expanding this pilot event
encountered familiar resource cutbacks and questions of agency purview between the DAAD
and the Goethe Institut which, traditionally, has addressed language learning, though, to my
knowledge, never at this level of use.
2 The entire three-year project is extensively documented on the Department’s website,
www.georgetown.edu/departments/german/curriculum/curriculum.html. It has been referred to
in a number of publications, particularly Byrnes (2000a and 2001b), and Byrnes and Kord (2001).
 Contexts for advanced foreign language learning 63

of the consequences of task complexity, task difficulty, and task performance

conditions.
To the extent that this chapter transfers those general considerations into
the reality of a program and, even more, into the reality of the classroom, it
constitutes a companion piece to that earlier chapter. In reverse, I address only
those aspects of the institute that bear directly on the concerns of this volume,
specifically the institute’s overall goals, its application process and selection
criteria inasmuch as they specify the situation of a particular AL2 learner group,
its syllabus and instructional approaches as designed to respond to the learners’
acquisitional profiles, and a selection of comments from participants that took
the place of formal evaluation of their language abilities. Beyond the specifics
of this discussion, however, I hope that readers will discern issues about AL2
learning that are broadly generalizable and perhaps also find solutions that
respond to conditions in their own educational environments.

General goals
The institute explicitly targeted upper levels of language ability with a focus on
the kind of language use that characterizes the academy from the standpoint of
content and tasks. In other words, it assumed that the students, non-native stu-
dents in graduate programs across the country, already possessed high German
abilities in interactive spoken communication, most typically acquired during
an undergraduate study-abroad period or, at times, through study at a German-
speaking university during their graduate work. At the same time, it assumed
that this broad general knowledge base had not been rigorously expanded into
competent and comfortable use of the complex features of academic literacy
in German, required for in-depth work with academic texts in reading, writing,
and speaking, using a range of media. As a result, two general goals shaped the
institute: first, the content goal of targeting those features in a range of textual
genres and, second, the learner goal of increasing the participants’ awareness of
themselves as highly competent AL2 users of German who, nevertheless, must
and, most important, can enhance their language use in certain strategic areas,
both level-specific and highly individual. It is the latter goal that was extensively
negotiated in the institute, between me as the sole instructor and the students
and, in various configurations, among the students themselves. In the first part
of this chapter I attribute this to the fact that the event was the students’ first
occasion for experiencing explicit instruction at this level. I attribute it as well
to the short duration and intensity of the institute which inherently highlighted
these issues, as compared with potentially less perceptible changes in perfor-
mance related to language content. However, as excerpts from the extensive
feedback in the appended material indicate, it is difficult to separate the two.
To some extent, it is also unproductive to do so because the acquisition of AL2
64 Heidi Byrnes

language use demands intense affective and cognitive engagement on the part
of learners.

Application process and selection criteria

The nature of the institute as one funded by the German Academic Exchange
Service (DAAD), an organization sponsored by the German Government and
known for its prestige graduate fellowships, the institute’s demanding goals, and
its time constraints required a complex and well-considered application and se-
lection process. Specifically, the institute targeted L2 abilities that were already
quite high but not so high as to exclude attaining tangible content and affective
goals even within the short eight days of instruction. In a way, selection from
among the applicant pool was a process of creating a workable lower and up-
per boundary that determined the institute’s twelve participants, a nearly ideal
group size both for the students and for me as the sole instructor. Thus, while the
applicant pool itself flexibly defined the specifics of the participants’ language
abilities, the application and language assessment process had to be well concep-
tualized, rigorous, and well executed. Careful conceptualization was required
due to the broad academic literacy goals the institute had set for itself right from
the beginning, even as a range of performances within AL2 was a distinct likeli-
hood. Rigor was essential because the targeted performance characteristics oc-
cur naturally only in highly specific task environments, and good execution was
necessary because the applicants’ language performance data had to be created
in the context of each student’s institution without compromising comparability.
In short, my goal in devising the application and assessment process was
twofold: (1) to permit me to get an elaborated sense of the applicants’ abilities
as a basis for subsequent detailed planning of the institute in its content areas,
pedagogical emphases, tasks, and instructional approaches; and (2) to form a
group that would be able to work together coherently and supportively despite
significant individual performance differences, while assuring that each partic-
ipant would benefit maximally in the specific areas that were most in need of
targeted attention.
Although those goals rendered the application/assessment process complex
and made considerable demands on the students and also on me, all partici-
pants agreed that this approach contributed substantively to the success of the
institute. I state this since these accomplished and competent graduate students,
quite surprisingly, saw the requirement to read complex texts and to speak about
them in a manner appropriate for a public event in front of a video camera as
unusual in and of itself and also as a formidable challenge cognitively, lin-
guistically, and performatively. There is no doubt that both the commitment
of about 2 hours and 15 minutes to the actual assessment/application process,
not counting making the necessary institutional arrangements with the advi-
sor, facing the video camera, and accomplishing all tasks within the specified
 Contexts for advanced foreign language learning 65

time limitations, and following instructions that I had carefully crafted for each
task, discouraged some students from applying. However, despite initial baffle-
ment, even misgivings, at the unusualness of this procedure (which revealed the
fragility of students’ comfort level with professional-level L2 use), all students
agreed that this process contributed to the creation of the highly committed and
motivated group of institute participants.
The application process targeted the following language abilities: (1) reading
comprehension of a complex text, (2) writing a summary of the text, (3) formal
academic speaking on the basis of that text in response to questions that I had
provided, (4) a free-flowing personal narrative which gave information about
their history of learning German, and (5) the actual letter of application for the
institute.
For the textual basis that informed the first three tasks, I chose an article
from Die Zeit, a highly respected German weekly, that dealt with the issue of
how societies go about defining human death as they establish criteria for organ
harvesting and transplanting. The choice reflected my assumption that none of
the students regularly dealt with this topic in German, thereby assuring roughly
even background knowledge conditions; at the same time, the topic is gener-
ally familiar nowadays. The text itself was unusually well structured, allowing
and challenging students to use their awareness of rhetorical organization of a
deliberative text that attempts to arrive at a carefully weighed public policy and
the discourse markers that structure such genres. Thus, competent, analytical
reading abilities could compensate for any content and language shortcomings
and time limitations that applicants might encounter.
This integrated text-based approach gave me a sense of the range and depth –
in terms of accuracy, fluency, and complexity – of the applicants’ language
abilities in reading, speaking, and writing. It enabled me not only to get an
elaborated sense of students’ abilities, particularly in the discourses of public
life, but also to make my selection of institute participants with comparable
evidence in tasks that are quite close to those that one encounters in “the real
world.” Having watched all video tapes, read all written materials, and taken
extensive notes on student strengths and weaknesses, both for the whole group
and for individuals, I selected the twelve participants, a relatively coherent,
though diverse, group. My field notes also provided material for individual
consultation with students at the very beginning of the institute. This was to
assure that they could use the entire duration of the institute to work on those
“problem” areas that I had identified from their performance profile.

Syllabus and instructional approach

It is impossible to detail the wealth of syllabus and instructional materials
I prepared for the institute. The following information thus can be no more than
an exemplar of the instructional approach I suggested in Chapter 2.
66 Heidi Byrnes

Topic selection
After soliciting topic proposals from the applicants, I chose the theme of higher
education reform in Germany for its timeliness, inherent interest to American
graduate students, wide range of textual materials, and deep cultural significance
in the past and into the foreseeable future of the European, indeed global, con-
text. It sparked lively discussion far beyond the texts themselves and a constant
comparison between the students’ individual situation and this country’s deci-
sions regarding higher education and those they detected in the German context.

Sequencing instructional events

The syllabus had a number of “slopes”:
r from guided, highly specific text analysis of relatively short texts to extensive
independent reading of longer texts;
r from public texts as the educated public reads them in Die Zeit to discipline-
specific discussion, including preposterously dense language use in an official
Goethe Institute document;
r from interviews and personal opinions to public political pronouncements
such as the speeches by the former President of the Federal Republic, Roman
Herzog;
r from whole-group work in class to small-group work outside of class on
which students would subsequently report;
r from global comprehension to very detailed work with discourse organization,
discourse markers, and semantic fields;
r from modeling a range of learner strategies for different tasks in differ-
ent language modalities (e.g., reading, speaking, writing) to applying them
independently;
r from a self-reflective individual focus on accuracy and complexity of language
use to relatively unmonitored and spontaneous performance in lively debates
where fluency, conversational management, and shifting identities and partic-
ipant structures (e.g., holding the floor, overlapping, acknowledging others’
contributions, on-the-spot shaping of intentions, role playing, appropriate
dialogic listener behaviors) made high demands on student performance;
r from reading to increased writing and speaking;
r from careful analysis of one’s own language use and learning styles and
strategies (e.g., in the daily reflective learner journals) to assessment of group
performance and progress.

Creating pedagogical tasks

In all tasks, the dimensions of accuracy, fluency, and complexity were handled
flexibly under different task conditions, oral or written, planned or unplanned,
with or without background knowledge, familiar or unfamiliar language
 Contexts for advanced foreign language learning 67

material. This approach assured that every student could be directly engaged,
could locate herself/himself at the highest possible level that met their global
and specific expectations and goals for the institute and for a given task, and
could constantly be challenged for a best performance, even while the overall
atmosphere was non-threatening, supportive, congenial, and a lot of fun.

Establishing learner centeredness at the AL2 level

In a real sense, no one can “teach” such advanced learners and, in any case, it
would be utter folly to assume that a one-week institute could have an easily
discernible impact on performing in German when these students had been at
this task for the better part of their lives – unless one condition were to be ful-
filled: they must be able to understand pervasive characteristics of the advanced
learner – strengths and weaknesses, learn to understand their own learner pro-
file within such a conceptual framework, and start to develop approaches which
they can subsequently enhance, continue to apply in different contexts, and ob-
serve in their language use under different task conditions. In this fashion, they
can build a new foundation for themselves as developing users of the language,
like any intelligent native speaker who has high demands for exacting language
use would do. As their own comments in the institute evaluations indicate,
this indeed was possible. For me, that is the most critical aspect – in fact, the
central justification – for conducting such an institute in the United States and
recommending similar events in the future.
As stated, commitment, motivation, and engagement on the students’ part
were critical qualities given the intensity and demanding level of the institute,
not the least of its expectations being a voluntary language pledge of using
nothing but German twenty-four hours a day for its duration, without exception.
As it turned out, the participants themselves were very rigorous about upholding
this promise, and all of them commented upon it as being an affirming cognitive
experience as well as an affectively exhilarating experience that contributed
invaluably to their sense of personal worth, accomplishment, and success.3
Obviously, the institute could thereby explicitly span an enormous range of
discursive practices, from the interpersonal, interactive language required when
previous strangers find themselves working together intensely for a limited time,
to the quotidian requirements of exchanging news and views in passing days,
to complex issues as they arose during instruction. In this fashion, the institute
was able to compensate in favorable ways for the fact that it was conducted
not in a German-speaking cultural context but in the United States: it fashioned
conditions that study abroad does not generally create precisely because it was
3 An anecdote highlights this confluence of responses: as the group was sitting on the lawn one
evening, some German visitors to the campus overheard their animated debating, in German, of
an issue that had arisen in class, and approached them to determine what had brought them from
Germany to study at Georgetown University!
68 Heidi Byrnes

able to integrate the range of performances that can occur within academic life,
thereby nurturing the participants’ ability to make sophisticated choices with
regard to genres, registers, and personal styles (for details, see the discussion
in Chapter 2).
Addressing this issue from the opposite perspective, I am unaware of any
program in Germany that targets this level of language performance by learn-
ers of German and the specific needs of academic work at American graduate
institutions. None of the summer courses at German universities do so, nor
do the Goethe Institute offerings, if for no other reason than that they need to
serve a range of participants who have very different learning goals, not solely
academic interests. Also, when students attend German university courses they
cannot expect to receive explicit instruction at this complex level of L2 liter-
acy: this is neither the job nor the area of expertise of German professors, the
subject-matter specialists in history or political science or even German litera-
ture. Thus, non-native speakers in a study-abroad context are often left to their
own devices. Worse yet, they often feel patronized, frustrated, and offended at
the same time, for they repeatedly receive comments for their excellent com-
mand of German, particularly for an American! A serious motivational and
career-decision problem arises when those who are the ultimate gatekeepers in
the profession in the USA judge them otherwise. Deep down, these students
know that, unless highly competent professional support and personal effort is
expended on this issue, they will never attain the high goals which they have
set for themselves as part of their career aspirations.

Student comments
As with the instructional materials, it is impossible to present the richness of
students’ work and activities during the week. Nor is it easy to convey a sense of
the camaraderie that developed among them, from the tentativeness of the first
dinner to a farewell party on the next-to-last evening, to long evenings of conver-
sations about their lot as graduate students and their future career plans inside
or outside the academy, to a very provocative visit to the Holocaust Museum on
Sunday, their only day off. However, to give a flavor of what was accomplished
I include excerpts from responses to selected questions from the end-of-course
questionnaire.4 Of particular interest are the responses to question 7, “Name at
least three things that you have learned that will help you strategically to im-
prove and increase your command of German in the future,” and to question 8,
“In what areas of your use of German did the institute make a difference? Please
be as explicit as possible about this change and how it came about.” They can be
found, along with some suggestions for improvement that address instructional
issues, in the appendix of this chapter. Here, I provide only a brief summary.
4 Extensive data were collected, both from the application process and throughout the institute.
These await analysis.
 Contexts for advanced foreign language learning 69

With regard to question 7, students repeatedly remarked on their enhanced

ability to work with texts, by relating general text organizational features to
semantic and knowledge structures and to language form, where language form
was increasingly understood as being located at the intersection of vocabulary
and grammar, what systemic-functional linguistics terms the lexicogrammar.
They also came to appreciate the multiplicity of processing strategies that would
most enable them to emulate AL2 use: strategic use of chunked language,
such as prefabricated sentence stems or entire phrases or metaphors, and also
strategic generalization of “rules” of language that were now, increasingly,
pragmatic/semantic rules that operate at the discourse level. In both challenges,
they came to read texts considerably more carefully at many levels, all of which
amounted to using texts as models for a diversity of language-learning interests.
Finally, they clearly recognized that attention, awareness, and “thoughtfulness”
on their part would be imperative if they were to progress further, a step that
would ask them, once more, to leave the hard-earned comforts of an already
high level of language ability in order to attain the added ability to choose
judiciously and competently and to use various forms of semiosis in accordance
with their intended meanings. Since all of them were either already engaged
in language teaching themselves or anticipated being so engaged in the future,
that level of reflection also led to new insights regarding their potential roles
and responsibilities as instructors, irrespective of the educational level.
With regard to question 8, the differences they saw in themselves as learners,
the responses often reflected a much higher level of confidence in dealing with
complex German materials, a result that was particularly gratifying given the in-
stitute’s short duration. In line with their heavy engagement with texts, they were
beginning to see themselves as users of the language at the discourse level, rather
than continuing their preoccupation with local morphosyntax, their presumed
most serious and most obvious shortcoming. At the same time, that focus on
discourse in no way made them oblivious to the continued need to address these
language-specific features. On the contrary, it seemed to empower them to tackle
these “nuisance” issues with a greater resolve and sense of being able to con-
quer them. Not surprisingly, reading comfort was considerably higher at the end.
Here, too, the hoped-for nexus to speaking in accordance with public language-
use requirements did, in fact, occur, enabling them to get a sense of voice,
identity, and newfound joy in their tremendous abilities in German that was ex-
traordinarily gratifying to them as learners and to me as their teacher–mentor.

Concluding programmatic considerations

Although the idea of conducting an immersion institute for non-native speakers
in the home country rather than in the target-language environment initially
seemed an undesirable oddity, there is good reason to consider it an appropriate
and highly beneficial way of addressing the vexing problem of supporting the
70 Heidi Byrnes

acquisition of very advanced L2 abilities. Of course, doing the same thing

might bring about even better results if one were in-country. However, far
from being a “natural” event, such a programmatic realization would have to
be elaborately staged in the L2 cultural environment as well. In any case, it
would be considerably more expensive and more demanding of time, always
an important consideration with inherently cost-conscious American graduate
students, many of whom are married and need to work over the summer.
Notwithstanding my positive assessment of what transpired in only eight
short days, different programming formats should be considered, most espe-
cially an extension of the institute to two weeks, although probably not longer.
This would enable the following desirable adjustments and consequences:
r staffing the institute with one additional instructor, an obviously highly de-
sirable change which, however, would have to be accompanied by exquisite
coordination between both faculty members so as to retain the beneficial
integration of all aspects of the institute;
r reduction of the unusually heavy schedule, in terms of hours and intensity,
which brought some participants close to cognitive overload and paralyzing
exhaustion;
r creation of tasks for small-group work that could be carried forward over
several stages and iterations, including self-generated strategies for task
realization;
r multiple collaborative opportunities with participants who often have very
different performance profiles, learning strategies and styles, and, hence, abil-
ities to support the other participants in their learning efforts;
r opportunities for solidifying a performance feature that students were just
beginning to understand and incorporate into their language use, generally in
terms of accuracy and fluency;
r inclusion of a much greater variety of audiovisual materials, something that
was not possible under the time constraints;
r independent research arising from the theme-based tasks;
r guided writing within a task orientation (with multiple drafts, peer editing
and reviewing, revisions), increasing in length and with instructor feedback;
r more opportunities for extended, peer-critiqued, individual formal presenta-
tions in front of the class, inherently a time-consuming venture;
r reflection on and discussion of the pedagogies applied in the institute, in order
to permit the participants to incorporate them into their own teaching at their
home institutions and in their future careers in the academy;
r more individual consultation, involving specific diagnosis and progress
reports over the course of the institute; and
r explicit incorporation of opportunities available in Washington for very high-
level language use due to the presence of numerous agencies, offices, and
businesses that require such abilities and language use.
 Contexts for advanced foreign language learning 71

From an instructor’s perspective and with the benefit of some distance from
the institute, perhaps my most important insight is this: the demand for instruc-
tional contexts that can foster further development of very advanced L2 abilities
can be accommodated with remarkably few external requirements, perhaps a
consequence of the negligible support we currently offer to such learners, but
more likely the result of their extraordinary commitment to and their potential
for attaining such levels of L2 ability when they have the opportunity to work
within a conceptual and pedagogical framework that reflects an elaborated un-
derstanding of the nature of the relationship between language, culture, and
knowledge as it is realized in elaborated forms of L2 literacy.

appendix excerpts from student evaluations of the advanced

language institute for graduate students, georgetown
u n i v e r s i t y , w a s h i n g t o n , d c , m a y 2 6 -- j u n e 2 , 1 9 9 8
(All answers in sequence for each respondent; no spelling or punctuation cor-
rections made.)

7. NAME AT LEAST THREE THINGS THAT YOU HAVE

LEARNED THAT WILL HELP YOU STRATEGICALLY
TO IMPROVE AND INCREASE YOUR COMMAND
OF GERMAN IN THE FUTURE
I improved leaps and bounds this week. I have a plan for myself to learn a lot more
of these semantic markers by heart and to practice them with German friends. I feel
more self confident about my language skills, while I also see how far I have to go. My
potential progress is clearer to me, as well as the limitations. I felt like this week was an
excellent check-in and an excellent grounding experience. So much of graduate school
is a kind of mild chicanery, in that it is simply assumed that we are completely fluent
in this foreign language. Of course, that’s never true. It was nice to be in a place where
that was accepted and where we could work to get closer to that lofty goal.
1. Searching for discourse and semantic markers in order to break down a text into larger
categories of meaning.
2. Combining reading and writing exercises in order to expand the comprehension of a
text.
3. Using discourse markers in order to be able to speak more persuasively about a text
useful reading strategies, vocabulary-building strategies, and the need to SPEAK
SLOWLY.
1. How to read for information (i.e. picking out the basic meaning of the text and not
relying on minor details and anecdotes of the texts.)
2. Seeing and appreciating the workmanship in journalistic (or any for that matter)
writing
3. Looking at authentic texts to model after instead of “reinventing the wheel”
4. Breaking beyond Just communicating and really trying to push my language to a new
level
72 Heidi Byrnes

5. I’ve known this for a while, but I needed to be reminded of it again:] Every little thing
I learn is one more step toward reaching my goal of fluency in German. It sounds hokey,
but it’s true.
1. Identifying rhetorical forms in a text. Reading strategically for understanding and not
for detail.
2. The combination of rhetorical clusters and creativity in the use of new vocabulary.
3. The creation of a text matrix as a tool for text comprehension and acquiring new
vocabulary. . . also as a help in the oral presentation of a text.
1. I learned how to use discourse markers and semantic fields to write and speak in
German at a high level. These markers can and will really serve as markers in that they
provide anchors when one is writing and, especially, speaking about difficult topics.
I often become lost when speaking German at a high level and using such markers offers
structure and control to speech.
2. I will be able to use the skimming and reading strategies in order to really understand
difficult texts.
3. My vocabulary has increased because the practical exercises we used having moved
many words from my passive to my active Wortschatz The ability to speak only German
with my fellow students has also increased my vocabulary of colloquialisms and common
expressions.
1. I’ve learned how to read more carefully by looking for clues (discourse markers) within
the text that clarify what is happening not only conceptually, but also structurally.
2. Although my writing is still terrible, I now have some useful lists of words and phrases
that will not only help me to write more effectively, but also more creatively.
3. I now know some specific weakness that exist in my spoken German that I can
concentrate on repairing. The same lists of words/phrases that are useful for writing are
also useful here. I’ve also developed some ideas of possible solutions for my writing
and speaking problems.
1. Besseres Einsehen der Textstruktur
2. Erlernen des neuen Wortschatzes
3. Anschaffen der neuen Kenntnisse imbereich des deutschen Bildungssystems
1. Using discourse markers
2. Strategies for making sense of academic writing
3. Knowledge of the learning process, knowing how to recognize problems, work on
solutions
I’ve learned that I can increase my German proficiency in ways that go far beyond a neo-
grammarian approach. There are constant opportunities within the speaking, reading
and writing required of me in this field to improve my German.
It will not happen by osmosis. Instead I must push myself to adopt vocabulary, expres-
sions and constructions that I am normally in the habit of shying away from. I could study
abroad, but without a starting point to begin systematic improvement of my German, any
gains I would make overseas are going to inefficient. If I choose to study abroad now,
I feel like I would be much more efficient and motivated to actively use the exposure to
push my German to a more sophisticated level.
I feel encouraged to do that right now at home. Being with 12 other American graduate
students in an American setting and speaking an enormous amount of very (for us at
 Contexts for advanced foreign language learning 73

least) sophisticated German made me realize how much more I could be doing this back
at my university.
I can not afford to remove myself from difficult, abstract discourse. I have to jump into
the fray, so to speak, and constantly push to express myself without the use of anglicisms.
Only then can I learn to speak about something rather than around something. That
sounds like a platitude I might have gotten from the institute, but it’s not – I have to
confess I made that up myself.
How to go about “getting to the bottom” of a text – strategies in reading, writing and
oral report preparation; new vocabulary – new means of expressing myself on a “higher”
level
Reading strategies
professional vocabulary
how to write precis
how to overcome fears or at least keep trying to do so

8. IN WHAT AREAS OF YOUR USE OF GERMAN DID

THE INSTITUTE MAKE A DIFFERENCE? PLEASE BE
AS EXPLICIT AS POSSIBLE ABOUT THIS CHANGE
AND HOW IT CAME ABOUT
Better able to speak on the academic level. Better able to write a precis. Better able
to read newspaper articles on complicated topics. More self confident about speaking
German in an academic setting among peers and mentors.
1. Willingness and ability to use German with other colleagues in the profession, both
in relation to professional topics and general social situations. This came about through
an anxiety-free setting and willingness of all the participants to engage in German about
a variety of topics.
2. Confidence and willingness to engage more confidently and more in-depth with con-
temporary German material, e.g. newspapers, in order to gain a deeper understanding
of cultural issues affecting German society today. Instead of reading for general under-
standing on a superficial linguistic level, the intense practice with complex texts, the
practice with discourse markers, and the animated interest in the issues of the texts that
was evident in the course inspires me to engage more complexly with the language and
the issues of contemporary Germany.
3. A somewhat changed attitude towards the acquisition of new linguistic skills, i.e.
moving away from semantic and sentence level approach to a larger, discourse and
culture-based approach to understanding textual meaning and producing meaningful
writing in German.
In all areas, but the most significant improvement was in my speaking ability, and the
most useful thing I learned to do with regard to speaking was to speak more slowly and
carefully. I also left the program a more careful reader, and I feel that I am likely to gain
more from reading in the future thanks to the reading strategies and practice gained at
the institute. I can see more clearly now how to improve my German through everyday
reading, speaking and writing, and I understand better where these three areas intersect
and how they can work together.
74 Heidi Byrnes

I feel I have become slightly more efficient in reading and writing. As mentioned before, I
can spend a long time doing both, especially in German. Working under time limits,
I believe, forced me to reach this efficiency. Furthermore, I found my speaking and
writing is much conciser.
I’m sure my spoken German has improved, though I’m not personally aware of it.
I would like to add that I don’t think comparing the two videos is necessarily a fair
indication of improvement in speaking, at least in my own case. Sorry to harp on this
one (it came up in conversations, as well as in my learner-journal!), but I really believe
the format of the first video created such an uncomfortable atmosphere that this was
undoubtedly reflected in the spoken output.
But back to the positive things: Most important, the institute gave me the motivation to
work toward enhancing my German. Though I have to admit I wasn’t excited the entire
week long, I now really am looking forward to seeing through with my own personal
goals toward fluency (i.e. reading German books for pleasure, reading more newspapers,
keeping in better touch with German-speaking pen pals, etc.) I realized again, as I hoped
I would, that language is so much fun and such an important part of my own life and
identity.
1) In the discussion or reading strategies, I was given a new approach to German texts,
texts in general. I am now able to more effectively draw what is necessary from a text
for my purposes.
2) I have learned to “fish” for expressions to enhance my written and oral expression in
articles. My vocabulary has also been substantially extended
3) With the new understanding that I have attained of language learning in the advanced
learner, i will now know where to concentrate my efforts to grow in my knowledge of
the language and attempt not to sabotage myself with excessive self criticism
In reading, I have learned new strategies for understanding the structure and content of
advanced texts. Additionally, the use of text matrices and the precis have taught me new
ways of writing about difficult topics in an organized and structured manner. In speaking,
the broadening of my vocabulary through intense instruction and conversation is clearly
important.
This institute most directly helped my speaking and reading abilities by providing me
with strategies about HOW one should read texts and then use those texts themselves
to speak about them (to provide vocabulary, a context, a framework for discussion). We
were forced to read carefully while searching for specific items within the text. I could
feel myself automatically registering certain discourse markers as the week continued,
a phenomenon reinforced by our restriction to one topic. No one had previously taught
me how to strategically read and speak about a text and at this institute, I was provided
tools to help with this problem.
Ich habe beschlossen, an diesem Semonar teilzunehmen, weil ich seit langem die
Notwendigkeit spuehre, mein Deutsch auf ein anstaendiges Niveau bringen zu muessen,
genauer gesagt, dorthin, wo es war, aber wegen des Fehlens der Uebung – nicht mehr.
Im Laufe des Kurses glaube ich einen grossen Schritt auf dem Weg zur Verbesserung
meiner Sprache gemacht zu haben.
Es hat mir sehr geholfen, dass wir verschiedene Texte lesen und ihrer Struktur und dem
Inhalt nach analysiere mussten. Besonders wurde es bemerkbar, als wir den Test am let-
zten Tag des Seminars belegen mussten, Ich habe sehr deutlich gespuert, das ich den Text,
 Contexts for advanced foreign language learning 75

der mir auch vor ein paar Monaten angeboten wurde, anders gelesen und eingeschaetzt
habe, und hoffentlich, richtiger analysiert. Das war mein Haupterfolg im Seminar.
I learned to communicate more effectively by becoming more comfortable with more
complicated, formal structures of German. The stress on elegance and efficiency in
communication helped me make more sense of texts that I might normally have been
intimidated by and I learned to use many of the structures that I had previously only
seen in print. To a large extent, this came through playing with the language and trying
these structures on, so to speak, both in in-class discussion and assignments as well as
in the constant German usage among the participants.
Specifically I think I’ve improved my use of the dative and genitive cases. Since one has
to use these more in sophisticated, educated German, I also had to practice it more and
use prepositions I normally wouldn’t use.
– I am less hesitant to use or create compound nouns.
– I have a greater interest in hearing and using idiomatic expressions.
– I think before translating an English expression directly into German.
– I concentrate more on developing a larger base of synonyms.
– I try to construct sentences with more clauses, especially in my writing. This could
be taken to an unwelcome extreme, but it’s another way to practice the complexities
of expressing several ideas at once in a foreign language
– I think more about the appropriate prefixes when using verbs.
– I speak slower, even if it kills me and the person listening. I’d rather say what I want
to say in sophisticated German than give up and resort to not expressing myself fully
in simpler German I am more comfortable with.
I would say that the institute made the most difference in my method of reading a
text. Before the institute, I would have lost myself in all of the “little” details of the text,
whereas now I understand where I need to place my focus. Having command of this skill
has also helped me to write more quickly and concisely about complicated texts, some-
thing that will definitely help me in my studies in the future.
My writing skills have improved and my vocabulary has increased. The reason for this
lies in reading of many texts and wonderful discussions about them.

SUMMATIVE ROLE PLAYS

r A lot of fun. We should have done a bit more of this.
r Very entertaining, an excellent synthesis of content and discourse strategies.
r Great fun! Preparation for this activity was a useful homework assignment,
since it forced us to learn the language and opinions of our roles regarding a
subject which (by this time) we knew quite well.
r I think the cassettes speak for themselves. We all had a great time performing
the skits and taking on a new identity. In short, it was fun and forced us to reach
out to new vocabulary that maybe our own personas wouldn’t necessarily use
in everyday situations. More of these in different formats would be good for
future years.
76 Heidi Byrnes
r A rewarding and productive activity! I found the timing of it – half-way
through the seminar – to be helpful as well. This activity allowed us and our
teacher to see how much progress we had made in such a short time, if we
had acquired new strategies, and if we were using these strategies in our oral
expression.
r For me these were extremely important because I was able to use the discourse
markers and semantic fields in a practical manner and because I was able to
speak at a relatively high level of discourse without reading from a text.
r This is an activity that for me was the most enjoyable. I was worried about
understanding my role, but once I was up in front of the class with my group,
I relaxed and just had fun with it. Not only did I have to “teach” the others my
position on the issues, but I had to pay attention and be taught by the others.
What made this activity so effective is that it was fun and everyone really
went all out in a humorful, yet knowledgable, way.
r Am meisten Spass gemacht, es war so gut wie der Hoehepunkt des Seminars
r Great cumulative, summing-up activity – and a lot of fun!
r Great fun. This exercise accomplished much of what the oral presentations
did, but with an added benefit. Since we were able to take on another persona
and adopt their argumentation, that left us with more time and energy to play
with the language and adopt new expressions and vocab. Because it was also
an interactive group setting there was less self-consciousness or pressure,
thereby decreasing anxiety.
r This was a very creative way to pull together what we had learned and to have
a lot of fun and laughs in the process.
r It was both fun and a big exam for me. I think, that I passed, at least for myself.
During these role plays, we could use almost all the aspects of the foreign
language use that we were talking about. It was a very good opportunity to
use all the expressions and so on.
4 Bridging the gap between language for general
purposes and language for work: An intensive
Superior-level language/skill course for teachers,
translators, and interpreters

Claudia Angelelli and Christian Degueldre

A person decides to become a language learner for a variety of reasons: to be

able to read the literature of a given language in its original form, to travel
and discover other cultures, to obtain a better understanding of the world, to
meet people and be able to understand them, to increase business opportunities,
to exchange ideas with colleagues and friends, to communicate better across
language barriers. For most people, the goal is to be able to communicate. Others
put their language knowledge at the center of their profession and become
language teachers, translators, interpreters, or members of the diplomatic corps
of their country.
The courses described here1 were developed by the authors and taught at the
Monterey Institute of International Studies from 1994 through 2000, following
a 1993 pilot course in French. Since even Superior-level language learners
encounter difficulties in using their language in a professional environment,
the Spanish and French Summer Intensive Bridge courses were conceived with
the goal of developing the proficiency needed to work professionally in the
fields of teaching, translation, and interpreting. This goal differentiates them
from Advanced-level summer courses for language enhancement (e.g., summer
courses in Spanish universities for English-speaking teachers of Spanish).
The initial objectives were to bring students who had been accepted into the
two-year Master’s program to the proficiency level necessary to perform in the
Translation and Interpreting (T&I) MA program and to offer professionals
in the T&I fields the opportunity to enhance their foreign language abilities.
Although many incoming students had lived in a country where their foreign

The authors thank William Hopkins and Catherine Ingold for their comments on an earlier version
of this chapter. Their remarks served to inform the revision; any discrepancies that remain are
our own.
1 At some points in this chapter, features of the Spanish program are described, at other times
features of the French program. Both programs contain all the features described for each of
them. The various features are not described twice for lack of space.

77
78 Claudia Angelelli and Christian Degueldre

language was spoken before they applied for admission to the T&I program, they
had since had limited opportunity to maintain the foreign language at the same
degree of proficiency achieved there. The goal, then, was to restore students’
previous proficiency, improve lexical and structural precision and knowledge
of the linguistic system, and develop the ability to perform at a Superior or
Distinguished (SD) proficiency level even when under pressure.
However, from the very beginning, the possibility of a different course ori-
entation became evident. To respond to students’ desire to develop their lan-
guage professionally, be it to teach, interpret, or translate, the courses evolved
rapidly to include practical work on techniques and abilities that characterize
the professional use of a language. The linguistic components were retained
and complemented by others more pertinent to the T&I field. In this sense, the
Bridge courses emphasized not only the skills needed to translate or interpret
but also such other skills as analysis, active listening, reformulation of ideas –
all within a monolingual environment. In this way, the Bridge course evolved
to have a twofold goal for students: increased foreign language proficiency and
acquisition of professional T&I tools. These goals can be replicated in diverse
settings, wherever languages are used professionally at the SD level. Thus, the
terms translators and interpreters used in this chapter can easily be replaced
by language professionals, language teachers, diplomats, foreign language
lawyers, and the like.

The students
The Bridge courses were simultaneously conceived as Superior-level language
courses and as introductory courses in the skills of translation and interpreting.
These goals were established to meet the needs of a very specific student body
that planned to apply the results of language study to the demanding T&I
professions. The skills, themselves, however, once acquired, provided students
with the basis for working in any number of language-based professions.

Profile of Bridge students

Over time, the student body expanded beyond its original scope to include
teachers, already-employed translators, and other professionals.
The participants were probably among the very best in their language class
at the college level. Some were proficient in as many as four languages. Most
had studied languages for many years, beginning in junior high school. Some
were heritage speakers.2 One common feature was that all students realized

2 The term heritage speakers (HS) refers to speakers who have been exposed to the target
language in the home and have not necessarily studied it or used it in an academic setting
 Bridging the gap 79

that they needed more work on language per se to be able to use their language
professionally.
The students had diverse backgrounds. Most of the students in the French
and Spanish classes were English-speaking Americans. Some also came from
other countries, among them Kuwait, Spain, Ghana, Kenya, Canada (French
students), and Mexico and Cuba (Spanish students).
Students’ learning experiences also varied. Students in the French and
Spanish classes had usually learned their foreign language through textbooks
and such traditional methods as grammar–translation or the Audio-Lingual
Method (ALM). These students were accustomed to a teacher-centered learning
environment where grammar occupied center stage. Others combined formal
“traditional” studies with heritage traditions. Not all students were college
language majors. Some were biology or physics majors with a minor or keen
interest in languages. As a group, they were eager to learn and demanding in
their expectations of teacher competence, preparation, and individualization.
Both of these characteristics are in keeping with the student traits reported by
the other authors in this volume. All of these elements contributed to the creation
of an optimum learning environment.

Language needs
Students interested in becoming translators and interpreters usually enrolled
in the Bridge course at the behest of the school’s administration. During the
admission process, all students take an Early Diagnostic Test (EDT)3 to deter-
mine whether their level of foreign language proficiency is sufficient for T&I
studies. The requirement for admission is an “acceptable level” of language
proficiency and language control (consistent lexical precision and structural
accuracy). Currently, determination of what constitutes this level is made by
the professor assessing the EDT.4
Bridge-course students had often achieved language proficiency beyond the
Advanced level. They had a solid command of grammar of the foreign language.
They also had well-developed comprehension skills and a good understanding
of the culture; they could take part in general conversations. In other words, their

(Valdés and Geoffrion-Vinci [1998]). Sometimes HS need to further develop the formal register
that is acquired through academic studies and which they will need for professional work.
3 The EDT consists of five parts for students with one foreign language: a 150-word translation
from English to the foreign language; a 150-word translation from the foreign language to
English; a 300-word essay in English; a 300-word essay in the foreign language; and an abstract
in English of a 2-page English text. In 1998, an oral component was added for admission to the
MA program.
4 Although a foreign language testing expert assisted with test design and guidelines for test ad-
ministration and scoring, the decision whether or not a given student needed to be recommended
for the Bridge program was made by professional interpreters/translators (not Oral Proficiency
Interview [OPI] certified foreign language testers) who applied their own judgment and experi-
ence in assessing test outcomes.
80 Claudia Angelelli and Christian Degueldre

strategic, discourse, and sociolinguistic competence was high. However, they

experienced difficulty in using the foreign language in, for example, a political
or scientific discussion, when they had to be highly accurate and grammatically
correct, and when nuances matter. When that happened, they felt their level of
proficiency was not sufficient, and, indeed, their level of linguistic proficiency
(as measured by lexical precision and grammatical sophistication) was not yet
well enough developed to handle Distinguished-level tasks. (At the beginning
of the Bridge course, many students frequently commented that they “used to
be better” and were “losing their language.”) They were, in fact, realizing the
difference between language for general purposes, for which an Advanced
level of proficiency is sufficient and language for professional purposes, for
which a Superior (and often, in the case of T&I, even a Distinguished) level of
proficiency is required. Put another way, they were moving from proficiency,
or potential for real-life application, to performance, or actual job use (Child,
Clifford, and Lowe [1993]), and that is precisely the “bridge” that the courses
described here provided for them.

Skills
Students in the Bridge course acquired professional skills in a monolingual
(immersion) mode. In this way, they enhanced their general foreign language
proficiency as they worked on T&I skills.
Although few studies have been conducted on what specific skills are needed
for T&I (Gerver [1976]; Gile [1995]), most professional translators and inter-
preters, as well as teachers in T&I programs, agree that the following skills are
essential: linguistic competence (including accuracy); sensitivity to register;
broad general knowledge; cultural competence (including cultural sensitivity
and the ability to be a “cultural bridge”); analytical skills (e.g., active listen-
ing and the understanding of cause and effect relationships, subordination of
ideas, and anticipation of what comes next in the discourse); quickness (or the
mental agility to hear a message and instantly re-express it in the other language);
memory (as a complement to note-taking, as well as for recall of terminology
learned in preparation); an ability to abstract meaning from words (including
reading between the lines and being able to handle culturally complex and
idiosyncratically composed texts, which Child [1987, 1998] calls “Projective
Mode”5 ); an ability to conceptualize (to create a mental representation of the
ideas and concepts of the original message); public speaking and writing skills
(translators often become de facto writers and co-authors); superior presentation;
5 Child (1987, 1990, 1998) presents a text typology constructed from four levels, increasing in
difficulty from Novice/Intermediate through Distinguished levels of complexity: orientational
(texts that are bound to the external, concrete environment), instructive (texts that transmit factual
information), evaluative (texts that respond to actual or perceived reality), and projective (texts
that exemplify some unique aspect of the originator’s thought).
 Bridging the gap 81

and flexibility (a form of quickness characteristic of “adaptive performers” –

those who display the “ability to adjust behaviors, focus concentration, and
thrive in non-optimal work situations” [personal communication, Renée Meyer,
March 28, 2001]).6 Other skills might be added to the list. Interpreters and
translators must have a natural curiosity, as well as the desire to commu-
nicate and to help people. Since interpreters and translators spend immense
amounts of time accomplishing terminological research and preparation, they
must have an inquisitive mind (Finlay [1971]). They must strive for perfec-
tion (and at the same time deal with the frustration of knowing they cannot
reach it).

Affective variables
Like Dabars and Kagan (this volume), Bridge-course instructors noticed the
presence of affective filters. Personality factors that get diluted in a regular
course can become crucial elements in an intensive course, with its accom-
panying stress. Therefore, teachers worked to lower these filters by creating a
positive atmosphere and a teaching approach of coaching and facilitating.

The program

History
The first Bridge course (French) started in 1993 as a pilot.7 It had five students
who wanted to become translators and/or interpreters. That course was highly
successful, and a decision was made to expand the program to applicants in other
languages. Spanish was added in 1994, later English and, on an ad hoc basis,
Russian and Japanese. Table 4.1 shows the attendance of Bridge courses from
their origin to 2000. As the reader will notice, the English course was the one
with the largest student population, combining mainly Chinese, Japanese, and
Korean students. French and Spanish enrollments remained stable during this
6 The Department of Defense (DoD) has developed an eight-dimensional model for the High-End
Language Analyst (skills, performance, knowledge): linguist, cultural expert, target expert, mod-
ern researcher, interpretive analyst, performance expert, master teacher, and adaptive performer
(personal communication, Renée Meyer, March 28, 2001).
7 It should be noted that some faculty felt that students should arrive with Level-4 skills. In some
other cases, faculty felt that SD-level proficiency cannot be taught. This latter assumption finds
a parallel in the experiences reported by other authors in this volume, in their case the implicit
assumption that foreign language cannot be taught at the SD level but must come only from
studying and living abroad. As mentioned in Chapter 1, the preponderance of Russian programs
over those in commonly taught languages at the SD level reflects this belief; Spanish, French, and
German programs could rely on Advanced students going abroad and returning at the Superior
level whereas Russia was closed to Americans during the Cold War so that the higher levels of
proficiency by necessity had to be developed in the classroom. Thus, Russian teachers were less
likely to believe that high levels of language could not be taught in the classroom.
82 Claudia Angelelli and Christian Degueldre

Table 4.1

Language 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993

French 9 8 10 5 5 7 11 5
Spanish 8 7 8 8 8 8 5 -
English 29 26 26 24 26 17 1-4 -
Russian - - 2 - 1 - - -
Japanese - 4 - 2 - - - -
Statistics provided by the Registrar of Academic Records from the Monterey Institute of
International Studies.

period. The Russian and Japanese programs did not share this fortune; enroll-
ments were lower and not as stable in those programs.
The term Bridge was chosen because the course bridges a gap between lan-
guage for general communication and language for professional applications
(Angelelli [1996]). When students choose to work with a language, either by
teaching, translating, or interpreting, proficiency, especially accuracy, at the SD
level becomes critical. For this reason, the teaching approach to language at this
level differs significantly from the one used for language instruction at lower
proficiency levels, where the emphasis is more on the ability to communicate.
At the Superior level, when a language is used for the purpose of translating,
teaching, or interpreting, the expectation is almost “error-free” performance.

Administrative details
The Bridge courses were intensive in nature. Students attended 22.5 hours
of classroom instruction each week. For each hour of classroom instruction,
they were assigned 1–2 hours of homework. Upon successful completion of
this course, at the undergraduate level they received four credits that were
transferable to an MA degree and at the graduate level four credits that could
be applied to the language requirements if they later changed their major to a
different MA degree program.

Faculty
One of the difficulties faced in implementing the Bridge course was locating
qualified pedagogues who would also understand the specific needs of using a
language for a profession; extensive experience in T&I was essential, as well.
Languages other than French and Spanish faced even greater difficulties finding
 Bridging the gap 83

instructors with those qualifications and, many times, the best solution was to
put together a team to teach the course.
This approach worked. When asked what they considered the most valu-
able aspect of the Bridge course, students commonly replied that it was “the
professors . . . they are professionals in the field and know just what aspects of
our language skills we need to focus on.”8 The selection of appropriate faculty
was, indeed, essential to the implementation of the type of program described
here: student-centered coaching aimed at developing the skills, knowledge, and
abilities to use the language in a professional environment.

Curriculum
The Bridge-course curriculum was established in two phases. Phase One was a
needs assessment that determined the curricular objectives and course design.
Phase Two was the actual implementation of the Bridge courses, which evolved
over time.

Curricular objectives
Results of the needs assessment revealed shared requirements as well as differ-
ences between Spanish and French. In this sense, the approach to developing
the Bridge courses differed from that of the regular courses in T&I, where all
languages follow the same curriculum regardless of language-unique features.
Table 4.2 illustrates some shared objectives.
Each language professor segmented the core curriculum into different units.
The number and content of units varied by language. The common element was
course duration: eight weeks at 22.5 hours a week for a total of 180 hours of
instruction.

Implementation of the Bridge courses

Initial testing for Spanish
During the first five years, this course was optional for incoming T&I students.9
During this time, there was a Spanish test in place to assure that the applicants to
the Spanish Bridge course had the right linguistic level (Superior) to benefit from
it, although an occasional Advanced-level applicant was admitted. Applicants
to the Bridge course were tested orally and in writing. A telephonic ACTFL
(American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages) OPI constituted the
8 Hilary James, Bridge course – Spanish 2000.
9 In 1998, the Bridge course became mandatory for candidates accepted to the MA program, with
ultimate enrollment in the T&I program contingent upon successful completion of the summer
Bridge course.
84 Claudia Angelelli and Christian Degueldre

Table 4.2

Areas Objectives
(1) Perform comparative analysis of similarities and
differences between F/S and English grammar systems.
Linguistic
(2) Achieve vocabulary enhancement (field-specific).

(1) Gain exposure to different accents and language

varieties used in the regions where F/S is spoken.
Sociolinguistic (2) Raise awareness in switching oral and written
discourse from a formal to an informal register and
vice versa.
(1) Understand the concept of multitasking and split
attention.
Psycholinguistic
(2) Gain information-processing skills in a monolingual
mode.
(1) Learn how to prioritize among tasks.
Time
management (2) Develop organizational skills to meet tight deadlines
and to perform under pressure.
(1) Distinguish between main idea and subordinate ideas.
Information
processing (2) Understand connections between ideas.

(1) Understand how to do terminology searches.

Research
(2) Become familiar with monolingual sources in F/S.

oral test. The written test consisted of reading comprehension, vocabulary, and
grammar sections. The reading comprehension section used general/scientific
readings that paralleled in difficulty those used in the first two weeks of the
course. The vocabulary section required applicants to define terms in their
own words and to give synonyms and antonyms. The grammar section asked
applicants to choose between options for ten items and justify their choice. For
example, one item asked if the position of the adjective was correct and if so why:
Número 8:
a) Las hermosas playas de Venezuela atraen a muchos turistas.
(The beautiful beaches of Venezuela attract many visitors.)
b) Las playas hermosas de Venezuela atraen a muchos turistas.
(The beautiful beaches of Venezuela attract many visitors.)
 Bridging the gap 85

Understanding the position of adjectives in Spanish discriminates between

Intermediate High/Advanced and Superior students. At lower proficiency levels,
it is common for students of Spanish to assume that adjectives are placed
only after the noun. In item 8, both positions are correct, but they have dif-
ferent meanings. Item 8a states that all beaches in Venezuela are beautiful.
Item 8b, by positioning the adjective behind the noun, indicates that not all
beaches are beautiful. Some are, and some are not. Once the tests and EDT
were passed, students were admitted to the course. Then the 180-hour journey
began.

Spanish course syllabus

The Spanish course consisted of eight units: seven topical units and an intro-
ductory one. Unit themes included (1) Linguistic and Information-Processing
Skills, (2) Science, (3) Technology, (4) Economics, (5) Politics, (6) Law, and
(7) Translation/Interpreting/Teaching. The time assigned for each unit was ap-
proximately 22 hours, although they varied in content and degree of complexity.
The only exception was Unit One.

Spanish Bridge-course materials

The Spanish Bridge course was taught with current authentic materials. A
reader, a grammar reference manual, and two books (a play and a novel) were
the mandatory texts for the course.
The reader contained articles from newspapers, journals, scientific maga-
zines, book chapters, etc., illustrating each of the topical units. A large col-
lection of videos and audiotapes was made available through the media center
where students could check out audio materials with accompanying listening-
comprehension exercises or watch videos in preparation for class discussion.
Students were asked to locate the official web pages of various organizations
(e.g., OEA: Organización de Estados Americanos) and electronic documents
from various Spanish-speaking countries. These web pages and electronic doc-
uments served a dual purpose: they provided the content for the topical units
(e.g., political speeches, organization by-laws), and they served as authentic
discourse input for language in the sciences, law, politics, and other specific
content areas. Materials were classified thematically, and students extracted
specialized terms from them, on the basis of which they compiled glossaries,
indicating country and register. For example, in a political text, the term paro
in Spain refers to unemployment, whereas in Argentina it means strike. In
their glossaries, students showed both meanings and indicated the country
of use.
The grammar reference manual problematized grammatical concepts that
are generally reduced to simple rules at the beginning/intermediate stages of
students’ acquisition of Spanish. For example, students were asked to read
the reference manual’s description of the use of the subjunctive mood. Then
86 Claudia Angelelli and Christian Degueldre

they were exposed to appearances of the subjunctive in authentic discourse

(e.g., newspaper articles, speeches) and were encouraged to explore the simi-
larities and differences between rules and usage.
A play and a novel were used to generate class discussions. The genre was
chosen for affective reasons. Most students in American colleges are exposed
to literary genre when they study a foreign language. So, using literature in the
Bridge courses provided students with a sense of familiarity and security. The
goal here, though, was not to perform literary analysis. Rather, the readings
provided a basis for generating discussions and practicing discourse devices
such as presenting and supporting an opinion, organizing an argument in linguo-
culturally appropriate ways, persuading, capitulating, and other elements of
discourse competence expected at the SD level.
The play, La barca sin pescador (“A Boat without a Fisherman”), by Alejandro
Casona, was the less demanding literary selection in terms of language. Since
the play is based on universals of good and evil, most students were already
familiar with the ideas and vocabulary, and it was easy for them to engage in
class discussions. The play is divided into three acts, and it was used during the
first three weeks of class.
The novel selected was El amor en tiempos de cólera (Love in the Time
of Cholera) by Gabriel Garcı́a Márquez. Even if college students have read
works by Márquez, they are generally more familiar with Cien años de Soledad
(100 Years of Solitude). El amor en tiempos de cólera is rarely read in Spanish
in undergraduate programs. Once again, the focus with this material was not
literary analysis but summarizing, expressing opinion, contextualizing, and
comparing.
In addition to these books, students chose another two that they presented to
the class individually. During these presentations, students worked on individual
presentational objectives as they became experts on the chosen titles that they
presented to their peers.

Representative Bridge-course activities

Every activity in the French and Spanish Bridge courses integrated a variety of
abilities: reading, research, preparation, presentation, and the like. For example,
the fourth week of the program in 2000 was dedicated to Science and Technol-
ogy. This theme is obviously very broad and cannot be covered in just a few days
(or 22.5 contact hours). The goal was to expose students to a more sophisticated
terminology and more difficult concepts, for which they needed to do more re-
search and read more reference/parallel documents. Topics included pollution
and the protection of the environment, fish of the Amazon River, a car commer-
cial with technical specifications, and energy-saving policies, among others.
During the “Science” week, students concentrated on scientific topics. For
example, six to seven contact hours were devoted to the topic of marine biology
 Bridging the gap 87

and marine mammals (a topic that is particularly pertinent in Monterey, which

boasts the country’s largest aquarium). The students learned more about ocean
life by listening to a tape, preparing and making a presentation, reading addi-
tional articles, preparing glossaries, and debating the pros and cons of a certain
issue. For example, the interest in protecting marine mammals vs. the interests
of the fishing industry is an emotionally charged issue in the Monterey Bay area
and served as an excellent issue for debate.
The instructor also used less structured activities, such as crossword puzzles,
to reinforce the acquisition of marine and marine-associated terminology. The
lesson plan for marine biology can be found at Appendix A. The marine biology
lesson contained three comprehensive activities (see Appendix A for specifics).
These included a set of tasks associated with a videotape on Californian mam-
mals, a field trip to the Monterey Bay Aquarium, and a report on the field trip.
The first activity required students to listen to a videotape on mammals in
the California area. In the case of the French program, this was a 20-minute
documentary from the Belgian National Television Network. The documentary
describes the life of whales and marine mammals along the coast of California.
The objective for students was to focus on technical terminology – in this case,
the names of sea creatures and mammals. The speed of the video is natural speed,
about 110 words per minute. There are naturally occurring pauses and, of course,
the visual aids that accompany any video presentation. An anticipated difficulty
was the use of new terminology and regional accents. Before students listened to
the documentary, they completed a series of previewing activities. Some of these
activities were typical listening-comprehension exercises, e.g., brainstorming
probable content. Other activities were specifically geared to active listening for
T&I, including the activation of relevant terminology. Following the previewing
activities, students received a list of questions that they answered while watching
the documentary. The questions followed the same order as the appearance of
pertinent information in the video. Students were asked to write down their
answers and to pay attention to the terminology and expressions used in the
video as they did so. After students finished watching the video, there was a
discussion of content. Students typically asked a number of questions related
to verifying their comprehension of the video content. Usually, they brought
previous knowledge and experience to bear on the discussion. At this time, the
instructor’s role is to keep the discussion flowing, bringing in expressions and
new terminology from the video. At the end of the discussion, students review
their responses to the questions distributed earlier. As a post-view activity,
students were asked to write a summary of the video for diverse audiences.
For example, some presented a report to a science commission, while others
summarized an argument for an expert witness in a court. In preparing these
summaries, students used the technical terminology embedded in the language
of persuasion, description, and other forms of discourse.
88 Claudia Angelelli and Christian Degueldre

The second complex activity in this lesson was a tour of the Monterey Bay
Aquarium. Students were able to reinforce the information that they had learned
from the video and in their research readings. They were required to make a
presentation as “experts” on specific exhibits that they selected – sea otters,
blue whales, kelp forest, etc. To prepare for that presentation and to make sure
that they had relevant information, they were given a free visit to the Aquarium
in advance of the “professional tour.” On the day of the tour, each student made
his or her presentation. (Frequently, when this activity was conducted, foreign
tourists visiting the Aquarium listened to the students’ presentations and asked
questions, believing the students to be Aquarium docents for foreign visitors.
This only highlighted the relevance of the visit for the students.) The three-hour
visit to the Aquarium ended at a local restaurant for a debriefing. The students
were then required to write a report of the visit.
The third activity in the lesson plan was the report itself. Students prepared
a two-page report of their visit to the Aquarium. They were allowed to discuss
any topic they chose, describe their impressions, or simply summarize the visit.
Later, the reports were corrected and grammar, terminology, content, and style
were evaluated and discussed.

Representative extramural activities

The success of an intensive course depends to a great extent on being able
to diversify activities so that students are constantly motivated. A variety of
supplemental activities were planned for each day of the Bridge course. Ac-
tivities were repeated during the course, with modifications to reflect current
topics. In this way, consistency in extracurricular and extramural activities was
achieved. Activities included movies, information/library search, and field trips
with subsequent oral presentations.

Movie nights. Every week two movie nights were organized to provide a dif-
ferent forum where students could keep working on the foreign language. Gen-
erally, a teaching assistant watched the movies with the students and facilitated
a post-viewing discussion. Participation at the movie nights was optional but
students welcomed them as opportunities to work on the foreign language in a
less formal atmosphere.

Information search / library search. At the beginning of the second week of

the course, the professor handed a list of 100 questions, ranging from “What is
the age of Jimmy Connors?” to “What does the Japanese Diet consist of?” or
“Who is Alois Mock?” The students had two weeks to find the answers. Prior
to this assignment, the students would have already been familiarized with the
library layout via a tour conducted by the library staff, with a special emphasis
on the resources in the foreign language. The 100-question exercise had a dual
 Bridging the gap 89

role: help the students learn the library layout and resources and show them how
to do research in an effective way. Each student kept a log of his/her research
process in order to determine which resource worked best, which dictionary
was most useful and which one was of no use at all, and which websites were
worth visiting.

Field trips. Teaching language for special purposes must be very practical. Var-
ious field trips are organized every year during the course. Sometimes students
become experts in local sites and give presentations. Other times students listen
to experts present a topic and they take notes. Visits have pre- and post-visit ac-
tivities that call for various skills, including researching terminology/content on
a given topic, writing up a presentation, delivering presentations in front of an
audience, taking notes of their peers’ (or experts’) presentations, summarizing,
writing a report, etc.

Representative classroom activities

Readings. During the course, students were expected to read two books that
they chose and read individually plus two books chosen by the professor and
read by the whole group. The only condition imposed by the professor was that
the books (reports, documents) not be translations. For each title selected, the
students had to prepare a written summary. They were also expected to make
an oral presentation in front of the class. This activity required students to do
the following: (1) read something they enjoyed; (2) pay attention to vocabulary
and grammar in writing the report; (3) analyze the message; (4) summarize the
book’s content; (5) use public-speaking skills in making their presentations;
and, (6) justify their comments in discussions of the books with other students.

Crossword puzzles. Puzzles were used as a break from more strenuous ex-
ercises. The level of difficulty and the topics corresponded to students’ work
during a given week.

Dictation. Dictation is one of the most traditional activities of any language

course. In the Bridge course, dictations were based on television or radio broad-
casts (e.g., Charles De Gaulle’s famous June 6, 1944 call to resistance). In ad-
dition to active listening, in taking dictation, the students had to make decisions
about punctuation and spelling. Current articles read as a dictation by the in-
structor were later used for reading comprehension or to work on alternative
phrasing of the original text as a mechanism for developing language flexi-
bility and synonymy, aspects of language proficiency that many other authors
in this volume (e.g., Leaver and Shekhtman, Dabars and Kagan) point out as
distinguishing the SD level. The students later wrote summaries of the dictation
and edited each other’s work.
90 Claudia Angelelli and Christian Degueldre

In the French Bridge course, De Gaulle’s 200-word speech was used in the
following manner: the professor announced the topic to prompt the students to
talk about events of that time. Usually, some students had heard of that famous
speech and could explain to the class the historical circumstances in which it was
delivered (a call by General De Gaulle to keep fighting the German occupation
in preparation for D-Day). The professor played the whole taped segment to be
taken as a dictation once without stopping, a second time with pauses to allow
the students to write it down, and a last time to allow them to check for mistakes.
Then the students exchanged copies and made suggestions on their peer’s copy.
Finally, they received the transcript of the speech. A short discussion about
specific grammatical or spelling points followed. The students were then asked
to rewrite the speech in different ways and were divided into groups: one group
of students was instructed to expand the text, using synonyms and fillers, while
another had to do the opposite and try to be as concise as possible. These
strategies are used in interpretation when it is necessary to emphasize a point
that did not come across accurately the first time or to eliminate the repetitions
in a convoluted speech. After working together for about 15–20 minutes, each
group presented its work to the class for a final discussion.

Presentations. The value of oral presentations in developing foreign language

proficiency, especially at the SD level, has been reported by a number of pro-
gram administrators (Dabars and Kagan [this volume]; Leaver and Bilstein
[2000]; Stryker [1997]). As in the courses at the Specialized Language Training
Center (SLTC) that are described in this volume (Shekhtman et al.), formal
presentations lasting 15–20 minutes were an important element of the Bridge
program. The students chose a topic within the general theme of the week, com-
pleted the necessary research, discussed a first draft with the teaching assistant
or the professor, wrote a final paper and presented it orally to the class. During
the eight weeks of the course, the students also made shorter presentations on
various topics and current events.

Results
From the comments of graduates from the Spanish and French Bridge courses
over the years, one could conclude that the course has helped them enormously
in reaching their professional goals. (Some of these comments can be found at
Appendix B.) Among the students who entered the MA program in Translation
and Interpretation, some changed careers and pursued an MA in Teaching
Foreign Languages or Teaching of English as a Second Language and are cur-
rently pursuing teaching careers. Others use their bilingual skills as translators
and interpreters in international organizations, in private companies (e.g., Mayo
Clinic, McGraw Hill, Belgacom), or as translation managers in major translation
 Bridging the gap 91

agencies, as well as at T&I agencies, in the courts, and at community centers.

In sum, regardless of the career path the participants decided to take, they
succeeded in obtaining the linguistic proficiency and the professional skills
necessary to meet the requirements of the positions that they currently hold.

Discussion
The previous sections illustrated how language learning at (and beyond) the
Superior level for a specific purpose such as translation or interpreting can be
facilitated. Clearly, working at the SD level is quite different from working
with lower levels of proficiency. No deviation from those characteristics that
define Superior and Distinguished levels of proficiency (especially including
linguistic competence) is allowed. Elements of strategic competence, such as
compensation strategies, that play an important role in language proficiency
up to, and even including the lower ranges of, the Superior level of profi-
ciency have no place in the work of the professional translator or interpreter.
In T&I, accuracy is one of the greatest concerns. (Accuracy here not only re-
lates to the transfer of meaning across languages – a typical belief within the
T&I field – but also to the adequacy of word and structure choice with which
such transfer is made, otherwise known as congruity judgment and defined by
Child [1990] as “the ability to successfully match donor language features,
characteristics, or forms to their most suitable receptor language equivalents”
[p. 299]; of particular interest at Level 4 is the ability to render in parallel
but accurate form the “shape” of the original text.) As discussed by Leaver
and Shekhtman (this volume), linguistic, sociolinguistic, and analytical pro-
ficiency are essential at this level so that students may render an adequate
translation or interpretation of a given text that does not feel like a literal trans-
lation or interpretation. Clearly, there is not only one accurate rendition of
a text, since there are as many possible versions as there are translators and
interpreters attempting them. However, most professionals agree about what
constitutes a professional rendition and what represents the attempt of an ama-
teur. Typically, the professional translation or interpretation is distinguished on
the basis of language, word choice, register, style, flow of the text, and cultural
sensitivity.
At the T&I level, students no longer use language simply for general com-
municative purposes. Rather, they work with the language itself, i.e., with its
linguistic, sociolinguistic, discourse, and cultural components. Students need
to monitor their production under pressure, incorporating into their perfor-
mance various analytical skills (restructuring, hierarchical organization of ideas,
etc.) used in their first language, as well as linguistic skills (circumlocution,
paraphrasing) that they have acquired as foreign language learners at earlier
stages of their linguistic proficiency.
92 Claudia Angelelli and Christian Degueldre

During their journey to obtain their MA degrees in T&I, students are taught
via a sink-or-swim methodology. T&I classes are not equipped to deal with
language issues: the underlying assumption is that T&I candidates come to
the task with the required proficiency to become translators and interpreters
(Angelelli, 2000). There is no reference to the developmental stages of foreign
language proficiency in the T&I classroom; nor is there any compensation
for linguistic deficiencies. Language proficiency is taken for granted and T&I
students spend four semesters acquiring the specific practice, principles, and
strategies associated with professional work as a translator and/or interpreter.
Students, therefore, have to be at least at the Superior level to navigate this type
of instruction.
The fact that linguistic competence continues to develop at any level of pro-
ficiency and can be deliberately enhanced – a common belief among those
experienced in teaching at the Superior (and higher) level – is not recognized
by most T&I faculty. This is not surprising since most of them do not have a
background in foreign language education. Generally, they are active profes-
sionals in the T&I field. This posits a dilemma for students who want to acquire
T&I skills and cannot do so concurrently with improving their competence and
performance in their first and second languages. Many students have found the
Bridge courses highly relevant and even essential for developing the level of
proficiency they required. (Excerpts from student surveys taken in the 2000
Spanish and French courses are at Appendix B.)

Implications
Eight years of experience with Bridge courses have revealed a number of impli-
cations for those who would like to establish language-enhancement courses or
programs. These include a realistic consideration of the differing roles of class-
room instruction and in-country experience, the background of the teacher,
institutional integration of the program, marketing of the course(s), and com-
munity support.
A language-enhancement course or series at the Superior level could benefit
language professionals as well as undergraduate and graduate students at the
Advanced-Plus / Superior level. Generally, when learners reach a Superior
proficiency level, the choices on how to update, maintain, or enhance their
foreign language in their homeland are very limited. One obvious option is
to spend a time abroad in a country where the foreign language is spoken.
However, these learners have probably already been abroad at lower stages of
their language proficiency. At the SD level, simply spending time abroad is not
necessarily sufficient for their more specialized needs. They do not need just
exposure; they need answers to questions and explanations that they can rarely
get by simply being immersed in a language/culture. For example, many times
 Bridging the gap 93

SD Spanish students wonder about the use of de que rather than que following
certain verbs such as pensar (to think), tener miedo (be afraid of). This question
often arises because they have heard some native speakers use de que and others
not ( just que). Students wonder if the preposition de is optional. They wonder if
they can say, “Tengo miedo que la entrevista sea difı́cil” (I am afraid/concerned
that the interview will be hard) or if they have to say, “Tengo miedo de que la
entrevista sea difı́cil.” Because native speakers do not necessarily know all the
grammatical intricacies of the language they speak, students do not necessarily
find answers to these questions just by spending time in an environment where
the language is spoken.
Finally, linkages with the community are essential. In this program, partic-
ipants are expected to become involved with the community (of the foreign
culture/language) and learn from it in various ways.

Conclusion
This chapter described the conceptualization and implementation of Bridge
courses in Spanish and French. Initially created to meet the linguistic needs of
T&I MA applicants, the Bridge course expanded to enhance linguistic abilities
of language professionals as well. From both a financial and administrative
point of view, the Bridge courses have been a success. Students who would
otherwise have been denied admission to the MA program were accepted, and
they graduated. The very real need for such courses was evidenced in 1997/1998
when participation in the Bridge courses was made compulsory for the students
who had not passed the EDT.
These courses can easily be replicated in other languages. They can also be
taught for other professional purposes with minor adaptations.
A language-enhancement course, a course that can bridge the gap between
language for general communication purposes and language for work, is one
model of teaching language at the Superior level. It is motivating for both
teachers and learners, and it is essential in encouraging learners to continue on
the language-learning journey. Students see that there are goals they can still
achieve, that there are answers to their questions and, most important, that they
are empowered to be the search engines for finding their answers.
The Bridge courses taught for eight years at the Monterey Institute of Interna-
tional Studies constitute an example of how language taught at the SD level can
serve to enhance the foreign language and provide the necessary tools to work
with it in the T&I field. An array of classroom and extramural activities, coupled
with the use of current and pertinent authentic materials, and the combination
of instructors with language-education backgrounds and professional expertise
in a given field constitute a recipe for success. Perhaps other institutions will
find the models contained in this chapter of assistance in developing similar
94 Claudia Angelelli and Christian Degueldre

language programs. After all, students who must go out into the world tomor-
row and use their language skills for real-life purposes that can, at times, be
quite critical to the welfare of one or many deserve to have language instruction
today that prepares them for this.

appendix a sample lesson plan (french 2000)

Theme: Science
Topic: Marine Biology

First activity: Videotape on California Mammals (20 minutes documentary,

recorded on Belgian National Television Network).
Characteristics:
Content – Description of life of whales and marine mammals on
and along the coast of California. Focus on technical terminology
(names of sea creatures and mammals).
Speed: normal – about 110 words per minute, with pauses and visual
aids.
Difficulty: terminology and accents.
Description of activity
Previewing activities:
brainstorming content, etc.
active listening and activation of marine terminology
Questions on video content; focus on terminology
Discussion of video content
Review of answers to questions
Written summary of the video for diverse audiences

Second activity:
Tour of the Monterey Bay Aquarium
Preliminary individual visit (in English)
Preparation of presentation
Professional tour / individual presentations
(Answering foreign tourists’ questions)
Debriefing

Third activity: Field Trip Report.

Discussion of reports: grammar, terminology, content, and style

appendix b excerpts from student surveys 2000 french

and spanish bridge courses
It was different in that it focused on the skills necessary for translation and interpretation
work rather than only grammar and vocabulary. It was much more intense and fun.
(French student)
 Bridging the gap 95

It is more practical [than a pure language course]. The emphasis is on the use of press
materials rather than textbooks. (Spanish student)
It is nothing like anything I had done before. Everything was geared toward practical
understanding and usage of the language . . . We didn’t review anything that didn’t need
it. (Spanish student)
[I was able] to dust off my French . . . Exercises involving building our knowledge of
world affairs and French culture, learning to research and to prepare presentations on
short notice, listening and memory exercises . . . all helped to prepare me for the career
and semesters that await me. I must say that without this course my French would
probably not have carried me through my first year of the program. (French student)
[U]sually courses can be teacher-centered, but there was a great balance between students
and teacher. There was a lot of creativity put into the classes and thus, learning was fun.
(Spanish student)
Overall, the skills we learned were practical and useful. The learning was put into real-life
context. We didn’t work on any artificial role-playing. (Spanish student)
5 Learning Chinese in China: Programs for
developing Superior- to Distinguished-level
Chinese language proficiency in China
and Taiwan

Cornelius C. Kubler

The average lay person, if asked the best way to learn Chinese, would probably
reply that one should go to China for a period of time and “pick up” the language
naturally. For beginning students, learning Chinese in China is actually not the
most efficient way to proceed.1 However, once students have reached the inter-
mediate stage, there is widespread agreement that the fastest and best way for
them to continue their language studies is to spend a substantial period of time
in a Chinese-speaking region in close contact with Chinese speakers.2 In fact, it
is questionable whether a non-native can attain Superior- to Distinguished-level
(SD) proficiency in Chinese any other way.3

1 The reasons why it is preferable for most beginners to start their study of Chinese in their native
country include the following: (1) instructors in the students’ native country are usually more
familiar with the challenges facing beginning learners; (2) students there usually have a common
native language and culture, making instruction more efficient; (3) if learners travel to China
before they have attained basic proficiency in the language, they will initially be unable to take
advantage of the main benefit of residence in China, i.e., interacting with the Chinese people in
their language; (4) students may pick up nonstandard pronunciation and usage; and (5) students
will learn words and grammar in the order of perceived utility to them rather than in the order
that makes the most sense pedagogically.
2 In the opinion of Dew (1994), “Intensive overseas study is essential for the attainment of high
levels of Chinese language competence because that is the context in which (1) the student can
devote full effort to language study; (2) the student can be exposed to the language in all of its
varied uses, active and passive; and (3) maximum use can be made of the powers of reinforcement
among the four skills” (pp. 40–41).
3 Given talented students and sufficient resources, it should, in theory, be possible to bring students
to the SD level in Chinese in the USA or anywhere else in the world. In practice, however, it
is nearly impossible to achieve this in a non-Chinese environment, especially in the case of the
oral skills. Because of the vast cultural and linguistic differences between Chinese and English,
the student needs the culture for support. In this regard, it must not be forgotten that Chinese is
one of the most difficult languages for native English speakers. The reasons include: (1) tones,
(2) the enormous size of the vocabulary (due to the length and breadth of Chinese history and
culture), (3) the great amount of linguistic and cultural variation across the Chinese speech area,
(4) a paucity of linguistic and cultural cognates, (5) the large number of characters making up
the writing system, (6) complexity of the characters, and (7) lexical and grammatical differences
between speech and writing.

96
 Learning Chinese in China 97

However, simply living in China will almost certainly not result in the ac-
quisition of SD-level language skills. Everyone is familiar with the example
of expatriates who have lived in a country five, ten, twenty, or more years
but possess little or no real proficiency in the language. Then there are other
longtime foreign residents who can manage daily affairs well enough and may
think of themselves as possessing “near-native” proficiency but actually stick to
the simplest vocabulary and grammar and, even then, produce few utterances
that are not without a major or minor error. It is the thesis of this chapter that, to
achieve SD-level proficiency in Chinese, students require a combination of
long-term immersion in Chinese culture with an organized training program
that systematically pushes them up the proficiency ladder, a thesis that finds
resonance in several chapters of this volume (e.g., Chapter 3).

Current practices in teaching SD-level Chinese

The goal of this chapter is to identify and discuss the variables in learning and
teaching Chinese at the SD level as they are reflected through current practice
at a number of representative programs in China and Taiwan. In particular, an
attempt is made to determine how these variables differ from just doing more
of the same kind of learning and teaching that is done at the lower levels.

Description of the students

Student backgrounds
Based on the experience of many program directors and instructors, desirable
qualifications for students aiming for the SD level include (1) advanced pro-
ficiency in Chinese at a solid Speaking Level 3 / Reading Level 3 (S-3/R-3) or
higher, with oral and written skills as evenly balanced as possible; (2) evidence
of strong language aptitude through prior successful, rapid learning of Chinese;
(3) at least one year’s residence in a Chinese-speaking region in daily contact
with members of Chinese society; (4) substantial knowledge of Chinese cul-
ture and society; (5) in-depth knowledge of the student’s field of specialization;
(6) detailed understanding of the student’s future job needs; (7) strong motiva-
tion for continuing the study of Chinese; (8) outgoing personality; (9) single
status (or dependents who also speak Chinese); and (10) youth.4 The more of
these criteria a candidate for SD-level training meets, the greater the likelihood
of success.
The bulk of the field’s experience in bringing students to the SD level in
Chinese lies in teaching native speakers of English who began their study of
4 While specialists in language acquisition are still divided about whether there is a “critical period”
for language learning, it is the experience of all the program directors and instructors with whom
I spoke that, with rare exceptions, younger adults learn faster and better than older ones.
98 Cornelius C. Kubler

Chinese as adults. In recent years, increasing numbers of “heritage” speakers,

i.e., Chinese-Americans who are native or semi-native speakers of Mandarin
or other Chinese dialects, have been enrolling in university language classes.
While these students often bring considerable strengths to their studies, some
of them – having acquired all or most of what they know informally in a limited
range of situations and registers – may find it difficult to add to their existing
linguistic inventory the higher-level, more formal vocabulary and grammar
associated with SD-level proficiency.
There are also non-native speakers of Chinese who may have learned and used
Chinese informally in-country over a long period of time. Such speakers may be
quite confident of their ability to use Chinese; they think they are very fluent but
typically produce many fossilized errors and are limited in precision of vocabu-
lary and range of topics (Higgs and Clifford [1982]; Vigil and Oller [1976]). In
not a few cases, such speakers are at best S-2+, often with substantially lower
reading and writing ability. These students are particularly difficult to bring to
higher levels because they often feel their Chinese is perfectly adequate.
For both types of nontraditional learners described above, the first steps
must include (1) convincing the student that accuracy and precision do matter;
(2) convincing the student that educated Chinese do employ high-level, formal
vocabulary and grammar on those occasions calling for them; (3) pointing out
the student’s errors and weaknesses; and (4) teaching effective study skills.

Student needs
Students aiming for the SD level in Chinese inevitably possess different strengths
and weaknesses and have a variety of learning needs, including academic (e.g.,
studying at a Chinese university or conducting research in China) and pro-
fessional (e.g., business, diplomacy, missionary work, or teaching of Chinese
as a foreign language). As noted by other authors in this volume (see Byrnes
[Chapter 3], Angelelli and Degueldre, and Shekhtman et al.), in order to teach
students at this level effectively it is important to conduct a comprehensive as-
sessment of each student’s linguistic strengths and weaknesses on entrance into
the program, as well as gaining a detailed understanding of the student’s future
language-related needs. This information should be communicated clearly to
all of the student’s instructors so they may design as relevant a curriculum as
possible.

Description of the programs

A dozen major Chinese language programs in China and Taiwan that offer
training through the SD level are described below. There are others besides
those mentioned here, but these are the best-known and most representative.
Unless a specific duration for the course of studies at a particular program
 Learning Chinese in China 99

is stated, it can be assumed that the program is for varying lengths of time
depending on factors such as the learner’s proficiency level on entrance into the
program, the learner’s rate of progress, and the amount of time the learner has
available for training.

Associated Colleges in China (ACC)

ACC was founded by a consortium of American liberal arts colleges in 1996
in Beijing, where it operates at Capital University of Economics and Business.
Distinguishing features of the ACC program include a language pledge, lan-
guage practicum, Chinese host families, and a tightly organized schedule of
extremely rigorous drill and exercise classes.
The ACC curriculum includes four hours of classes daily: (1) large-group
lecture of about ten students, (2) small-group drill of five students, (3) two-
person conversation class, (4) tutorial, and (5) independent study. Self-study is
a very important component of the curriculum, with students expected to spend
at least five to six hours every day in preparation and review. Course content
for the advanced curriculum includes conversation, broadcast media, films,
newspaper and magazine readings and discussion, modern Chinese literature,
readings in history and culture, and Classical Chinese.
Each week students participate in 2–4 hours of language practicum, where
they are assigned projects that require them to use Chinese with local citi-
zens. The formats include on-site visits, interviews, surveys, and debates. Upon
completion of a project, students make an oral presentation to their classmates
and instructors and submit a written report. Comments from numerous US-
based faculty who have visited the program as well as several years’ worth of
student evaluations attest to the fact that ACC is very effective in raising stu-
dents’ proficiency in formal speech and reading. One weakness, according to
these faculty and the students themselves, is that the large amount of time spent
in the classroom and in self-study limits students’ opportunities for informal
use of Chinese outside of the classroom, with the result that many students are
not as fluent in informal Chinese as they should be.

American Institute in Taiwan (AIT)

AIT’s Chinese Language and Area Studies School is an Advanced-level
Chinese language program in Taipei operated for the Foreign Service Insti-
tute, US Department of State. Its students are US diplomats and other gov-
ernment personnel who need to attain professional levels of Chinese language
proficiency. The majority of students at AIT enter with proficiency ratings of
S-2/R-2 and hope to attain S-3/R-3 within a training period of eleven months.
However, each year a small number of students who have previously achieved
S-3/R-3 enroll for a special “Beyond Three” program that is designed to help
students progress toward S-4/R-4.
100 Cornelius C. Kubler

A typical daily class schedule for students in the AIT “Beyond Three” pro-
gram consists of three hours in small groups of two or three students plus two
hours of tutorials. Class content consists largely of content-based instruction
involving various aspects of Chinese culture (e.g., geography, history, litera-
ture) and Language for Special Purposes (e.g., politics, economics, agriculture).
All students are encouraged to work on public speaking and Classical Chinese.
Some students receive training in written translation (Chinese to English) and
oral interpretation (Chinese to English and English to Chinese), while others
take special classes in comprehension of accented Mandarin and reading of
materials written in cursive script.
An important part of the training at AIT takes place outside of the classroom.
Students are required to involve themselves in community-based activities –
for example, delivering a series of lectures in their field at a local university
or interviewing candidates in a local election and writing a report on their
observations. Such activities are selected from students’ areas of professional
expertise and are designed to challenge them linguistically.
One major goal of the AIT program is to broaden the range of topics about
which students feel comfortable speaking, since an important difference be-
tween Levels 3 and 4 is breadth in discussing higher-level topics. While Level 3
students typically are proficient in only one fairly narrow field, students aspiring
to Level 4 must be able to discuss intelligently a wide variety of fields. There
is also considerably greater emphasis on accuracy than at the lower levels;
merely attaining the goal of successful communication is no longer considered
sufficient. Consequently, much time and effort are devoted to correcting minor
grammatical and word-choice errors. Another requirement is that students be
able to adjust their speech for register, depending on their interlocutor and the
occasion. Expanding students’ lexical and syntactic repertoires is also critically
important. One of the instructors’ most important tasks is encouraging students
to employ ever more sophisticated vocabulary and grammar in their speech.
According to the AIT Principal, a student’s likelihood of attaining Level 4
in the skill of speaking and the skill of reading in eleven months depends
on a number of factors including level and breadth of Chinese proficiency on
entrance, language aptitude, and, of course, diligence. All “Beyond Three”
students, but in particular those who enter with less than a solid 3 in any skill,
are urged to attend Middlebury College’s Chinese Summer School for two
months of review and consolidation prior to arriving in Taipei. Nevertheless,
not a few students in the AIT “Beyond Three” program conclude their period of
training with a rating of 4 in only one of the two skills.

Beijing Language and Culture University (BLCU)

Founded in 1962, BLCU is China’s premier institution for teaching Chinese
language and culture to foreign students. With a faculty of about 700 and a
 Learning Chinese in China 101

student body of over 3,000, BLCU has graduated more than 20,000 foreign
students over the last thirty-eight years. BLCU offers foreign students courses
of all lengths and at all levels, ranging from beginning courses of several weeks’
duration to a comprehensive four-year curriculum that leads to a bachelor’s
degree in Chinese. The latter is divided by year and semester into required and
optional courses.
In the third and fourth years of the four-year curriculum, which correspond
roughly to the SD level, the required courses include listening comprehension,
radio plays, advanced conversation, public speaking, newspaper and magazine
reading, Chinese culture, Chinese society, Chinese history, business Chinese,
composition, translation/interpreting, modern Chinese literature, Classical
Chinese, and a practicum in Chinese society for which students are required to
keep a diary and prepare both an oral presentation and a lengthy written report.
Also required are special courses in vocabulary expansion that involve inten-
sive practice of synonyms and antonyms, as well as courses in speed reading.
The optional courses for third- and fourth-year students are art, calligraphy,
folk customs, economics, linguistics, grammar, stylistics, history of Chinese–
foreign cross-cultural exchange, “Chinese national sentiment,” and Chinese
word processing. While a large variety of courses is offered, all classes have
twenty or more students, no opportunity for tutorial or small-group training
being available.

CET/Beijing (CET/B)
This study-abroad program was founded in Beijing in 1982 and is now located at
Beijing Institute of Education. Each year well over 100 students from a variety
of different American colleges attend CET/B. The majority are at the beginning
or intermediate levels, but there are also a small number of advanced students.
For the advanced students at CET/B, the daily schedule consists of four
hours of classes in small groups of 2–4 students. The curriculum includes
“7-minute mini-talks” on topics related to students’ needs and interests, newspa-
per reading and discussion, modern Chinese literature, Chinese history, business
Chinese, composition, and Classical Chinese.
A special feature of CET/B is a course on Chinese society where speakers
from all walks of life are invited to address students about their life expe-
riences, followed by questions and discussion. There is also a Chinese lan-
guage and culture practicum where students travel to various sites of interest in
Chinese society, interview Chinese people they meet, and then return to class to
report – orally and in writing – on their observations. In cooperation with Boston
University, CET/B also runs a program of internships at various Chinese and
foreign enterprises that require the use of Chinese.
Another special feature of CET/B is that every student has the option of
requesting a Chinese roommate, who not only lives with the student but also
102 Cornelius C. Kubler

serves as tutor for some courses and participates in cultural excursions in and
beyond Beijing. Some of the American students speak Chinese with their room-
mates while others tend to speak in English. Nevertheless, many students have
commented that the roommate option is one of the strongest features of the
CET/B program.

CET/Harbin (CET/H)
The CET/H program was founded at the Harbin Institute of Technology in
Harbin in 1988. Unlike CET/B, CET/H was designed specifically for high-
intermediate and advanced students, so all students are required to have Chinese
roommates and take a language pledge. Locating a program for advanced stu-
dents in a relatively remote city like Harbin is advantageous for a number of
reasons, including the fact that there are far fewer foreigners and Western dis-
tractions and that local Chinese are often more eager to make contact with those
foreigners present than the somewhat blasé residents of the capital city, Beijing.
The CET/H advanced curriculum consists of four hours of classes per day,
five days a week. The first two hours are in small groups, studying subjects
such as TV news, newspaper reading and discussion, modern Chinese literature,
Classical Chinese, and composition. The third hour is a special “one-on-two”
drill class, while the fourth hour is a tutorial.
The “one-on-two drill class,” consisting of one instructor and two students,
is designed to bring advanced students to a higher level by identifying and
remedying, through the use of special drills and exercises, fossilized errors
in pronunciation, including tones and sentence intonation. The tutorial, which
involves intensive study of a topic chosen by students in consultation with CET
and their home institutions, is designed to use students’ academic or professional
interests as a vehicle for enhancing their linguistic skills.
Instructors for the tutorials are carefully chosen from area universities or
the local community for their content expertise. Besides studying with their
instructors, students collect material through bibliographic research in libraries
and through interviews, site visits, and surveys. The tutorials culminate in sub-
stantial written reports, which go through a series of drafts and rewrites, as
well as several in-progress and final oral presentations before classmates and
faculty. Recent tutorial topics have included environmental pollution, indus-
trial policy, joint ventures, the Cultural Revolution, Chinese medicine, regional
cooking, ethnic minorities, the role of women in society, and China’s relations
with various foreign countries.

Foreign Service Institute (FSI/B)

FSI is the US Department of State’s facility for training diplomats and other
government personnel in language, area, and professional studies. FSI’s stan-
dard Chinese language curriculum, designed to help foreign-service officers
 Learning Chinese in China 103

attain S-3/R-3, comprises two years of full-time, intensive training: the first
year in Washington, where the goal is to attain S-2/R-2 within ten months; and
the second year at AIT (see above), where the goal is to progress from S-2/R-2
to S-3/R-3 within eleven months. A much smaller number of officers has the
opportunity to receive a third year of training either at AIT or at a “Beyond
Three” program in Beijing (FSI/B).
FSI/B was founded in Beijing in the mid l990s and accepts each year a small
number of officers who have previously achieved S-3/R-3, have already served
at least one tour at a Chinese-speaking post, and have the desire and professional
need to attain high levels of proficiency in Chinese. While the unofficial goal
is to reach S-4/R-4 after about one year of training, the program is termed
“Beyond Three” in recognition of the fact that, as different individuals progress
to higher levels of proficiency, it becomes increasingly difficult to predict their
rate of progress and highest potential level.
As at AIT, students are sometimes sent to summer school at Middlebury
College for refresher training, so they may begin work on high-level materials
immediately on arrival in Beijing. A resident FSI language-training specialist in
Beijing coordinates each student’s curriculum, many of the classes being taught
at CET/B. Students at FSI/B generally take four tutorials daily as follows:
(1) language course designed to strengthen the student’s formal vocabulary and
grammar; (2) language course designed to correct fossilized errors; (3) content
course involving cultural literacy (Hirsch [1987]); and (4) content course in the
student’s field of specialization. While the two language courses are taught by
professional language teachers, the content courses are taught by instructors
with expertise in those areas.
Teaching activities include conversation, reading and discussion, role plays,
and frequent short, prepared talks by students on a variety of topics, which
instructors go over with a fine-toothed comb. As at AIT, some attention is given
to strengthening students’ ability in translation and interpretation. Students
are encouraged to study Classical Chinese for its usefulness in raising students’
levels. They are also urged to establish contacts in local society and to participate
in university seminars or training sessions at local firms. Even though FSI/B
is itself an in-country program, off-site activities lasting from a few days to
a week or more are held at various locations in China so as to offer students
opportunities for complete immersion.5
5 FSI also offers “Beyond Three” courses in French and Russian. The curricula for both are to
a large extent content-based, with modules on culture, geography, the media, and language for
special purposes. In consultation with their instructors, students choose thematic topics, which
form the basis for many of the classroom activities and assignments. Like the “Beyond Three”
courses at AIT and FSI/B, the French and Russian courses require a minimum of S-3/R-3 for
enrollment and are designed to graduate students at approximately S-4/R-4. Unlike the Chinese
courses, the French and Russian courses are only about six months in duration and are conducted
at FSI/Washington.
104 Cornelius C. Kubler

Hopkins-Nanjing Center for Chinese and American Studies (HNC)

HNC was founded in 1986 in Nanjing by the Johns Hopkins University and
Nanjing University. Unlike most of the other programs discussed here, HNC is
primarily content-based, offering a one-year program of graduate-level courses
in Chinese history, sociology, culture, economics, and international relations.
The faculty at HNC consists mostly of professors from Nanjing University;
the students number approximately fifty international (mostly American) stu-
dents and fifty Chinese students, all of whom are pursuing advanced degrees
or preparing for careers in the public or private sectors. Although the interna-
tional and Chinese students usually take different classes, they are paired as
roommates and participate in joint educational and social activities.
All of the international students’ classes, reading assignments, papers, and
exams are in Chinese. The regular program consists of three content courses
per semester, for which class size is approximately 15–30 students. Supplemen-
tary language courses, such as academic writing, are available on an optional
basis to help students develop skills needed to succeed in their content classes.
In addition, students may take for credit one course each semester at Nanjing
University. More recently, an intermediate-level program has been created for
students in Chinese studies who require additional language instruction to reach
the level required for the regular program. Students in this track, which is offered
only in the fall, take two intensive language courses and one specially designed
content course, with the goal of being ready to join the regular program by the
spring semester.
Titles of some recent courses at HNC are “History of the PRC”;
“Chinese History: 1911–1949”; “Mao Zedong and the Chinese Revolution”;
“History of the Cultural Revolution”; “Advanced Topics on Hong Kong, Macao,
and Taiwan”; “Confucianism, Daoism, Buddhism, and Chinese Traditional
Culture”; “Social and Intellectual Trends in Modern China”; “China in Search of
a New Culture”; “Social Issues in Contemporary China”; “Chinese Women’s
Issues”; “International Relations Since the Second World War”; “China–US
Relations in the Twentieth Century”; “Contemporary Chinese Foreign Policy”;
“The Contemporary Chinese Economy”; “China’s Financial Reforms”;
“Reforms in China’s State Enterprise System”; “Foreign Investment in China”;
and “Trade Between China and Western Countries.”
The more successful professors at HNC have adapted their teaching to the
needs of the international students in a number of ways. For example, they
may: (1) adopt a more engaging, student-centered teaching style that allows for
questions and discussion; (2) provide students a detailed course syllabus at the
beginning of the term, a concession that does not reflect common practice at
Chinese universities; (3) prepare written questions for students to think about as
they prepare the day’s reading assignment; (4) put an outline of the day’s lesson
 Learning Chinese in China 105

on the blackboard for students’ reference during the lecture portion of the class;
(5) write key words and phrases on the blackboard; (6) ask rhetorical questions
and then proceed to answer them; (7) ask individual students questions to con-
firm comprehension; (8) use a fairly repetitive speaking style; (9) paraphrase
difficult or rare terms; (10) translate specialized terms into English; (11) hand
out supplementary lists of specialized terms; (12) avoid rare words and expres-
sions; and/or (13) give students lists of topics from which final exam questions
will be drawn.
Although classes at HNC are easier than regular Chinese university classes,
numerous challenges remain for the international students. These include the
following: (1) the pedagogical style of some professors is very teacher-centered,
with long lectures and little discussion; (2) the Mandarin spoken by some pro-
fessors has a regional accent; (3) some professors speak very fast, unclearly,
or in a low voice; (4) the characters some professors write on the blackboard
are very cursive; (5) some students are still unable to read quickly with good
comprehension; (6) many students lack the ability to write well within rea-
sonable time limits; and (7) a number of students possess insufficient content
background in the subjects being studied.
HNC is the most comprehensive and successful content-based program in
Chinese for non-native learners. Nevertheless, a number of challenges remain.
Chief among these is how to raise students’ proficiency levels in speaking. While
listening-comprehension, reading, and writing ability usually increase markedly
at HNC, speaking – in particular, the appropriate use of specialized terminology,
aphorisms, and higher-level grammar – often does not. The problem is that there
is insufficient opportunity for students to use the new words and structures to
which they have been exposed in their own speech and receive corrections and
guidance.
Another weakness often cited on student evaluations is that the language
courses, which are taught as group classes of about eight students, fail to address
the individual needs of students. Furthermore, the language courses need to be
better linked to the content courses. Another concern is how to increase the
amount of Chinese spoken by international students, since they normally speak
to each other in English and are not required to speak in Chinese to their Chinese
roommates. Related to this is the challenge of finding better ways to bring the
international and Chinese students into greater contact.
Yet another problem is that although there is no doubt the adjustments made
for the international students facilitate their learning at the initial stage, these
same adjustments may eventually disadvantage students by sheltering them
excessively. Finally, students at HNC have criticized some faculty members
for catering in their teaching to the perceived interests of the foreign students,
resulting in a skewed view of Chinese culture and society.
106 Cornelius C. Kubler

International Chinese Language Program at National

Taiwan University (ICLP)
Founded by a consortium of American universities as the Inter-University
Program for Chinese Language Studies in Taipei (IUP) in 1963, this program,
located on the campus of National Taiwan University, has over the last four
decades trained many of the current US academic and professional leaders
dealing with China. Although it was reorganized in 1997 as ICLP, when IUP
moved to Beijing (see below), the essence of the program remained the same
as before.
ICLP offers intermediate and advanced intensive ten-month training pro-
grams that enroll 35–50 students per year. The goal of the curriculum is to
enable students to achieve broad, independent competence in spoken and writ-
ten Chinese for academic or professional purposes. Both modern and Classical
Chinese are taught. Although classes are divided into speaking and reading
classes, even in reading classes most of the actual classwork is oral in nature,
consisting of questions, discussion, and exercises based on what students have
read and prepared outside of class.
At ICLP there are four hours of classes daily, consisting of a mixture of
small-group classes of 2–4 students and tutorials. A substantial amount of class
preparation and self-study is expected. In the small-group classes, there are
intensive exercises designed to encourage students to use higher-level, more
formal grammar and vocabulary in their speech. For example, the instructor
may write a number of complex grammatical patterns on the board and ask
students to answer questions about their reading lesson, using those patterns.
In the tutorials, student and instructor discuss course material on a one-to-
one basis, addressing individual questions and targeting specific areas needing
improvement. Students may also audit classes at National Taiwan University.

Inter-University Program for Chinese Language

Studies at Tsinghua University (IUP)
The IUP, administered by the University of California at Berkeley and located
on the campus of Tsinghua University in Beijing, was designed primarily for
English-speaking graduate students who need to achieve high-level, broad com-
petency in spoken and written Chinese for academic purposes. It is a continu-
ation in Beijing of the former Inter-University Program for Chinese Language
Studies in Taipei.
Classes at IUP, which extend over a nine-month academic year, typically
consist of three hours per day of small-group classes of 3–4 students and
one hour of tutorial. There are basically two types of classes: conversation
classes and reading/discussion classes. Even in the latter, the main classroom
activity is speech, based on the conviction that most character learning and
reading practice should be done out of class. Besides the twenty hours a week in
 Learning Chinese in China 107

class, students are expected to spend an even larger amount of time in prepara-
tion and self-study.
The majority of IUP’s advanced materials are developed in-house out of raw
materials from the Chinese media and sources such as newspapers, magazines,
television, film, academic writings, modern Chinese literature, law and business,
public speaking, composition, and Classical Chinese. The curriculum can be
adjusted, depending on individual students’ interests and career plans. A guiding
principle throughout is to foster students’ ability to become independent, self-
reliant learners and users of Chinese.
IUP maintains a language pledge on the premises. Housing is in dormitories
for foreign students. Although IUP has made attempts to obtain permission to
house students in dormitories with Chinese students, these efforts have not yet
been successful.

Mandarin Training Center at National Taiwan

Normal University (MTC)
The MTC was established in 1956 as an extension of National Taiwan Normal
University. It is Taiwan’s largest Chinese language-training program, with about
150 instructors, over 1,000 students, and more than 32,000 alumni throughout
the world.
The majority of classes offered at the MTC are at the beginning and inter-
mediate levels, but advanced training is available to qualified students. The
standard curriculum is two hours per day, ten hours per week. Most classes are
group classes of 7–10 students, though advanced students are eligible for one
or two additional hours of tutorial each day.
The MTC advanced curriculum consists of radio and TV news, films, news-
paper and magazine reading and discussion, modern Chinese literature, and
Classical Chinese. Advanced students also frequently study the Taiwan Min-
istry of Education’s junior high and high school Chinese language, history, and
social studies textbooks.

Taipei Language Institute (TLI)

Founded in Taipei in 1955 to train American missionaries to the SD level in
Mandarin and Taiwanese, TLI has since expanded to serve increasing numbers
of non-missionary students from all over the world, in particular diplomatic
and business personnel assigned to Taiwan, their family members, and foreign
university students. There are currently over 1,000 students at TLI’s five branch
schools in Taiwan.
Courses at TLI, which may be full-time or part-time, typically consist of
a combination of small-group classes of 2–6 students and tutorials. A rather
rigorous audiolingual method is employed, especially at the beginning and
intermediate levels. TLI has compiled many of its own materials but, beginning
108 Cornelius C. Kubler

with the high-intermediate level, students are given the freedom to design their
own curriculum based on current or anticipated job needs.
Classroom activities at TLI include drill, exercises, discussion, debates, and
job simulations of all kinds. Missionary students at the upper levels read the
Bible and other religious literature, practice delivering sermons, and role-play
pastoral visits. Non-missionary students study newspapers, television news,
modern Chinese literature, Classical Chinese, documentary Chinese, business
Chinese, epistolary Chinese, and writing for academic purposes. With the in-
creased democratization and liberalization of Taiwan, it is now possible to study
mainland Chinese materials at TLI, even those printed in simplified characters.

US/China Links (USCL)

Founded in Qingdao in 1998, USCL is a training and internship program for
Americans who plan, or have recently embarked on, careers in business or gov-
ernment involving China. Staffed and coordinated jointly by the Ohio State
University and Qingdao Ocean University, this program is designed to provide
students with the knowledge and skills necessary to sustain successful interac-
tion within a Chinese context. Priority for admission is given to those applicants
who possess intermediate to advanced proficiency in Mandarin. The curriculum
consists of two months of study at the Cultural Training Institute at Qingdao
Ocean University followed by a four-month internship.
The Cultural Training Institute is designed to impart to students an under-
standing of Chinese cultural expectations. Courses and activities are conducted
largely in Chinese with professors, tutors, and other resources constantly ac-
cessible. The curriculum includes six components: (1) language clinic with
individualized training on how to present oneself to a Chinese audience and
how to manage one’s learning of language and culture in China; (2) course
on Chinese society and culture with training in techniques of cultural observa-
tion; (3) course on relationship-building in Chinese culture with performance-
oriented exercises; (4) course on Chinese etiquette with practical training in
how to conduct oneself in formal situations such as meetings, negotiations, and
banquets; (5) course on Chinese corporate culture; and (6) practicum involving
short-term participation in a local enterprise so students may practice imple-
menting the tactics and strategies presented in their courses prior to embarking
on their internships.
The internships, which may be arranged at joint ventures, national and in-
ternational businesses, provincial and township enterprises, and development
organizations are assigned according to participants’ interests and abilities.
Recent internships have been arranged at China Central Television, Jinjiang
Hotel, Motorola (China), Sichuan provincial government, Tsingtao Beer Co.,
and Yantai Port Authority. Interns perform a variety of language-related jobs
such as planning and implementing marketing campaigns for products, training
service staff, and editing and translating English-language materials.
 Learning Chinese in China 109

Curricular features of the programs

In developing language skills in Chinese at the SD level there is much, of
course, that is still the same as at the lower levels. Students must still learn new
grammar, new vocabulary, and new characters, and they still require guidance
and correction by an instructor. However, there are also numerous differences
from the lower levels.
Table 5.1 compares the occurrence of twenty-three curricular features that
are characteristic of the SD level in the Chinese language programs discussed
in the previous section. These features have been grouped into those that are
related to training in spoken Chinese, those that are related to training in written
Chinese, and those that involve curricular structure.

Spoken Chinese
Formal vocabulary and grammar
In Chinese there are tremendous differences in vocabulary and grammar be-
tween everyday colloquial language, as used by intimate friends chatting in a
pub, and formal language, as used by educated Chinese in an academic lecture
or political debate. At Level 4, students must be able not only to understand but
also to use with a high degree of fluency the formal vocabulary and grammar
of Chinese. Furthermore, they must be able to adjust their speech for register
depending on their interlocutor and the occasion, and to organize their discourse
using appropriate rhetorical devices such as verbal underlining, circumlocution,
and transitions.

Radio, television, films

Radio, television, and films involve primarily non-interactive listening com-
prehension, though they can indirectly contribute to improvement in speaking.
Listening comprehension of radio, TV, and films is difficult because, unlike
conversation, there is neither the opportunity for the listener to negotiate the
meaning of what he or she hears nor the possibility of managing the direction
or speed of the communication.

Error correction
In a number of the programs described in this chapter, there are special classes
designed to correct learners’ fossilized errors. The reason for such error cor-
rection is that accuracy and precision are very important at the SD level. Major
errors in grammar should no longer occur, but there may well remain minor
errors in grammar and word choice.
One useful way to approach error correction is via the “five-minute lecture”
(Kubler [1985]), where students prepare a brief talk on an assigned topic which
the teacher records and then goes over with a fine-toothed comb, identifying
and correcting all errors in pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary. Student
110 Cornelius C. Kubler

Table 5.1

FEATURE/PROGRAM ACC AIT BLCU CET/B CET/H FSI/B HNC ICLP IUP MTC TLI USCL

(Spoken Chinese)

Formal vocabulary and grammar + + + (+) (+) + (+) + + (+) (+) (+)

Radio, TV, films + + + + + + + + (+) (+)

Error correction + + + (+) (+)

Word study + + +

Accented Mandarin (+)

Public speaking + + (+) + + (+)

Interpreting (+) + (+)

Language for Special Purposes + (+) (+) (+) + + + + (+) + +

(Written Chinese)

Newspapers and magazines + + + + + + + + + +

Modern Chinese literature + + + + + + + + + +

Classical Chinese + + + + + + + + + +

Cursive script (+)

Composition + + + + + (+) (+) (+) +

Translation (+) + (+)

Language for Special Purposes + (+) (+) (+) + + + + (+) + +

(Curricular structure)

Tutorials + + + + + + + + +

Content courses (+) + + + + + + + (+) (+) +

Practicum + + + + + + +

Internship + +

Language pledge + + (+) (+)

Chinese roommates (+) + (+)

Instructors with content expertise + + + + + + + + +

Option for university classes (+) + (+) + + +

A plus mark + indicates that a given feature is a major feature of the program s curriculum. A plus mark in parentheses (+) indicates that a given feature at
least occasionally applies to the program, but to a lesser degree than those features indicated by a plus mark without parentheses.

and instructor then drill and practice the corrections, after which the student
redelivers the talk.

Word study
At the beginning and intermediate levels of Chinese study, grammar patterns
are considered primary and vocabulary secondary since vocabulary can always
be looked up and “plugged into” the patterns as needed. At the lower levels,
 Learning Chinese in China 111

paraphrasing is encouraged, the main goal being to get one’s general meaning
across. However, as one progresses toward the SD level, the individual words
themselves gain in importance. At the superior level, the learner must know
the exact meaning and usage of words – both common and rare, as well as
synonyms and antonyms. For this reason, it is important to spend time on word
study and vocabulary expansion, e.g., principles of word formation, common
abbreviations, and aphorisms. Just as knowledge of Greek and Latin roots can
help a reader of English understand unfamiliar English vocabulary, so can fa-
miliarity with Classical Chinese help a reader of Modern Chinese understand
unfamiliar words composed of Classical Chinese roots.

Accented Mandarin
While standard Chinese – the national language, based on Beijing Mandarin –
is now used widely throughout China, it is often spoken with pronunciation,
grammar, and vocabulary that differ markedly from the speech of Beijing. This
is one major reason why American learners of Chinese, who are typically ex-
posed only to the standard Mandarin of their teachers, frequently encounter
difficulties in listening comprehension when in China. Students aiming for the
SD level should, like any educated Chinese speaker, be able to understand the
gist of speech in any of the major regional varieties of standard Chinese such
as Shandong Mandarin, Sichuan Mandarin, Shanghai Mandarin, Guangdong
Mandarin, or Taiwan Mandarin.6 Moreover, the ability to identify a speaker’s
place of origin from listening to her or his speech can be both useful and im-
pressive. Comprehension of accented Mandarin and familiarity with the char-
acteristics and distribution of the Chinese dialects is best attained through a
combination of formal training in the classroom – including explanation and
practice with tape recordings or live speakers – and informal experience living
and traveling in China.

Public speaking
Fully half of the programs discussed in this chapter include training in public
speaking in their SD-level curricula. The preparation and delivery of speeches
to Chinese audiences can be a very useful experience for the non-native learner.
An approach similar to the “five-minute lecture” discussed earlier can also be
helpful. All foreigners who have spent time in China are familiar with commonly
posed requests, such as “Please introduce yourself,” “Tell us about your family,”
“Tell us about your work,” etc. At a higher level, one could add such questions
as: “Why didn’t the USA allow China to join the World Trade Organization?”;
“Why does the USA meddle in Tibet and Taiwan?”; “How do you apply for a
6 The ILR descriptors contain, as part of the definition of Level 4, the following phrase: “can
understand native speakers of the standard and other major dialects in essentially all face-to-face
interaction.”
112 Cornelius C. Kubler

visa to the USA?” etc. Much like the “islands” in the Shekhtman Method of
Communicative Teaching (cf. Chapter 6), it can be most useful, reassuring, and
impressive for non-natives to have at their command two or three dozen “canned
mini-speeches” on likely topics that can be produced as needed, adjusted for
the occasion.

Interpreting
At the lower levels frequent reference to English was avoided for obvious
reasons. However, at the SD level, some training in interpreting – both Chinese–
English and English–Chinese – is needed, since it is clear that many students
will have a need to interpret and will be expected to interpret well. The ILR
description for S-4 states: “Can serve as an informal interpreter in a range of
unpredictable circumstances.” Interpreting is not an easy skill to learn since,
unlike when communicating one’s own ideas, as an interpreter or translator one
is obligated to convey the meaning of the original as precisely as possible. It is
noteworthy that, of the programs discussed here, only AIT, FSI/B, and BLCU
provide training in interpreting. (For a closer look at training in interpreting
skills at Level 4, see Chapter 4 of this volume.)

Language for Special Purposes (LSP)

LSP can be defined as a specific variant of content-based instruction that devel-
ops language skills per se, is usually taught by foreign-language educators, and
tailors the topics of language courses to those needed for work by enrolled pro-
fessionals (Leaver and Bilstein [2000]). Here, LSP is taken to mean job-related
training in spoken Chinese, for example, preaching a sermon or delivering a
diplomatic démarche. In addition to its primary purpose of teaching specialized
language, content-based, job-related language training can also serve to enhance
student motivation and increase interest and involvement in the language course.

Written Chinese
Newspapers and magazines
Even though the level of most journalistic Chinese is more closely associated
with Level 3 than with Level 4, it is still important for learners aiming for the
SD level to continue reading widely in newspapers and magazines. At the SD
level, the goal should be rapid reading of difficult materials (such as editorials,
commentaries, and book reviews) with nearly perfect comprehension.

Modern Chinese literature

Due to the size of the Chinese vocabulary as well as variation in style ranging
from relatively colloquial to very literary, modern Chinese literature is consid-
erably more difficult for the foreign reader than newspaper Chinese. For both
 Learning Chinese in China 113

linguistic and cultural reasons, students aiming for the SD level should read as
widely as possible in modern Chinese literature from the formative period of
the 1930s to today.

Classical Chinese
At most of the programs discussed here, students aiming for the SD level study
Classical Chinese. For the foreign student studying Mandarin, learning Classical
Chinese is like learning “a foreign language within a foreign language” and
could be compared to studying Latin along with Italian, or learning Old Norse
in conjunction with Norwegian. Although challenging, acquiring an elementary
knowledge of Classical Chinese is essential for two reasons: (1) cultural literacy
in Chinese requires familiarity with Classical Chinese, which was the standard
written language of China from the fifth century BC until the 1920s and is the
language in which the great bulk of China’s literature, history, and philosophy
was written; and (2) Classical Chinese is very useful for raising one’s proficiency
in Modern Chinese since both formal spoken and, especially, formal written
Chinese have been heavily influenced by it (e.g., aphorisms, formal speeches,
newspaper editorials, instruction manuals, road signs). Finally, some familiarity
with Classical Chinese is useful for the non-native in gaining credibility in
Chinese society; nothing impresses native speakers more than a foreigner who
can understand – or, even better, recite from memory – a few verses of Tang
poetry or some quotations from Confucius!

Cursive script
When handwritten by educated adults, many of the individual strokes of Chi-
nese characters are connected, there being dozens of conventional abbreviations
for whole characters or character components. Students at the SD level in any
language should be able to understand the general meaning of notes and letters
written in reasonably legible cursive script. The ILR requirement for R-4, for
example, states that the examinee “can read reasonably legible handwriting
without difficulty.” Very few foreign students of Chinese currently receive for-
mal training in reading cursive script, yet it is often a major problem for them
in Chinese society. (American students studying at Chinese universities have
frequently related to the author their difficulties in trying to decipher the notes
their professors scribble hastily on the blackboard, and US consular officers
serving in China have complained that their training in Chinese often does not
allow them to make sense of handwritten reference letters or politically sensi-
tive notes which they may not wish to hand to their local Chinese assistants for
translation.) The attitude of most Chinese language-instructors appears to be that
students will gradually “pick up” the ability to recognize cursive script through
exposure to Chinese society, but experience has demonstrated that an analytical
114 Cornelius C. Kubler

approach during the training program can make later on-the-job progress much
more efficient.7

Composition
Composition, which is a difficult skill to learn in any language, is especially
difficult in the case of Chinese, due to the difficulty of writing the characters
and the complexity and degree of divergence from spoken Chinese of Chinese
literary conventions. Consequently, the development of a high level of profi-
ciency in composition – such as the ability to compose business letters, formal
reports, and essays – takes very much time. Moreover, the process can be de-
moralizing for students because it is difficult for them to avoid making many
errors. Most teachers have found that it is more effective to assign frequent
short papers at first, asking students to turn in early drafts and providing them
with opportunities to incorporate the teacher’s corrections, i.e., to teach com-
position as process writing. Some composition may also be done on computer,
as is being done with increasing frequency in China itself. This approach can
speed up the composition process by allowing learners to focus on composition
per se rather than on the production of individual characters which is, after all,
the most time-consuming factor in traditional handwritten composition. In any
case, at the SD level, more should be done with composition than typically has
been done before, both for its utility for the non-native living in Chinese culture
and for the significant payoff in further raising reading proficiency.

Translation
At the lower levels of proficiency, most instructors purposely avoid large
amounts of translation since it is important to study Chinese on its own terms
without constant reference to English. However, at the SD level, some training
in translation is appropriate, since many students will have occasion to prepare
written translations from Chinese into English for the benefit of others.

Language for Special Purposes

Language training at the SD level typically includes a component in LSP (see
above definition) involving job-related training in written Chinese. For example,
this might consist of readings in economic journals or documents pertaining to
maritime law. Due to the specialized nature of LSP materials, it is desirable to
have on the faculty some instructors possessing content expertise in the subject
areas studied.
7 From 1981 to 1987, the author directed an SD-level Chinese language training program in Taiwan
which included an optional six-month component in recognition of cursive script. Practical
experience over the course of several years showed that those students who took the course were
much more successful at reading handwritten documents during their tours in China than the
students who took only the required reading courses in printed-style documents.
 Learning Chinese in China 115

Curricular structure
Tutorials
At the lower levels of proficiency, the needs of students are similar, making
group instruction the most efficient format. However, as students’ levels rise and
their needs begin to differ, there is an increasing necessity for tutorial training.
Ideal for students aiming for the SD level is at least one hour of tutorial per day
for error correction, training in public speaking, Language for Special Purposes,
and preparation for practica or internships. In fact, the majority of SD programs
described in this chapter provide at least one daily tutorial. Observation by the
author of students at the few SD-level programs that do not offer tutorials
suggests that they are often weaker in the active use of formal vocabulary and
grammar as well as in the accuracy and precision of their speech.8

Content courses
At the SD level, a high degree of cultural competence is required, including
familiarity with Chinese history, geography, and major works of literature. The
SD-level student who is not familiar with historical references, famous quota-
tions, or literary allusions will not only encounter difficulties in comprehension
but also lack credibility in Chinese society. While Level 3 students typically
possess advanced proficiency only in one fairly narrow field, students aspiring to
Level 4 must demonstrate breadth in a variety of fields including, in particular,
Chinese culture. Their goal must be to learn the content and associated lan-
guage that any educated Chinese would know. For these reasons, it is essential
that, at the SD level, a substantial portion of the classes be content-based (see
Angelelli and Kagan, Dabars and Kagan, this volume, for a similar point of
view regarding Russian and Spanish SD-level classrooms).

Practicum
Another feature common to many of the programs discussed here is practica or
field tasks, which are designed to get students out of the classroom and into the
society around them to use their language skills to accomplish various kinds
of tasks. One of the biggest challenges facing in-country Chinese language
programs is how best to take advantage of the resources of Chinese society and
coordinate classroom learning with community-based activities. The practica or
field tasks typically consist of four parts: (1) task assignment; (2) preparation
in class with an instructor; (3) implementation, with an instructor observing
silently; and (4) debriefing, with the instructor providing a detailed critique
8 At the otherwise highly respected Hopkins-Nanjing Center (HNC), for example, although stu-
dents’ listening comprehension, reading, and writing levels increase markedly after a year of
training, speaking proficiency increases more slowly. Based on personal observation and the
comments of others, many students at HNC seem to be at about the S-2/R-2+ level on entrance
and may reach S-2+/R-3+ by graduation.
116 Cornelius C. Kubler

followed by drills and exercises as needed. Research projects are also common.
Besides standard bibliographic research in libraries and on the Internet, students
may interview members of the local community or, when this is politically
permissible, conduct surveys. Each student has a mentor on the faculty with
whom he or she meets on a regular basis for guidance. Typically, a project
will include the preparation of oral and written reports. The oral report may be
divided into several parts: (1) an initial report to fellow students on the topic
chosen and research plans; (2) an interim report; and (3) a final report that
is presented to classmates, teachers, and invited guests, after which there is a
discussion period led by the student. This is then followed by the writing of a
formal research paper.

Internship
Internships, which are offered at two of the programs, are similar to long-term
practica. For example, upon completion of three months of classroom language
and culture training, a student may be placed for seven or eight weeks in a
Chinese company, where he or she works a minimum of twenty-five hours per
week and undertakes a daily language tutorial designed to integrate language
study with the specific requirements of the work experience. Or again, after sev-
eral months of special study, an American student might receive an assignment
as assistant manager at a Chinese hotel, where he or she engages in customer
relations work with guests and reports in Chinese to Chinese supervisors. In-
ternships have great potential value for the student aspiring to the SD level.
However, for an internship to be successful, there must be thorough preparation
and, ideally, the chance for the student to “check in” with a language teacher
periodically.

Language pledge
Four of the programs enforce a language pledge, either absolutely or while on
campus, that obligates students to speak only in Chinese, whether with native
speakers or non-native speakers. Although no empirical studies of the efficacy
of language pledges have so far been undertaken, the consensus in the field
of Teaching Chinese as a Second/Foreign Language is that a strictly enforced
language pledge can dramatically improve students’ fluency and listening com-
prehension. The benefit for developing high-level speaking skills appears to be
more limited, however, since the types of grammar and vocabulary associated
with Level 4 do not frequently come up in casual conversation.

Chinese roommates
Three of the programs have either a requirement or an option for Chinese
roommates. However, only at CET/Harbin are the roommates required to speak
in Chinese. At CET/Beijing and the Hopkins-Nanjing Center, the American
 Learning Chinese in China 117

students and their Chinese roommates themselves decide what language to

speak. If Chinese is spoken, this can obviously be extremely beneficial for
improving students’ fluency and listening comprehension.

Instructors with content expertise

Content courses and courses in Language for Special Purposes involve special-
ized knowledge and related specialized language which a professional language
teacher with a general education is not normally equipped to handle. Therefore,
in SD-level language programs, it is important that both language pedagogy
specialists and content specialists be represented on the faculty. Ideally, these
two types of instructors should coordinate their instruction, but this is some-
times difficult to implement in practice. Since the combination of language
teaching skills and content knowledge is rarely found in a single individual, it
is sometimes advisable to hire promising college graduates in the content areas
needed and provide add-on training in language pedagogy. For the reasons dis-
cussed here, many US government language-training programs deliberately hire
content specialists, as opposed to a faculty composed exclusively of language
instructors. At universities, subject-matter specialists can team with language
faculty as a mechanism for providing training in LSP (see Shaw [1997]).

Option for university classes

A number of the programs offer students the option of taking or auditing classes
at a local university. This can be very beneficial since, given the large number
of non-natives present, the language programs themselves do not provide an
authentic Chinese environment. After a certain point in a learner’s progress has
been reached, he or she needs to be weaned away from the sheltered existence
of programs for foreigners. Attending university classes is an excellent way
to improve one’s knowledge of Chinese culture and society, make contacts
among students and faculty, and increase listening comprehension (including
of accented Mandarin) and reading ability (including speed reading and cursive
script). However, as noted earlier, university classes by themselves are usually
insufficient for developing high-level speaking skills. An ideal situation for
some students might be attending a formal course of studies at a university,
combined with one hour of speaking tutorial daily with an experienced language
instructor.

Conclusion
In the past, very few Americans began the study of Chinese and, of those
who did, only a small fraction ever progressed beyond the beginning stage.
Whereas formerly it may have been considered admirable or unusual to possess
an elementary knowledge of this difficult language, that is now clearly no longer
118 Cornelius C. Kubler

enough. As ever more Americans and Chinese come into daily contact and
China becomes an increasingly important player on the international stage, it is
essential that more Americans learn Chinese to the truly advanced levels, where
they will be able to use the language fluently for a full range of functions.
To accomplish this, it will be necessary for students to spend substantial
amounts of time in a Chinese-speaking environment. As has been pointed out
in the preceding pages, however, going to China for a period of time is by
itself not enough. The most efficient way to attain high-level proficiency is
by attending a well-organized, rigorous language-training program, like many
of those discussed in this chapter, followed by a lengthy period of in-country
residence, where one is in close, daily contact with native speakers in both
formal and informal settings. Of course, each of the programs discussed here
has its own strengths and weaknesses. To render these programs as effective as
possible, it is to be hoped that administrators and teachers will take the issues
discussed here into careful consideration, as they work to develop and improve
their training programs.9
9 I wish to thank the following for allowing me to interview them and observe classes at the
programs for which they are responsible: Chang-Jen Chou (ICLP), Lea Ekeberg (CET/H), Ho
Ching-hsien (TLI), Hong Gang Jin (ACC), Elizabeth Knup (HNC), Vivian Ling (IUP), Luo
Ching (MTC), Thomas E. Madden (FSI/B), Charles Miracle (AIT), and Yin Xiaoling (CET/B).
6 Developing professional-level oral proficiency:
The Shekhtman Method of Communicative
Teaching

Boris Shekhtman and Betty Lou Leaver

with Natalia Lord, Ekaterina Kuznetsova and
Elena Ovtcharenko

The method proposed in this chapter, the Shekhtman Method of Communicative

Teaching (SMCT), shares the strengths and advantages of contemporary com-
municative approaches: differentiation between language usage and language
use,1 goal-oriented teaching that focuses on proficiency outcomes, authentic
language use in the classroom, authentic tasks, and so forth. However, unlike
most communicative methods, the SMCT teaches Language (the linguistic
system) on the basis of Communication (the use of the linguistic and par-
alinguistic systems in written and spoken interaction), incorporating aspects of
both learning and acquisition.
The SMCT consists of two parts. The first part involves using com-
municative tactics to improve the strategic output of speaking. Many instructors
intuitively teach some of these tactics as part of their lessons; however, they
do not do so as part of a “system.” Further, although this approach improves
Communication, it does not teach Language on the basis of Communication.
The second part of the SMCT is based on using communicative tactics as
a principle of teaching speaking and listening. Accomplishment of the latter
requires the conversion of these tactics into a system of teaching guidelines,
based not on Rules of Language but on Rules of Communication.

Speaking tactics for improving communication strategy

The term speaking tactics refers to the devices (including, but not limited to,
Communication Management Devices [CMDs]) that allow students to manage,
and where necessary or useful, take control of a speech event. In interaction

The authors acknowledge the contribution of John Caemmerer to earlier descriptions of the
SMCT Framework that have informed the current chapter and thank him for his assistance. They
also thank Robert Fradkin for reading an earlier version of this chapter.
1 General reference is made here to deSaussure’s distinction of langue, the knowledge of the
structure of the language, and parole, the ability to use the language.

119
120 Boris Shekhtman et al.

between a native speaker and a non-native speaker, the non-native speaker

constantly performs dual activity in real time: keeping track of the ideas of
both (or all) speakers as they evolve during the conversation and understand-
ing and generating speech consciously through the manipulation of foreign
forms, sounds, and word order. In other words, conversational interaction for
the non-native speaker is Communication mediated by Language, i.e., formali-
zed intercourse, since for the non-native speaker what to say and how to say
it are two distinct and equally important aspects of the interaction. Moreover,
sometimes (and, perhaps, even often) the content of the conversation depends
not on what the non-native speaker wishes to express but rather what he or
she is able to express in the foreign language – a situation that is diametrically
opposite to that of the native speaker. The teaching of speaking tactics seeks to
ameliorate this situation and assist in developing more balanced responsibility
for communication between interlocutors who are native speakers and those
who are not native speakers. Speaking tactics include: (1) answer expansion;
(2) use of “islands”; (3) using questions to continue conversation; (4) adherence
to the known; (5) simplification; (6) accepting mistakes; (7) embellishment; and
(8) complication. The skillful use of these tactics can help students improve their
oral communication quite rapidly (Shekhtman [1990]).

Answer expansion
This tactic is used when a native speaker asks a question. In response, the stu-
dent gives the most verbose answer possible. The question asked by a native
speaker can be considered to be an invitation for communication. Short, simple
answers hinder conversation because they very quickly transform communi-
cation into interrogation, making both the foreigner and native speaker feel
awkward. Moreover, when the native speaker becomes the “interrogator,” it
places a sharply increased “language load” on the foreigner, since one ques-
tion follows another. It also results in placing the native speaker in complete
control of the conversation. This position of control is uncomfortable for the
native speaker, too; he or she feels that the communicative process is ineffec-
tive, strained, and unnatural. The native speaker feels that the foreigner does not
know enough language for normal communication; the foreigner, in turn, per-
ceives that it is very difficult to satisfy his/her companion. Both parties want to
escape from this unpleasant predicament. Therefore, either the communication
stops or, if the native speaker knows the native language of the student better
than the student knows the foreign language, it reverts to the native language
of the student.
The importance of this rule for a Superior-level student is explained usually
not by the fact that he/she is unable to produce an expanded answer but by
his/her unawareness of the necessity to control a process of communication
 Developing professional-level oral proficiency 121

depending on the situation and the type of communicator he/she is dealing with
(passive communicator, conversation “hog,” well-balanced communicator).

Use of islands
When a native speaker talks, the language flows easily, without any apparent
effort on the speaker’s part. It is not artificial; it is natural. For native speakers,
speech is as natural as walking: they do not need to pay attention to how
the walking is accomplished; they just walk. Speaking in a foreign language
is quite different; it is like swimming. When foreigners speak, they do not
walk, they swim. Foreigners have been thrown from their native habitat, as
land is for humans, into an unfamiliar language environment, as if it were a
large body of water. They know very well that if they stop swimming, they
will drown immediately. Unfortunately, drowning occurs quite frequently. As
fatigue sets in after a long period of swimming, swimmers lose their strength
and efficiency and sometimes waste their remaining energy through panic. In
the case of foreign language speakers, the tension that results after time in an
unnatural language environment causes an increase in errors and a decrease in
speed and confidence in the speaker’s language. Communication-aware teachers
encourage “swimmers” (students) to look for small islands upon which they
can rest during a conversation in order to gather strength before continuing.
Such an island for the foreign speaker can be a small, but very well memorized,
much practiced, or frequently used monologue. The more such monologues the
speaker knows, the more such “islands” are available when the need arises, the
easier it is for him/her to speak/swim. In essence, even a native speaker has a
number of such islands. These are the speeches in which the speaker sounds
more effective and articulate than usual. These are stories that, as the result
of much repetition, are more polished and impressive. These are formulas for
expressing certain positions or conceptions about which the speaker has thought
and spoken often. These are the speaker’s speeches, lectures, “opening lines,”
and remnants from earlier training. The use of such islands helps the native
speaker to express him/herself more precisely and eloquently. If islands can be
so helpful to native speakers, what can we conclude about foreign speakers? For
the foreign speaker, an island is salvation: it enhances the flow of conversation,
affords a desirable break, and attracts the attention of the native speaker. The
confidence of a foreigner in speaking can directly depend upon the number of
islands he/she has in his/her command.
Islands have communicative value not only because they provide the speaker
with the ability to shift quickly into fast and confident speech, but also because
they supply a variety of grammatical patterns for successful application to
different contexts and situations. For example, if one particular island contains
a sentence such as “literature plays an important role in society,” this sentence
122 Boris Shekhtman et al.

provides the foreigner both with an example of a basic grammatical rule and
with a model that can be used in a different situation, such as “music plays an
important role in my family.” The most skillful use of a sentence pattern occurs
when it is used not as a conduit for specific content, but as a template for use
in situations that require similar communication. For example, a speaker can
recycle the model, “This is one of my favorite books” as “Paris is one of my
favorite cities,” using known lexicon and parallel structures. There is a direct
correlation between the degree of control a speaker has of an island and his or
her ability and inclination to use it. There is little difference between having a
poorly prepared island and no island at all. Only a fully automated island that is
produced reflex can ease the foreigner past the pressure of the communicative
exchange with a native speaker.
“When all else fails,” explains Clines, a New York Times journalist, Russian student, and
frequent visitor in Moscow, “there remains [an] . . . island . . . firm as a riff of Melville.”
(Clines, 2001, p. 3)

Such islands, in Clines’s opinion, provide students with a sense of self-

confidence and power in communication.
In helping students identify and develop islands, teachers need to try to ensure
that the islands are small. Short, specific, “modular” islands have been found
to be easier for the student to acquire and can be combined flexibly with one
another as necessary. Islands are chosen on topics for which students have a
practical application; it is difficult for a student to internalize and repeatedly
use something for which he or she can envision no need. Students participate
in constructing islands. The topics and language of islands must reflect the
student’s style and personality to assist the student in mastering the island.
Teachers train students in island use through questions and answers, repetition,
retelling, substitution, and singing so that a variety of stimuli trigger the island in
the speaker’s memory. Teachers find opportunities for students to repeat each
island as many times as possible in order to enhance the process of storage
of information into long-term and permanent memory, which requires, among
other means of input, repetition over a period of time and in a variety of contexts,
in order to improve transferability to new contexts. The ability to recite an island
must become a reflex2 for the speaker.
The SMCT Framework suggests two distinct categories of islands. The first
deals with an individual’s personal background and information, while the
second provides information on less personal topics. Usually the second group
of islands is more professionally oriented.
2 Although the specific nature of islands and the ways in which they are used in language instruction
may be unique, the concept of “ritualization” in learning is not new. To some extent, it was used
in Audio-Lingual Methodology (Lado [1964]), by a number of textbook authors, (e.g., Lipson
[1968]), and in studying other, non-language content areas, the most obvious ones being math
and science.
 Developing professional-level oral proficiency 123

With Superior-level students, teachers focus on the capability of each student

to produce the island in any topic independently, quickly, and correctly. After
the student produces the island, the teacher helps the student to make it linguisti-
cally and stylistically more appropriate. The student should see that working at
the island improves his/her communication dramatically and prepares him/her
psychologically and linguistically to deal with all possible questions in com-
munication (Shekhtman [1990]).

Using questions to continue conversation

Another way that students can manage discourse is to conclude an expanded
answer or island with a question to their interlocutor. This tactic permits students
to control interaction with a native speaker, eliminates pauses from not knowing
what else to say, helps the flow of conversation when an answer has been rather
short, and permits students to avoid the questions of a native speaker that they
cannot answer for linguistic reasons or to change the topic of the conversation
when they do not feel secure.
Working with Superior-level students, teachers need to focus on how quickly
(and correctly) students can ask the question; on their ability to ask all the types
of questions existing in the target language including the most sophisticated
ones; and their skillful use of questioning that is situationally pertinent. For
this, teachers must ensure that students have a good command of the entire
system of interrogative models of the target language.

Adherence to the known

Even in communicative classrooms, there is often a tendency on the part of
students to translate mentally from one language to another. This tendency
increases when students try to communicate in words and forms that they know
in their native language but for which they do not know the equivalent words and
forms in the foreign language. Use of the tool, Adherence to the Known, means
that rather than translating grammatical structures of their native language into
the foreign language word for word, students are encouraged to use the models
of the target language.
Understanding the functioning of this tool requires understanding the dyna-
mics of having access to two languages. There is a very interesting relation-
ship between these two languages, determined by the extent of the foreigner’s
knowledge of the second language. If the foreigner knows the second language
as well as he/she knows the first there may be no interdependency between
the two languages, and the choice of one language or another is situationally
determined. At lower levels of proficiency, however, the relationship between
these two languages can become complicated. In this case, the foreigner, as
124 Boris Shekhtman et al.

he/she encounters deficiencies in speaking the second language, relies on the

first language for help. The first language begins to dominate in this relation-
ship because the foreigner constantly speaks the foreign language under the
influence of the first. In his/her desire to speak the second language as well as
he/she does the first, the foreign speaker tries to transfer the grammar struc-
tures of the first language into the second one, which quite likely has absolutely
different morphology and syntax. As a result, the foreigner’s speech sounds
obviously non-native. (At lower levels of proficiency, as long as the native
speaker understands the non-native speaker, this attribute is not necessarily a
“failing.” However, at professional levels of proficiency, it is, indeed, a “failing”
and can often prohibit the non-native speaker from attaining his or her goal in
undertaking the communication in the first place.)
Alleviation of this problem depends on understanding the nature of the gram-
mar model being used by any given student. Grammar models consist of three
types: (1) patterns that a student knows automatically and are correct in the target
language; (2) patterns that are automatic but not correct; and (3) non-automatic
patterns.
The first model is most frequently used by students because they do not
experience any difficulties with this set of grammar patterns. Automatical-and-
correct patterns allow students to avoid the process of translation and speak
correctly, fluently and naturally. Such patterns are, in effect, ways of using
grammar and vocabulary appropriately and even often in a personalized manner;
to this end, they have evolved from declarative knowledge to procedural
knowledge.3 These models generally reflect acquisition, to use Krashen’s (1985)
terminology, or automaticity, to use McLaughlin’s (1987).
The second model is used willingly and frequently by students. However,
students have acquired faculty grammar patterns and, therefore, speak with
mistakes, although their speech itself is fluent. The grammar mistakes rarely
interfere with communication and over time become fossilized (Higgs and
Clifford [1982]). (Fossilization is discussed in greater detail later in this chapter,
as well as by Ehrman, this volume.)
3 We refer to the classical definition of declarative knowledge as consciously controlled informa-
tion (e.g., knowledge of facts and dates) and procedural knowledge as unconsciously controlled
behavior/information (e.g., riding a bike, getting dressed). Some information can go from one
category to another, as in dialing a new telephone number (conscious application; declarative
knowledge) and automatically dialing (without thinking) a frequently called number (uncon-
scious, automatic behavior; procedural knowledge). We claim that foreign language, too, can
make this transition from conscious control to automaticity. Memory and cognitive processing
research tells us that meaning is most often internalized exclusive of language (Damasio et al.
[1990]). If students, then, are to develop language skills, they will need to make the molecular
changes in their brain that are required for pattern storage, and this happens through association
of a group of pieces (i.e. a set of phrases, probably within a context) over time; such a repeated
association of stimuli has long been known to cause a persistent change in neurons (Damasio
and Geschwind [1984]).
 Developing professional-level oral proficiency 125

The third model contains grammar patterns that a student might know either
passively (he can recognize and understand the model in an oral or written
speech) or even actively, but it takes some time and effort to use them and
that inevitably interferes with communication. This model generally reflects
learning, to use Krashen’s (1985) term, or are forms and lexica that have not
yet been “bound” (Terrell, 1986).4
Adherence to the Known means that in the process of communication students
are encouraged to use only models of a target language that are either automatic
and correct or automatic and incorrect. In working with students, then, teachers
have two contradictory assignments: (1) to develop students’ complete confi-
dence in the use of automatic models while preventing the use of non-automatic
models, and (2) to encourage a student to make non-automatic models auto-
matic, thereby reducing the number of models that are non-automatic for any
given student.
Adherence to the Known in the native language is especially important for
Superior-level students. Feeling secure in a target language, they tend to try to
express themselves in the target language in as sophisticated and elaborate a
way as in their native language thereby increasing the temptation to translate
literally from the first language. This is because students are attempting to enter
into Communication without incorporating Language. For foreign speakers,
rapidly inventorying and selecting from the linguistic forms available to them
to express a specific thought, idea, or intention, is perhaps the most important
tactic for successful speaking.

Simplification
Using simplified models means that when presented with a thought or idea that
is difficult to express, students express it as simply as possible and immediately.
While this sounds easy, very few students do, or even can, use this tactic intu-
itively. Most need to be taught the tactic and given the opportunity to practice
using it.
There are several reasons why simplification is needed as a tactic. Sometimes
when we are talking about the need to discuss or resolve an important element
in a companion’s questions, we have to find special tools. For example, what
if the foreigner needs to express something difficult, but important, and his
language skill is not sufficient for the task? What should he/she do in this case?

4 In Terrell’s framework, forms and lexica, in order to be acquired, must be “bound” to something
in memory. Sometimes, an “ah-hah” experience will immediately fill an information gap and,
therefore, immediately “bind.” In other cases, binding occurs through comprehension and asso-
ciation – much in the way that Piaget describes learning to occur: through the “tying” of new
information to old information, building chains of knowledge. If there is nothing to “hook” the
new information to, it is not learned, acquired, bound, or otherwise retained in memory.
126 Boris Shekhtman et al.

What if the foreigner must transmit to the listener a valuable thought, which
must be understood precisely? What sort of tools can help a person to convey an
essential thought in a foreign language, without the special vocabulary and/or
grammar needed to do so?
The mechanism of simplifying that SMCT uses consists of three levels of
substitution: (1) substitution of a sophisticated or technical word for the most
simple, easy-to-use, and general word (e.g., give instead of endow or disperse);
(2) substitution of simple sentence structure for compound or complex sentence
structure (e.g., I am going to the theater tonight, following dinner with old
friends whom I have known for many years can be replaced with: Tonight I am
going out to dinner. I am going with friends. I have known them for a long
time. After dinner, we will go to the theater); and (3) substitution of complex
grammatical structures with elementary grammatical structures (e.g., The car
was driven in a very careless manner by its angry driver can become The angry
driver drove the car carelessly).
Superior-level students typically know several ways to express the same
thought (i.e., grammatical and/or stylistic synonymy). As a rule, they use the
most difficult model that corresponds to their native-language level of complex-
ity. If a student does not know this complex model automatically, he/she can
retard and even ruin the communication. So, while working with the Superior-
level students the main goal is to systematize the synonymy resources of a
student, to identify the degree of automaticity of synonymy models acquisition,
to encourage the use of the most automatic models, to make less automatic
models more automatic.

Acceptance of mistakes
Acceptance of mistakes means never having to correct oneself in the process of
communication. If a native speaker continues the conversation and does not ask
the student to repeat what he or she has said, it means that the mistake has not
impeded communication. In this case, self-correction interrupts communication
rather than helps it.
In so doing, it is very important to differentiate between communicative and
non-communicative mistakes. A communicative mistake is an error of word
choice, grammar, or syntax that prevents the listener from understanding what
the speaker intends to convey. A grammatical, syntactical, or lexical mistake
that does not interfere with what the speaker intends to convey is not a commu-
nicative mistake.
In the SMCT Framework, teachers explain to students that in a real-life
communication (or a learning activity imitating the real-life communication)
they should correct only communicative mistakes and not worry about non-
communicative ones – something that usually happens in the native language
 Developing professional-level oral proficiency 127

since native speakers also misspeak from time to time. This focus on fluency
does not come at the expense of accuracy, but it does give students the oppor-
tunity to talk freely without worrying about mistakes.
A secondary, didactic purpose for doing so is to identify the linguistic models
that belong to the level of automatic but incorrect models and to the level of
nonautomatic and incorrect models, informing curricular design for any given
student or group of students. Therefore, exercises where a student “enjoys”
his/her mistakes are followed by exercises that are aimed at correcting the
mistakes and transforming the model into an automatically correct one. At the
same time, the SMCT Framework teaches students to control their mistakes
in the process of communication. For example, the student is told that he will
converse on a particular topic and be allowed to make no more than three
mistakes. After the student has made three mistakes, he or she is stopped. The
mistakes are corrected and practiced. This type of activity forces the student
to be conscious of grammar while speaking. This is particularly needed by
students who are fluent but sloppy. It is also needed by students with fossilized
mistakes. The number of mistakes allowed in this exercise can, of course, vary.
Among the students who have reached the Superior level are two groups for
whom the clear understanding and skillful use of this rule is especially impor-
tant. In the first group are the students who hate to make mistakes and to be
corrected. To avoid mistakes they use only the models that they know automat-
ically and correctly. This makes their speech very clean but prevents them from
improving and enriching their language, often keeping them from attempting
to achieve the Distinguished level of proficiency. The second group of stu-
dents, for the most part, pays nearly no attention to mistakes because they know
that they communicate fluently in any situation. If not forced to concentrate
on their mistakes, their speech remains inaccurate, and in some cases, because
of fossilized errors, they may appear more like Advanced-level students than
Superior-level ones. In any event, their lack of grammatical accuracy prevents
them from reaching near-native levels of proficiency, no matter how extensive
their cultural and lexical knowledge or discourse or sociolinguistic competence.

Embellishment
The embellishment CMD helps students to add natural discourse markers
to their conversations. There are many phrases that comprise this type of
CMD. These include phatic functions, such as exclamations and repetitions
(“Oh!,” “Right on!,” “You bet!,” “Uh-huh,” “Yes, yes,” “No, no,” “Sure, sure”),
pause fillers (“Well,” “Let’s say,” “You know”), parenthetical elements (“In my
opinion,” “Of course,” “Without a doubt,” “On the one hand / on the other hand,”
“I’d say”), parenthetical sentences (“When I went to Paris – I was still in college
then – I hardly knew any French”), rhetorical questions (“But, who really cares
128 Boris Shekhtman et al.

about that?”), guidance questions (“I forgot – What did you ask me?”), and
synonymous apposition (“The boss, my supervisor, who is very strict – rigid
and stern – confronted me, or more precisely approached me head-on and said –
well, actually, hissed like a snake to me”).
The embellishment rule also teaches students to expand conversation through
providing additional information, such as the use of adverbial modifiers of
time, place, or manner (“Yesterday,” “Later on,” “Nearby,” “Far, far away,”
“Perfectly,” “Loudly”) or through emotional commentary using idiomatic
expressions and cultural slang (“Stop joshin’ me,” “What’s going down?”
“Get off my back,” “Get with it”).
By employing these devices, the foreigner can decorate his or her conversa-
tion, making it more lively and natural. Moreover, this tool attracts the native
speaker to the foreigner, intensifying the native speaker’s feeling that the for-
eigner knows the language very well, and, in turn, increasing the foreigner’s
desire for communication. Conversation is no longer textbookish but quite
natural.
In our experience, embellishment is an unusual tool because it is very easy
to teach a student all of its elements in just a short time, but it is very difficult to
encourage students to use it. Since speech in a foreign language is difficult
and the most important goal for the foreign speaker is to take care of the
main ideas of the discourse, attention to minor elements, such as discourse
markers, additional information, and emotional commentary, is secondary. In
other words, the foreigner first must concentrate on the main components of
each sentence, rather than on the minor ingredients; this results in “textbook”
language and is often seen at the Superior level, where speech is fluent and
mostly accurate but far from natural. The SMCT Framework trains students to
use this tool automatically.
Superior students often already know, either actively or receptively, many of
the phrases they need to use the tactic of embellishment. They, however, are not
accustomed to using this tactic, and, therefore, classroom exercises can both
help them understand this tool and get them accustomed to using it. Once they
are comfortable with the tool, acquiring additional embellishing phraseology
is not difficult.

Complication
Complication, the opposite of simplification, requires sophisticated grammar
patterns and is used in professional speech events such as briefings, oral pre-
sentations, oral position papers, press announcements, and the like. These are
special kinds of monologic discourse that are important particularly (and usu-
ally exclusively) for students at Superior levels of instruction. They may, for
example, include delivering a monologue reflecting the views of a particular
 Developing professional-level oral proficiency 129

social group: the government of a country, the leaders of an organization, a

group of workers, and the like. In any oral presentation, the speaker talks with-
out interruption for long periods of time. This makes the briefing an unusual
mode of interaction, especially for a non-native speaker, since the audience
cannot react to his/her mistakes, even if he/she does make some. This places
a great deal of extra pressure on the non-native speaker, who must ensure that
his/her language is clear and free of error, since his/her audience is not one
person but a whole group of people, often journalists or important officials.
The task is somewhat simplified by the fact that one can and should prepare
a briefing in advance. This rarely solves the problem of making the language
error-free, however. A briefing, therefore, is a mode of interaction that should
be attempted only by those with a rather sophisticated command of the foreign
language.
Another significant feature of the briefing is that it is complex in content
and therefore, as a rule, it is also complex in form. Briefings usually address
complicated issues and are often prepared in consultation with a group of col-
leagues or various information sources that in turn may themselves be quite
complicated in form. For these reasons, from the point of view of form, i.e.
grammar and vocabulary, the briefing is the most complex mode of interaction,
since it frequently calls for the vocabulary and syntax of written language in a
wide variety of styles and replete with jargon. For this reason, it is necessary
for the non-native speaker to learn to use complex linguistic models in briefings
even if he or she is not yet ready to use them in other types of communication.
A briefing is most effective when it offers a clear, logical exposition of a
subject, a position, or a concept. This requires that the non-native speaker
acquire a solid automatic command of discourse corresponding to the nature of
the oral presentation.
Finally, it is important for the person delivering a briefing to prepare himself
or herself to answer questions afterwards. Only a person who is extremely well
prepared on the subject matter of a briefing will be able to handle with ease the
kinds of questions that are often asked following the lengthy monologue portion
of a briefing, since they are often unpredictable and may be quite complex. This
poses an extremely difficult challenge for the person wishing to deliver a briefing
in a foreign language. To prepare oneself for this it is absolutely essential to go
through a series of specially organized practice sessions first in which one is
made to use the entire arsenal of tactical devices to field complex, unexpected,
and even provocative questions either by answering them or avoiding answering
them, all without revealing any linguistic weak spots.
Since oral presentations belong to one of the most sophisticated types of com-
munication and demand the highest level of language command, the speaker
cannot confine himself or herself to simplified ways of expressing thoughts
and attitudes. In fact, the content of a briefing is often rather profound, and the
130 Boris Shekhtman et al.

student must use a larger number of complex models in this type of communica-
tion, some of which he or she may never use in conversational communication.
(The same situation is true, of course, for native speakers. Formal language, by
definition, contains features not present in informal language.) It then follows
that in oral presentations the student has the right to use non-automatic models.
This is allowable because a briefing, unlike other types of communication, is a
monologue prepared ahead of time.
Unlike in other types of communication, in oral presentations the student
not only may use the colloquial form of discourse, but can read as well. This
allows the student to demonstrate through the monologue all of his language
achievements.
For appropriate discourse usage, the student develops the ability to understand
and use text organizers specific to the type of oral presentation being made.
Text organizers structure the order in which information is presented in the
course of the student’s presentation and include expressions such as: “In the
beginning of my presentation I would like to . . . ” and “In conclusion I would
like to underline . . . ” The use of this rule has two purposes: (1) to create a
presentational structure that is clear for the audience and that will facilitate the
perception of a complex content, and (2) to make the language level of the
presentation more closely approximate that of the native speaker.
Oral presentations generally are the domain of Superior- and Distinguished-
level speakers only. In fact, not every person is capable of giving a briefing or
lecture without assistance in its preparation even in his or her native language.
This is a skill that is generally learned separately, and to make a serious oral
presentation always requires serious preparation. The tactic of complication
is the most important device for teaching Superior-level students, not just in
preparing them to make a specific presentation. The higher the level of a stu-
dent’s proficiency, the more a tactics-sensitive teacher uses this device.

Speaking tactics for teaching foreign languages

The transformation of the tactics described above into a set of teaching guide-
lines means (1) that lesson planning and syllabus design are based on these
tactics; (2) that unique exercises are developed corresponding to these tactics,
with the teaching process consisting exclusively of the application of these ex-
ercises; (3) that all selections of grammar material, vocabulary, and reference
materials are determined by the nature of the exercise; and (4) that all activities
concentrate on the development of high CF, i.e., the automaticity of Language
based on Communication. Due to space limitations, this chapter cannot present
all four of these components in full detail. However, several examples of each
are given below.
 Developing professional-level oral proficiency 131

Lesson planning
The tactics described above are the basis for a planning process. An example of a
lesson plan given in Table 6.1 demonstrates how the set of tactics predetermines
all aspects of teaching activities during a class. (The lesson plan includes the
speaking tactics portion of the class only.)
The left column lists speaking tactics. Real-life communication exercises
and tasks for receptive and productive vocabulary acquisition (the bottom two
rows) provide opportunities to practice the speaking tactics in aggregate. The
middle column contains a general description of the learning activities and
exercises that will be used by the teacher to master the speaking tactics. In
the right column, the teacher indicates the “status,” i.e., how well the student
already uses the speaking tactic. On the reverse side of the lesson plan, the
teacher writes down the specific expressions practiced by the student, as well
as comments on student progress and difficulties. The implementation of the
SMCT Framework is most successful when an instructor is not only acquainted
with the rules of communication and believes in them, but when his or her
lesson plans are based on them.

Sample exercises
The SMCT Framework contains more than thirty exercise types for each tactic.
Representative exercises are described below.

Answer expansion
These exercises teach students to develop each component of the sentence into
another full sentence. For example, the instructor writes the following sentence
on the board: The economy of Russia is experiencing great difficulties. The in-
structor shows students that they can expand three elements of this sentence –
economy, Russia, and difficulties – and also points out that there is a chain reac-
tion involved: each element of the resultant sentences can be further expanded,
pretty much ad infinitum. (If the student does not feel comfortable doing this
or capable of doing it, the instructor demonstrates by expanding the sentence
in his or her own way first.)

Use of islands
In these kinds of exercises, the instructor and student together create texts that
will be needed for the student for specific communicative tasks. These texts
must correspond to the students’ current proficiency level and grammar and
vocabulary reserve so that they can easily repeat them. For example, the student
asks the instructor his or her opinion of the US president. The instructor gives
an answer of four–five sentences, which will become an island. The student
132 Boris Shekhtman et al.

Table 6.1

Speaking tactics Classroom activities Status

(completed, started, not started)
Questions: (I) What do you
think about the Russian
economy today? What forms
Answer expansion of property are there in the
USA? Do we have inflation
here now?

Preparation of an island:
Use of islands World Financial System

Preparation of questions to the

Russian economist. The topic
Using questions is the American dollar and the
Russian economy.
Translation of sophisticated
Adherence to the
English sentences on economy
Known into available Russian models.
The immediate transformation
of sophisticated Russian
Simplification economy jargon (spoken by
the instructor) into student s
available language.
Discussion on the topic of
Accepting mistakes Russian economy, without
error correction.

Parallel talk--show: simple

Embellishment sentence -- embellished
sentences.

Improvement of an
Complication announcement or text using
target topic models.

Real-life Meeting with Russian

communication economist.

Text for receptive and

Work with updated texts from
productive vocabulary Interne..t
acquisition
 Developing professional-level oral proficiency 133

is then asked the same question and must repeat the island. In this case, the
opinion itself – and whether or not it agrees with the student’s opinion – is
inconsequential. The point is to develop the discourse for expressing opinions.
Later, by analogy and the application of other tactics, students express their
own opinions eruditely and accurately.

Using questions
In using this device, instructors develop students’ ability to ask questions au-
tomatically without thinking deeply about the content. In this case, the ideas
being expressed are not the main point. Rather, the point of the exercise is to
develop question discourse. Any statement can be translated into a question
very quickly through formalization and internalization. For example, the lan-
guage instructor makes a statement, followed by an interrogative word, as in
“The Canadian prime minister went to London on March 22; for what purpose?,”
to which the student responds, “For what purpose did the Canadian prime min-
ister go to London on March 22?” Or, the language instructor says that he or
she will be talking at length about some topic, but, at the very first pause, the
student must ask three questions immediately and as quickly as he or she can.

Adherence to the Known

The objective of this group of exercises is to teach students to use only automatic
patterns. For example, the instructor helps the student by modeling the student’s
own linguistic patterns. The student begins speaking on a theme and pauses to
search for a word or slows down his speech indicating that he is struggling to
find appropriate structures and vocabulary. The instructor interrupts with the
words “you want to say that . . . ” and then uses an appropriate model that the
student already knows. (For this, it is imperative that the instructor knows which
models the student has mastered.)5 Throughout this exercise, the instructor
demonstrates what the student can do – or rather what the student should do the
next time. The student then repeats the story using familiar models and avoiding
the painful search for something that is not yet under control.
In the event that four-handed teaching is possible, another variant of this
exercise is for the two instructors to carry out a conversation on a topic after
which two students repeat the conversation. In doing so, they do not repeat the
conversation word for word but use the synonymous expressions that reflect
the models of language and grammar/vocabulary that they personally possess.
A secondary purpose of this set of exercises is to teach students to recognize
when they are being tempted to translate, and to choose not to translate, but to
transmit, ideas and expressions.

5 The importance of knowing what students know and do not know cannot be overemphasized. It
is a key element of the SMCT Framework.
134 Boris Shekhtman et al.

Table 6.2

Function Complete sentence Simple sentence

We would be delighted to
We would be very happy to
Invitation receive you as guests in our
have you stay with us.
home.
I regret to inform you that
Unfortunately, I will not be
Apology it will not be possible for
able to attend.
me to be present.
You need not be unduly
There is little cause for
Reassurance alarm at present. concerned. (Or: Don’t
worry!)

Simplification
Often when Superior-level students encounter difficulty in expressing a con-
ceptually profound, highly technical, or grammatically complicated idea, the
simplification exercises they have practiced help them to resolve the difficulty.
Communicative experience shows that students without this tactic tend to create
communicative tension. There are a number of exercises that can be used to help
students avoid this tension through simplification. One is to present the students
with a very complicated sentence and ask them to simplify it. For example, the
paired sentences in Table 6.2 show how this tactic can be used in a variety of
situations, the first sentence being the more complex grammatically, and the
second being one of several ways in which the sentence can be simplified.

Embellishment
Embellishment exercises help the students’ language come alive, taking on
personal coloration that is usually seen at the highest proficiency levels. A
typical example is when the instructor asks the student to include introductory
words in a paragraph or to turn a simple sentence into a compound sentence.
Sometimes a competition can be held among students to see which student can
make a given sentence or text the most eloquent.

Complication
Complication exercises help students raise their proficiency to a higher level,
enrich their speech with more sophisticated patterns, and, for this reason, can
be considered the most important tactic for Superior-level students. They are
based on the language instructor’s analysis of students’ speech and consequent
introduction of speech improvements, which students then automate.
This kind of exercise is critical for developing students’ skills in preparing pa-
pers and oral presentations on professional topics. An example of complication
 Developing professional-level oral proficiency 135

Actual Communication Complication

You are asking me what are my You ask me what were my impressions of
impressions on the United States after I the United States when I first arrived here.
came to this country. I will tell you that I can relate that my initial observations
my impressions are very striking. The first made a striking impression on me. For the
three months I was in the United States I first three months I was in the United
felt myself as if I was in the fairy tale. First States, I felt as if I were in a fairy tale.
of all, what astonished me that I saw a lot First, I was astonished to observe people
of people of different colors and races. On from many different ethnic groups and
one street I saw Oriental, Black, white and races. On a single street I saw Chinese,
they were walking, talking to each other Black and Caucasian people walking
the same language. The second what struck together and speaking the same language
me was the houses—neat, beautiful, small, to one another. The second thing that
surrounded with trees and flowers and struck me was the houses—neat, beautiful,
without fences, open for public to be small, surrounded by trees and flowers and
observed. without fences, in full public view.

Figure 6.1

is shown in Figure 6.1. (This is an actual example of a Superior-level Russian

speaker who was in the process of acquiring English at a higher level.)

Materials
Materials for the Superior-level student are highly individualized and based on
the results of initial diagnosis. The SMCT uses a diagnostic instrument that
identifies five elements.
The first element identified by the diagnostic instrument is the number of
models that are automatic and correct, automatic but not correct, and not
automatic. The number and kind of models are identified on a student card.
(Note: simple grammar, i.e., that normally found in traditional textbooks –
conjugations, declensions, and the like – is not tested but, later in the program,
if the student makes repeated mistakes on some simple grammar points, those
are also entered on the card.)
The second element determined is the student’s tactical armament: how, for
example, he can produce an expanded answer or what islands he has (i.e., can
or cannot speak without preparation on specific professional topics, such as
education or work requirements, using set and anticipated phraseology). This
will show what tactics need to be taught and what do not.
The third element of diagnosis is to define the vocabulary reserve of the
student. This is done through the testing of representative lexical items from
various topical domains.
The fourth element is to determine whether or not the student possesses theo-
retical knowledge of target-language grammar, as well as grammar terminology
136 Boris Shekhtman et al.

in English. In addition, specific linguistic questions are posed. This is important

for knowing how to prepare materials for that student.
The fifth element identifies listening skills. For this, the student is presented
with a number of tests.
As a result, three factors are defined: what the student knows, what the student
does not know well, and what the student does not know at all. Based on this
information, a program can be designed and goals set for a specified course
duration and subsequently adjusted to the specific tactics needed and exercises
included, along the lines of those described above.
On the basis of the diagnosis, students receive copies of in-house prepared
materials: exercises, teacher-prepared texts. Students also use authentic texts
from newspapers and magazines. In addition, each student receives a set of
cassette tapes. These tapes include texts prepared exclusively for the individ-
ual student. Class activities are recorded on them as well, creating a personal
language-learning record for each student. Support materials include activities
from textbooks that reflect particular linguistic items from the student’s pro-
gram, and, of course, students have access to dictionaries and other reference
materials. Many excellent, appropriate, and current materials are also obtained
from the Internet.
The experience with SMCT at the Specialized Language Training Center
(SLTC) has essentially included only tutorial students. However, Superior-level
students at the Foreign Service Institute were taught as a group, using an early
version of this method. In this type of class, it is very important that students be
at the same level. Since the Superior level of language proficiency represents
a wide band of skills, in group situations cooperative learning and small-group
(dyadic or triadic) instruction often improves instructional effectiveness.

Development of high CF
For Superior-level students, development of high Communicative Focus means,
in part, making their automatic responses closer to the automatic responses of the
native speaker – that form of communication that can help the student to express
his or her ideas without effort and stress (McLaughlin [1987]). To develop
high CF successfully requires increasing the level of automatic response of
students. For this reason, the SMCT provides many exercises and opportunities
for multiple repetition.
One exercise, called the “Washing Machine,” is used for development of
automatization and error eradication. In this exercise, the instructor converses
with the student and corrects the student’s mistakes. He also jots down those
mistakes. When he has collected a group of them he asks the student to “wash
his mistakes.” The student must be able to produce the correct response auto-
matically. When he is able to do so, the mistake is crossed off the list. When he
continues to have problems, the phrase goes into the wash for a second cycle
 Developing professional-level oral proficiency 137

and, if needed, a third or fourth or fifth. The student’s linen must be clean at
the end of this work. If it is not, the instructor has overloaded the washer. It is
better to have the student correct three or four mistakes completely, than ten in-
completely. Typical instructor mistakes when conducting this exercise include
overloading the washing machine, underloading it, not putting the wash in for
the needed number of cycles, overwashing, and throwing in laundry that needs
to be pretreated first. It is up to the instructor to make the washing cycle an
effective one by adding in the right amount of detergent. The detergent helps
the dirt be lifted off without as much need for friction on the part of the ma-
chine. Not all cycles need to be on the sturdy cotton setting – some require the
delicate wash. Therefore, mistakes that require the delicate wash cycle should
be included on the list. Too much heavy-duty washing of mistakes makes the
student emerge from the mistake washer full of psychological wrinkles.
Among other important activities that are accomplished with Superior-level
students is the pairing of each student with an émigré partner for completion
of assigned tasks. These are primarily individual activities. Group activities
include lecturing to émigrés, talking to them on the phone, joining them for
dinners, and writing to them for specific information. This gives students the op-
portunity for multiple repetitions in a real-life environment, helping to solidify
automatic-correct responses.

Implementation of the SMCT Framework

The SMCT Framework is used in its purest and most complete form at the SLTC,
a private language school founded by Shekhtman in 1987. Among the students of
SLTC are correspondents of the major news organizations, business executives,
government officials, scholars, and other individuals whose work requires the
ability to communicate in Russian. Most SLTC students have specific content-
based work-related language-learning needs. Their entrance proficiency level
may vary from 0 to 4+. It is those who enroll at Level 3 proficiency (Superior
level) with a clear need to reach the Distinguished level, i.e., near-native levels of
proficiency, that we present here. At SLTC, students work with native-speaker
teachers exclusively.
SLTC programs for students are learner-centered. Advanced- and Superior-
level students are encouraged to participate in the design and development stages
through a structured interview following the placement test. Teachers take into
consideration students’ learning styles, which they determine through an op-
tional questionnaire and observation; learning styles and their implications are
discussed with the students. Learner-centered instruction also includes working
with each student to determine his or her areas of interest which then comprise
the subject-matter core of each course, and, as a result, sometimes extensively
rewriting syllabi to fit an immediate professional need of a student. Teachers
make students aware of the Shekhtman Method of Communicative Teaching
138 Boris Shekhtman et al.

(SMCT), described above, that is used at the SLTC, and its underlying principles
and concepts, with the goal of making them better learners.
All programs at the SLTC, including and especially courses for Superior-
level students, are taught via SMCT. Students are placed in accordance with an
SLTC-designed proficiency test based on the ILR OPI. Students also fill out a
Student Self-Appraisal Form. An interview or questionnaire identifies the social
or professional situations and contexts in which the student will communicate
in Russian.
The SMCT Framework has also been used in other institutions. Many of the
principles that underlie the SMCT were first developed and tested at the Foreign
Service Institute (FSI) by Shekhtman and Lord in the Russian Advanced Course,
a 6-month program for Superior-level students that aimed to bring these students
to the Distinguished level.

Results
Testing is generally not required of students who attend the SLTC. However,
within these limited confines, it is possible to confirm that informal testing,
as measured on the FSI proficiency scale, has revealed better-than-average
progress when compared to generally expected rates of progress for time in
study as researched and proposed by FSI from the 1950s to the 1970s and
revised very recently. (For a discussion of these rates of progress, see Leaver
and Champine [1999].)
Students in the Russian Advanced Course at the FSI (1984–1989) were for-
mally tested. All students who entered with the requisite proficiency (Level 3 /
Superior) and took the full course did reach the target proficiency (Level 4 /
Distinguished), and one student reached a Level 4+, as tested by the ILR
OPI. (Note: an analysis of the demographics of the student body showed that
the vast majority of those enrolled in the course had either spent time in the
Soviet Union, spoke another Slavic language, or were married to a speaker of
a Slavic language – a trend that seems relevant to all Superior-level language
courses.)
Student reaction to the SMCT Framework, both at the FSI and at the SLTC,
has been overwhelmingly positive. Student opinion at the SLTC has been
systematically collected through student evaluation forms. Journalist students
have also published their opinions in various magazines and newspapers.
(Representative student comments are in the Appendix.)

Discussion
Although SMCT is used at all levels of instruction from beginner to Distin-
guished level, students at the Superior level display some unique characteristics,
 Developing professional-level oral proficiency 139

to which the method is sensitive. As a minimum, these include specific (and

specified) goal-orientation and professional interests.
Superior-level students, for example, usually know what they want from the
teacher. For example, a student might insist that he or she does not need to work
on conversational skills in general but on the ability to discuss a particular topic,
such as disarmament or environmental hazards. The SMCT is a good method
of choice in such cases because the materials and topics used by the method
can easily and fully correspond to the specific topical and functional needs of
particular students.
Superior-level students also tend to need deeper and narrower Language
development. With beginning students, vocabulary, grammar, and topical intro-
duction is generally broad and superficial. This reflects the needs of beginning
students to develop over time a broad base in Language and Communication.
Superior-level students, however, already possess this broad base and need to
develop deeper Language and Communication, albeit within narrower – and
usually highly professional (i.e., work-related) – parameters. Here, too, the
flexibility and student focus of the SMCT enable teachers to meet these kinds
of specific and individualized student needs.
Interestingly, another phenomenon has been noticed with Superior-level stu-
dents who are taught via the SMCT. These students are often capable of self-
instruction. Once they understand the nature of the teaching guidelines, they
often take over the application of these guidelines to their own learning. Thus,
they begin to create their own islands or to find ways to practice new expres-
sions (not-yet-automated) at any opportunity. Superior-level students are also
very good at expressing their ideas through the linguistic models that they have
already internalized.
SMCT instructors often teach the students how to use language instructors
and native informants. In essence, the teaching guidelines are adapted for stu-
dent use in helping other teachers, who are not familiar with SMCT, to begin
to use its principles in meeting their learning needs.

Conclusion
The SMCT differs from other communicative methods in that it has created
a mechanism for connecting language acquisition with communication strate-
gies. By subordinating foreign language instruction to Rules of Communication
rather than to linguistic rules, while simultaneously in no way diminishing the
importance of Language itself, the SMCT maximizes students’ time on task,
generally allowing them to reach higher levels of proficiency in communication
more rapidly than typically anticipated. As such, the SMCT presents a novel
and successfully tested option for language teachers at any level – and espe-
cially at the Superior level where so few models for teaching exist – that may
140 Boris Shekhtman et al.

presage a movement away from separating the concepts of language use and
language usage and toward teaching Language on the basis of Communication.

appendix representative student comments

To understand the “Shekhtman Methodology,” you have to set aside traditional ideas
about learning a foreign language. Most conventional foreign language teaching is built
around rules of grammar, which are drilled into the student’s head in a tedious and
time-consuming way. In the equivalent of a Russian revolution in language approach,
Shekhtman discarded the old system of old grammar rules, replacing it with his own new
system based on “rules of communication” . . . Shekhtman’s “rules of communication”
are designed to build a relationship between a foreigner, who is learning a new language,
and the native who is already in command of that language. Recognizing the inequality
in such a relationship, Shekhtman works to close the gap, to level the playing field so
that communication can flow more naturally. (Correspondent, Newsweek, and former
White House Assistant National Security Adviser)

The strength and science of your methodology are uniquely effective, and I plan to tell
the world. (Faculty member, Harvard Institute for International Development)

I have studied numerous languages (French, Spanish, and German) and this was by
far the most effective language training that I have ever undertaken. (Former Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia and Eurasia, US Department of Defense)

plung[es] a student up to his soft palate in the viscera of the language. (Columnist,
The New York Times)

The attention to grammatical models and rules of communication was rigorous. The
program, however, was unique in developing communicative skills and preparing me
for the actual give and take of verbal interactions. In many teaching programs, the
teacher does most of the talking. At SLTC, the student does the talking. (Correspondent,
The New York Times)
7 The LangNet “Reading to the Four” Project:
Applied technology at higher levels
of language learning

Catherine W. Ingold

While multimedia language-learning opportunities, including those that are

Internet-based, have proliferated in recent years, little or nothing of an in-
structional nature has been available for the highly advanced (SD) language
learner. The “Reading to the Four” (R4) Project, currently being developed1
for the LangNet website of the National Foreign Language Center (NFLC), is
intended to begin filling this void.

The LangNet Initiative

The LangNet Initiative (Brecht and Walton, 1993) is a complex, many-faceted
effort that shares expertise and learning resources in order to enhance and
democratize access to effective language-learning opportunities. The project
discussed in this chapter is a seminal component in that it addresses learning
needs that are underserved in almost every setting – those of the most advanced
learners of languages critical to the national interest of the USA, for whom
pre-existing learning resources are scarce and often of poor quality.
Progressive development and elaboration throughout the 1990s of Brecht and
Walton’s proposed LangNet model led to a pilot project in four Less Commonly
Taught Languages (LCTLs) and development of a first version of a website and
database.2 At that time, NFLC, in collaboration with more than a dozen national
foreign language teacher associations, began to identify categories of learners
in each of the languages whose needs were underserved, initially focusing on
the academic sector. Editorial Boards, appointed by the associations, located

The author thanks William Rivers and Patricia Fisher for their assistance with this chapter. Rivers
provided editorial assistance and historical information. Fisher provided some portions of the
text, as well as the Spanish Learning Object.
1 Some components of LangNet in a Proof-of-Concept format may be operational as early as
September 30, 2002.
2 Agencies and organizations that have funded LangNet efforts include the US Department of
Education Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education, Ford Foundation, National
Endowment for the Humanities, Mellon Foundation, and the National Security Education Project.

141
142 Catherine W. Ingold

high-quality learning resources, which they catalogued in a searchable database.

That database currently contains approximately 1,000 items, ranging from
dozens in little-taught languages such as Tamil and Yoruba to roughly 400
in Spanish, with tags for specific learning needs, as well as bibliographical and
acquisition information. Software, dubbed “LangNet 1.0,” was a first-version
user interface that quickly and conveniently retrieved resources appropriate to
individual users’ needs.
The LangNet initiative as a whole encompasses the range of proficiency
levels from 0 to 4.3 This chapter, dedicated to the R4 project, focuses on the
Superior–Distinguished (SD) level.

The “Reading to the Four” Project

The LangNet R4 Project was commissioned by the US government to support
its linguists and the specialists who train them in meeting demanding require-
ments for effective reading in critical languages. Initially, the four typologically
different languages mentioned above (Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, and Spanish)
were selected as prototypes, from which many other languages would follow.
The project assumes that linguists using these materials are currently function-
ing at an ILR Level 3 or 3+ and will benefit from support in setting specific
learning goals and in utilizing effective learning strategies with appropriately
challenging texts in order to advance to the ILR Level 4. It does not assume
that these linguists have ongoing access to instruction or mentoring in their
language development, although many often do. The initial focus on reading
reflects critical work requirements of many government linguists and is to be
supplemented later by projects dealing with listening and, ultimately, speaking.
The decision to address reading first also reflects the relative effectiveness of
online learning environments for reading.
Using the basic methods and constructs of the LangNet initiative, the R4
Project will draft for each of the four target languages a set of descriptions of
the most salient language features/behavior (“language-specific objectives” in
the current LangNet terminology) that must be acquired to move from an ILR
3+ to a 4 in reading in that language. It will then use those language-specific
objectives as the specification for collecting or developing online modules,
or “learning objects,” defined as a combination of a text or context (content
object) and strategic activities (learning tasks that incorporate learning styles
information), that linguists can use to develop their reading skills. The goal is
not only to provide an admittedly finite group of instructional materials, but also
to provide the linguists with guidance, through a Learning Plan, for reaching
Level-4 reading proficiency.
3 See Chapter 1 for a complete description and comparison of the ILR and ACTFL proficiency
tests and the attributes of Levels 3, 3+, and 4.
 Applied technology at higher levels of language learning 143

Need for the Project

In a recently published report,Brecht and Rivers (2000) document the critical
shortage in language skills facing the US government, “whose needs are of
unprecedented scope and complexity” (p. xi). The problem is both quantitative –
831 students enrolled in Hindi in all of the nation’s universities in 1998, 4,764
in Chinese, 1,158 in Arabic (Brod and Welles [2000]) – and qualitative. Using
a language in the workplace generally requires, at an absolute minimum, an
ILR rating of 2 or above in the required skills and modalities, with many tasks
requiring a 3 and above. Yet data from the last quarter of the twentieth century
consistently show that few US language learners acquire Advanced-level skills
as an outcome of domestic foreign language study (Brecht, Davidson, and
Ginsberg [1993]; Brecht and Frank [2000]). As an example, participants in
National Security Education Program-sponsored Study Abroad, characterized
by Brecht and Rivers as probably representative of “the best outputs of the
university system in the United States” (p. 100) reached proficiency levels of
Novice Low (Level 0) for Arabic and Portuguese, Novice High for Japanese
(Level 0+), Intermediate Low (Level 1) for Chinese (Mandarin) and Russian,
and Intermediate Mid (Level 1) for Spanish.
There are many reasons for the low outcomes from the education system.
First, language study in the USA generally begins in the teenage years, often for
a very short sequence of study; the significantly earlier start and greater number
of hours of instruction devoted to languages in the European Community offer
a striking contrast (Ministère de l’Education Nationale et de la Formation
Professionelle [1998]). Second, lack of national curricula and standard text-
books often creates articulation problems among levels (Brecht and Ingold
[2000]; Byrnes [2000b]; Lange [2001]). Third, the percentage of US students,
even language majors, who engage in study abroad is low: fewer than 3% of all
US undergraduates participate in study abroad during the course of their postsec-
ondary education, and fewer than 1% of all postsecondary students participate
in study abroad each year (Hayward [2000]).
Small wonder, then, that federal agencies compete for an inadequate pool of
language-competent job candidates; and often are unable, even when they fill
positions, to hire at the level of proficiency required by the job. Moreover, none
of the agencies routinely provides instruction nor routinely produces results
above Level 3–3+. Given that situation, the current R4 Project both presents
a particular set of definitional and methodological challenges and promises a
much-needed, albeit partial, relief.

The underlying system

It is important to note that the organizational approach described below is
provisional. Representative components only, not the full system, will be tested
during the “Proof of Concept” period – approximately six months in duration.
144 Catherine W. Ingold

The interface
In conjunction with the R4 and recent related projects, the NFLC has redesigned
the LangNet user interface. The new interface is intricate and highly flexible
in responding to user needs. It consists of a diagnostic assessment of language
proficiency and learning style preferences, a database of Learning Objects, and
a mechanism for generating an individualized Learning Plan.
For the diagnostic assessment portion of the interface, the NFLC team has
drawn on two efforts. One is a tool for determining linguistic deficiencies and
prescribing remedial strategic activities, developed and used at the Defense
Language Institute (DLI). The other is the E&L (Ehrman and Leaver [1997])
test of cognitive styles for foreign language students, used principally at the
Foreign Service Institute (FSI), combined with a self-assessment of sensory
preferences (visual, auditory, and kinesthetic modalities).
Based on results from the diagnostic assessment, combined with student
identification of preferred (or required) content areas, the interface then prompts
the computer to calibrate, compile, and present an individualized Learning Plan,
a document that provides a list of Learning Objects (described in detail below)
and guidance in their use. Figure 7.1 illustrates how this interface works.

Flowchart - LangNet User Interface

Creating a User Profile and a Learning Plan

About LangNet User Options

(Contains Useful Links
detailed Language Performance Assessment
descriptions of Glossary of terminology
Tailored Learning Plan
Read more about LangNet Self-assessment
the project components) Style
* Generic Learning Plan
LangNet
options page an
Pl
ing
Browse Language Resources rn
Opening Screen Resources ea
ri cL Learning Plan
Language Page Select language ne (Options to refine plan)
(Browse language- Ge
specific tes
Limit search (drop-down lists) ea
resources,limit Cr
search by topic Select a language, skill, and proficiency level
areas etc., generate
LP)

Log In Register
(User name,
password)
Self-assessment (Can Dos) EDIT
Links to user
profile, option to Language Performance Assessment
edit profile
Learning Style
Learning
Register Additional Information
(Username,
Objects
password, e-mail (Selection
Assessment depends on
address)
language
selection and
Language-specific Learning Plan)
sub-profiles
Privacy Statement
User
Complete Profile Additional Bio /
(The user can edit his/her Evaluation of
Background Info
profile at any time.) the Site
(Optional, for
research
purposes)

Figure 7.1
 Applied technology at higher levels of language learning 145

The Generic Learner Profiles (GLPs)

The system uses the overview statement of linguistic behaviors that characterize
each ILR proficiency level, along with a significantly expanded list of associated
Level-4 behaviors, developed through surveyed consensus of Level-4 language
users and testers, as the basis for a set of Generic Learner Profiles (GLPs):
one for each level and skill. Thus, there are GLPs for Reading at Levels 1, 2,
3, and 4, of which only the last is of concern to the R4 Project, and parallel
GLPs will be developed in listening, speaking, and writing over time. These
GLPs describe target behaviors (objectives) pertinent to all languages for each
proficiency level, organizing them into as many as 10 functional categories. The
GLP for Level 3+/4 Reading contains nearly 100 objectives. (A simplification
[National Foreign Language Center, (2001)] is given in Table 7.1.)

General comprehension. The function category General Comprehension in-

cludes overarching objectives that derive from the ILR/ACTFL Proficiency
Guidelines. The examples given in Table 7.1, as well as the remainder of the
objectives, reflect the expectation that Level-4 readers will be able to understand
nearly any text, no matter how sophisticated its structure or rare its lexis.

Strategic competence. This function category derives from the list of compo-
nents of communicative competence suggested by Canale and Swain (1980).
At this level, the nature of strategic competence appears to change, with much
less emphasis placed on compensation strategies and a greater emphasis on
planning strategies, as seen in the objectives in Table 7.1 (Ehrman, this volume;
Leaver and Shekhtman, this volume).

Discourse competence. This function category is the second taken from the
Canale–Swain list. Many Level-4 readers attending a May 2001 symposium
on “Reading to the 4” organized by the National Foreign Language Center
identified this set of objectives as critical for attaining Level 4, especially un-
derstanding of text organization and genre differences.

Structural competence. This function category includes part of the grammati-

cal competence component proposed by Canale and Swain. At this level, readers
are expected not only to have internalized the complete linguistic system, but
also to understand a nearly endless range of archaic, dialectal, and obscure
grammatical structures.

Lexical competence. This function category reflects the remainder of the

Canale–Swain grammatical competence component, as it refers to reading. As
with structural competence, readers are expected to understand a near-native
range of archaic, dialectal, obscure, and invented lexical items.
Table 7.1

Function
Objectives
category
understands all forms and styles of texts pertinent to professional,
General personal, and social needs on a par with the educated native speaker
comprehension recognizes lack of comprehension

plans approach to reading a text in advance, using logic and

Strategic linguistic means available
competence knows purpose and adjusts strategies accordingly

understands most forms of discourse: persuasion, counseling,

Discourse negotiation, conjectural materials, editorials, and literary spoofs
competence recognizes erudite forms of discourse structures as erudite and
interprets them accurately
exhibits complete understanding of grammatical structure, including
many social and geographic dialects and many obscure, archaic, or,
Structural in languages where applicable, literary forms
competence
recognizes the difference between formal and informal writing styles

understands a range of jargon: professional jargon, child language,

Lexical kitchen talk, colloquialisms, and street language
competence understands with near-complete accuracy any standard and
commonly used lexical item, as well as many obscure lexemes
holds new words, expressions, grammatical forms, and cultural and
sociolinguistic information in memory while processing known
Fluency information in order to absorb it from context or redundancy
is aware when misreading occurs and is able to modify
interpretation

directs attention to intriguing unknown words and phrases

Attentional focus
directs attention to new ways of expressing ideas

recognizes and understands professional, social, dialectal, age,

Sociolinguistic gender, and country versus city registers
competence recognizes appropriateness of forms of address for elders, children,
pets, strangers, professionals, and others
understands nearly all literary allusions in classical literature,
Sociocultural popular literature, and interpersonal written communications
competence reads beyond the lines, using knowledge of cultural and generational
backgrounds for accurate interpretation

infers personality attributes of the author

Emotional
competence understands emotional attributes built into the text (e.g., character
intent in li terary pieces)
 Applied technology at higher levels of language learning 147

Fluency. At lower levels of proficiency, the concept of fluency anticipates flu-

idity in reading; this can usually be accomplished with a singular, or linear,
level of linguistic processing. At Level 4, however, attributes of fluency require
multiple levels of linguistic processing, including holding new expressions in
memory while processing known information. At this level, fluency also antic-
ipates that students will be able to process most handwriting and nonstandard
computer fonts.

Attentional focus. This category refers to those elements to which students

pay the first and greatest attention. At Level 4, it is anticipated that ideas and
mechanics can be processed simultaneously and that idiosyncratic ways of
expressing thoughts will arouse curiosity and interest.

Sociolinguistic competence. The final component from the Canale–Swain list

refers to readers’ ability to recognize such socially bound elements as regis-
ter, among other socially bound attributes of speech. Register for the Level-4
reader includes professional, formal, informal, social status, regional dialect,
age, gender, and urban–country differences, as well as a wide range of slang,
professional jargon, and acronyms.

Sociocultural competence. The ninth function category is an element of com-

municative competence suggested by a group of professors at the Pushkin Insti-
tute in Moscow (Mitrofanova, 1996) and defined as an understanding of “culture
with a big C” as it is reflected in L2. At the 4 Level, objectives in this function
category include the understanding of a wide range of literary, folkloric, polit-
ical, and cultural allusions, as well as the ability to read between the lines of
even sophisticated and idiosyncratic writings.

Emotional competence. The tenth and final function category is a component

of language competence suggested by Eshkembeeva (1997) to mean the ex-
pression of individual identity in culturally appropriate ways. Although this
function category is much more applicable to speaking, it does have a reflec-
tion in reading: the ability to understand emotional attributes built into the text
(e.g., character intent in literary pieces).

Critical language features: the Language-Specific Profiles (LSPs)

The Generic Learner Profiles serve as the basis for the development of Language-
Specific Profiles, which use the same organizational principle of proficiency
level, skill, and functional category (competency), but describe the specific lin-
guistic features that are salient as learners work toward a particular level of
proficiency in a particular skill in a particular language. This distinction be-
tween generic and language-specific is intended to deal with the reality that
148 Catherine W. Ingold

different language families present dramatically different challenges to English

speakers in reaching a particular level of proficiency, with the critical language
features for Level-4 proficiency in one language perhaps not being critical at
all in another. For example, verbs play a minimal role in some languages but a
relatively essential and complex role in others.

Learning Plans
Once the objectives (behaviors relevant to salient linguistic features) have been
identified for the 3+/4 cusp in a particular language, the next challenge is to
develop and make available learning resources that can be used by teachers
and individual learners to develop those behaviors. One of the most inno-
vative features of the LangNet Project is the development of a dynamically
assembled Learning Plan for each user who requests one, personalized to
the extent that user-provided information permits. User-provided information
initially will include the target language, the skill targeted for development
(initially, reading only), the ILR or ACTFL proficiency level of the user (based
on prior testing, self-assessment based on behavior descriptions for each level,
or completion of a “can-do” assessment), and (optionally) learning preference
information.
With some or all of the information listed above, the query for a Learning
Plan will provide a set of resources organized to assist the user (whether a
learner or a teacher searching on behalf of a learner or group of learners). The
resources include:
r texts (Content Objects) that provide a level of challenge consistent with the
target level, including specific instances of the language features to which the
language-specific objectives refer;
r Strategic Activities through which the learner interacts with selected texts in
ways that are believed useful to develop the target behaviors identified in the
objectives;
r Assessment Activities that either provide models of acceptable performance
on the activities or suggest to the user ways to get feedback on his/her
performance;
r pre-assembled Learning Objects consisting of one or more texts, Strategic
Activities, and related Assessment Activities, addressing one of the objectives;
r other advice of a general nature related to crossing the 3+/4 cusp in reading
in the target language, which may be related to learning styles, strategies for
effectively working alone, and ways to increase opportunities for practice,
among other possibilities;
r pointers to online sources of additional texts that present appropriate chal-
lenges.
 Applied technology at higher levels of language learning 149

Strategic Activities
Strategic Activities are language learning strategies embedded in a learning
activity. They are selected to enable the user to interact with the text in ways
that address one or more of the targeted objectives. They also provide examples
to the learner of ways in which he can interact with texts in other situations,
outside an instructional setting and outside the context of the LangNet system.
This latter point is important because Level 4 requires, by consensus among
those consulted in this Project so far, much more extensive reading than can be
provided in any instructional system.
The Learning Object reproduced in Figure 7.2 (instructions have been trans-
lated into English) includes an example of a Strategic Activity related to one of
the Level-4 objectives dealing with detecting and correctly interpreting rhetori-
cal devices that convey author’s spin and using the strategies of analysis, directed
attention, and scanning/reading for detail.

Content Objects
Content Objects for this project on reading are specifically in the form of print-
based materials. They are combined with Strategic Activities in order to produce
a Learning Object that can be placed on an individual student’s Learning Plan.
Content Objects most typically are texts, although they can also be contexts
in which Strategic Activities are used. LangNet users will be able to browse
Content Objects separately from the preparation of a Learning Plan if they so
desire. For the Proof-of-Concept, content areas have been limited to geography,
politics, economy, science, technology, society, culture, military affairs, and
security issues.
Shown in Figure 7.3 is the Content Object of the “Author’s Spin” Learning
Object. This editorial has been used with other Strategic Activities to address
other Level-4 objectives.

The challenges
The R4 Project has presented a number of important conceptual and practi-
cal challenges beyond those inherent in the overall LangNet Project. These
include (1) finding experienced language users and teachers to inform the
development process, (2) defining Level-4 behaviors and turning them into
learning objectives, (3) selecting appropriate tasks, and (4) selecting relevant
texts.

Finding experienced users and teachers to inform the process

A significant challenge for this project has been the identification of experi-
enced Level-4 language learners and teachers of Level-4 programs to inform
150 Catherine W. Ingold

II. Author’s spin / Recursos retóricos (Highlight text)

Identify in the text at least five phrases the author uses to challenge the
credibility of the “intellectuals.” After you make your selections,
compare them with the suggested answers.
Identifique en el texto por lo menos cinco frases con las que el autor
ataca la credibilidad de los “intelectuales.” Después de identificar sus
respuestas, compárelas con las respuestas sugeridas.
Feedback:
1. Quienes en Europa sabı́an algo sobre nuestro paı́s,
2. Otros más enterados incluso podı́an saber que es el paı́s productor
del café más suave del mundo o que es un importante exportador de
banano. Pero apenas hasta ahı́.
3. Por eso no deja de ser sorprendente conocer el creciente interés de
tantos centros de opinión
4. cuando lo que ocurrı́a era un cambio de escenario al trópico y del traje
de guerra de los protagonistas al disfraz de inofensivos profesores
5. estos intelectuales han escogido a Colombia como el último reducto
de sus batallas de la guerra frı́a,
6. No pocos ingenuos, sobre todo algunos periodistas y polı́ticos, caen
en sus redes y se convierten en eficaces amplificadores de una lucha
que ocultan hábilmente bajo el traje de los derechos humanos.
7. Pero mientras esto para ellos es un capı́tulo más de la guerra frı́a,
librada desde sus escritorios y micrófonos, aquı́ es una confrontación

Figure 7.2

the process. First, there is no systematic testing done at this level outside the
US government. ACTFL, for example, tests only to the Superior level, and
although at one time in the past ACTFL did define a Distinguished level as
separate from and more advanced than the Superior level, for all practical pur-
poses the Superior–Distinguished distinction is rarely, if ever, made. Second,
the number of Level-4 programs is extremely limited, and many, if not most, of
them are “Beyond Three” in objective, rather than “to four” – that is, they teach
students who are at the Superior level with the goal of helping them develop
their skills further but do not have a clear goal of having students achieve Level
4 (Ehrman, this volume).4
LangNet staff with Level-4 learning and teaching experience were an essen-
tial, albeit small, group that developed the original GLPs for Level 3+/4. In
addition, a small number of experienced users and teachers were found through
“snowball” searching; these few people were able to provide feedback and help
expand the GLPs and other aspects of the process.
4 An exception to this is the Russian Advanced Course at the Foreign Service Institute, which,
from 1984 to 1988, routinely taught groups of students, enrolling at Level 3 and graduating six
months later at the established goal of Level 4 (Leaver and Bilstein [2000]).
Introduction: The following is an editorial from the Colombian newspaper El Mundo with
vocabulary activities focusing on rhetorical devices.

Introducci n: El siguiente editorial del peri dico colombiano El Mundo incluye actividades de
vocabulario con enf sis en figuras ret ricas.

I. Reading/ Lectura

EDITORIAL

El último reducto

Desde Europa, un grupo de intelectuales de iglesias, universidades, ONGs y el arte, liderados por
el Nobel portugués José Saramago, acaba de producir un documento pidiéndole a la "opini n
p blica internacional" rechazar el Plan Colombia por su carácter militar, mientras en Oxford, por
otra parte, culminó una reunión que también convocó a intelectuales franceses, alemanes e
ingleses junto a la organización "Di logo Interamericano por Colombia" ( ?), para manifestar su
inquietud por "la derechizaci n del pa s, el crecimiento de las autodefensas y la desprotecci n de la
poblaci n civil".

Desde hace muchos años, cuando la guerrilla dejó de ser liberal para ponerse al servicio del
comunismo, dirigida y auxiliada desde Cuba, el país viene sufriendo sus crecientes ataques, cada
vez más inhumanos. Desde hace veinte años, nuestro país libra una dura lucha contra el
narcotráfico, en un titánico esfuerzo que a veces parece llevarnos al agotamiento. Durante este
tiempo, Colombia había estado sola. Quienes en Europa sabían algo sobre nuestro país, lo
identificaban como el exportador de la cocaína que consumen los yuppies en Nueva York,
Hollywood y las grandes urbes europeas. Otros más enterados incluso podían saber que es el país
productor del café más suave del mundo o que es un importante exportador de banano. Pero
apenas hasta ahí. Por eso no deja de ser sorprendente conocer el creciente interés de tantos
centros de opinión por la suerte de este, uno de los tantos países del mundo que en la actualidad
libran una confrontación interna.

La razón por la que una nación más de Sudamérica acaba por convertirse en el polo de atracción
de intelectuales y ONGs, que tienden a calificarse como "progresistas" y se definen abanderadas de
lo "pol ticamente correcto", hay que buscarla muy lejos de este trópico, en la historia que maravilló
al mundo al comienzo de los años 80, cuando los reformistas, entusiasmados por Gorbachov e
impulsados por Yeltsin, acabaron con el imperio comunista en la Unión Soviética, y abrieron las
puertas al derrumbamiento del muro de Berlín y prácticamente lo que quedaba del comunismo
como gobierno, dejando como único sobreviviente de la pura doctrina –algunos lo califican de
dinosaurio– al comandante Castro. Con la apertura de la simbólica Puerta de Brandemburgo el
marxismo-leninismo perdió su más importante batalla de la guerra fría en forma tan contundente
que algunos proclamaron entusiastas "el fin de la historia", cuando lo que ocurría era un cambio de
escenario al trópico y del traje de guerra de los protagonistas al disfraz de inofensivos profesores.

No es que estos intelectuales –entre quienes aparecen aguerridos defensores del marxismo desde
el corazón del capitalismo, como el lingüista Noam Chomsky– estén muy preocupados por los
colombianos que son asesinados cada año; tampoco por las decenas de pueblos que anualmente
destruyen los guerrilleros con sus ataques con pipetas de gas y bombas; no creemos que lo que
realmente les preocupa sea el acelerado empobrecimiento del pueblo colombiano, ni la pérdida de
oportunidades económicas para este país. No; estos intelectuales han escogido a Colombia como
el último reducto de sus batallas de la guerra fría, como se demuestra en el párrafo del comunicado
de Saramago y compañía que reclama porque el Plan Colombia "se dirige, sin duda alguna, al
control de la cuenca amaz nica, afectando la soberan a de los pa ses que la integran". Un
fementido reclamo de quienes ven amenazado el brillante prospecto de extender la República del
Caguán a la madre de las cuencas.

Y como estrategia para librar esa batalla final, estos expertos en la combinaci n de todas las
formas de lucha han escogido la guerra de la desinformación, que arrasa sin vergüenza con
cualquier asomo de verdad. Por eso hablan de derechizaci n y se atreven a seguir diciendo que la
alternativa de nuestro país para el manejo de los cultivos ilícitos es "la sustituci n sin el empleo de
la guerra, ni aumentando los problemas de los desplazados". No pocos ingenuos, sobre todo
algunos periodistas y políticos, caen en sus redes y se convierten en eficaces amplificadores de
una lucha que ocultan hábilmente bajo el traje de los derechos humanos. Pero mientras esto para
ellos es un capítulo más de la guerra fría, librada desde sus escritorios y micrófonos, aquí es una
confrontación bañada en sangre de inocentes, que se derrama en un país al que muchos de ellos
no podrían identificar en un mapa. Por lejanos, inoportunos y aprovechados, preferimos, como los
angloparlantes, decirles con alguna elegancia "Mind your own business", en lugar de disfrazar su
batalla por su ideología en interés por un país que desconocen y pretenden explotar para su causa.

© Todo el material presente en estas páginas es propiedad del periódico EL MUNDO. Se autoriza
la reproducción total o parcial, citando la fuente.
www.elmundo.com.co

Figure 7.3
152 Catherine W. Ingold

Defining Level-4 behaviors

Defining Level-4 behaviors was also a challenge. Although there are descrip-
tions of Distinguished-level language performance, they are summative, gen-
eral, and global in nature, not readily lending themselves to the development of
objectives. The objectives, then, were determined in several ways. First, the de-
scriptors for the ILR/ACTFL standards were deconstructed, categorizing them
by the most salient of the competences enumerated above. Some cross-checking
has been done at this writing with the C-2 level of the Modern Languages:
Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Common European Framework of Reference
(Council of Europe Modern Languages Division, 2001), but more extensive
study of and comparison with the European work will be carried out later. (The
ILR descriptors themselves, however, are particularly important for this project
because the primary clientele, US government employees, must demonstrate
proficiency through assessment instruments based on those descriptors.)
A next task was to determine which target behaviors, essential for Level-4
proficiency, present the greatest challenges to learners seeking to cross the
threshold between 3+ and 4; and particularly to make that determination lan-
guage by language. To that end, the Project gleaned information from teachers,
learners, and examiners with Level-4 experience or attainments about (1) the
nature of the greatest challenges and (2) what activities, both instructed and
experiential, contributed to attaining Level-4 skill in reading. The language-
specific teams used that information to identify a minimum of nine objectives
(three from each of three function categories) that met the criteria of being
level-appropriate, nontrivial for reaching Level 4, and susceptible to focused
instruction and/or expert feedback. (It is worth noting that, across the four unre-
lated languages in the project, the function categories consistently chosen were
general, discourse, sociocultural, and lexical competences.) It is expected that
there will be changes and additions to these prototype objectives once they, and
the Learning Plans and Learning Objects built on them, have undergone field
testing and further study.

Selecting appropriate tasks (strategic objectives) for learning

Yet another challenge has been determination of the kinds of tasks or Strategic
Activities that are appropriate for an online learning program that can be used
both in the classroom and independent of it. Extensive reading, for example,
does not lend itself readily to classroom activities; yet, that is one activity that
all learners and teachers agree is required. Some alternative activities that are
being tested in the Proof-of-Concept model include the teaching of strategies
for use in extensive reading, making choices among heavily loaded terminology
with multiple connotations (i.e., identifying the appropriate definition given a
specific context and authorial intent), and the like.
 Applied technology at higher levels of language learning 153

Selecting relevant texts

The choice of texts for the lessons or Learning Objects to be presented in the
Learning Plans is governed by the Language-Specific Objectives. The texts must
provide appropriately challenging instances of the linguistic phenomena that,
in the experience of the teachers and learners consulted, are salient for learners
of that particular language moving from a 3 to a 4 in reading. The Spanish team,
for example, has found a number of subtle and extremely well-written editorials
on contemporary events in Latin America that make extensive use of sociocul-
turally loaded terms and phrases based in current or recent political events or
in popular culture within a particular country – which constitute a particular
challenge for linguists not currently living in the country in question. To date,
finding texts that are generally sophisticated and/or problematic, and searching
through them for instances of challenges relevant to Level-4 objectives, has
proved a more productive avenue than looking at texts for their overall level.
Most texts tend to be a combination of relatively transparent and challenging
passages, with few exhibiting most of the challenges addressed in the objectives.

Planned next steps

The first set of action items involves the completion of the Proof-of-Concept
model. Underway are the preparation of Learning Plans based on Learning
Objects (themselves the result of extensive efforts in developing Content
Objects, Strategic Activities, and both Generic and Language-Specific Profiles
with their respective sets of objectives) and creation of the computer inter-
face. Several information-gathering and expertise-sharing seminars have been
conducted, and more are planned.
Once the Learning Objects are in place for the Proof-of-Concept model, field
testing will take place. In its earliest stages, field testing will be conducted in US
government settings, as well as a limited number of academic venues. Spanish,
for example, can be more readily vetted in an academic institution, thanks to the
large number of Spanish programs available, whereas LCTLs, such as Hindi,
have few potential users in academe unless, perhaps, one were to field test in
other countries.
The initial products, then, will be the LangNet user interface and database
of resources, including Learning Plans and Learning Objects at levels 3+ to 4
in Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, and Spanish, as well as learning plans and learning
objects for 0+ to 3 in a variety of other languages. (Once fully operational, the
R4 Project, like other LangNet projects under construction and/or proposed,
will encompass over twenty languages.) These products are accompanied by a
Procedures Manual (NFLC, 2001) that codifies the process and provides details
of the products.
154 Catherine W. Ingold

Following the appearance of these initial products, plans call for a quality
review, language by language, conducted by the representatives of the relevant
national foreign language associations. The process itself will be refined based
on experience, field tests, and other kinds of feedback. The languages, skill ar-
eas, and proficiency levels included in LangNet will be augmented. The project
itself is envisioned as a multistep, multi-year enterprise that is as much a pro-
cess as a product, one that will require continuing refinement, seek continuing
information from the field, and, it is hoped, provide a continually improving
resource to the foreign language learning and teaching community.
Over the longer term, the plan is to build a much more comprehensive system
of technologically mediated support for Superior/Distinguished learners that
includes such features as a network of native-speaking mentors. Much work
is needed in the short term, however, to assure that the system is user-friendly
and efficient and that the quality of the content provided is universally high and
appropriate to learner needs.

Conclusion
The LangNet Project is evolving so fast that one hesitates to document this
particular stage in a book with prospects of a long shelf-life. Looking toward
the future, one can imagine that the system will continue to evolve as more is
learned about how these levels are attained and how a system such as this one
can complement traditional instruction and unstructured experience – indeed,
how such a system may help a learner weave together the disparate compo-
nents that make up a language-learning career. What is particularly evident at
Level 4, because it is attained typically after relatively extensive multi-year lan-
guage learning and use, is that the particular complement of knowledge, skills,
and attitudes that a language learner/user exhibits at any point is the product
of an enormously complex interaction of the learner’s uniqueness (cognitive,
affective, social) and the particular mix of language experiences s/he has had.
The result is the “snowflake phenomenon”: no two learners have exactly the
same skills and knowledge or the same set of strategies for learning and us-
ing languages. Moreover, because language is used to communicate all human
knowledge, feeling, and experience, there is no way of constraining a priori
the communicative demands that may be placed on an individual. The LangNet
system must thus support the greatest possible range of personal requirements,
and priorities can only be set based on the pre-definable needs of its known
clientele.
In the case of the R4 Project, modest framing of the task is provided by the
ILR descriptors. In the next few years, there will be an effort to develop global
language-proficiency tests for US government personnel that are able to differ-
entiate among the upper reading and skill levels of 3, 3+, and 4 in meaningful
 Applied technology at higher levels of language learning 155

ways. The authors of the European Framework are actively encouraging the
development of more focused frameworks (i.e., specific language proficiency)
based on use requirements for specific jobs and content domains: these would
be valuable in this context as well. Taken together, these two instruments might
do much to guide further development of online SD-level language instruction
and inform the ongoing continuous refinement of the R4 and related LangNet
projects.
The ongoing research into how learners have attained Level 4 will help
in providing an additional type of much-needed information: if these are the
objectives that the learner needs to work on next, what can s/he do, and what can
a teacher/mentor help her/him to do, to reach those objectives? Given the reality
that many linguists working toward Level 4 lack access to formal instruction,
that learners must bear much of the responsibility for deriving benefit from
experiential learning opportunities, that curriculum for this level will in any
case require extensive personalization to be effective, and that many of the
language mentors available to these learners will not have training or experience
as language teachers, the value is evident of an “expert system” that delivers
web-based diagnostic assessment, tailored Learning Plans, Learning Objects
complete with feedback, and guidance in how to learn effectively. The many
participants in the LangNet Project from across academe and the US government
are deeply committed to seeing this grand experiment reach its full potential.
8 In the quest for the Level 4+ in Arabic:
Training Level 2–3 learners in independent
reading

Elsaid Badawi

Arguments are made here that, in learning foreign languages, achieving inde-
pendence at Level 2–3, particularly in reading, is a prerequisite for generating
the power necessary for breaking away from the learning plateau characteristic
of that level and continuing to Level 4 and beyond. Achieving such indepen-
dence can, under the proper conditions, be realized through the effort of the
learners themselves. The experiment in Independent Reading (IR) outlined
below (which took place between 1970 and 1977)1 was based on several con-
siderations. Important among these were (1) the centrality of reading in foreign
language acquisition, (2) the nature of Arabic as a polyglossic language, (3) the
bi-polar competence of the educated Arab as the model for the educated for-
eign learner, and (4) a suggested strategy for learning polyglossic Arabic. The
course on independent reading was taught at the Center for Arabic Study Abroad
(CASA) as a part of a full-year program in Advanced Arabic to American grad-
uates at the American University in Cairo. This chapter discusses that course
within the following framework: (1) preliminary considerations, (2) the CASA
program, and (3) a detailed description of the course itself.

Preliminary considerations

Centrality of reading in foreign language acquisition

Experience shows that adults seriously seeking to learn foreign languages to
high levels of proficiency have had, as a rule, significant amounts of formal edu-
cation, i.e., are either college graduates or undergraduates. For such people, the
printed word will have become, at this stage of their development, of paramount
importance in their pursuit of knowledge. The printed word, important to the
already educated as, perhaps, the most effective and reliable tool for sustained
1 The program changed executive directors after 1977. The IR course is still being offered with some
inconsequential changes. However, the account given here is limited to the 1970–1977 period
when the writer served as curriculum advisor for two years, then for five years as executive
director as well.

156
 In the quest for the Level 4+ in Arabic 157

learning (new subjects, new skills, etc.), is also significant in learning for-
eign languages. Experience also shows that foreign language learning methods
mainly utilizing the spoken word have (in spite of their current pedagogical ap-
peal) a limited, albeit important, role to play in the totality of learning the target
language to high levels of proficiency. The Audio-Lingual Method, for instance,
so strongly advocated and widely employed in the 1970s, may significantly help
in putting the learners on their way to acquiring plausible and effective pronunci-
ation and listening skills. However, it usually loses its edge beyond the elemen-
tary level when the need for vocabulary and structural wealth begins to grow.2
Even in proficiency-oriented approaches, in which all four skills are supposed
to receive equal attention from learners, teacher examination of what actually
takes place inside and outside the class indicates that in the case of those who
have achieved high levels of proficiency reading seems to have been assigned
the largest share of attention. Further, not only do adult learners come to the
language-learning task as already printed-word preconditioned but also only
the printed word, no matter how learned a company the learner may keep, is
capable of providing the learner with material sophisticated enough to help
her/him to internalize the multiplicity of possible social nuances.
In addition to the generic role it plays in the learning of Arabic, reading
has special significance for the learning of this language, necessitated by the
nature of Arabic as a polyglossic language (Badawi [1985]). (The most salient
features of this situation in Arabic are given here in order to facilitate some of
the arguments upon which this experiment in reading is based.)

The polyglossic nature of Arabic

Broadly speaking, the term, Arabic, embraces several language varieties, which
can be classified into two major types. These are labeled by Ferguson (1959)
as High (H) and Low (L).
H Arabic is a prestigious variety mainly used for written communication.
It is variously termed, somewhat unsatisfactorily, Classical, Literary, Written,
Standard, and, by Arabs, Fusha (the eloquent). Societal forces, mainly reli-
gious, have been helping to maintain for the H variety continuous intelligibility
throughout the documented 16 centuries of its existence – from approximately
two centuries before the birth of Islam in the 6th century AD to the present day –
and continue to do so. Important for our purposes here is the fact that similar
forces (including, recently, nationalistic ones) prevalent in all Arab countries
throughout the successive centuries have helped to maintain for H what can be
described as a “detached” existence, minimally touched by local geographical
2 Out of curiosity I took an audiolingual course in absolute beginner’s French at the French Centre
in Cairo in the early eighties. Everything went fine for three weeks until with no warning the
teacher asked us to take a dictation without ever having shown the class a printed word!
158 Elsaid Badawi

influences. The great concern of Arabs – in particular, of Moslems – has been,

and is still, the arrest of natural language-change processes and the maintenance
of perfect parallelism with the language idiom of the Koran, which, aided by the
strength of religious beliefs, has met with remarkable, if not complete, success.
Passage of time, more than geographical changes, has had the greater in-
fluence on the H variety. As a result, we can predicate on a formal basis, in
spite of the historically maintained intelligibility, a Modern H, a Classical H,
and, also, a Medieval H. The most significant feature of H in learning/teaching
Arabic as a foreign language, however, is that there has not been, at any point
in the history of H, sufficient linguistic features particularly characterizing the
geographical varieties in such a way as to enable us to establish what may be
labeled as Syrian Modern Arabic, Egyptian Modern Arabic, Saudi-Arabian
Modern Arabic, and the like, in the way linguists are able to distinguish among
American English, British English, Ghanaian English, and other dialects.
Further, in spite of the historical nomenclatures, the three varieties that can
be established for H are functional in contemporary Arab societies on a com-
plementary distribution basis: Classical H mainly for religious functions for
Moslems (non-Moslems generally use Modern H), and Medieval H principally
for the voluminous literature of Moslem, Christian, Jewish, and other scholars
of the Golden Era of Islamic Civilization. Both varieties are allocated space
in the school curriculum throughout the Arab world and, in fact, are favored
as writing idioms by many classically minded contemporary Arab scholars.
However, because of the comparatively limited roles these two variants play in
Arab societies they must be considered, at least, as marked varieties. Modern
H, on the other hand, is the universal, unmarked, medium of contemporary
learning and culture in Arab societies. Modern H is fully functional as a writ-
ten medium, although as a spoken one it has only narrowly prescribed formal
functions which are poorly carried out by halting performers. Reading of news
bulletins on radio and television, which is always carried out through H, cannot
be considered as speaking. The situations in which spoken Modern H is used as
a necessary medium of communication between individual Arabs are confer-
ences and learned gatherings of Arab scholars from different Arab countries.
Oral performances in H, which vary considerably in the level of proficiency
from one individual to the next, cannot be described as native ability. (In fact,
some, on such occasions, substitute the H with Educated Colloquial Arabic.)
Lack of sufficient geographic boundaries has caused Modern H to become
known as Modern Standard Arabic (MSA).
L Arabic (“Ammiyya,” i.e., vernacular or colloquial) is the medium of spon-
taneous oral communication. It varies markedly from one Arab society to the
other to a degree where intelligibility, particularly in contexts removed from
learned topics, may become seriously impaired. Syrian, Moroccan, Egyptian,
 In the quest for the Level 4+ in Arabic 159

and Iraqi colloquials, for instance, are independent mediums, each exhibiting
its own structure, vocabulary, and semantics.
Because L stands in opposition, in the eyes of Arab societies, to H with
all its religious and nationalistic affinities, it carries a social stigma and is
regarded, even by some scholars, as having merely corrupted H features. Writing
in L has been sporadically attempted. The introduction of the European-style
theatre in Arab countries, particularly Egypt, nearly two centuries ago, provided
grudgingly, if slowly, a respectable context for writing in L. Educated Arabs
rarely write in their own brand of L even in personal letters, but when they do
they often render the spoken words idiosyncratically. In this regard, writing in
L parallels attempts to speak H.
The interaction between H as a written medium for learning and culture and
L as a spoken medium of spontaneous self-expression resulted in the creation of
Educated Spoken Arabic which, together with MSA, can be regarded (but is not
readily accepted, particularly by the Arabs) as the living language of culture and
education in the Arab world (Badawi [1985]). An important difference between
H and L is that the former is the product of formal schooling whereas the latter
is learned at home.

The bi-polar competence of the educated Arab as a model

for the Level 4+ learner of Arabic
Now comes the question of where the foreign learner stands with regard to
this language situation. If one agrees with Lado’s (1964) premise, as I do,
that in learning a foreign language the educated adult (except in some special
situations) usually identifies with her/his counterpart in the target society, and
given that the serious learner aims at gaining competence approximating, as
much as possible, that of the educated native speaker, then the question may
be answered by mapping out the totality of language skills an Arab adult is
supposed to possess upon graduation from college. (I have chosen this approach
rather than the somewhat fragmentary Arabic Proficiency Guidelines that fail
to package L and H features together and posit features that are not possessed
even by native Arabs.)3
Typically, a college-educated Arab possesses two sets of Arabic language
skills: Active (A) and Dormant (D).4 The main difference between the two
sets is that A skills are the ones called upon to carry out normal daily tasks

3 Specifically, the ACTFL Guidelines state that a “superior speaker of Arabic should have superior-
level competence in both MSA and a spoken dialect and be able to switch between them on
appropriate occasions” (Breiner-Sanders et al. [2000]). To the best of my knowledge, no native
speaker of Arabic has superior-level speaking ability in both.
4 Dormant skills have also been called “passive” and “receptive” skills.
160 Elsaid Badawi

Figure 8.1

spontaneously and without obtrusive deviation from prevalent social or lin-

guistic norms. D skills, on the other hand, are called upon in special and rare
situations where the required skill is used haltingly and in deviation from pre-
scriptive linguistic rules. Noncompliance with language norms in the case of D
skills is tolerated and, in many cases, may even go unnoticed. Notwithstanding
how frequently each set is used, both sets are important communicative tools;
one does not substitute for the other. Teaching those skills must, therefore, be
accomplished in situational context.
Active skills include, respectively, (1) speaking and listening in one’s own
geographical variety of L, and (2) reading and writing in the modern variety of
H (MSA). D skills include, also respectively, (1) reading and writing in one’s
own variety of L, and (2) listening and speaking in MSA, with speaking located
upon the lower reaches of the proficiency scale. Thus, MSA forms the main
strand within the tapestry of the language skills of educated Arabs. Not only
is it the main source for six of the eight skills of the educated (see Figure 8.1
above) but the remaining two, namely active speaking and listening, are, for
educated native speakers, heavily influenced by MSA as well.

Suggested strategy for learning polyglossic Arabic

By the circumstance of their birth, Arabs learn L skills first, then they acquire
those of H. Young Arabs encounter MSA formally at the age of five–six when
they go to school. From that time onward, MSA takes over as the primary
influence on their linguistic development, including L skills.
For the adult foreign learner of Arabic outside the Arab world, the road is
less clear: in the absence of widely accepted, standardized criteria, the starting
 In the quest for the Level 4+ in Arabic 161

point in the long process of learning has been, in effect, left more or less to
chance. Instructional programs vary greatly in this respect. Some begin with
MSA, some with one or the other of the many geographical colloquials, and
others with both at the same time.
However, the sociolinguistic situation of Arabic would suggest a starting
point in learning Arabic opposite to that taken by native speakers. MSA, as
a written variety and a language without a particular geographic bias, is most
suited as the starting learning point for learning Arabic outside the Arab world.
The adverse effect of the absence of a cultural milieu, in this case, should be
minimal, while learning the colloquial varieties is best left until the learner
arrives in an Arab country where its colloquial can be learned within its proper
context of culture.
The position of reading as an important instrument in learning the totality of
Arabic and as the main skill for learning Arabic while the learner is outside the
Arab world should be clear. MSA is nearly exclusively a written language that
is learned mainly through reading. Unfortunately, today’s classroom emphasis
on oral skills over written ones, an artifact of communicative approaches pre-
ferred for the teaching of European languages that have arisen in the wake of
dissatisfaction with Grammar–Translation approaches, has distracted attention
from features particular to polyglossic Arabic as an idiom heavily influenced by
written MSA. The societal function of MSA requires that emphasis be placed
upon training the learners in reading MSA aloud. Training students in speaking
MSA in earnest, a role MSA does not play in Arab societies, would be a misuse
of students’ time. Speaking in the classroom, however, may be undertaken but
only as a means of familiarizing students with the sounds of the language.
As for approaches to teaching reading, the more a learner reads, the more
s/he learns. Since reading is largely a personal experience best performed on
one’s own, the development of independence and self-reliance is critical to the
development of high-level reading skills.

The Center for Arabic Study Abroad (CASA) program

Organization
The CASA program was created in 1967 by a consortium of twenty American
universities in order to provide instruction in Arabic at the Advanced level for
college graduates who had spent a minimum of two years in studying Arabic,
were registered in postgraduate programs in Middle East Studies, and had suc-
cessfully competed for the national fellowships that provided fully funded study
at the institute and represented the only gateway into the program. The program,
which was for a number of years wholly supported by the then US Office of
Education, aimed, in particular, at helping future academics gain the level of
162 Elsaid Badawi

proficiency in Arabic necessary for using the language as an effective research

tool. It was argued that the Arabic environment would aid students to break
away from the learning plateau, vaguely labeled “the intermediate level,” at
which home universities seemed at that time to deposit learners. CASA was,
and is still, the only program that teaches American graduate students Arabic at
the Advanced level. The program is administered by a Stateside director, an
American University co-director, and an on-site executive director. Students,
as a result of selection via national competition, are highly motivated.
The reputation of CASA as the only program that offers American future
academics effective training in high-level Arabic has become such that an ap-
plicant to an American university for a faculty position in Middle East subjects
who has not had a CASA fellowship would have some explaining to do. In
recognition of its contribution to the learning of Arabic in the USA, CASA, the
longest surviving program for training Americans in a foreign language outside
the USA, continues to receive US federal funding.

The CASA curriculum before 1970

The early CASA curriculum was not much different from what was common
at the time in teaching Arabic in the West. In addition to materials for teaching
colloquial Egyptian, the curriculum consisted of (1) a list of about 3,000 de-
contextualized words for memorization, (2) a book of grammar-enhancing and
short reading passages ingeniously contrived from the word list, (3) a grammar
book at the Intermediate level, and (4) two authentic long texts.
The two long texts were (1) a treatise on the Islamic reform movement written
in quasi-Medieval H and so far above the language level of the students that
they were able to read only one paragraph during each class hour, and (2) the
autobiography of the eminent belletrist, professor, and statesman, Taha Hussein,
chosen for its literary value. Of the three-volume autobiography, the students
were able to cover only thirty-five pages in the entire year. Impediments to
greater accomplishments lay in the unsuitability of the text for teaching reading
skills and a parsing-based approach to reading, quite popular at the time.
In November, 1969, students rebelled against the curriculum and teachers,
and I was assigned to teach them on a part-time basis (three hours a week). It
quickly became clear that the students, in spite of their seeming dependence on
the teacher’s guiding hand at every step of the way, were, in fact, ready for a
large measure of independence, although neither students nor teachers believed
that at first.5

5 While there are some reasons particular to the teaching of Arabic for delaying the moment of
declaring students teacher-independent, it is a well-known phenomenon in language teaching
that teachers, like parents, are reluctant to let go of their wards.
 In the quest for the Level 4+ in Arabic 163

As a result of the students’ rejection of the existing program, a new position

of curriculum advisor was created for the purpose of devising an alternative
curriculum for the following year’s group. At the heart of the new curriculum
was a course for training the students in IR described below in the context of
the overall curriculum.

The CASA curriculum 1970–1977

General
The overall objective of the new program, developed over a number of semesters
and in consonance with faculty and student feedback, was, and still is, to help
students reach an Advanced level of proficiency in Arabic much similar to what
is now called Level 4+. Another, but subsidiary, objective was to familiarize
each of the students with the language domain of his/her interests.
To enable them to reach the program objectives, students were gradually
weaned from teacher and textbook. An IR course was designed for that very
purpose.
The CASA full-year program was set into three successive semesters. Each
had a specific sub-objective.

Eight-week summer program (first semester)

In addition to providing enrichment activities, such as singing, calligraphy,
playing musical instruments, general lectures on aspects of Egyptian society
past and present, and the like, the summer program equipped students with the
linguistic tools necessary for living in Egypt, communicating with its people,
and understanding, first hand, the society around them. To this end, they stud-
ied mainly (1) Egyptian Colloquial and (2) media Arabic, both printed (daily
newspapers) and spoken (radio and television news bulletins). At the end of the
semester, students were expected to know various Egyptian cultural institutions
and to have gained insights into the cultural background of the Arabic language.

Fourteen-week fall program (second semester)

The fall semester was the heart of the CASA program. Its objective was for
students to acquire proficiency beyond the Intermediate level in reading MSA
and, to a lesser degree, in listening and taking notes in academic lectures and
in writing reports. Upon completion of the fall semester, they were expected
to read an Egyptian newspaper effortlessly, understand news bulletins, and
have some facility with Classical Arabic. In Colloquial Egyptian, they were
expected to gain fluency in speaking and listening and to read plays writ-
ten in that medium; the program also introduced them to Educated Egyptian
Colloquial. Of particular importance in the fall semester was the IR course,
164 Elsaid Badawi

which fostered students’ ability to read independently, served as the catalyst for
building the overall confidence necessary for reaching Advanced proficiency
levels, and activated students’ dormant (receptive) reading skills. Amount of
student progress was determined through the comparison of scores on written
and oral tests administered by certified testers at the beginning and end of each
semester.

Fourteen-week spring program (third semester)

In this semester, the program aimed at consolidating knowledge, raising skills
to a definite stratum of Level 4, and putting to the test the skills activated and
gained during the previous semester. The program centered around work in
MSA and in the colloquial.
In MSA, each student took three graduate-level courses taught exclusively
in Arabic by professors in specialized fields from Egyptian universities. The
students chose the courses from a list circulated to them in the fall. They were
free to add whatever subject they chose. Any subject chosen by a minimum of
three students was automatically offered. Students were free to substitute one
of the courses by a course of reading in a domain of their choice.
Evaluation of the students’ performance at the end of this semester, par-
ticularly their facility with Arabic as a medium for acquiring knowledge and
for self-expression (at various levels of sophistication including the academic
level), was functionally carried out by the outside professors who were urged
to evaluate their CASA students in comparison with their other students in the
national universities. The CASA students who took the spring course at 400–
500-level that I taught in Advanced Arabic Grammar with other Arab graduates
always ranked among the top 25% in their overall performance.
Training students in Educated Spoken Arabic was carried out through a
situation similar to that in which this medium is used, namely discussion of
topics of high culture. Evaluation of this component was carried out by certified
testers who compared the performances of the final semester with the recorded
performances from the previous semesters. Generally speaking, a measure of
the students’ success in this final semester was their ability to read large amounts
of Arabic materials independently.

The IR course
Development of the Independent Reading (IR) course required the identification
of materials appropriate to anticipated tasks, an understanding of the students,
the assignment and reorientation of teachers, the selection of reading texts
themselves, the establishment of a teaching method (i.e., reading procedure),
and a mechanism for evaluation.
 In the quest for the Level 4+ in Arabic 165

Material selection
A Level-4+ reader should be able to perform a variety of reading tasks on
linguistically and socioculturally complex texts: analytical (intensive reading),
extensive reading, and skimming and scanning. The choice of text type that is
culturally and structurally suited for each of the specific reading activities is
crucial. By selecting the right type of material for the right type of reading task
not only is the training more readily facilitated but also social norms associated
with each of the various types of Arabic and the appropriate contextual functions
they perform in the society are naturally brought home to the learners.
Arabic lends itself, quite naturally, to providing text types suitable to the
training of each of the reading tasks. Texts from historical periods and certain
texts from the contemporary period are molded, in style and thought, in the
idiom of past historical periods; such texts would obviously be most suitable
for training in intensive (analytical) reading. For training in reading aloud, on
the other hand, Arabs themselves use literary texts: passages from the Koran,
sayings of the Prophet Mohammed, speeches by historical figures, acts from
classical plays, famous poems, and the like. For training in skimming, MSA
newspapers are particularly suitable, and for developing extensive reading skill,
plays work particularly well.

Intensive reading materials. Experience has shown that it is quite easy to find
materials suitable for training in intensive reading. Contemplative analytical
reading of a text, any text, is usually the method students of Arabic seem to
acquire readily.

Extensive reading materials. It can be extremely difficult to amass a body of

Arabic texts suitable in quality and quantity for structured training in extensive
reading. This difficulty can be attributed to two phenomena: (1) the wide range
of active vocabulary in written Arabic (thanks to the historical depth of the
language), and (2) the complexity of the morpho-semantic system. It is usually
difficult to find a sufficient number of texts sharing enough common vocabulary
to facilitate reasonable passage from one text to the next.
The traditional training of students of Arabic adds to the difficulty. The old
Orientalists’ method still prevails and yields a typical Level-3 student who can
identify, name, and number the verbal forms and their derivatives and derive
morphological forms from a given root. Such students usually lack the ability to
appreciate the semantic roles played by these forms within a given context. Such
an ability can be acquired, not from compiling paradigms of Arabic words/forms
and their corresponding English glosses, but from frequently meeting the vari-
ous forms within the guiding confines of meaningful contexts in a multiplicity
of texts.
166 Elsaid Badawi

Generally speaking, plays, by their nature as a genre employing mainly dia-

logue, are most suitable for purposes of extensive reading. In addition, Arabic
plays are generally characterized by having a comparatively high degree of word
and sentence redundancy, so that ideas, topics, issues keep bouncing among di-
alogue interlocutors for considerably long spans of time. In such exchanges,
words belonging to the same morphological root appear time and again in dif-
ferent forms and with correspondingly different shades of meaning.
Many other features recommend plays for extensive reading. First, a play
usually has a single theme; once the reader is acquainted with the theme of the
play, it acts for him/her like a dotted line along which the action/plot proceeds.
Second, plays are usually of moderate length, which facilitates measured work
assignments; a learner is likely to feel more satisfaction from reading two
200-page books than from reading a single 400-page one. Third, plays also
lend themselves to a multiplicity of language and real-life activities, including
staging them. Attending a commercial staging or watching a videotape of any
of the plays read in class adds to the students’ overall language experience.
Novels, because of their narrative nature, have also been found to be suitable
for extensive reading. However, because of the relative lack of dialogue in them,
novels were introduced later in the semester. The more complex language of
the novel provides an opportunity for naturally stepping up the level of reading
required from students.
The language of the short story is usually complicated and condensed, mir-
roring in this respect the density of their themes. However, because they have
the advantage of being short, they have been used for extensive reading activi-
ties. As a rule, short stories of various lengths were given in conjunction with
the longer items in order to keep a balance between difficult and less difficult
assignments from one week to the other.
One of the important considerations in selecting materials for extensive read-
ing is the question of whether the literary value of a text or its linguistic features
should have the greater weight. Extensive experience shows that, as teachers,
we usually are influenced by the value of the content of the material. The old
CASA program, for example, used only materials of high literary and academic
value. The reconstructed CASA reading program gave preference to language
characteristics over specific content for extensive reading. (Materials with high
content value should, however, be included in the language program, but not
necessarily for extensive reading.)
The assigning of texts during the semester was accomplished via a graded
system of difficulty. With no valid vocabulary or grammar frequency lists, the
selection and the ordering of the texts had to be based upon subjective knowledge
of the students’ level, the range of textbooks they studied in the USA before en-
rolling in the program, the results of enrollment and summer-term achievement
tests, and, most important, personal knowledge of what is available in the Arabic
 In the quest for the Level 4+ in Arabic 167

library. (Knowledge of the literature can make or break a reading program of

this nature.) To cater to student interests, alternative texts for each week at
slightly different levels of difficulty were held in reserve.

The students
The CASA student body was elite, not only in the sense described above, as
the highly motivated top candidates selected from a national competition, but
also in proficiency level. Enrollment minimum was a tested Level 3, although
not every student who gained acceptance was actually at the required level.
Therefore, in the program students were divided, according to their proficiency
levels, into three groups. Further sub-grouping occurred for particular purposes
such as interest in a certain subject, a need for side instruction in a particular
aspect of the language, and the like.
Typically, enrolling students displayed a limited range of vocabulary, particu-
larly outside the domain of politics; a theoretical understanding of morphology
with limited to no experience of using it to read authentic texts; and nearly no
facility with semantics, although most were able to consult Hans Wehr’s root-
based Dictionary of Written Arabic. Many students also came to the CASA
program having acquired bad reading habits in Arabic. Having bad reading
habits in this case means being more focused on sentence structure, sentential
components, and grammatical categories than on the message of the passage.
Interestingly many of those who merely parsed their way through Arabic texts
would not think of approaching a native-language (English) text in the same
way. (While foreign language learners do tend to approach authentic texts with
caution, it is our observation that Arab teachers of Arabic tend to instill parsing-
based reading habits.) On the other hand, students often attempt to use English-
language decoding strategies that are not fully suited to reading Arabic. Thus,
they have to unlearn such things as the semantic role of punctuation, which has
no counterpart in Arabic, punctuation marks having been borrowed into Arabic
from French and playing more or less a “decorative” role.
Students at the beginning of the program were found to have fallen into the
crippling habit of excessively using the Arabic–English dictionary. It goes with-
out saying that the dictionary is an essential tool for the studying of languages. In
the hands of some, however, and without clear guidance as to when and how to
use it, the dictionary can become an obstacle to spontaneous and contextualized
language learning. It has been our observation that frequent consulting of the
dictionary, in fact, slows down the process of reading and quite often obscures
the meaning of the text. After all, the full meaning of a word is nothing less than
its total contextual occurrences within the language. Dictionary definitions and
their illustrative examples cannot be expected to fully cover all the nuances of
vocabulary items. The situation becomes more acute when one considers the
average size of the standard dictionary in popular use. Haste in appealing to
168 Elsaid Badawi

the dictionary for assistance deprives learners of the opportunity to decipher

for themselves the meaning of words from living contexts. Even unsuccessful
attempts to deduce meaning from context usually end in better understanding
and retention. A meaning of a word quickly obtained from a dictionary is as
quickly forgotten.
Students also bring their own objectives to the CASA program. Because they
are registered in a graduate program, they are eager to acquire working facility
in the domain of their studies. This interest is met in the final semester where
taking university-level courses in Arabic serves, in addition to reinforcing the
students’ general language ability, to train each of them in the domain of their
choice.
Proficiency aside, the greatest need the students were found to have at the
time of enrollment was a change of attitude toward Arabic from that of a lan-
guage they are being taught to one which they should start learning. In other
words, the responsibility for improving proficiency passes from teacher to stu-
dent while still in the classroom. (This is fully in keeping with other pro-
grams described in this volume, e.g., the LangNet option, some of the Chinese
programs enumerated in Chapter 5, and others.)

The teachers
At the inception of this program, the need to reorient teachers became imme-
diately clear. All teachers were graduates of language departments; some were
from departments of Arabic. Some had higher degrees, but none had pedagog-
ical training. (In fact, there was no academic program for training teachers in
Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language [TAFL] anywhere at that time. The first
MA program in TAFL was established at the American University in Cairo in
1977.) However, experience in teaching Arabic to non-native speakers, knowl-
edge of foreign languages, and, above all, sensitivity to the cultural and psy-
chological needs of foreign learners living away from home in a society quite
different from their own made these teachers valuable to the CASA program.
Misgivings were expressed about using some texts of no particular literary
renown for intensive reading and also about including an extensive reading
component, as well as the concept of Independent Reading. Teachers were not
ready, for example, to entertain the possibility of Intermediate-level students
reading a real play or novel without teacher assistance.
This reaction was to be expected. For the last fourteen centuries, Arab lan-
guage planners have kept alive the linguistic features of Classical Arabic of the
Koranic idiom, some of which, in fact, have become redundant as conveyers of
meaning in MSA. The most far-reaching of those is the intricate system of case
vowel endings. Educated Arabs are taught from early childhood to work out the
case vowel endings for every word in the text in accordance with the grammar
rules they, as students, have been diligently, if not successfully, taught. Thus, as
 In the quest for the Level 4+ in Arabic 169

they read, readers engage in a simultaneous mental analysis of the text (a task
that often requires the reader to travel backward and forward along the sentence
in order to readjust a conclusion prematurely reached). The attention necessary
for carrying out such a task is usually so absorbing that it leaves little for the main
purpose of reading, namely comprehension. Although the word order within
the sentence, apart from the case vowel endings, is, by itself, quite sufficient
for comprehension, it is not generally accepted by Arab educators as such.
The change of attitude toward the new IR course in the fall of 1970 was
finally brought about through the students themselves. Having been assigned
their first play for reading over the weekend and having been guided as to the
procedure which they should follow in completing the task, the students, who
were at first skeptical as to their ability to read an entire book on their own,
surprised themselves with the results. The enthusiasm generated in the first few
weeks for the IR program by the students swept away all resistance to it, and
the reorientation of the teachers became a fait accompli.

The reading texts

Of the program’s twenty contact hours a week, three hours (plus one hour for
writing follow-ups) were assigned to the IR component.
Three items, one long (a play or a novel) and two short (combinations of a
one-act play and/or a short story) were stipulated as the amount of materials
to be covered in each of the fourteen working weeks of the semester. As the
experiment progressed and the students’ comments/reactions were gathered,
particularly over the first two years, teachers discovered that generations of
students did not react to the reading texts in the same way. Some took violent
dislikes to texts previously well liked by others, and alternative texts had to be
assigned to them. The reading list, as a result, had to contain additional titles
that were made available to students as the need arose.
Texts were chosen in groups of at least three titles by the same author.6
Also, each group of texts contained items escalating in difficulty to provide a
continuum of graded readings. The lowest end of the scale had to be above the
heads of the average students by a manageable distance, while the highest was
determined as to be at a difficulty level far above where the students were at
the beginning of the course. It goes without saying that the accessibility of the
language of the first week’s assignment was crucial for inspiring confidence in
the students and the success of the experiment as a whole. Also, the appreciable
difference in language difficulty between the top and the bottom of the scale

6 Assigning multiple works in this way allowed students to become increasingly familiar with the
linguistic structures and lexicon used by each author, allowing students to progress more rapidly
from one work through the consolidation and deepening of a limited range of language – i.e.,
the language associated with that author (every author, every person has their own language
“reserve”) – as well as to transition to the idiom of other authors.
170 Elsaid Badawi

provided an added means of evaluating the amount of improvement achieved

by course end.
Texts also had to be authentic, non-abridged, and written for the general native
reader, preferably (but not necessarily) by leading literary figures and, as much
as possible, have no extant English translations. (Compared with the time, effort,
and cost of devising advanced language courses based upon short texts culled
from copyrighted materials, the one-time cost of securing the materials for this
course and the absence of copyright requirements were great advantages.)
However, it was a far cry from devising a number of specifications for select-
ing authentic materials for a language course to actually finding texts with such
specifications, particularly when curriculum devisers were faced with the task
of quantifying and qualifying what was “above the heads of the students by a
manageable distance.” An added difficulty at the time, and continuing today,
was the absence of any reliable and up-to-date frequency listings of language
features, particularly structure and vocabulary.
The selection of the actual texts, however, was made with the aid of the
intimate knowledge of the students’ language background and a long association
with the genres from which the texts were to be chosen. Naturally, trial and error
and the close monitoring of students’ reactions, particularly during the first two
years, played a significant role in weeding out unsuitable texts.
Four groups of texts comprised the assigned readings. Each reflected distinc-
tive language features.

Group 1. Plays, both long and one-act, by the founder of Arab modern theatre,
Tewfik Alhakim, were chosen in multiple quantity. In addition to the fact that
Alhakim’s style exhibits a notable degree of redundancy, the sources of his
themes are generally familiar to students: Greek drama, Biblical stories, and
Arab and world history. Also, his dialogue is lively, and his language is straight-
forward and deliberately chosen in order to be comprehensible to members of
the general public, including those who have little knowledge of MSA. In fact,
Alhakim prided himself for his choice of what he called “middle-of-the-way”
language. For the above reasons, items from Alhakim’s work, both long and
short, were assigned during the first three crucial weeks. They proved to be a
success.

Group 2. This group, which had to be a step higher on the scale of difficulty,
came from the work of the journalist, novelist, and short-story writer, Ihsan
Abdul Quddus. Unlike Alhakim, Abdul Quddus chose themes for his literary
creation from social phenomena involving problems of the young, in partic-
ular in Egyptian society. Such themes are usually involved, and the language
dealing with them often makes references to local customs and popular expres-
sions, each of which causes Abdul Quddus’s language to be less accessible than
 In the quest for the Level 4+ in Arabic 171

Alhakim’s. Also, the fact that novels and short stories lack the “relaxation” of
the language brought about by the use of dialogues posits another plus for plac-
ing this group of texts higher than the last. Abdul Quddus’s lucid, accessible,
easygoing structure and, remarkably, controlled range of vocabulary further
made the texts ideal for the second stage of the IR course. In addition, it was
thought (correctly, as was proved later) that the problems of Egyptian youth
should parallel those of young Americans and, therefore, be understandable
to the CASA students, and the interest such subjects would generate for stu-
dents should compensate for their added difficulty. (This formula of equating
difficulty of language with general familiarity with content is a staple of many
content-based courses, which, like the IR course, use challenging authentic
texts [Stryker and Leaver, 1997b]).

Group 3. The reading of this group of texts started at the beginning of the
eighth week. Texts were selected from the novels of the Egyptian novelist and
short-story writer, Yusuf Idris. Idris wrote in an easy-flowing MSA style heav-
ily interlaced with colloquial expressions, idiomatic usages, popular sayings,
quotations from the Koran, and sayings of the Prophet. As is usually the case,
understanding the general meaning of the text in which such language devices
are used does not, particularly, depend upon understanding the meaning of
those devices. On the contrary, the context of the narration itself provides suffi-
cient clues for understanding the approximate meanings of quotes, in addition
to providing authentic examples of the situations in which they can be used.
Idris’s writing also provided an example of the common ground where MSA and
Educated, and even other types of, colloquials mesh. The calculated increase
in language difficulty, particularly in so far as it was laden with references to
social phenomena, was thus compensated for. Idris’s writings provided a higher
rung, suitably placed on the third level along the reading scale.

Group 4 (final). For this stage, individual items, not necessarily by the same
author, were chosen. Balancing language features was no longer a consideration.
Artistic value and special interests became the overriding considerations for
item selection. In the final weeks, students read, for instance, Algabal (“The
Mountain”), by the Egyptian novelist, Fathy Ghanem. This fascinating novel
is narrated against the background of the never-ending battles between ancient
tomb diggers, antiquity police, foreign buyers of stolen antiquities, and the
romantic foreign lovers of Ancient Egypt. Also novels, other than his famous
Trilogy, by Naguib Mahfouz were read during this stage in the semester.

Short items. One-act plays and short stories played a complementary role
within the reading scheme. Because of their distinctive themes, narration tech-
nique, condensed language, and minimal length, short stories were mainly used
172 Elsaid Badawi

for balancing the weekly reading assignments throughout the semester. A bal-
ance between length (which could be a few paragraphs) and language difficulty
was the selection criterion for the short items.

The reading procedure

The course objective for the IR was defined as helping students develop an
ability to read independently and in bulk printed Arabic materials in a wide
range of genres – plays, novels, and short stories – without the immediate aid
of language teachers and with minimal resort to the dictionary. In the process
of achieving this goal, the students’ command of the written language and
their range of vocabulary, idiomatic usage, and structural knowledge would
be enhanced. It was also envisaged that with facility in the language of these
particular genres, which directly reflect the society in which they are written, the
learner is likely to have an easier passage into the language of other domains,
particularly the social ones.
The procedure was straightforward and simple. It was naturally centered
around the students doing the major part on their own at home. The students
were completely taken into the confidence of the teachers/supervisors as to
details of what was to take place. As adult learners poised to start on their own,
they had to be fully aware of all the details of the experiment and the philosophy
behind it.
The weekly assignment (one long item and two short ones) was distributed
to the students at the end of the week for reading over the weekend and the
following days. For the first two weekly assignments, teachers prepared brief
descriptions of the settings for each item.
The standing set of instructions given to the students for reading at home was
the following:
r The most difficult part of a novel / play / short story is at the beginning where
the setting is established and the reader is brought into what for her/him is
an entirely unfamiliar situation. Bear with the text and be patient; things are
bound to become clearer even if you do not follow everything at the beginning.
Once you are on your way in the reading, you can go back to details of the
settings for clarification, if you wish.
r Arabic writing, compared with English, has a notable degree of repetition
and/or redundancy. Use this feature to your advantage: if you encounter a
difficult word or a sentence, try the following ones for clarification; then you
may go back, if you wish, to the offending part for matching purposes.
r Continue reading the text as long as you are able to make out a story/theme
for yourself. There is no need to concern yourself with whether the story you
are following is actually what the author has meant or not.
r If you encounter a word or part of the structure, the meaning of which you
do not know and it stops you continuing with the reading, do not go for the
 In the quest for the Level 4+ in Arabic 173

dictionary unless you fail to guess the meaning and you do not find someone
at hand to ask.
r Mark the words you were able to do without, in following the general meaning
of the narration, and the words whose meaning you were able to guess from
context.
r Mark references to cultural features that you would like to have explained in
class.
r Mark parts of the text, particularly expressions and grammatical construc-
tions, that you would like to discuss in the class.
The procedure in the class was also simple and consisted mainly of making
sure that the students had read the assignments and had followed the procedure
at home. Students related the story (if necessary in English, particularly in the
first weeks); then they presented the points they wished to discuss. Toward the
end of the meeting the teacher, in turn, presented points, particularly related to
culture, that the students had not brought up. One of the important class, and
occasional home-assignment, activities was culling from the text the various
derivatives of a joint root, each with its own distinguishing context, identifying
the semantic and formal relations to the other derivatives and to the unifying
root, most often using the Hans Weir’s Dictionary of Modern Arabic. An im-
portant objective for this exercise for Arabic (and potentially for the learning
of Hebrew as well) was familiarization with the unique “logic of Arabic” in
deriving from a single concept/root various forms, since the semantic relation
between each of them, as well as between each of them and the central root, is
not universal or necessarily apparent to the foreign learner. For example, the root
K-T-B includes derivatives meaning “to write,” “to assemble,” “to subscribe,”
and “to regiment.” In discovering that the semantic domain connecting the
derivatives of K-T-B is “gathering things together,” the students’ attention is di-
rected to the semantic channels through which a message is conveyed in Arabic.
The students’ mastery of the derivational system and their retention of vocab-
ulary items markedly increased through such exercises. (One note of caution,
however: when this type of exercise is not used judiciously, it can result in a
“semantic witch-hunt.”)

The written follow-ups. Once a week the students accomplished writing tasks
in class that were related to the previous weekly reading assignment. With
the teacher circulating among the students in order to provide assistance on
the spot, the students summarized the plots, explained idiomatic usage and
other significant vocabulary items, discussed cultural phenomena, and gave
their opinions on matters concerning the content of the text as a whole.
In their written replies, the students were at liberty to revert to English if and
whenever they felt they had to do so. As expected of such a highly motivated
group, very few availed themselves of this license and only for a short period.
174 Elsaid Badawi

The fact that they performed the writing task while the teacher was at hand
meant the written follow-up sessions were welcomed by the students.

Weekly conference. The teachers, supervisors, and students met at a weekly

conference in order to discuss details of the reading procedure, including levels
of texts and their suitability as a whole. Students also related personal expe-
riences, described difficulties, and exchanged discovered techniques. Culling
students’ experiences in those meetings contributed greatly to improving the
reading technique and enabled students to benefit from each other’s experi-
ences. The theoretical foundations of the reading experiment were clarified
during those conferences.

Evaluations
On the average, students read about 2,500 pages during the fourteen weeks of the
semester. This average increased from one year to the next as the teachers and
the students became more convinced of the validity of the course’s postulates.
Task-based evaluations at various levels were employed. The principal means
of assessment were as follows.
r Arranging the reading texts in four groups of ascending equidistant levels of
difficulty provided a built-in system for evaluating the progress of the students,
the suitability of the materials, and the reading procedure as a whole. The
ability of students to handle the very difficult texts of Group 4, when they
finally reached that stage (texts that would have been impossible for them
during the early weeks of the semester), demonstrated the validity of the
experiment.
r At the middle and, particularly, the end of the semester, the students were
asked to go over the texts they had already covered in order to review the items
of vocabulary and parts of the structure whose meanings/function they had not
understood at the time they read the text and which they had merely marked
without consulting a dictionary, to discover for themselves what percent-
age of those items had become intelligible to them. The results (25%–40%)
always surprised the students (and also the teachers at the early stages of the
experiment). This vocabulary acquisition test, in particular, was important
for demonstrating to the students the effectiveness of the procedure. Students
always expressed doubt, at the beginning of the course, as to the possibility
of learning unknown vocabulary through the reading of long texts without
appealing to a dictionary.
r The primary evaluation, however, took place during the following (and fi-
nal) semester. As stated above, the curriculum for that semester consisted of
three graduate-level courses taught exclusively in Arabic. Demonstrable inde-
pendent reading in the volume of materials related to those courses formed a
 In the quest for the Level 4+ in Arabic 175

significant portion of the course evaluation. Naturally, the skills demonstrated

by the students in taking those courses were the function of the CASA pro-
gram as a whole and not merely of the IR course alone. However, it would
be fair to conclude that the students’ independence and self-reliance and the
reading in quantity would not have been as evident but for the IR course. This
conclusion was also supported by the CASA graduates themselves.

Conclusions
The objective of the IR course was to activate what could be described as the
dormant ability of Level 2–3 learners to read, on their own, authentic materials
in the target language. In the process, however, the language proficiency of the
students notably increased.
Although students gained direct facility in the specific genres of the Arabic
play, novel, and short story, experience repeatedly showed that the abilities
gained in the fall semester in independent reading in these genres was, without
great difficulty, transferred to other genres and domains in the spring semester
when the students had to take graduate courses in an assortment of other
subjects.
There was also an indication that reading authentic materials in bulk (i.e.,
extensive reading) favors the writing skill as well. At the end of the reading
course, teachers noted that students were producing in their writing chunks of
Arabic cohesively structured in the ways of Arabic prose.
At the center of the experiment was the use of complete texts. Reading a
whole book does to the morale of the learner at the Intermediate stage (and
probably also to his/her proficiency level) much more than would the reading
of several times the amount in mere extracts. It is not a matter of encouraging
self-deception in the learner but of guiding them toward self-awareness.
In the IR course, materials from exclusively literary genres were used. The
reason for selecting such materials, as explained above, was that in setting Inter-
mediate learners to read authentic texts for the first time on their own, they had
to be provided with self-monitoring devices to keep them on course. The theme
of a novel, play, or a short story provides such a device. The depth and richness
of the language of the literary genres is another important consideration. It is
through the literary genres that the reader gains insight into the complexity of
language expression and social phenomena in one package.
Criticism, however, has been made of this reading course because of the
exclusive use of the literary genres. Not every learner likes to read such materi-
als, it has been argued. In our experience with this course, no student has ever
expressed such a dislike of the genre as a whole. Should there be learners who
dislike reading literature to a point where they are unable to learn from it, then
a different type of material together with a different type of approach should be
176 Elsaid Badawi

found for them. The kind of text or set of materials that suits every adult learner
has not yet been written. It is unlikely that it ever will be.
In connection with the above, it is notable that most of the materials used for
training foreign language learners, at least in Arabic, seem to be of the narrowly
defined political type.
In a seminar at the Beijing University of Foreign Languages held in 1988,
the Head of External Relations of the Central Ministry of Education of China
lamented the fact that in the eagerness to train as many translators as possible
within a short time, literary material was excluded in teaching foreign languages
in China as a whole. The result was, he said, that translators lacked a requisite
depth of field.
Objective measurements in the studying of Arabic are difficult at present be-
cause of the absence of reliable statistical analyses of Arabic language features,
particularly vocabulary and structure, and also because of the need to revise
the Arabic Proficiency Guidelines to reflect Arabic-specific linguistic reality.
At present, they seem to be more influenced by generic L2, rather than specific
Arabic, features.
Reaching Level 4+ is achievable basically through the personal efforts of
the learner with judicious assistance from teachers in the form and quantity the
learner requires. No learner will ever achieve this level without gaining inde-
pendence from teacher and textbook. Courses for training learners in reading
independently, such as the one described above, should therefore be introduced
no later than Level 2–3.
9 Teaching high-level writing skills in
English at a Danish university

Tim Caudery

I do not believe that there can be any “quick fix” or magic formula for making
students Distinguished-level writers in a foreign language. There is simply
too much to learn. However, I do believe that developing an awareness of
variety of voice, of different generic conventions, of the way that audience and
purpose can dramatically shape text in different ways, is an area where many
writers can make a major and necessary step. Activities can easily be devised
to develop this awareness, and this chapter briefly describes a variety of these.
Acquiring the language range necessary to transfer the benefits of awareness
into greatly improved writing is likely to be a longer process, but one where
even the smallest increment helps. If students are asked to tackle a variety of
tasks which differ from those of “conventional” essay/self-expression writing
courses, these should create a clear need for, and provide opportunities for
teaching, language that will increase students’ range.
This chapter describes the rationale behind a course taught at the English
Department of the University of Aarhus, Denmark, and gives examples of ac-
tivities used in the teaching. The course covers a variety of aspects of English
in use but focuses particularly on written English and on writing skills in a non-
literary context. One aim of the course is to help students over time to improve
their own writing proficiency to a truly Superior or Distinguished level. Given
that the course only lasts a year and that it is one of many courses that make
up the students’ program, it certainly cannot be claimed that all students could
be described as Distinguished-level writers by the end of it. However, course
instructors believe that it helps students make an important advance in writing
skills by focusing on aspects of language and written communication to which
they may previously have given little thought, and that it provides them with the
tools to go on working independently at observing how texts work and incor-
porating the knowledge obtained from such observation into their own writing.
Improving proficiency is only one aim of the course; it is also an academically
oriented course in understanding how real texts “work” (or fail to work) as
communication in given situations. Were writing proficiency the only aim of
the course, no doubt it would include an even greater range of writing activities,
among them perhaps some “free” or “creative” writing.

177
178 Tim Caudery

Background: university students in Denmark

Danes, in common with citizens of several other countries in Northern Europe,
are often regarded – by themselves and by others – as having quite a high level
of English language skills. There are a number of factors that might contribute
to such a generally high level of proficiency.
First, as speakers of a Germanic language that is fairly closely related to
English, Danes have the advantage of being able to draw on their L1 knowledge
of syntax and lexis. They encounter a large number of Danish cognates in
English. This relative linguistic closeness is further supported by the huge
number of English loan-words which have entered Danish in the past half-
century, a process which is itself promoted by the other factors mentioned here.
Second, there is massive exposure to English in everyday life in Denmark.
With only around 5 million native speakers, Danish is one of the world’s smaller
national languages, and the population cannot provide the economic and human
resources to have everything they might want produced in Danish. Particularly
notable in this context is the import of movies, TV programs, and popular music.
While larger countries often choose to dub imported TV programs and movies,
Denmark uses subtitles, leaving the original spoken language of the media as it
is – and, of course, that language is most often English. A considerable propor-
tion of the programs transmitted on Danish TV are imported; Denmark would
not have the resources to produce enough of its own soap operas, made-for-
TV movies, etc., to fill the airtime available. TV and movies are not the only
areas in which Danes encounter English-language materials, however. Popular
songs are often foreign productions, with lyrics in English, and even songs by
Danish singers may have English lyrics. As a nation with a large number of
privately owned computers, many Danes have access to the Internet, where the
greatest amount of information available is in English and where the amount
of information in Danish is relatively small. Books and magazines aimed at the
general public are produced in Danish, although many such books are trans-
lated from other languages; however, slightly more specialized publications
are often available only in English. In the academic world, students studying
beyond high-school level find that they have to deal with reading materials in
foreign languages: it would be uneconomic to translate even all basic academic
textbooks into Danish.
Third, learning at least one foreign language is a necessity for any Dane
who wishes to have contacts with the world beyond the borders of the nation.
Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian are more or less mutually intelligible, but
these are all languages spoken in a very small area of the world. To understand
or be understood in the vast majority of destinations, Danes traveling abroad are
virtually compelled to speak another language, and the most useful language
for international communication today is English. In the field of commerce,
 Teaching high-level writing skills in English 179

Denmark has to be outward-looking and trade with its neighbors; English is

increasingly the language of the international business world. There is even a
trend for the larger Danish companies to make their internal company language
English, allowing them to work more easily within a multinational network
of parent and subsidiary companies and trading partners. Employees therefore
have to use English, at least to some extent, in their daily work.
Fourth, English is the main second language taught in schools. The teaching
of English begins at the age of around ten, and it receives high priority in the
school program.
Fifth and finally, Denmark has a certain cultural affinity for Britain. This is
difficult to identify in exact qualitative or quantitative terms, but one can point
to a definite switch in cultural orientation as part of the outcome of the Second
World War, when Denmark was invaded and occupied by its large neighbor to
the south, Germany. However, the cultural links are much deeper and older than
can be explained by a postwar reaction against things German, and perhaps it is
not too fanciful to look back more than 1,000 years to the Danish invasions and
settlement of the eastern part of England and the interaction between Britain
and Denmark that has gone on intermittently ever since.
These factors are mutually supportive of one another and together produce
a national culture in which the English language is encountered in some form
or other at almost every turn. It is hardly surprising, then, that the majority of
Danes can communicate orally in English with a considerable degree of fluency,
if not always accuracy.
Given the generally reasonably high level of English in the population as a
whole, it is perhaps to be expected that most university students choosing to
major in English should have a reasonably high level of proficiency even before
they begin their studies. Since this is indeed assumed by the universities to be
the case, courses in the English Department at the University of Aarhus (and
also at most other universities in Denmark) are all conducted in English from the
outset, and virtually all books and written materials used are in English. In fact,
however, there is very considerable variation in the level of English-language
proficiency among students in the Department, and few could be described as
having Distinguished-level written English skills at the start of their studies.
The majority would be described as Advanced or Superior.
Many language teachers could feel a certain amount of envy of the teaching
situation in Denmark, given the level of students’ knowledge of English. How-
ever, this situation of reasonable general oral proficiency in a foreign language in
the population as a whole and relatively high proficiency among many students
starting to study the foreign language at the university level is far from being
unique to Denmark. The same type of situation is found in many countries; the
reasons for generally high levels of familiarity with an L2 may vary, but the end
result is often similar. In yet more countries, the same general pervasiveness of
180 Tim Caudery

the foreign language in the culture may not pertain, but there may still be high
levels of oral proficiency among a smaller section of the population and among
university students of the subject, thanks perhaps to periods of residence in the
foreign culture being common for a select group of the population. In such
cases, as in Denmark, one of the main areas in which students can make, and
may need to make, a step from adequate to advanced second language skills
is in the field of writing. The situation in Denmark shares some literacy issues
with the heritage population described in Chapter 10 of this volume, although
the discrepancy between oral proficiency and literacy may not be as great as it
is among heritage speakers.

Answering the need for Distinguished-level second

language writing skills
Students at Aarhus need good written and oral academic English-language skills
in the short term, for use in their university studies. They are given a course
in study skills in their first semester at the university, and this includes some
brief training in writing academic papers, reading academic books, and so on.
However, they also have a much longer-term need related to language skills
in a wider context. There is a general expectation of university graduates in
English that they will be able to produce good English in almost any situation –
writing letters, producing information materials, representing their employers,
teaching, and so on. Traditionally, many of our university graduates in English
would go into schoolteaching as a career; now fewer than half of them do so,
and the proportion is constantly diminishing. The others find employment in
quite a wide variety of professions; the demands that will be made on their lan-
guage skills are equally varied and rather difficult to predict. The Department of
English feels a responsibility to give students a sufficiently good understanding
of the way English is used in different forms of communication for them to
make a satisfactory job of doing whatever may reasonably be asked of them.
Such needs for flexible, high-level language skills are, of course, not con-
fined to university students. Second language skills are vital for many people
today in both work and leisure contexts. They are certainly vital for the Danes,
as noted above; their language is of little use for communication outside their
own country, and there are times when it will not suffice even within their
homeland. Spoken language skills may appear to be of primary importance.
Ours is a world of fast and convenient long-distance travel, of face-to-face
meetings, of the telephone, even of video and Internet conferencing; in these
contexts, spoken language abilities are vital in achieving many goals – in re-
questing, in persuading, in making agreements, in complaining, and so on –
as employees, citizens, and private individuals. Yet, written language skills are
also very important and often in the most crucial of situations: the delicate and
 Teaching high-level writing skills in English 181

complex request, the information to be provided for permanent reference, the

legal contract. Cope and Kalantzis (1993) identified writing skills as an area of
empowerment; underprivileged children in Australian schools, they claimed,
were being disempowered in society because they could not write in the forms
accepted by the establishment (see also S. Gee [1997] for a concise account of
ideas about teaching genres in Australia). The same is true for users of second
languages. If they cannot write in a way that is effective and that is gener-
ally accepted as being appropriate, then they are likely to be disempowered in
important areas of communication and interaction with people of other nations.

Writing and choice

The field of teaching second language writing skills (or first language writing
skills, for that matter) is one marked by controversy and passionate disagree-
ment with regard to teaching approaches and methods. Advocates of process
approaches have been described as (and condemned for) displaying almost re-
ligious fervor in promoting their ideas (Horowitz [1986]), while in Australia
many who embrace a genre-based approach to teaching do so almost as a re-
action to process. Yet, there is at least widespread agreement that effective
nonliterary texts are shaped by considerations of audience, writer/reader rela-
tionships, purpose, and occasion (see, for example, Tribble [1996, pp. 45–61]).
Expert writers choose their content, their text structure, and their language in
the light of these considerations.
This implies that writers make choices. Indeed, the writing process can be
seen as a constant series of choices, of selecting what is most appropriate for
audience, writer/reader relationship, purpose, and context. Choice of content
and of the overall text structure may be seen in terms of selecting what is needful
and leaving out what is not and in terms of presentation in a logical sequence
that can be easily processed by the reader; yet there are also cultural and generic
conventions to be observed in selecting the overall framework and coherence
for the text (see Grabe and Kaplan [1996] on contrasts between rhetorical
conventions in different cultures), and if these conventions are flouted, the text
may seem odd or inappropriate to the reader. Choices of style and register (i.e.,
level of formality) have to be matched to the relationship between writer and
reader; too informal a style implies a degree of familiarity and intimacy that
may be considered insulting, whereas language that is too formal may seem off-
putting and distant. Sentence structure and lexis need to be selected to convey
meaning with precisely the degree of clarity – or on occasion ambiguity –
which the writer considers desirable and conducive to conveying the message
efficiently to the particular readership envisaged.
The choices discussed above are often very sophisticated in nature, requiring
a careful calculation of the effect of the writing on the target audience and a high
182 Tim Caudery

degree of awareness of the issues involved. Above all, such choices demand
that there is a range of options open to the writer. If the writer’s language is
limited, then he or she may be pressed to find more than one way of conveying
the message, and talk of choice then becomes meaningless, or at least refers
solely to a lower level of choice – the choice of what is grammatically correct
as opposed to what is incorrect, for example. Even the choice of whether to
include or exclude a certain point may be governed in part by linguistic knowl-
edge, since writers may decide not to include points that they find difficult to
express. Similarly, if the writer is unaware of the importance of these choices,
or of the different signals that are conveyed through making them, then simply
knowing a wider range of vocabulary and syntactic structures may make little
difference to writing effectiveness. One option may seem as good as another,
and the writer may make selections between alternatives more or less at ran-
dom. The kinds of lexical, structural, discourse, and sociolinguistic precision
mentioned here are described in other chapters in this volume as essential for
Superior/Distinguished-level proficiency.
At Aarhus University, first-year students often have written language skills
that are adequate for the basic communication of a message but inadequate in
range to enable them to make the sophisticated choices that would truly em-
power them in an English-language context. They continue to make language
errors, of course, in the sense that they sometimes write sentences that are gram-
matically inaccurate or use words or phrases that do not have the meaning that
they wish to convey. Errors like these can be gradually eliminated by a variety
of methods, and the linguistic input that students receive through their reading
and their various classes also contributes to gradual improvement in accuracy.
However, simply improving the accuracy of their written English in these senses
would not be enough to make students truly Superior/Distinguished-level writ-
ers. Beginning students seem to have only one voice in which they are comfort-
able. They write in a fairly uniform style that owes much to colloquial English.
It is a style that would be generally appropriate to personal letters, for exam-
ple. Confronted with a task such as writing a more formal letter such as a job
application, they either produce exactly the same kind of writing or go “over
the top” in attempting to use a formal style which they are unable to handle.
This is not an uncommon type of problem among second language writers all
over the world. One approach to solving it is teaching fairly rigid patterns for
specific types of writing. In British universities, for example, overseas students
may be taught “academic writing.” Because it is possible to identify a particular
genre in which students will need to write – in this case, the academic essay –
it is possible to work along the lines pioneered by Swales (1990) in analyzing
essential features of this genre. These features can be detailed from paragraph
and essay structure down to grammatical features and prefabricated phrases
that are thought to typify the writing, and these features can be modeled and
 Teaching high-level writing skills in English 183

then taught by imitation through course books such as Jordan (1990). One can
question the effectiveness of this approach on a variety of levels from consid-
ering whether it is really possible to identify common structure and language
patterns for academic writing through to the question of how well learning to
imitate models can make for successful, independent writers. In truth, however,
in the short pre-session courses frequently offered by universities for potential
students this may be the only viable approach, and learning to imitate models
“because that’s the way it’s done” may be an effective survival kit for stu-
dents who have to follow university studies in a foreign language. Using this
type of formulaic approach, however, is unlikely to give students the flexibility
they need to become truly Distinguished-level writers able to accomplish many
different types of writing.
Process approaches to teaching writing have had great impact on the sec-
ond language classroom since the early 1970s. The concept of “the process
approach” has perhaps become increasingly diffuse as it has spread to differ-
ent teaching contexts (Caudery [1995b]), but consideration of writing audience
and purpose is a common theme. However, the essence of process approaches
seems to lie in the teaching of the writing process itself – encouraging students
to realize that “writing is rewriting.” Could a process approach provide what is
missing in our students’ writing?
Process approaches may provide a useful teaching framework. Insofar as
they can involve the teacher in the process of the creation of the text (see, for
example, Hedge’s description [2000, pp. 300–302] of the writing classroom,
in which the teacher acts as a consultant on writing in progress), I believe
that the insights of the process movement can be very relevant. Our students
are, however, by definition, reasonably successful writers in L1; they have to
be, in order to gain admission to university. There is ample evidence that L1
writing processes and habits, for better or worse, are likely to be transferred
to L2 to the extent that the writer’s knowledge of the L2 permits (e.g., Arndt
[1987]; Cumming [1989]). Danish university students are certainly familiar
with the concept of revision; indeed, many of them seem to spend too much
time revising, with no great improvement in the end result. (Caudery [1995a]
demonstrates that Danish students who are asked to redraft a text unaided may
make many changes, from surface-level editing to total restructuring of their
texts, but that such revisions rarely make any significant difference to the rated
quality of their writing.) Teachers of Danish at high schools in Denmark are
familiar with process approaches, and many encourage their students to seek
peer feedback on their work; again, those students who find they like this way
of working transfer the habit to their L2 writing at university. I suggest that
writing process problems are not at the heart of the writing problems of the
majority of our students. Instead, their problems relate to lack of linguistic and
cultural knowledge.
184 Tim Caudery

Teaching approach at Aarhus

Concepts
Our teaching at Aarhus is founded on a number of straightforward ideas. These
are:
r development of awareness of text types;
r clear specification of writing tasks;
r development of thinking techniques;
r focus on making conscious choices;
r development of linguistic sophistication and precision.

Development of awareness of text types

In order to reach Distinguished levels, students need to be made more aware
of the characteristics of different types of text and of the importance of these
differences in making the texts suitable for their purpose. In doing this, large
numbers of fixed “rules” for writing texts of particular genres are not given,
but rather explanations of textual features emanating from authors’ choices
regarding language and structure to suit audience, purpose, and context. This
element of the course involves discussion of authentic texts of different types,
and it is necessary to teach some terminology in order to analyze and discuss
the characteristics of texts fairly precisely.

Clear specification of writing tasks

Students work on writing texts where writer’s role, reader, purpose, and con-
text are defined by the teacher and where students’ efforts are directed to-
ward making their texts appropriate in terms of these parameters. This is not a
course in free writing where students decide for themselves what they want to
write about or who they want to write for, and invention strategies are by and
large not in focus. While this policy may seem anathema to teachers who view
the encouragement of self-expression as central to a writing course, there are
many advantages to specifying the writing tasks closely – including greater
authenticity, since real-life writing is often a matter of meeting specific writing
requirements rather than expressing one’s innermost feelings. This is not to
say that writing tasks do not require creativity, but rather that the creativity is
channeled into problem-solving that requires both ingenuity and language skill.

Development of thinking techniques

Learning to write successfully does not mean copying a limited range of model
texts or learning conventions and writing formulas for a small number of text
types that students will themselves need to work with in later life. In part this
is because teachers cannot predict what types of texts students will need to be
able to write and so need to provide them with techniques that will enable them
 Teaching high-level writing skills in English 185

to think about the characteristics required of any text they might reasonably
be asked or wish to create. It is also because truly Distinguished-level writers
do not turn out texts shaped by templates; they write flexibly, creatively, and
individually but nevertheless within a set of limits that are defined not only
by the characteristics of the genre in which they are writing, but also by the
characteristics of genres within which they are not writing. Thus, we do not ask
students to follow models slavishly, but rather to use knowledge gained from
examining authentic texts to write texts with slightly different requirements.

Focus on making conscious choices

A course premise is that students need to be aware of the choices they make in
writing. Further, they should be able to discuss and explain these choices.

Development of linguistic sophistication and precision

Another course premise is that students need to learn more language – more
vocabulary, more idiomatic expressions, more syntactic structures – in order to
have alternatives that they can consider in writing.

Discussion
The aims of the course are thus very high, and what is achieved may often seem
limited in relation to the ideal – creation of a sensitivity that many native speakers
never achieve. The amount of knowledge of language and of conventions needed
to make use of such sensitivity is itself vast. The process of moving from being
an adequate if limited writer to becoming a Distinguished-level second language
writer takes years, and no course can pretend to do more than get writers part of
the way down the road. Yet even a few steps on the way can make a difference
to the effectiveness of students’ writing in the short term. In the long term,
getting the students to think about their writing in new ways can provide a
stimulus that will enable them to go on improving their writing skills over
many years.
The principles above do not specify any particular teaching methodology.
Post-feedback redrafting, peer feedback, and other patterns of teaching associ-
ated with process approaches are neither promoted nor precluded. These and
other techniques, such as group writing, may be used from time to time as
needed and desired by teacher and students. Typical techniques include stu-
dents commenting on the choices they have made in their own work, teachers
giving detailed written feedback on written work handed in, and discussing
students’ work in class.
It goes without saying that using written language to communicate effectively
requires understanding of the culture of the target audience. Any course that
deals with studying authentic texts, as this course does, involves discussion of
186 Tim Caudery

cultural factors, but students do also attend courses in British and American
history and society, as well as courses in British, American, and Postcolonial
literatures. I would regard it as self-evident that Distinguished-level language
students need to gain cultural understanding in order to use their target language
successfully, but systematic teaching about English-speaking cultures does not
form part of the course described here because it is covered in other parts of the
university syllabus.
Some might question the exclusion of creative writing from our course. While
all writing is “creative” in some senses, we have deliberately excluded any
training in literary writing, as well as in the sort of creativity involved in writing,
for example, advertising texts. We regard these areas as requiring separate and
special abilities. The creative writer needs Distinguished-level writing skills,
but the Distinguished-level writer is not necessarily a great novelist or poet and
should not be expected to be.

Teaching materials and exercise types

Awareness of differences
The first aim of the course is to make students aware of the fact that texts differ
from one another in more ways than simply content, and that differences can
be related to writer, reader, purpose, and context (i.e., the type of writing).
The course often begins by looking at letters. There are a number of reasons
for this. First, writer and reader are clearly defined. Second, there are very
obvious differences in style and content between personal letters to friends
and more formal letters, and these differences can be related to writer/reader
relationships, the knowledge which the writer can presuppose the reader has, etc.
Third, letters do very often have clear structures that lend themselves to analysis
of the overall pattern of coherence. Fourth, there are generic conventions in letter
layout which can be used to illustrate how conventions for some text types may
simply have become established by historical happenstance, but which readers
nevertheless expect to be observed. Fifth, letters lend themselves both to analysis
and to writing exercises, so that it is easy to go on from awareness-building
exercises to writing short letters of different types.
Although authentic materials comprise the bulk of course materials, a devia-
tion is made in the case of letters where it is advantageous to construct parallel
texts such as those shown in Figure 9.1. Such texts provide students with the
opportunity and training to “spot the differences.” (The illustrative texts are
constructed texts that relate differences in writer/reader relationships to text
content and style. In both cases, letters are on the company notepaper of a
British firm of engineering consultants, and the letters are written in connection
with a forthcoming visit to Australia by one James Finlay. He is writing to one
 Teaching high-level writing skills in English 187

Letter A Letter B

August 25th 1999 August 25, 1999

Mr William Hadley Dear Bill,

J & P Machine Tools Inc It was great to talk to you again on the
P O Box 2742 ’phone last week, and I’m really looking
Melbourne forward to seeing you and Joyce in
Australia September. Eight years is a long time!
As I said, my plane gets in at 2:35
Dear Mr Hadley, in the afternoon on Saturday, September
This is to confirm the arrangements 10th. It’s a Quantas flight, number QA
made in our telephone conversation last 427 from London. What with the jet-leg
Monday for my visit to J & P Machine and the eighteen-hour journey, it’ll
Tools. probably take me the whole of the rest of
My flight, Quantas QA 427 from the weekend to recover from the trip, I’m
London, arrives at Melbourne airport at afraid.
14:35 on Saturday, September 10th. I am It’s a shame this has to be a working
most grateful to you for offering to meet visit! Still, I’ve managed to put off my
me at the airport, and also for arranging my flight to Brisbane till Monday morning
hotel accommodation. (19th), so we’ll have that weekend free.
I leave for Brisbane on Saturday, Do try not to overload me with problems,
September 17th at 18:15. I will therefore so that I can get through with everything
be available for five days’ consultancy by Friday afternoon!
during the week September 12th–16th, Very best wishes to you, Joyce and the
with the possibility of continuing during kids.
the morning of Saturday 17th if absolutely Jim
necessary. P.S. Don’t forget to let me know if there’s
I look forward very much to meeting anything special you want me to bring you
you. from England.
Yours sincerely,
J. W. Finlay
(signature)
James W. Finlay

Figure 9.1

of the people he is supposed to work with in Australia, William Hadley. In

letter A, it is assumed that the correspondents have only had telephone contact;
in letter B, the two are old friends who have not met for many years.)
In addition, the old device of writing letters in inappropriate styles (illustrated
in Figure 9.2) highlights the features of more formal and less formal writing, i.e.,
the relative vagueness of informal language and precision of formal language.
Students are asked to identify the inappropriate features of two texts. The first
text (on the left) is a holiday postcard. The second text (on the right) is a letter
188 Tim Caudery

Apollo Hotel Apartments Wednesday

Grivas Dighenis Ave Dear Joe,
Larnaca Do you remember me? We had quite a
Cyprus long chat about six weeks ago when you
Wednesday, May 17th, 2000 dropped into our bookshop to order some
Mrs Jenny Hargreaves stuff. Actually, you were a bit upset at the
3, Birch Avenue time about how little we’d got in stock and
Salisbury so on. I hope the Manager was able to
Wilts SB4 3RW explain everything to you alright?
ENGLAND Anyway, one of the books you ordered
has come at last! It’s that one by Anne
Dear Mrs Hargreaves, Raimes, called ‘Techniques in Teaching
This is to inform you that my husband, Writing’, or something like that. Actually,
James, and I have arrived without incident I’m afraid the price has gone up a bit. We
at our destination, Larnaca in Cyprus. The told you it would cost £5.30, but there’s
average maximum daily temperature at been a new price list come out, and they’ve
present is 28± Celsius, and the average sea put it up to £7.75! Shocking, isn’t it? Well,
temperature is 18±. We therefore spend a I suppose that’s inflation for you.
considerable amount of time each day at So, any time you like to come in, the
the beach, where we swim and lie in the book will be here waiting for you. Well, I
sun. say ‘any time’, but actually you’re
We judge the food served in restaurants supposed to come and get it during the
here to be of a high standard, especially next two weeks, otherwise we have to send
with respect to flavour, and also to be it back again, which would be a bit of a
relatively inexpensive. Consequently, we shame, really, considering.
dine out frequently, despite the fact that our It’ll be wonderful to see you again when
apartment has cooking facilities. I regret you come for the book.
that James usually becomes slightly
inebriated at meals, being unable to resist All best wishes,
indulgence in the low-priced local wines Sandra
and spirits.

Yours sincerely,
F G Finchley
Freda G Finchley (Mrs)

Figure 9.2

from a bookshop informing a customer that a book he has ordered has arrived.
There are other activities that can be accomplished with the texts. For example,
students could also be asked to rewrite each of the letters.
However, other types of text can be used to make the same points equally
clearly. Figure 9.3 shows an excellent parallel text notifying the public of a
regulation. (London Transport used to display the first of these notices; they later
changed to the second. Students should discuss the differences, the probable
reasons for the change, and its effects.) Interestingly, some students feel that the
 Teaching high-level writing skills in English 189

1 2
DOGS. Small dogs may, at the discretion You can take your dog with you if it is a
of the conductor and at the owner s risk, be small one and the conductor agrees. It
carried without charge upon the upper deck travels free, but at your risk. If the vehicle
of double-deck buses, or in single-deck is a double-decker, you must both go on
buses. The decision of the conductor is the upper deck.
nal.

Figure 9.3

change is not an improvement; the less legalistic text, while being more easily
comprehensible, can give the impression of condescension because it may seem
appropriate to word regulations in a legalistic way.
Another awareness-building exercise can be to take three- or four-line extracts
from a variety of sources and ask students to suggest what type of texts they
come from; if they can do this (and the extracts should be selected so that with a
little prompting they can do it), then they can be asked to identify the linguistic
signals that served as clues.
This work on awareness of the features of different text types is a recurring
theme in the course. During the course, students develop a variety of tools for
more precise analysis or description of texts. Lengthy text analysis, however,
is avoided. Instead, students make brief commentaries on a variety of short and
long texts – perhaps just discussion of a particular text feature. An example is a
ten-minute class discussion on collocation and cliché, based on the inside of a
British Airways lunch box. The inside of the box lid showed a picture of a farmer
sitting by a pickup, with wheat fields stretching into the distance and displayed a
text reading “Time for a snack. An elderly farmer takes a well-earned break from
tending his crops before heading home at sunset.” I blanked much of the text
out, asked the class to suggest what went in the blanks, and then discussed what
it was that had enabled them to do this, relating this to work on the importance
of lexical phrases in communication (Nattinger and DeCarrico [1992]).
Awareness is further developed by asking students to comment on the texts
that they themselves have written and the choices they have made in the process.
This is a difficult thing for them to do, and they are not always particularly
successful; many of their choices remain at a subconscious level! However,
even the attempt does seem gradually to increase sensitivity to text features and
to encourage students to make more deliberate choices.

Reading and text analysis

If students are to become aware of how texts “work,” of the choices the text
writers have made, they need to examine and discuss features of a wide variety
190 Tim Caudery

of texts. For this, they need extensive input from authentic texts. The course
concentrates on short texts, both for the sake of maintaining interest and in order
to get through the maximum possible range of text types. Texts can be presented
and discussed in a variety of ways – to the full class, using group work, with
students preparing their comments on texts outside class, and so on. Students
can occasionally be asked to find their own texts for analysis and comment. It
should be noted that this is not primarily text work for the sake of explaining
the meaning of new vocabulary, etc., though, of course, students do sometimes
ask about unfamiliar words or expressions, or the teacher may draw the class’s
attention to some language item. By and large, though, the students are able to
understand the texts more or less unaided, and can focus on considerations of
the way they are written.
Students use a variety of tools for text analysis. Features discussed include
levels of formality, patterns of textual coherence, cohesion, message functions,
sentence structure, choice of lexis, selection of content, layout, and use of
pictures. Among the text types are scripted speeches (particularly good for clear
patterns of coherence and cohesive devices) and magazine advertisements, the
latter selected because (1) professionally written advertisements make use of
many different styles, often based on other genres; (2) they use many special
effects as verbal “eye-catchers”; (3) in general they are written with great care
and attention to detail; and (4) they are often fun and interesting. Students also
analyze texts of types that they are expected to write (see below).
One type of analytic tool used – a simple scheme of message functions
(adapted from Preisler [1997]) is shown below.
The terms shown here can be applied at both the macro (whole text or sec-
tion) level and the micro (sentence or clause) level, and can reveal interesting
points about the way texts work. For example, advertisements are nearly always
regulative at the macro level (aimed at persuading people to act in a particular
way, such as buying a product) but may contain very few explicitly regulative
sentences.
Formality is one of the most difficult areas to discuss. For that, a four-level
division is helpful: informal, neutral, formal, and frozen/legalistic. However,
the features that distinguish these levels are by no means fixed, and one can only
identify certain features which tend to make texts seem less or more formal. The
list of such features includes use/avoidance of colloquial expressions, vague-
ness/precision, avoidance/use of long and syntactically complex sentences,
avoidance/use of uncommon or longer words, avoidance/use of nominaliza-
tion, use/avoidance of direct address to the reader, use/avoidance of personal
pronouns, and use/exclusion of “redundant” material (especially that related to
phatic communication).
While students might sometimes be asked to comment on every feature they
can see in a text, attention is also often focused on particular areas of interest.
 Teaching high-level writing skills in English 191

Tools for Analysis: Message Functions

The REPRESENTATIVE Reportives:
These terms can be used to function Statements about the world which
characterize both a complete text or are presented as if their truth value
could be immediately veri ed.
section of text (macro function) and Purports to say something about
how the world is, to represent Assumptives:
clauses. Note that these concepts do reality objectively. Statements about the world which
not represent watertight boxes; a appear less easily veri able, e.g.
generalizations, interpretations,
single clause or sentence may have statements about the future.
more than one message function,
The EXPRESSIVE Estimatives:
and not all elements of a text may function Statements involving an estimation
be easily analyzable in these terms. by the speaker, where the truth
Expresses the speaker s value of the statement depends on
subjective view. how one de nes the terms used ( It
depends what you mean by x .)
Evaluatives:
Statements which involve the
expression of a positive or
negative value judgment by the
speaker.

The REGULATIVE Directives:

function Language which aims to affect
people s actions by ordering,
Aims at altering the world, at telling, asking, advising, etc.
regulating it by getting people to
act in a certain way. Commissives:
Language which aims to affect
people s actions by promising,
threatening, etc.

Figure 9.4

Examples include the structure of encyclopedia entries, the vocabulary of a

feature article from a newspaper, and the layout of an informative leaflet.

Writing
Writing tasks are central to the course. The approach might be described as
primarily a problem-solving one. Students are required to work on a particular
communication problem – creating a text for a particular audience, a given con-
text, and a given purpose. The content of the text is often provided in some form,
though normally students will have to select exactly what is most appropriate
to use from the source material provided. On other occasions, though, students
would be asked to provide their own material – for example, if writing a movie
review, they would select a movie they had seen recently to write about.
Students will normally have seen and discussed examples of other texts of
the type they are to produce, but they will not be given a specific model to
imitate. Alternatively, they may simply be asked to discuss the characteristics
they think the text that will fulfill their task might have.
The following are among the text types students have written:
192 Tim Caudery
r Leaflets: informative, advisory, persuasive
r Brochures (extracts)
r Newspaper articles: features, reviews, columns, editorials
r Letters: personal, apology, request, complaint, etc.
r Encyclopedia entries, handbook/reference-book entries
r Instructions
r Reports (of various types)
r Book blurbs
r Lecture handouts
Note that text types are selected more for their practicality than because
students will have to do these things later in life. It is simply not known what
they may be called upon to write. The training given is in being able to reason
out ways of tackling the task on the basis of context, purpose, reader, and
writer. There is often a strong element of role-playing involved: students have
to imagine themselves as writers in a particular role.
Frequently, the information students need to provide the content of the text
will be in the form of a text in a different genre. They will thus need to think
particularly about the differences between the two types of text. Such tasks are
termed text transformation tasks. Newspaper articles are often good as source
materials, but a variety of other sources can be used. On occasion, source texts
are not authentic but specially created for the purpose of the exercise.
Here are some examples (selected from many) of text transformation exer-
cises that have been used:
A newspaper feature article about a Malagasy tradition called Famidi-
hana which involves digging up dead ancestors, wrapping them
in new shrouds, dousing them with alcohol, telling them the local
gossip, and reburying them used as the basis for writing an
encyclopedia entry on Famidihana.
A diary entry about a disastrous attempt to get to a wedding (not
authentic) used as the basis for writing a letter of apology.
Extracts from a handbook about birds used as the basis for writing a
local-newspaper nature column about owls.
A magazine feature about child labor in the third world used as the ba-
sis for writing a leaflet persuading prospective buyers of handmade
carpets to boycott products made using child slave labor.

A text from a nature guide about wolves used as the basis for writing
an entry in a TV guide about a program for children.
Two opposing editorial comment columns (USA Today) about the ad-
vantages and disadvantages of photo radar speed traps used as the
 Teaching high-level writing skills in English 193

basis for writing a report to a city council on the advantages and

disadvantages of installing such equipment.
A newspaper story about the need for a mass vaccination program
against Hepatitis B used as the basis for writing a circular letter to
parents of twelve-year-old schoolchildren asking for their consent
to such a vaccination.
Students’ own knowledge of their university used as the basis for
writing a guide to campus eating facilities for exchange students
from overseas.
These examples should suffice to give an idea of the range of task types
that are possible. Academic essays generally do not figure in the list; students
get practice in writing these in other courses. Nor is there much in the way
of personal expression: it does not usually fit in particularly well with the
philosophy and goals of the course. Instead, students are asked to select from
and use information actually available to create a text that is “needed” in a
given situation. This matches the type of requirement frequently found in real-
life situations where writing is necessary.
Text transformation exercises challenge and stretch students through the spe-
cific text requirements involved. They provide opportunities for teaching lan-
guage that will be needed in the task, either before students work at the task or
after a first attempt has revealed a need.
Tasks need to be carefully specified, with clear instructions as to the writer’s
role, the purpose, the audience, and the context of the text to be created. It is
important that students be told that they may only use information stated or
implied in the source text (or provided by the teacher, if there is some key point
the source text does not cover). Students may feel that they want to be able to
invent extra details, but in practice this can create any or all of three problems.
The first is that the details students invent are often not appropriate or realistic.
The second is that, in effect, it is no longer the case that all students in the class
are tackling the same task; being able to introduce other information changes
the task. Finally, students can use this as an avoidance strategy, enabling them to
ignore elements of the source material that they would find difficult to handle.
Avoidance of difficulties is a factor that may be involved in freer writing exer-
cises, where students can generally manage to stay on “safe” ground if they wish
to do so; one major advantage of text transformation exercises is that they force
students to attempt things which they would never otherwise try until they
actually came to need to do them in “real life.”
Most of the text transformation tasks listed above will produce written texts
of 200–300 words in length, but shorter tasks are also useful. It can be just
as helpful to thrash out the wording of a single sentence or short paragraph.
For example, students can find a variety of ways of saying the same thing,
194 Tim Caudery

and then select the most appropriate for a particular context. An example of
this technique is to find a variety of ways (at different levels of formality) of
expressing a message, such as “No smoking inside the buildings,” and then
select one to go into a conference program.
There are no set patterns for the process of writing course tasks. The task
may be discussed in class first, often in the light of reading and discussing texts
of the genre students are to produce; alternatively, students may be left to work
things out on their own. Students may work on texts individually or in pairs or
small groups – team writing is often rather hard, but discussing and justifying
one’s ideas in pairs or small groups is an excellent way of getting students to
make their own thinking clear and explicit. Students may work in class, with
the teacher advising if needed, or they may work at home. Students may get
comment from the teacher or peers on a first draft, or they may simply hand in
their final draft.
However, there are some regularly recurring features of the teaching. At some
stage, students will usually see the work of at least some other members of the
class. Since everyone has been working at solving the same problem, other
people’s efforts are usually particularly interesting, and can be appreciated in
the light of one’s own efforts. I often photocopy some students’ finished work
for distribution – not choosing especially “bad” or “good” texts, but trying to
pick three or four that represent different ways of tackling the problem, and also
of course ensuring that everyone gets a chance to have their work “published” in
this way. There will also be other follow-up work – perhaps class discussion of
common problems, or of other possible ways of solving the problem. Because
everyone has worked on the same task, this type of follow-up is much more
successful and useful than in classes where everyone has written about different
things.
Another frequent feature is the use of students’ commentary on their own
writing. Sometimes this may take the form of an explanation of the way they
have tackled the task, again with the aim of encouraging awareness of choices in
writing. However, we also encourage students to begin the post-writing dialogue
on their own texts, rather than waiting for the teacher to “render judgment.”
Students are encouraged to ask the teacher to consider specific points about
their texts – for example, points where they were uncertain about what word
or syntactic structure to use. In this way, they can begin to get the feedback
on their text that they want, rather than the feedback that the teacher opts to
provide. This useful approach was described in an article by Charles (1990).

Other activities
Discussing and writing texts is a major element of the course. However, activities
not linked to any particular text transformation task can help build up students’
range of writing options. These include the following.
 Teaching high-level writing skills in English 195

Work with reference materials

Work with reference materials means learning to get the best out of a dictionary,
thesaurus, grammar usage guide, etc., through problem-solving tasks.

Vocabulary-building exercises
These exercises are activities in which work may be done on words in a semantic
field to distinguish between them, for example in terms of their collocations,
semantic features, antonyms, related words, etc. An example of this might be to
get students to list as many words as possible associated with laughing (smile,
grin, chuckle, giggle, chortle, hoot, cackle, bray, snicker, etc.), add a few more
to the list, and then work on the distinguishing features of the words. Numerous
examples of vocabulary-building exercises – though generally at a lower level –
can be found in Lewis (1996).

Sentence manipulation exercises

This (rather old-fashioned) type of exercise gets students to reformulate sen-
tences in various ways, cueing them by giving another start to the sentence
(“Jenny would have lost her job if Sue hadn’t intervened. But for . . . ”). These
can remind students of ways in which they can introduce variety into sentence
structure in their texts.

Writing to artificial rules

Stephen Keeler pioneered the use of the Sunday Telegraph “Minisagas” com-
petition, in which writers have to produce a coherent and complete story in
exactly fifty words, no more and no less, as a second language writing activity.
It’s great fun, and practices very precise control.
Learning strategy discussion and teaching could also form a useful element
of a course.

All these activities are useful, and often motivating and entertaining as well.
However, they do not form a coherent course, and no doubt readers will have
their own favorite activities that can be used equally effectively to expand
students’ linguistic range. The point is not that these particular suggestions are
any better than many other activities that could be used, but rather that the
course should provide a range of activities to maintain interest and increase
awareness.

Conclusion
This chapter has described ideas and principles. It is not intended as a presen-
tation of a fixed teaching program (the course is adapted and improved from
year to year), nor yet a rigid teaching methodology. No claim is made that the
course covers all aspects of the writing skill or that it would answer all the needs
196 Tim Caudery

of all students seeking to make the leap to the Distinguished level of second
language writing competence – nor that the suggestions in the chapter, taken
individually, are original. On the other hand, because the chapter contains a
fairly loose set of teaching ideas, rather than a teaching “formula,” teachers of
many different Superior-level writing courses may be able to incorporate some
of these suggestions into what they do and some of the thinking about advanced
writing into their planning.
The course described here is concerned with texts in English but the ideas
would be equally applicable for teaching in other second languages. Further,
although the ideas described are discussed in the context of teaching Advanced-
and Superior-level students, they could be advantageously adapted for inclusion
in lower-level courses, preparing students, from the outset, ultimately to become
Distinguished-level writers.
10 Heritage speakers as learners at the Superior
level: Differences and similarities between
Spanish and Russian student populations

Claudia Angelelli and Olga Kagan

Taking stock at the beginning of this new century, it is clear that educational
systems, including foreign language classrooms, will have to address a new
and growing segment of the population of the USA, the bilingual community.1
According to the 2000 US Census information, almost 11% of Americans were
born outside of the USA. In some states, the number is higher; for example, it
is close to 26% in California. Due to migration, the processes of nationalism
and federalism, the need for education, commerce, intermarriage, and other
factors (Grosjean [1982]), languages in contact are becoming the norm rather
than the exception, leading to increased bilingualism (Appel and Muysken
[1987]).2

The student population: toward a description

Speakers living in households that use more than one language at a high level
of proficiency are considered bilinguals – although the term, bilingual, has
many definitions3 and the concept of a bilingual individual as equally proficient
in all aspects of two languages and cultures may be more myth than reality
(Valdés [2000]). Various terms have been applied to bilingual L2 students.
Home-background speakers and heritage learners are the terms used in this
chapter to refer to those speakers who emigrated with their parents or were born
to émigré families and who have a language of “a particular family relevance
other than English” (Fishman [2001, p. 81]).
Since their schooling is usually exclusively or predominantly in English and
linguistic interaction at home generally limited to face-to-face interpersonal
communication, heritage learners typically perform well in the Interpersonal
1 In this chapter, we discuss programs for heritage speakers living in the USA. However, many of
the issues would be the same for heritage speakers living in any other country.
2 Although languages in contact may also lead to the development of pidgins and creoles, this
chapter focuses exclusively on the phenomenon of bilingualism.
3 See Valdés and Figueroa (1994) for an overview of terms used and proposed.

197
198 Claudia Angelelli and Olga Kagan

mode (direct oral or written communication between two or more persons) but
less well in the Interpretative (mediated communication via print and broadcast
materials) and Presentational (oral or written communication for an audience
without immediate possibilities of personal interaction) modes, as described in
the National foreign language Standards (ACTFL [1999]). In other words, they
are not experienced communicators at the Superior level across the full range of
interactions.4 Nevertheless, if compared with non-heritage students receiving
instruction in a foreign language, heritage language speakers typically possess
skills that require a non-native speaker hundreds of hours to acquire, including
some skills that foreign language (FL) learners may never acquire at a native-like
level, such as unaccented pronunciation, fluency in colloquial register, comfort
with dialects, and sociocultural understanding (Brecht and Ingold [1998]).
For linguists, the focus in researching bilingualism has centered on the rela-
tionship between the majority and home languages themselves (Haugen [1978],
cited in Fishman [1978]). This relationship is of interest to language educators,
too, because of its sociolinguistic and sociocultural significance. Children who
grow up in homes where a non-English language is spoken acquire some of the
culture of their families and immediate communities. However, outside of the
home they grow up within the context of the American educational system and
public culture, becoming fully acculturated while their parents typically remain
more comfortable in the non-American culture. Kramsch’s (1993) notion of the
combination of one’s own culture (Culture 1) and the target-language culture
(Culture 2) resulting in the acquisition of Culture 3 (a form of “interculture”)
does not apply to émigré children who live and function between the inside
(home) and the outside (mainstream) cultures (Bermel and Kagan [2000]). How
does one determine what constitutes Cultures 1 and 2 for such students? As with
bilingualism, these speakers are bicultural to various degrees. Valdés (2000) and
Polinsky (2000) address the issue of continuum in heritage speakers’ linguis-
tic ability. Since Superior-level proficiency includes sociocultural competence
in the target culture as experienced in a country where the target language is
spoken, even very proficient heritage speakers cannot be said to possess the full
range of sociocultural competence.
Moreover, home-background speakers and second language learners differ
in needs and motivation they bring to a language classroom (Valdés [1992];
Valdés and Geoffrion-Vinci [1998]). First, whereas non-native-speaking foreign
language students need to acquire a linguistic system and the rules that help them
make sense of it, in many cases home-background speakers already possess
that system. Very often, they cannot explain or justify the rules (like most
native speakers of any given language, for that matter), but they use them
naturally. They may speak even better than the teacher who explains the rules
4 The ACTFL Guidelines were not designed for home-background speakers (Valdés [1989]).
Therefore, the terms, Advanced and Superior, are used here in an approximate way.
 Heritage speakers as learners at the Superior level 199

to them. Sometimes, while listening to teachers’ explanations of some rules,

they may even get confused (Valdés [1995]). Second, it is not uncommon for
home-background speakers to want to forget everything they have learned at
home so that “they can just learn it the right way.” Many times they feel ashamed
of the language variety they speak at home. They have heard that it is not the
“right” kind of language. Often, they have been excluded in L2 classrooms and,
therefore, often need teacher validation of their home usage (Valdés [1988]).

The status quo

Until recently, the special needs and benefits in developing the language profi-
ciencies of heritage students were largely ignored. Now, however, education of
these students is beginning to be viewed as safeguarding the development of a
valuable national resource (Campbell and Peyton [1998]).
Gonzalez-Pino and Pino (2000) stress that “heritage students of Spanish are
an ever-increasing consideration in education at all levels.” The same state-
ment can be made about heritage students of many other languages – Arabic,
Armenian, Chinese, Korean, Persian, Russian, Thai, and Vietnamese, to name a
few. Ever more heritage students view their home language as a valuable asset
and an individual achievement and are willing to study the language if an
appropriate program is offered to them (H. Reid [2000]).
The interest in heritage learning led to the formation of a new field: heritage
language acquisition. Its establishment began formally with the first national
conference on heritage issues in Long Beach, California, in 1999 and a subse-
quent conference (University of California, Los Angeles, Fall 2000), address-
ing issues of importance in teaching foreign languages to home-background
speakers / heritage learners.
In this chapter, we describe three heritage language acquisition programs. We
have chosen to compare two communities, Spanish and Russian, not because
they are similar but because they are so unlike each other. The histories, compo-
sition, and patterns of assimilation are totally different. However, the needs of
children growing up in bilingual families, their attributes, and the methodology
for teaching them are similar. Therefore, what works for teaching and acquiring
these two languages can inform other heritage language programs.
Although many heritage learners need instruction at lower levels of profi-
ciency, in this chapter we describe only programs and courses at the Superior/
Distinguished (SD) level. Each of the presented programs enrolls heritage
speakers whose language proficiency is at least at the Advanced level and
whose goal is to reach the SD level. The designers of these courses have made
two assumptions: (1) SD-level proficiency is a realistic expectation for heritage
students and (2) SD-level proficiency can be developed through institutionally
based direct instruction.
200 Claudia Angelelli and Olga Kagan

Programs for Russian heritage speakers at UCLA and

Barnard/Columbia
The program for Russian heritage speakers at UCLA was established in the late
1990s. Prior to that, either heritage speakers were accommodated in the general
Russian program, although that program did not necessarily meet their needs, or
they did not elect to study Russian. The need for a separate program became ev-
ident in 1998 after a survey conducted among heritage speakers demonstrated
that they were interested in maintaining their language proficiency, learning
about Russian culture in its many manifestations, and reading Russian litera-
ture. The program subsequently developed took into account these expressed
interests.
The program for heritage speakers at Columbia University / Barnard College
was established in the early 1990s with the introduction of a two-semester
course, Masterpieces of Russian Literature, that had as a prerequisite native or
near-native proficiency in Russian. From that time until 2000, this literature
course was the only one available that could challenge the heritage speaker
audience. As a result of increasing numbers of heritage speakers with diverse
levels of proficiency, in 2000 the Russian Department at Columbia University /
Barnard College introduced several new courses. Among these was the course
in Russian culture described below.

The program at UCLA

The UCLA program combines Russian culture, including literature, with lan-
guage materials in the Interpretative and Presentational modes. The program for
heritage students entering at the Superior or near-Superior level currently con-
sists of three upper-division classes: 1) Russian National Identity, 2) Literature
and Film, and 3) Special Topics (e.g., History of the Russian Language). The
choice of the themes was prompted by the students’ interest in Russian culture,
history, and philosophy as ascertained via surveys conducted in 1996 and sub-
sequent years at UCLA. The latest, conducted in 2001, showed similar results.
These results are by no means unexpected: Zemskaya (2001) found that Russian
families highly value Russian literature and are disappointed if their children do
not read Russian authors. The program is taught over 1–2 years, the duration that
experience has shown to be required for most enrollees to reach SD proficiency.

Course content
Students engage in academic reading and writing, as well as classroom discus-
sions and formal presentations. These students are typically at the Advanced
High or Superior level of proficiency in the Interpersonal mode (in speaking
and writing), close to Superior in reading (but are rarely at the Distinguished
level as they cannot always discern stylistic subtleties of texts), and Advanced
 Heritage speakers as learners at the Superior level 201

in writing. Their writing displays linguistic accuracy but lacks in discourse

competence (Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei, and Thurrell [1995]). In particular, their
writing exhibits: (1) inappropriate use of short sentences and straightforward
narration, rather than Russian academic syntax, which is characterized by com-
plex sentences, embedded clauses, and participial constructions; (2) limited
vocabulary with rare use of synonymous expression; (3) extensive and often
inappropriate use of everyday nonacademic vocabulary; (4) missing or inappro-
priate transitions between sentences and paragraphs; (5) missing or incorrect
punctuation; and (6) a tendency to use SVO word order, rather than Russian
discourse, in which word order depends on the prior utterance or background
knowledge of shared information.

Approaches to teaching
Three interrelated approaches to teaching are used. These include (1) a process
approach to writing, (2) a communicative approach to development of oral
skills, and (3) a content-based approach to syllabus design.

Process writing. Students write weekly essays that are peer edited. In edit-
ing and rewriting, students are required to replace several simple sentences
with a single compound, complex, or compound complex one. Similarly, they
are required to paraphrase in a stylistically appropriate register. They are also
expected to give an explanation of why a sentence or paragraph does not ap-
pear to sound right and what improvements could be made. On the mechanical
side, special attention is paid to the differences between Russian and English
punctuation (e.g., the treatment of clause subordination or quotations).

Communicative activities. Oral presentation skills are developed through

classroom discussion and preparation of formal presentations. Students are
assigned readings and given discussion questions in advance. The discussion
in class revolves around the content of literary works, with the emphasis not
on literary analysis but on the reflection of Russian cultural identity. When
speaking in class, students are expected (and taught) to use the vocabulary, in-
tonation, and grammar appropriate for an academic setting. The approach used
is a combination of linguistic training with content-based discussion – and a
constant monitoring of students’ linguistic behavior.

Content-Based Instruction (CBI). In our view, CBI is the most natural vehicle
for academic language use. The content-based nature of these courses also
responded to students’ interests expressed in the surveys mentioned above.
(Appendix A displays results from the 2000 survey.)
An example of a CBI course for heritage learners is the Russian National
Identity course. The course goals, in descending order of priority, are to
(1) develop a comprehensive understanding of Russian culture and self-identity;
202 Claudia Angelelli and Olga Kagan

(2) expand students’ vocabulary reserve to the domains of culture, cultural his-
tory, and academic terminology; (3) develop age- and cognitively appropriate
formal, academic oral expression; and (4) improve students’ writing skills,
as measured by portfolio assessment focusing on spelling, punctuation, and
stylistics.
In 1999, the course was based on Lev Tolstoy’s War and Peace and was
team-taught by a language instructor and a professor of Russian literature.5
The literature professor lectured weekly on Russian cultural history, while
the language instructor led discussions, gave assignments, and graded papers.
Extensive reading (about 100 pages) was assigned every week. Students wrote
weekly short papers (2–3 pages) and a final term paper (5–10 pages). The stu-
dents also gave a 20-minute final oral presentation. Its preparation required
students to engage in independent research, and its completion required giving
a presentation in a manner acceptable in a Russian academic institution. Since
the majority of the students had never given academic presentations in Russian,
they needed guidelines and practice in the norms of academic discourse, choice
of vocabulary, syntax, intonation, and pace of the presentation.
Further, students were given specific guidelines as to the linguistic behav-
ior expected during a research conference. The class engaged in discussion
conducted in the appropriate register. The criterion for the selection of topics
for the presentation and term paper was the identification of background in-
formation that would help other readers understand War and Peace. As in the
course itself, the oral reports focused not on literary criticism but rather on the
exploration of Russian cultural history. Representative topics included Russian
Cuisine of the Nineteenth Century, Duel in Russia and in Other Countries, The
Russian View of Death, Upbringing in a Russian Aristocratic Family, The Life
of Women at the Beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and Balls as Part of
Russian Aristocratic Life. Background reading was required. The grade for the
oral presentation depended on (1) quantity and quality of new information ob-
tained in the course of the research, (2) the interest the presentation stimulated,
and (3) linguistic quality – appropriateness of genre and register.6

The program at Columbia University / Barnard College

A representative course from the program at Columbia University / Barnard
College used a similar approach, i.e., a combination of lectures and discussion
5 Team-teaching, in which a language instructor is paired with a content instructor, is frequently
used in CBI and Languages Across the Curriculum courses and is one of several CBI / Foreign
Languages Across the Curriculum (FLAC) configurations described by Shaw (1997).
6 The Russian academic genre, referred to as “scientific style” in Russian, is characterized by
participial constructions, long complex sentences, stylized syntax, domain-specific jargon and
phraseology, abstract vocabulary, parenthetical expressions for citation and reference, first per-
son plural narration, and an abundance of impersonal constructions that have no equivalent in
English.
 Heritage speakers as learners at the Superior level 203

with written essays. Russia on the Hudson: Russian Culture in New York7 intro-
duced several aspects of Russian culture: ballet, opera, theatre, film, and visual
arts.
Each unit included a lecture by a specialist in the field, readings from a
number of genres, and writing and translations from and into Russian. Some of
the lectures were in Russian delivered by Columbia faculty or other specialists
who were native speakers of Russian; some were in English. Lectures were
recorded so that the students could listen to them again, and students were
asked to submit a written synopsis in Russian of each of them. The summaries
required use of SD-level vocabulary, grammar, and text structure, along with
writing in the academic genre.
The texts introduced in the course included literary criticism, opera libret-
tos, plays, and scripts. These provided students with source material for their
presentations at the end of the course.
Students made short (ten-minute) presentations at the end of each unit. They
were not required to conduct extensive independent research but rather to pro-
vide their own interpretation of a work of art, a short Balanchine ballet, an aria
from an opera, and the like. These presentations were followed by discussions,
in which opinions frequently varied.

SD elements common to the UCLA and Columbia University /

Barnard College courses
Both the UCLA and Barnard/Columbia courses relied heavily on students’
background knowledge and strong proficiency in aural and oral modalities.
The primary goal was the development of content knowledge, accompanied
by an improvement in Russian-language proficiency, achieved through student
in-class interaction, the writing of papers, the making of presentations, and
the acquisition of the academic genre in writing and speaking. Even though
the instructors developed their courses independently, they adopted similar ap-
proaches. Common characteristics of the two courses included (1) the use of
authentic materials, (2) tasks that required students to synthesize information
from multiple sources, (3) attention to the development of a culturally appropri-
ate yet personal style of written and oral presentation, (4) work on preliminary
steps before requiring a finished product, and (5) the encouragement of students
to be active researchers.8

Materials
Only authentic materials were used in both courses. Written texts were com-
bined with video and lectures to expose students to all the modalities typically
7 The authors are grateful to Mara Kashper of Columbia University for sharing her course design
and insights into her interaction with the class.
8 These goals are similar to those set by Frodesen et al. (1997) in their introduction to a content-
based ESL course.
204 Claudia Angelelli and Olga Kagan

encountered by native speakers in an academic environment. Materials included

a variety of genres and were lengthy and complex from the point of view of
both content and language.

Instructional techniques
Instructional techniques differed from those used with lower-level learners and
even somewhat from those used with Superior-level learners of Russian as a
foreign language. Students were assigned large quantities of text and listened to
academic lectures with some, but not extensive, language support. They were
expected to cope with the large volume of authentic text mostly on their own.
Whereas non-heritage students even at the Superior level need an occasional
explanation of uniquely foreign grammatical concepts, such as verbal aspect or
verbal government, heritage learners are mainly in need of stylistic improvement
and register “fine-tuning.”

Evaluation/results
Although no formal feedback was solicited, the students in both UCLA and
Columbia courses expressed satisfaction with the materials, approach, and gen-
eral content of the courses. They commented that the course improved their
linguistic knowledge and cultural understanding.
Since one semester of instruction rarely results in measurable progress on a
proficiency scale, even in the presence of evident improvement, portfolio as-
sessment (Moore [1994]) in addition to (or instead of) more traditional testing
was used in both courses. In keeping with principles of content-based instruc-
tion, the assessment was also based on the quality of the content of the final
presentations and increase in topical knowledge.

Spanish for home-background speakers at Stanford University

Spanish occupies a unique position among heritage languages in the USA today.
The increase of Spanish speakers in the USA, along with strong bonds main-
tained with the community/country of origin, often results in Spanish continuing
to be a strong component of home-background speakers’ identity. However, like
all other heritage languages, Spanish struggles to avoid language shift, espe-
cially after the third generation (Veltman [2000]). Maintenance occurs in the
midst of adversarial politics, such as the English-Only Movement.
Sometimes high schools, colleges, and universities offer separate tracks for
bilingual Spanish students. Other times, non-native speakers and heritage speak-
ers share courses and programs even when their needs and motivation may be
clearly different. In 1995, Stanford University established a program of Spanish
 Heritage speakers as learners at the Superior level 205

for heritage speakers called “Spanish for Home-Background Speakers”9 in

order to meet the needs of nearly 40% – a growing share – of the student pop-
ulation of the Spanish Department. (Stand-alone courses had been taught for
fifteen years previous to that.) In creating this program, various elements were
considered – among them entry mechanism, faculty, curriculum, and materials.

Enrollment mechanism
Enrollment was effected based on the results of a placement test specifically
designed for home-background speakers. Students can take the test online at the
Stanford home-background speaker home page (www.language3.stanford.edu).

The faculty
Instructors of the Spanish for Home-Background Speakers courses are native
speakers of Spanish and whenever possible home-background speakers them-
selves. They represent the Spanish language variety spoken in various coun-
tries of Latin America (e.g., Mexico, Puerto Rico, Argentina) and in Spanish-
speaking communities in the USA (e.g., Los Angeles and Miami). All the
home-background-speaker instructors work closely with a full professor.

The curriculum
The program of Spanish for Home-Background Speakers at Stanford University
is a comprehensive one. It consists of preliminary courses for home-background
speakers not yet at the Superior level and several advanced courses. Only the
latter are discussed here.
At the upper level are courses especially developed for bilingual students.
Spanish Composition for Home-Background Speakers is an example. Students
in this course exhibit unevenness in proficiency levels among speaking, listen-
ing, reading, and writing skills, or they may lack the ability to transfer their
skills to an academic environment. This course, then, focuses on developing
academic language skills to a level of use that parallels the ease with which
they use less formal language.
Stanford University also offers courses that are open to both home-back-
ground speakers and Superior-level non-native students, e.g., CBI courses.10
9 The creator of this program was Guadalupe Valdés, Professor of Spanish and Portuguese and
Professor of Education.
10 Here we are using the concept proposed by Leaver and Bilstein (2000) that CBI contains at
least three kinds of courses: (1) Language for Special Purposes (LSP) courses that focus on
the development of language skills while using content for a specific discipline, (2) Sheltered
Content courses that simultaneously develop both language skills and content knowledge, and
(3) Languages Across the Curriculum courses that focus on the development of content knowl-
edge with accompanying readings, and sometimes discussions, in L2.
206 Claudia Angelelli and Olga Kagan

Some of these may be Language for Special Purposes courses geared for Spanish
majors; examples include Spanish for Life Sciences, Spanish for Legal Profes-
sionals, and Spanish for Pre-Med Students. Others may be (Foreign) Languages
Across the Curriculum (LAC) courses, examples being cultural courses in
Latino issues such as Espaldas Mojadas, linguistic courses such as Spanish
dialectology or sociolinguistics, and literature courses such as Chicano or Bor-
der literature.
The curriculum is based on the new National Standards (ACTFL [1999]),
using objectives prepared for heritage speakers (Valdés et al. [1997]). These
objectives represent three modes of communication: Interpersonal (requiring
interaction with speakers from a range of sociocultural backgrounds), Inter-
pretative (developing strategies to interpret and react to authentic texts), and
Presentational (offering opportunities for oral and written formal presentations
on abstract and challenging topics to academic audiences).

A sample course: Structure of Spanish

Heritage learners at the SD level typically need clarification of linguistic struc-
ture as well as the opportunity to acquire the specific terminology of their field of
interest. Students may use clarification tactics discussed in Chapter 6 to request
information on the metalanguage. In order to do that, however, they need a safe
forum. Discussion in literary criticism courses where students have to (and want
to) sound erudite requires that they already be able to make their points precisely
and to use appropriate metalinguistic terminology to speak about language and
literature. The acquisition of the metalanguage and the mastery of the mechan-
ics and structure of the language need to happen elsewhere. These examples are
just a few of the instances in which Superior-level students indeed benefit from
traditional learning environments in, for example, the structure of Spanish. As
has been discussed in Chapters 3 and 4, Superior-level students do not find an-
swers to metalinguistic questions merely by exposure to native speakers. They
need specific answers. A Superior-level course on the structure of language is
one possible forum where metalinguistic questions can be addressed.
Structure of Spanish, a course developed by Angelelli (1996), provides home-
background students with the metalinguistic awareness and the metalanguage
necessary for success in courses that require strong competence in academic
Spanish. Students enrolling in this course generally produce grammatically
correct discourse but cannot justify the decisions they make in producing it.
In advanced literary courses, sometimes the feedback they get entails com-
ments using metalinguistic terms with which they are not familiar, for example:
“El análisis es bueno pero está escrito de forma demasiado simple. No se ha
 Heritage speakers as learners at the Superior level 207

usado ni una oración compleja, cuando las subordinadas constituyen la base del
discurso español.” (The analysis is good, but it is written in a simplistic style.
There are no complex sentences in spite of the fact that subordinate clauses are
the backbone of Spanish discourse.) Structure of Spanish, then, serves a dual
purpose: it helps students acquire the metalanguage for Spanish, and it develops
Superior-level grammatical competence.

Course objectives
Course objectives are based on the Spanish departmental objectives11 concep-
tualized in response to the National Standards in Foreign Language Education
Project (ACTFL [1999]). They are summarized in Table 10.1.

Course content and activities

Course content reflects the latest research available in the field of heritage lan-
guage teaching (Valdés, Hannum, and Teschner [1982]; Valdés and Teschner
[1999]). Through class discussions, informed by assigned readings and exer-
cises, Structure of Spanish describes and analyzes the main points of Spanish
grammar, such as simple and complex sentences, types of clauses, relative
pronouns, verb aspect, mood, and tenses. Two oral assignments – one indi-
vidual and one group – require students to present such topics as the use of
vos/tú/usted (second person singular, subjective pronouns), use of articles, and
different forms of se. For the group presentation, throughout the semester stu-
dents work in small groups to prepare a topic. Two written assignments acquaint
students with the process of writing a research paper in Spanish. Topics have
included a comparison of the different forms of expressing the past in various
Latin American countries, the use of past tenses in literary narratives and in
news reporting, the use of diminutives and their variations in various countries
of the Spanish-speaking world, linguistic markers in situational contexts, and
analysis of the use of tú and usted in soap operas.
Students come to class having read about a topic and completed applica-
tion exercises. In class, the instructor asks students to explain or suggest why
traditional rules may not offer enough of an explanation for linguistic phe-
nomena. Class is conducted in Spanish and, sometimes, contrastive analysis is
used to illustrate topics. For example, students learn the different uses of the
pronoun, se, in Spanish. At lower levels (Intermediate/Advanced), they have

11 During the summer of 1997, Professor Valdés chaired a Stanford University committee to design
the new Spanish objectives for home-background speakers and non-native speakers (Valdés et al.
[March, 2000]). Angelelli was part of the committee that wrote the objectives and implemented
them across levels.
208 Claudia Angelelli and Olga Kagan

Table 10.1

Interpersonal mode Interpretative mode Presentational mode

Oral Language Oral Texts Oral Presentations
Students exhibit growing Students exhibit growing Students exhibit growing
competence in carrying out ability to comprehend and competence in using oral
face-to-face interactions with interpret live and recorded language to present
same age, older and younger extended texts such as information to an academic
people in culturally academic lectures and audience. After successfully
appropriate ways. After documentaries. After completing the course they
successfully completing the successfully completing the will:
course they will: course they will:
Identify levels of formality Ta ke notes on linguistic Present extensive reports
and informality in speech a nd sociolinguistic issues on assigned topics to their
and react accordingly class mates
Discuss and support Problematize linguistic More effectively monitor
perspectives with peers features according to their oral production for
and/or speakers of Spanish different social settings non-academic language
on a variety of academic features
topics
Written language Written texts Written presentations
Students exhibit growing Students exhibit growing Students exhibit growing
competence in using written ability to comprehend and competence in using written
language for interpersonal interpret written texts. After language to present
communication in culturally successfully completing the information and state a
appropriate ways in academic course, they will: position to an academic
settings. After successfully readership. After successfully
completing the course, they completing the course they
will: will:
Feedback to peers via peer Research information on Write research papers in
editing assignments academic topics from Spanish
Spanish sources
Have culturally Demonstrate an increasing Edit their writing for style
appropriate e-mail understanding of academic and register appropriate to
exchange with peers Spanish features written academic language

briefly discussed the use of se with reflexive and reciprocal verbs. Sometimes
they have even addressed the frequency of se in the Spanish passive voice. In
this class, students are able to explain how the construction of the Spanish pas-
sive form with se differs from the regular Spanish and English passive voice
constructions. They also discuss other uses of se such as the “affective se” (se
murió mi perro instead of murió mi perro [“my dog died on me” instead of “my
dog died”]), or the se that diffuses responsibility. An example of the latter is
se me cayó el vaso (the glass fell) instead of dejé caer el vaso (I dropped the
glass).
 Heritage speakers as learners at the Superior level 209

Materials
Readings come from authentic materials. Some are from linguistic and sociolin-
guistic journals such as Hispania. Other readings include doctoral dissertations
on topics related to students’ interests. Still others are readings from period-
icals brought in by students. Students are provided one textbook, Gramática
Española (King and Suñer [1999]), which contains exercises and a self-scoring
key. This textbook was chosen on the basis of the pedagogical approach to
the teaching of grammar. (Unlike other grammar texts, King and Suñer offer
extensive explanations on grammar points that are otherwise generally trivial-
ized [e.g., defining and non-defining relative clauses]. They add sociolinguistic
information that rarely appears in grammar books [e.g., use of second person
pronoun in areas where “vos” completely overlaps “tú”]. The text does not pre-
scribe a limited set of arbitrary rules but rather describes a linguistic system in
its entirety.)

Evaluation/results
Structure of Spanish has been taught for six years. The success of the course
is evident in the fact that for the last two years an additional section has had
to be opened to accommodate the number of students who wanted to take this
course. Students comment that the course provides them with the necessary con-
cepts to understand the Spanish linguistic system as well as with the metalan-
guage to discuss it. In their course evaluations (Appendix B) students highlight
the importance of reading about the language and illustrating issues discussed
in the authentic materials, especially when they cannot be explained by applying
the ‘traditional” rules generally offered in language textbooks. They also find
that they are able to present technical and abstract aspects of the language in
front of an audience of peers. This is very rewarding for home-background
speakers whose language variety has been often stigmatized in a classroom
situation. In their evaluations, they stress the fact that they can not only make
sense of the system now but also talk about it using appropriate terminology.

Discussion
In this chapter, we chose to discuss the approaches to heritage education in
two languages: Spanish, with the largest numbers of heritage speakers, and
Russian, with a much smaller number of speakers but a sizable presence in
some, mostly urban areas. The two populations differ in as many as five ways.
First, Spanish speakers come from a host of countries and cultures, representing
a number of language varieties, whereas Russian speakers, even though they
may come from different parts of the former Soviet Union, speak a fairly uniform
language and share a standard lexicon. Second, the sheer numbers of Spanish
speakers create numerous opportunities for communication outside of class
210 Claudia Angelelli and Olga Kagan

while for Russian speakers such communication is limited to home and certain
areas in the city/country. Third, while Spanish speakers, especially in some
states, can regard Spanish as a non-foreign language, Russian speakers realize
that Russian is an “exotic” foreign language in the USA. Fourth, even though
issues of ethnicity and race that underlie many discussions regarding Spanish
speakers are not relevant in the case of Russian heritage students, Russian
heritage speakers still face the problem of teacher attitudes to their substandard,
“kitchen” Russian; at the same time, some Slavic departments dismiss them as
native speakers who do not need any instruction because of their oral/aural
proficiency. Fifth, Spanish departments have been grappling with the problems
of teaching heritage speakers of Spanish for the past twenty-five or so years,
whereas the Russian departments have been dealing with this problem for less
than ten years and are only now beginning to come to terms with this new
student population. Unlike for Spanish, so far almost no commercially available
Russian-language materials have been developed for these students.12 This
juxtaposition allows us to show the range of needs, as well as the range of
possibilities, in teaching heritage speakers.

Program design
Although the two groups of heritage speakers presented in this chapter – Spanish
and Russian – differ vastly, they share many traits, including, importantly for
this chapter, their position as students within the university. Table 10.2 summa-
rizes the similarities and differences between these students and traditional FL
learners.
A comparison of the needs of non-heritage and heritage learners at the Supe-
rior level reveals similar needs in the areas of writing and speaking. For example,
in working on academic topics in the Presentational mode, both groups need to
acquire academic register in oral and written discourse. However, while both
groups also need work on punctuation, heritage speakers are more likely to need
work in spelling. The differences are especially noticeable in pronunciation,
grammar, listening skills, and sociocultural competence. While heritage speak-
ers typically have no need to practice intonation, non-heritage speakers may
have a distinct accent, even at the highest level of proficiency. Superior-level
non-heritage students, on the other hand, most likely have a solid foundation
in grammar, in use as well as declarative knowledge. Heritage learners do not.
The distinction between knowledge and skill in language proficiency (Bialystok
[1981]) is nowhere as striking as it is in heritage speakers.

12 The only available material, as of this writing, is a textbook, Russian for Russians (Kagan,
Akishina, and Robin [2002]).
 Heritage speakers as learners at the Superior level 211

Table 10.2

Teaching Non-heritage learners Heritage learners

domains at the Superior level at the Superior level

In need of practice even at Not an issue

Pronunciation
higher proficiency levels
and intonation
May need everyday lexicon Need literary/academic/
Vocabulary in the absence of extensive specialized vocabulary
time in C2
Have solid declarative May have little declarative
Grammar knowledge knowledge
Need exposure to various Need exposure to various
Reading styles, genres and registers styles, genres and registers
Need extensive practice in Need extensive practice in
Writing syntax, punctuation, stylistics syntax punctuation,
spelling
Need Distinguished-level Need Distinguished-level
Speaking tasks (including formal tasks (including formal
presentational opportunities) presentational opportunities)
May still need to work on Not an issue
Listening listening comprehension
Need to acquire academic Need to acquire academic
register, as well as register and raise awareness
Sociolinguistic
sophisticated understanding of lower-register occurrences
competence of appropriateness of other in formal discourse
registers
Need to develop greater Depending on home and
Sociocultural sociocultural competence, community student may need
including literature, political, to develop some aspects of
competence and historical allusions sociocultural competence

To summarize, effective programs for heritage learners will both overlap with
and differ from L2 programs for non-native speakers. Boyd (2000) identifies
four critically important areas, all of them discussed further below:
1) an appropriate curriculum;
2) appropriate assessment instruments;
3) qualified instructors;
4) positive attitudes to heritage languages.
212 Claudia Angelelli and Olga Kagan

An appropriate curriculum
Programs for heritage speakers can take a number of forms. Courses designed
specifically for heritage learners can be taught as stand-alone courses, presented
as a sequence of courses in a specific “track,” or form a comprehensive program
devoted to home-background speakers. Stand-alone courses can be of various
kinds, from purely heritage-language courses (Spanish, Russian, Vietnamese,
etc., for Bilingual Students) to Presentational skills in writing (Composition
for Bilingual Students), study of structure courses, and/or Content-Based
Instruction (including LSP courses, such as Spanish for Lawyers and Russian
for Business, among others). Comprehensive programs are definitely the best
option but are only just appearing on the horizon across the USA. They need a
large population of heritage speakers to justify their existence. They offer spe-
cially designed curricula, measurement instruments, materials, and other types
of academic support (e.g., tutoring). The program at Stanford University is an
example of a comprehensive program.
The Russian program at UCLA faced the challenge of designing an entirely
new curriculum. The challenge resulted in a new methodology and a new text-
book for heritage students of Russian because the field is so new that there are no
commercially available materials or even in-house materials prepared by other
instructors. Instructors of heritage-speaker courses must become researchers
and course designers. This is different from most other language courses with
extant materials and syllabi.

Appropriate assessment instruments

Valdés (1989) discusses the problems arising when ILR/ACTFL proficiency
guidelines are applied to Hispanic bilinguals. Her careful analysis of the di-
mensions underlying the generic descriptions of the speaking descriptors shows
how meaningless they can be when assessing the abilities of native speakers.
One example of this is comprehensibility, a salient dimension in the Oral
Proficiency Interview (OPI), regarded as a contributing factor to the accuracy
construct. Valdés argues that comprehension “across regional and social vari-
eties of Spanish is as much a test of the abilities and background of one inter-
locutor as of the other. This dimension appears to be meaningless for assessing
language abilities of native speakers” (p. 397). She also argues that many of
the abilities that are considered to be present in higher levels of proficiency
for non-native speakers (e.g., the ability to function well in areas involving
social exchanges) are present at lower ability levels in heritage speakers. Find-
ing appropriate assessment instruments for heritage speakers continues to be
a challenge. The assumption behind the “native” ranks informing most extant
proficiency tests, such as the ILR and ACTFL scales is an educated native-
speaker form. This reflects the “norma culta” and does not address the “norma
 Heritage speakers as learners at the Superior level 213

popular” or “norma rural” often used by heritage Spanish students in the USA.
The question, then, is how to measure such speakers’ proficiency for placement
purposes.
McGinnis (1996) cites the role the Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT) II, a
widely used discriminator in college admissions, has played in developing
accelerated programs for Chinese heritage speakers, aiding accurate placement
and more homogeneous grouping of students. Unfortunately, such tests are not
available in many languages, including Russian.
Even though standard tests are not available, students can be given diagnostic
tests at the beginning of the course to be compared with exit tests at the end.
A Superior-level test would consist of Distinguished-level material, i.e., test
the understanding of complex aural and written texts which require consider-
able sociocultural, sociolinguistic, and discourse knowledge. An oral interview
and a writing sample would both contain a task of an Interpretational and/or
Presentational nature. Achievement tests during the course would ideally con-
tain all the four modalities as well. At this level of instruction it is natural to
suggest that any achievement test has elements of proficiency so, by necessity,
the test becomes a prochievement test. We have also advocated use of portfolios
at this level.

Qualified instructors
One of the crucial needs in a heritage program is for an informed and skilled
faculty, aware of the different needs of heritage students, including theories
in bilingualism and methods of teaching heritage speakers. Yokoyama (2000)
points out that “[c]onsiderable leadership skills, tact, and confidence are neces-
sary on the part of the instructor” (p. 473) when dealing with heritage students
who share a classroom with their non-heritage peers. However, the same is true
even when heritage students are in a special track. The instructor’s role in a
class for heritage speakers is not only to serve as a linguistic role model and a
motivator but also as a link to the heritage culture at large. The tact Yokoyama
refers to is extremely important when dealing with students who have regional
and dialectal features in their speech. These deviations are often stigmatized,
and the instructor risks making students regard their families as inferior because
of these variations. The best way to deal with these differences is to put them
in the context of informal versus formal/academic language.
When foreign language learners and heritage speakers share a class, the
role of the instructor becomes crucial. As discussed earlier, non-native speak-
ers have been exposed to rules and generally have studied the language in a
classroom. They may lack exposure to many L2 nuances and registers. The
home-background speakers, on the other hand, understand nuances and have
been exposed to various registers of the language but not necessarily to an
214 Claudia Angelelli and Olga Kagan

academic one. They do not necessarily know the rules that govern a language,
but they can use them, and they do not make the type of mistakes that would
identify them as non-native speakers. When it comes to writing, they need di-
rect instruction in certain areas (such as spelling) that non-native speakers have
already mastered in their first stages of language acquisition. The instructor,
then, has to be able to balance students’ needs in order for them to learn as they
share experiences and to scaffold their learning process.

Linguistic issues. As mentioned earlier, Spanish faculty at Stanford University

are, if possible, native speakers and, where possible, home-background speakers
of Spanish. Among Slavic faculty, on the other hand, there is considerable
debate regarding qualifications for teaching heritage speakers. Superior-level
students can be taught by language instructors who are native speakers of the
language and also by content faculty (e.g., linguists, historians, artists) who may
or may not be native speakers but whose proficiency is at the Distinguished
level. SD classes at UCLA are taught by both kinds of instructors. Classes
can also be team-taught by a content specialist and a language teacher. Both
models have been used at UCLA and at Columbia/Barnard. Experience with
faculty has shown, however, that no matter how proficient faculty members are
in the language, they succeed in instructing heritage learners only when they
have given considerable thought to heritage issues and relevant pedagogy. It is
important, then, to start preparing graduate students to teach heritage classes in
general and at the higher levels of instruction in particular.

Training in methodology. The role of the teachers being a determinant of

the success or failure of home-background-speaker classes (Draper and Hicks
[2000]), Stanford University instructors specializing in teaching home-
background speakers take a number of relevant courses in the Spanish
Department as well as in the School of Education. Topics covered in these
courses include Bilingualism (theories and issues), Methods to Teach Spanish
to Heritage Speakers, Spanish Dialectology, History of the Spanish Language,
Spanish in the Chicano Community, as well as curriculum design, syllabus
writing, lesson planning, development of materials, and strategies and tactics
to teach students to monitor their own production. Likewise, in the past several
years, the Teaching Practicum in the Slavic Department at UCLA has included
a discussion of the special needs of heritage speakers.

Positive attitudes toward heritage languages

Home-background speakers do not differ only in the linguistic needs they bring
to the classroom. They also differ in affective needs (Valdés [1992]). Even
though these needs may differ from language to language, in all émigré groups
family and community relations are important. In fact, participants at the UCLA
 Heritage speakers as learners at the Superior level 215

research conference mentioned earlier agree that maintenance of a home lan-

guage by children is a mental health issue (University of California at Los
Angeles [2000]). It is essential that instructors capture the attitudes that home-
background speakers have toward their own group and their own identity since
often home-background speakers see the heritage language as unimportant or
unnecessary – or blame the language for being an obstacle to acquisition of
English. The classroom environment has to lead home-background speakers to
value both their heritage and their language and to allow them to maintain and
enhance the gift that they already have.

Teaching methods
Instructors of heritage learners can use any of a number of current and traditional
teaching methods. The Russian programs described in this chapter use com-
municative and content-based courses as a vehicle for Superior-level heritage
instruction. The Spanish program at Stanford University, an older and much
larger program, offers a course in grammatical structure, taught communica-
tively, in addition to content-based and other language courses. The Russian
Program at UCLA teaches a course in History of the Russian Language that will
serve a purpose similar to the Stanford Structure of Spanish course. Based on
experience at UCLA and Stanford University, we suggest that this combination
of courses is needed in order to train heritage speakers to become Superior-level
speakers, readers, and writers.

Communicative approaches
The question raised in the introduction to this volume – whether communicative
teaching practices, while being effective at the lower levels, may be ineffective
at higher levels – clearly needs to be addressed in regard to heritage speakers
as well. Our experience with heritage language teaching indicates that the in-
struction needs to remain communicative (if communicative is understood as
the ability to handle real-life texts, both aural/oral and written), but it also
needs to include considerable declarative knowledge and consciousness raising
(Valdés [2000]) as they pertain to dialects, speech etiquette, cultural knowledge,
and language structure.
Communicative instruction is as appropriate for heritage speakers as it is
for any student at a higher proficiency level. It is part and parcel of content-
based and structure courses described in this chapter. The critical learning
needs of heritage speakers fall into the areas of academic and professional
forms of reading and writing, requiring them to recognize, select among, and
use appropriate discourse types, forms of text and thought organization, reg-
ister, and specialized formats. They need to be able to read between the lines
and interpret intent (intensive reading) and write in ways that are both clear
216 Claudia Angelelli and Olga Kagan

and, where useful, intentionally vague, employing double entendre, cultural

(including historical, political, literary, and everyday) references, and genre-
specific techniques. They need to develop endurance for extensive reading and
the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff in the texts. They need to be able
to do similar things in listening, exhibiting both perspicacity in understanding
unspoken intent and endurance in listening at length. In speaking, they need to
learn to adapt their speech to the audience and select the culturally appropriate
(or subgroup-sensitive) arguments that will persuade their audience. Clearly,
nothing short of communicative instruction will serve to develop these skills
and abilities, although the form and content of communicative instruction, as
well as the task and the materials, will differ considerably from the nature of
communicative instruction at lower levels of proficiency and for non-heritage
speakers.

Content-Based Instruction
CBI in any or all of its forms – LSP, sheltered content, and Language Across the
Curriculum courses – serves as a vehicle that allows instructors to engage her-
itage students’ interest and develop their language ability naturally – and even
painlessly, as some students have claimed (Duri [1992]). Any foreign language
department of a college or university wishing to implement a comprehensive
program for home-background speakers at the SD level can benefit from inter-
departmental collaboration. Offering an array of LSP courses, such as Spanish
for Business, Chinese for Lawyers, or Vietnamese for Medical Personnel is
always attractive for students who see the benefit of enhancing their knowledge
of a language as they gain exposure to the content they will need in their future
careers or intellectual development. If the home-background-speaker popula-
tion is not large enough and a school can only implement isolated courses for
these students, these courses would generally have to be broad enough to attract
all home-background speakers regardless of the career interests. In this case,
the courses would most likely be language courses with an emphasis on culture,
including elements of CBI. No matter what discipline they are in, the knowl-
edge of culture and literature of the language is necessary to get to the higher
levels of proficiency. This argument is clearly stated in Chapter 5 of this volume
regarding the role of ancient Chinese poetry in achieving Distinguished-level
proficiency.
It is also conceivable that General Education courses could offer sections in
several languages. For example, a course in Latin American or Russian history
could have a discussion section in Spanish/Russian. Likewise, courses in other
majors, such as history, sociology, journalism, psychology, and science can re-
quire readings, as well as offer discussion sections, in heritage languages. Such
courses are becoming more and more popular on campuses across the USA
for foreign language students and are known as (Foreign) Languages Across
 Heritage speakers as learners at the Superior level 217

the Curriculum (LAC). There is every reason why the LAC movement should
be expanded to include heritage speakers – and there should be no great
difficulty in accommodating them in existing LAC programs. For example, in
the spring of 2001 a course in Soviet history at UCLA had a discussion section in
Russian. The “Russian” section read Soviet archival documents in the original,
exploring the use of language and how it reflects culture in the Soviet Union in
the 1930s under Stalin. This section was open to non-native speakers, but most
students, as anticipated, were heritage speakers.

Conclusion
To help heritage speakers reach the Superior/Distinguished level, a program
has to capitalize on students’ strengths, most often displayed in an Interper-
sonal mode of communication, and address less developed areas, which are
most frequently aspects of communication in the Interpretative and Presen-
tational modes, in all modalities. Linguistic deficiencies cannot serve as the
only area of improvement; so, a program cannot be based on error eradication
(Valdés [1989]). Any program for heritage speakers should be broad-based and
rich in cultural content that will provoke and hold students’ interests and mo-
tivate them to continue on a path to lifelong learning. It should also contain
elements of learner-centeredness and individuation as would any program at
higher levels.
Many questions remain unanswered. What are the best approaches to teach-
ing reading and writing to heritage students? Is there a transfer between writing
in the dominant language and writing in the first language? What are the best
testing instruments to determine the progress of heritage learners? Even though
it is clearly possible to bring heritage speakers to the level of the Superior or
even Distinguished proficiency, it may take some time and effort to determine
the most efficient pathways in doing so. One interesting research and pedagog-
ical question that is outside the scope of this chapter but nevertheless relevant
for heritage-program curricular design is how fast and under what conditions
heritage speakers whose oral/aural ability is Advanced but whose literacy is
lower can achieve Superior- and Distinguished-level proficiency.
This chapter has presented programs in two languages that have been suc-
cessful in helping heritage students reach higher levels of proficiency. Some
of these results have been possible in spite of lack of answers to the above
questions. In some cases, intuitive responses were acted upon in course devel-
opment. In other cases, some decisions were reached through trial and error or
research. While the programs described herein have been successful and can be
emulated, it is the authors’ hope that the questions that remain will be answered
with time and will lead to even more effective, refined programs for heritage
learners.
218 Claudia Angelelli and Olga Kagan

appendix a motivation of heritage learners (survey 2000)

Table 10.3

Grades completed in Russia 1-4 5-8

- 9-11
-
Number of respondents 9 14 18

Reasons Responses
Family 6 8 2
To preserve Russian culture 6 14 11
To read Russian literature 7 15 10
Career 1 3 3

Other 1* 1** 5***

*self-education; in order not to lose language skills
**I want to live and work in Moscow
***interesting lectures; personal; GE (General Education) requirement; to improve
my GPA (Grade Point Average)

appendix b fall 2000 structure of spanish feedback (excerpts)

Presentations and papers on language issues solidified understanding of course topics.
(2nd-year Social Sciences, Spanish minor)
The textbook was quite good. A little challenging because it was all in technical Spanish
but that is a good thing. Authentic materials were especially helpful for understanding
the topics. (3rd-year Spanish major)
Assignments allowed for choice and creativity. Also teamwork and peer editing of drafts
of papers were useful and educational and kept us from last minute work. Muchas gracias.
(3rd-year Humanities, Spanish minor)
Even though there was a diverse range of ability in Spanish between Spanish students
and heritage speakers, she made everyone feel comfortable about their abilities and
truly treated everyone fair. This definitely helped the heritage speakers and the second
language learners to learn from each other. (4th-year Engineering, Spanish minor)
11 Teaching Russian language teachers
in eight summer Institutes in Russian
language and culture

Zita Dabars and Olga Kagan

Leaver and Shekhtman (this volume) state that in the USA “few students achieve
Superior and Distinguished levels of proficiency in any foreign language.”
Thompson (2000) finds in her sample of fourteen students that after five years
of study 22% achieved Superior proficiency in speaking, 35.7% in reading,
14.3% in listening, and none in writing (pp. 264–271).1 Clearly, time on task
alone is insufficient for reaching the Superior/Distinguished (SD) level. What is
needed, as noted by many authors in this volume, is direct instruction, cultural
experience through in-country study or work or its equivalent, and attention
to the development of specific aspects of the components of communicative
competence.
Since teachers are the product of this educational system, it is safe to assume
(and our personal experience bears it out) that teachers of foreign languages do
not themselves always possess SD-level proficiency. That, of course, raises the
question: what proficiency is sufficient to teach a foreign language? The answer
varies, depending on the level taught and the approach used. Some teachers
would argue that they have been able to meet the needs of their students, even
though they themselves have never exceeded the Advanced level of proficiency.
Such teachers are probably teaching in a traditional program, focused on de-
veloping students’ knowledge of the Russian linguistic system. For example,
in the traditional organization of American university foreign language de-
partments (especially languages other than Spanish and French), faculty have
often been linguists with mostly theoretical knowledge of the language, rather
than with well-developed oral and aural skills. These latter skills, if taught at
all, were developed in conversation courses, conducted by a native speaker of
the language – either a professional instructor or someone who just happened
to be available locally. While such an approach was typical in the 1950s and
1960s, it has gradually become less common, especially with the advent of the
1 This excludes students taught in US government programs, where, for example at the Foreign
Service Institute, 80–90% reach the Superior level in a ten-month intensive course (Leaver
[1997]).

219
220 Zita Dabars and Olga Kagan

Proficiency Movement in the 1980s and the communicative approach in the

1990s.
Beginning with the 1980s, proficiency in the language became a de facto
requirement for a language instructor because he or she now taught all aspects
of the language: grammatical structure, conversation, reading, listening, and
writing, as well as culture. An instructor was expected to be at ease with the
current idiom, well versed in both small “c” and big “C” cultures, and competent
to teach the grammatical system. Some changes specific to Russian language
teaching were a matter of the Russian foreign language education field catching
up with practices in commonly taught languages. Moreover, with the advent
of glasnost and perestroika, followed by the demise of communism, student
goals for Russian language study changed. Previously, students were unlikely
ever to visit the USSR. Now students could look forward to living, studying,
and working in Russia. Their professional and language-learning needs es-
calated accordingly, and teachers at the Intermediate and Advanced levels of
proficiency, who earlier might have felt complacent, no longer had the skills
to meet their students’ needs. The main lacunae appeared to be in their ability
to converse in Russian and their knowledge of culture. This assessed need led
to the organization of intensive programs (or institutes) for training teachers of
Russian in Russian language and culture, as well as in contemporary approaches
to teaching.
During the course of the Institutes, it became apparent that teachers’ de-
ficiencies in these three areas undermined their effective performance in an-
other way: they eroded their confidence. Teachers at lower levels of proficiency
were less open to communicative approaches and defended using the grammar–
translation method partly because they were familiar with it from their student
days and partly because it permitted talking about the language rather than
in the language, thereby avoiding that which they could not do successfully.
Some of them were also in favor of the Audio-Lingual Method (ALM) with its
dependence on drill, again because ALM reduces the need for free expression,
a level of proficiency that they had not developed. Forcing the issue of teaching
communicatively, using Russian as the medium of instruction had created a
Catch-22: teachers needed a higher level of language proficiency to feel com-
fortable using Russian in the classroom, but their anxiety impeded their ability
to improve their proficiency.
That raises a new question: what level of proficiency is sufficient to obviate
teachers’ anxiety and uncertainty? While much has been written about students’
anxiety and uncertainty while studying a foreign language (Bailey [1983];
Horwitz [1988]; Horwitz and Young [1991]; Scovel [1991]), much less is known
about the role anxiety and uncertainty play in a teacher’s performance. So, the
directors and faculty at the various Institutes had no choice but to use their
own observations and intuitions in lowering participants’ affective filters. As
 Teaching Russian language teachers in Institutes 221

a minimum, they speculated that a teacher should have enough confidence in

his or her language ability to (1) answer students’ grammatical questions, (2)
handle many questions about vocabulary usage, (3) convey basic aspects of
the culture, and (4) admit lack of knowledge of answers to specific questions,
along with showing willingness to research the answers. What follows explains
how Institutes for teachers of Russian were organized and how they achieved
the goals of proficiency improvement, with the accompanying lowering of af-
fective filters, increased linguistic competence, and development of cultural
knowledge.

The setting and the history

In response to the needs described above, eight nationwide summer Institutes
in Russian Language and Culture were conducted by The Center of Russian
Language and Culture (CORLAC) at Friends School of Baltimore, in collabo-
ration with the American Council of Teachers of Russian (ACTR), from 1987
to 1989 and from 1992 to 1996. The Institutes were funded by the National
Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and were held at Bryn Mawr College.
Faculty, staff, and participants were housed together for the duration of the
Institute in one of Bryn Mawr’s dormitories. The rooms were private; the com-
mon areas were shared, providing for daily living language use.
Fifty-eight faculty members, lecturers, and staff were involved in the eight
Institutes, and participants came from schools and universities throughout the
USA. Thirty-six states and the District of Columbia were represented.

The program

The goals
The published goals of the Institutes were to (1) enhance the language skills
and cultural knowledge of Russian teachers, (2) inform participants of the lat-
est methodological insights, and (3) assist teachers in adapting and/or develop-
ing supplementary teaching materials. A fourth goal – developing networks –
emerged from the teachers during the Institutes as a natural result of the inter-
actions of educators from many states and language programs, and a fifth goal
was established as a result of faculty observations: a need to develop the field
of Russian teaching.

Enhancing language skills and cultural knowledge

Non-native teachers, working in a communicative environment, need to have
the greatest level of proficiency possible. Using information from the latest
222 Zita Dabars and Olga Kagan

research as to the most efficient and effective ways of improving foreign lan-
guage proficiency, the Institutes chose to use a content-based, total immersion
approach, as described below.

Improving linguistic skills. Most Institute participants set the improvement

of their linguistic skills above other goals. This goal was realized through:
(1) improved accuracy, (2) increased fluency, and (3) development of cultural
knowledge.

Improving accuracy. Improvement in breadth and precision of grammar and

vocabulary was achieved through readings and interactions. In addition, a formal
grammar lecture was presented twice a week.

Increasing fluency. Russian was the language of instruction in all seminars and
the working language of the Institute. This immersion experience worked to
develop the fluency component of participants’ linguistic competence. In setting
this goal, faculty adopted several practices to reduce the anticipated affective
filtering; these are identified in the description of the various activities.

Developing cultural knowledge. An emphasis on culturally oriented materials

was a natural, given the National Endowment for the Humanities as funding
source for the Institutes. Moreover, high-level proficiency cannot be achieved
without strong sociocultural competency.

Learning about the latest methodology

Until very recently, Russian has not been taught in a communicative mode.
Many, if not most, teachers who attended the summer Institutes, had been trained
in a very different way of teaching. Further, most of these teachers had few
opportunities to become retrained in more contemporary teaching methods. The
Institute provided a way to do this through a seminar on teaching methodology.

Assistance with adapting/developing supplemental materials

The purpose of the third goal was twofold. First, most of the teachers attending
the Institutes were not skilled in developing their own supplemental materials.
Learning the concepts of materials adaptation and development, then, would
be immediately useful to them in their work. Second, commercial materials for
Russian are much less extensive than those available for the more commonly
taught languages. Therefore, through a materials development seminar, partic-
ipants prepared valuable classroom materials, and the shared materials from
each seminar helped to compensate for the lack of commercial materials.
 Teaching Russian language teachers in Institutes 223

Networking
Although it was never published as a formal goal, both faculty and participants
understood that an important outcome of the Institute was the establishment of
a network of professional contacts with colleagues, in both high schools and
colleges, for the exchange of ideas on teaching and research in the fields of
Russian culture and language. Since the Russian profession is small, many
teachers work alone in their schools and even school districts. Meeting col-
leagues who were in the same situation, from other parts of the country, pro-
vided Institute participants with a network of professional contacts that many
of them have maintained long after their participation in the Institute.

Development of the Russian field

Likewise, while not an official goal of the Institutes, the faculty and directors
were well aware of the need to focus on field development for the Russian
language-teaching profession. New programs needed to be developed and sup-
port needed to be extended to existing programs. This concern was of paramount
importance to them as professionals and was among the major considerations
in establishing the Institute and seeking funding.

The participants
A total of 171 Russian language teachers from elementary, middle, and sec-
ondary schools and colleges, and graduate students who intended to enter the
teaching field participated in the eight four-week Institutes.
Applicants were selected based on a variety of criteria. Priority was given to
full-time and part-time teachers of Russian at the pre-college level and secon-
darily to teachers of Russian from small colleges.
The application process included a telephone interview lasting 10–15 minutes
of oral (and to a degree, aural) proficiency, conducted by ACTFL-certified
testers. Group placement was determined by the proficiency level of the Russian
language as reflected in the written application and this telephonic interview.
About one third of the participants were placed into the Superior-level group.2
These are the participants whose program is described in this chapter.

Institute overview
Each Institute provided four weeks of instruction, transportation to and from
the participant’s hometown, air-conditioned individual rooms, a meal plan in
the Bryn Mawr Russian language residential house, and a stipend of $1,000. In

2 Upon occasion, for specific purposes, a stronger student was placed into one of the lower-
proficiency groups.
224 Zita Dabars and Olga Kagan

addition, each participant was supplied with a variety of materials for use at the
Institute, as well as in their school programs upon return: scholarly books on
Russian literature and culture, pedagogically oriented books, extensive photo-
copied materials, slides of Russian art, cassettes of classical Russian music, and
cassettes of Russian bards, folk, and children’s music. In return, each partici-
pant was responsible for obtaining his or her principal’s or department chair’s
commitment to contribute $100 toward the cost of the Institute, becoming fa-
miliar with the Institute’s course through reading selected items in advance,
and participating full-time for all four weeks of the Institute.

The schedule
During the eight years of the Institute there were slight variations in the daily
schedule, assignments, number of participants, and other details. In this chapter,
we focus largely on the type of Institute that was arrived at eventually and existed
the longest.
Each day at the Institute consisted of three seminars. Each addressed one of
the three formal goals of the Institute: skills enhancement, methodology, and
materials adaptation/development.

Skills enhancement
The first seminar each morning was Skills Enhancement through Authentic
Readings on Russian Culture and Contemporary Society (henceforth referred
to as Skills Enhancement). The SD group typically included 8–9 participants,
who attended this seminar for ninety minutes daily and were taught by a native
speaker of Russian.
The Skills Enhancement seminar was highly valued by the participants. In
their evaluations, many suggested that this seminar be lengthened. Whether
or not the participants could formulate it that way, a compelling feeling of
professional worth may have made them value language classes over everything
else. After all, language teachers are supposed to be proficient in the language,
and few were as proficient as they thought they could be.
The goal of the Skills Enhancement seminar was to develop sociocultural,
linguistic, discourse, and sociolinguistic competence in reading, speaking, lis-
tening, and writing, within a framework of humanistic literature / culturally
oriented readings. Particular areas of focus were vocabulary enrichment, lexi-
cal precision and stylistics, complexification of expression, speaking fluency at
a more sophisticated level, reading fluency, genre study, text organization, and
idioms.
The readings for the Skills Enhancement seminar varied and were determined
by their cultural value. The four themes (shown in Table 11.1) were chosen
 Teaching Russian language teachers in Institutes 225

because they advanced the goals of enhancing the participants’ knowledge of

past and current Russian history, social mores, and cultural expectations, in-
cluding family issues, the role of women, politics realized in the family (e.g.,
a novella and a poem about a mother whose son is caught in the indiscriminate
KGB net), contemporary issues, and folk literature. Throughout the Institutes,
participants repeatedly expressed a strong desire for reading authentic, contem-
porary sources. Indeed, following a tradition that was started in the nineteenth
century with Russia’s “thick journals,” much of the most stimulating, culturally
pertinent writing in Russia at the turn of the twenty-first century appears in the
Russian press. In addition to the readings of the press, the children’s literature
week built sociocultural knowledge that teachers were not likely to get else-
where. Such knowledge was considered important because these works are part
of every educated Russian’s upbringing and allusions to their characters and
situations are encountered in adult literature and conversation.3
The Skills Enhancement seminar had an additional, metalinguistic goal: to
provide a master class. Each genre by its nature required a different approach
to teaching. The topical foci of the Skills Enhancement seminar reflected four
of the main kinds of discourse associated with Superior-level proficiency, rang-
ing from the language of childhood to high-level nonprofessional prose – a
range of language that educated native speakers use freely. (Professional prose
was, of course, a staple of the methodology seminar.) Institute participants ob-
served the different ways in which the Institute faculty presented and discussed
a large variety of materials. Teachers demonstrated a variety of techniques
when dealing with a text and conducting a language class, and Institute par-
ticipants noted and frequently analyzed the ways their instructors approached
teaching. They were themselves the subjects and the ethnographers (Kramsch
[1993]).
Table 11.1 provides a week-by-week comparison and overview of the con-
tents and activities of the seminar. Each resource and each activity was chosen
to develop specific skills, as described in the paragraphs below.

Vocabulary enrichment
Unlike beginning students who must acquire basic vocabulary, SD participants
focused on expanding and enriching an extensive lexicon: using productive
morphemes to form new words and expressions and determining the mean-
ing of new words not by using context as much as by using an understand-
ing of the Russian linguistic system, including morphemes, syntagms, and the
correct implications of words with multiple meanings. In working with fairy
3 Historically, teachers have been woefully ignorant of this aspect of Russian culture and unable
to pass such knowledge on to their students. This lack of knowledge was due not only to the
inaccessibility of Russian culture in the past but also to the traditional exclusion of such content
from most university Russian-language programs.
Table 11.1

Week # 1 2 3 4
Topic(s) Literature of life in History: Soviet Union Contemporary issues Children’s literature
Russia under Stalin
Genre(s) Everyday language Historical narration; Media Folk tale; children’s
literary narration literature
Discourse Social language and Narration; Argumentation; Fairy tale; children’s
discussions argumentation; documentation; discourse
persuasion persuasion; opinion-
writing
Sources(s) / Sample Just Another Week Novella: Sofia Petrovna Magazines and Fairy tales; children’s
readings (Baranskaja); I Am, You (Chukovskaia); Poem: newspapers; The stories and poems
Are, He Is (Tokareva) “Requiem” (Akhmatova) Glasnost Press-Ogonyok
1990 (Lekic); Literary
Newspaper
Activities Group discussions; Textual explication; Small-group work; Identification of
weekly composition complexification of individual presentations characters and
expression; weekly on linguistic features; situations commonly
composition complexification of alluded to in other
expression; weekly genres; weekly
composition; idioms, composition (create and
acronyms, language write fairy tale, using
change appropriate devices)
 Teaching Russian language teachers in Institutes 227

tales, for example, special attention was paid to the twenty or so beginning and
ending phrases that are typical of this genre, as well as frequent expressions
that pepper Russian fairy tales, because they are so common in both literary
and conversational use. The unabridged texts with their inclusion of obsolete
words, idiomatic expressions, and colloquial speech allowed the instructor to
work with a very advanced level of vocabulary mastery.
Participants started using vocabulary at an interpersonal level, relating their
own life experiences, and moved into more abstract social themes, providing for
a “graded” ascent into more academic discourse. It was interesting to note that
while some of the participants had a lexicon suitable for abstract discussions,
they lacked the vocabulary of “home and hearth.” This presented an interesting
contrast to the language of heritage speakers who were at approximately the
same general level of proficiency.

Lexical precision and stylistics

Participants were not allowed to use strategic competence in lieu of linguistic
competence, a tendency that Leaver and Shekhtman (this volume) consider
an attribute of Superior-level speakers that creates a barrier to reaching the
Distinguished level. For example, participants were asked to find in the text
and explain the use of Russian equivalents for the verb “to speak.” Such an
assignment forces the learner to account for features of the language that could
otherwise be neglected because they are easily understood. Russian verbs and
expressions for “to speak” serve as an entrée to a variety of speech ranges
and clearly indicate the difference between academic and less formal speech.
Other assignments included providing synonyms and antonyms, explaining
idiomatic expressions, and illustrating them as well as discussing their stylistic
usage. The vocabulary development assignments thus had a heavy component
of stylistics. Another register-development activity was a host of assignments
requiring complex syntactic structures. For example, one exercise asked learners
to combine a series of simple sentences together by using a variety of connecting
devices, including participles and verbal adverbs that are typical of the Russian
academic style.

Complexification of expression
Similarly, instructors used a large number of exercises that explored synonyms
and antonyms, paid close attention to the usage of verbs in context, and asked for
paraphrase and narration of specific scenes and events. This complexification of
expression contributed to the development of many aspects of SD-level speech,
e.g., supporting an opinion, developing an argument, making a hypothesis.
Using the text as a departure point, instructors urged learners to go beyond
the text, incorporating their own background knowledge and making cross-
cultural comparison, arguing their views, and supporting a position against
228 Zita Dabars and Olga Kagan

their beliefs. Participants were taught to use the stylistic devices appropriate for
academic discussion.

Speaking fluency
The Superior-level group started most classes with individuals reciting tongue
twisters and ditties, where rhyme, alliteration, and rhythm aided the participants
to achieve lightning speed by the end of the Institute.This technique is one of the
mechanisms for “hidden memorization” described by Leaver and Shekhtman
(this volume).

Reading fluency
Extensive reading – or reading fluency – is a skill required at the SD level. SD
students can be expected to exhibit endurance in reading for long periods of time
and relative ease and speed in reading large amounts of materials. Participants
read at least 20–30 pages of literary, newspaper, and professional texts in the
Russian language each evening. Reading took place at home, and discussions
of the texts were conducted in the classroom.

Genre studies
Genres ranged from short stories to poems, memoirs, folk and fairy tales, liter-
ary reviews, newspaper articles, editorials, letters to the editor, and expository
articles in journals. Faculty introduced participants to as wide a range as possible
during the short period of the Institute.
The language of the Russian press was challenging even for Superior-level
participants. Discussion of press articles took second place to working on ac-
curate reading of the text: discernment of humor, sarcasm, and allusions to
historic events, literary texts, and facts of common knowledge that saturate
Russian journalistic prose. Unlike their American colleagues, Russian journal-
ists infuse news with opinion and rarely explain who or what they refer to. To be
able to read at the Distinguished level one needs to be able to understand most,
if not all, of these allusions, a task that is challenging even for native speakers
living outside of Russia’s changing political and cultural scene.
Close and accurate reading continued with exposure to Russia’s folklore
and other kinds of children’s literature.4 This activity was deemed important
because literature that most Russians know from childhood plays a much more

4 There was a practical reason for including such content in the Institute program. At the time, the
American Council of Teachers of Russian had organized teacher and student exchanges. For the
first time, American high-school students of Russian were able to spend time in Russian homes
and schools, and Russian instructors came for a limited time to teach at American schools. The
readings in children’s literature that served to fill a gap in the teachers’ education were especially
important in view of these changes: students who were beginning to come face to face with
Russians needed to understand the culture of their peers.
 Teaching Russian language teachers in Institutes 229

significant role in Russian nonfictional prose than it does in American writing

of the same genre.

Text organization in writing

Class participants worked on a weekly composition in Russian. The writing
topics provided participants with an opportunity to practice Russian text struc-
ture for various genres, review newly acquired vocabulary through repetition,
develop lexical precision, use both simple and more elaborate grammatical
forms appropriately, choose appropriate register and style, and make cultural
references.

Idioms/acronyms
In reading the Russian press, attention was paid to idiomatic expressions and
acronyms that had entered, or become more important in, the Russian language
in the preceding ten years. That was the time of the beginning of a rapid change
in Russian life that was reflected in the language of newspapers.

Methodology
The Methodology seminar met for ninety minutes daily. It was taught by spe-
cialists in teaching methodology who were native speakers of Russian, or in the
last two years by a non-native speaker experienced in teaching methodology in
Russian. Here, emphasis was placed on familiarizing participants with the latest
ideas in foreign language education, in particular with techniques for teach-
ing communicative skills, the use of authentic materials, the role and use of
prelistening and pre-reading activities, and the content of the ILR/ACTFL
Proficiency Guidelines (see Chapter 1). Lessons focused on current theory and
practice in foreign language teaching and testing and individualized ideas for
improving participants’ own programs and classrooms. Of course, the specific
content of the Methodology seminar changed over the years, as the field of
foreign language teaching evolved.

Course content
During the first Institutes at the end of the 1980s, participants were introduced
to the ideas of the Proficiency Movement that were only being developed at
the time and were entirely new for the Russian profession. Participants in
the Institute had an opportunity to familiarize themselves with current pro-
ficiency testing instruments in Russian. At that time, the ideas of proficiency
and prochievement testing and the difference between such testing and a com-
monly used achievement testing were still new for the profession. Because
of that, much time was dedicated to various kinds of testing, including oral
interviews.
230 Zita Dabars and Olga Kagan

By the last two Institutes, the Methodology seminar had evolved to include
four topics: learner differences, history of methodology, communicative lan-
guage teaching, and testing. These topics gave participants the theoretical back-
ground and practical understanding needed for developing comfort in teaching
via learner-centered, communicative approaches and in preparing appropriate
materials for use with communicative approaches. Participants in the Insti-
tute also had an opportunity to familiarize themselves with current proficiency
testing instruments in Russian. Associated with these topics, participants made
individual presentations on such topics as teaching methods, techniques for
teaching various skills, aspects of testing, and theories of methodology;
presentations were followed by a general discussion.

Manner of instruction
The Methodology seminar was conducted in Russian. In the last two years,
partly in response to participants’ requests, the following format emerged: a
short, interactive lecture, followed by small-group and pair work, in which the
instructor interacted with each group, providing suggestions and support for
completion of group tasks, after which each small group shared information
about how they completed their task with the whole group. (Most often, tasks
differed among the groups, adjusted for participants’ learning styles, interests,
and proficiency level.)
The interactive lectures in the methodological component of the syllabus
did more than just acquaint teachers with contemporary teaching methods.
They required teachers to use Russian for professional needs and learn specific
new terminology typically expected at the SD level: participants made formal
presentations, using professional vocabulary. These expectations, especially
formal presentations, are typical of the activities used by a number of authors
in this volume to develop SD-level proficiency (see, for example, Angelelli
and Degueldre, Shekhtman et al., and Angelelli and Kagan). The repetition
of this vocabulary through reading it in the homework assignments, hearing
it in lectures, and using it in oral and written presentations fostered partici-
pants’ ultimate ease in using it. In short, the lectures in methodology served as
both a content course and a language experience.

Materials
The materials for the Methodology seminars in the earlier Institutes were in
English because no appropriate materials existed in Russian. Over time, it be-
came clear that participants would benefit from materials discussing new de-
velopments in language teaching that were written in Russian. Attempts to use
scholarly articles or books published in Russia were not successful because of
the differences between teaching Russian as a Second Language (a thrust of
publications by Russian scholars) and Russian as a Foreign Language, as well
 Teaching Russian language teachers in Institutes 231

as the new approaches presented at the Institutes (proficiency philosophy and

communicative approach). As a result, a set of materials exploring contempo-
rary American foreign language teaching methodology was written in Russian
by two of the instructors at the Institute.5

Materials Adaptation/Development
In the Materials Adaptation/Development seminar, which met for ninety min-
utes three times a week, the participants prepared materials that would be helpful
at their home institutions. In this seminar, theoretical knowledge was combined
with hands-on experience, as teachers adapted and/or developed supplemen-
tary teaching materials to enhance the basic textbooks they were using and to
provide them with missing instructional tools.

Materials evaluation
In the first few days, participants were presented with guidelines for textbook
and supplemental materials evaluation and acquainted with the range of Russian
language-teaching materials available. They were then asked to evaluate various
materials,6 using the handout in Figure 11.1.
This comprised the task for the first week and enabled participants to prepare
materials of their own. During this week, one of the seminar instructors ascer-
tained participants’ needs and desires for supplementary materials. On the basis
of these specific needs, participants were paired with Institute faculty for men-
toring and individual assistance with adapting and developing supplementary
teaching materials.

Materials adaptation/development
As a subsequent task, participants were required to submit a project to be shared
with other participants. This project was the megatask for the last three weeks
of the Institute. Some participants arrived with an idea of what they would
like to do. Others waited until arrival to decide. Participants who used the
same textbooks in their teaching frequently joined forces to work on common
projects. The projects went through a number of revisions. Before the final
5 The materials were later developed and became a book that was published in Russia, Uchimsya
uchit’ (“We’re Learning to Teach”) (Akishina and Kagan [1997]).
6 For the most part, participants evaluated versions of Russian Face to Face field-testing
materials – textbooks, exercise books, tests that accompany these textbooks, and videos, and
language learning cards that could be used with these materials – that were being produced by
the Center of Russian Language and Culture and eventually were published by the National
Textbook Company (now McGraw Hill), Kendall/Hunt, and Basil Products. Participants were
asked to evaluate these materials in particular because they were in the process of development
or refinement. The lower levels are the primary text materials available for teaching at the high-
school level, while the more advanced-level materials are used in both high schools and colleges
and lend themselves to questions of articulation.
232 Zita Dabars and Olga Kagan

SUGGESTED CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING TEACHING MATERIALS

r Is the book grammar driven? (Is the sequence appropriate?)
r How is the grammar presented? Throughout the lesson, at the end of chapters? Are the
explanations adequate?
r Is the book communicative? Does it allow the students to speak about themselves? about
people living in Russia?
r How is culture treated? Is there culture with a capital C (writers, composers, painters,
history, architecture, religion, etc.) and with a small c (holidays, clothing, food, daily
customs, etc.)? Is it given in Russian or in English?
r How is vocabulary treated? Is it given throughout the lesson, how is it treated at the
end? Are the words given in alphabetical order? In the order that they appear in the
lesson? By thematic categories? By grammatical terms? Which do you prefer? Which do
students like the best?
r How is reading used in the textbook? Is it on an appropriate level? Is there enough of it?
Too much? Is there reading for interest, pleasure, comprehension?
r Are photographs and illustrations appropriate? Are there enough of them? Too many? If
you had an artist available, what kind of illustrations would you ask him/her to draw for
the various lessons?
r When you look at the pages in the textbook, do you feel comfortable with the proportion
of text vs. white space?
r Are there puzzles, fun things in the textbook? What fun things would you add?
r Might the textbook lend itself to working in pairs? in a group?
r Are there listening comprehension materials?
r What kind of learner (learning style) would do well with this book? What kind of
learner would struggle? How could you help the latter?

Figure 11.1

version was photocopied and distributed to all participants and faculty, every
project was read for accuracy by three Institute teachers.
At the first three NEH/CORLAC Institutes (1987–1989), participants cre-
ated Culture Capsules – materials on topics such as Theatre, Sports, and The
Russian Family. These Culture Capsules were written, compiled, put into the
computer, illustrated by the participants, and made available at subsequent
Institutes. At later Institutes, participants prepared materials that included cul-
tural information, tests, vocabulary aids, communicative activities, and gram-
mar exercises, to list just a few. At the 1996 Institute, several participants
worked together to create cultural materials for the American Russian Spoken
Olympiada.
After the first week, participants generally did not meet as a group, unless
they were working on a small-group project. Rather, time was reserved for indi-
vidual work on projects. Formally, the Institute co-director and the technology
director co-taught the Materials Adaptation/Development seminar. In actuality,
 Teaching Russian language teachers in Institutes 233

all faculty assisted with ideas and linguistic accuracy. Two professional artists
illustrated participants’ materials. Accompanying media was produced and
distributed for free.
During the last three days of the Institute, oral presentations were made by
the participants in which they explained the goals and methodology of their
projects. With minor exceptions, these presentations were done in Russian –
giving participants yet another opportunity to use their Russian language skills
for the presentation of professional reports. As pointed out in many chapters of
this volume, the ability to perform such tasks is an essential feature of foreign
language proficiency at the Distinguished level.

Grammar lectures
Grammar lectures were conducted twice a week for ninety minutes. In earlier
years, these were delivered by a native speaker of Russian. In later years, they
were taught by a highly proficient non-native speaker.
The topics chosen were in response to concerns which, for many of the
Institutes, were voiced the first time the group met. Some of the topics are
familiar ones for anyone who has taught students – or teachers – of Russian:
verbal aspect, the one-stem verb, Russian noun stress, verbs of motion, the
use of aspect with imperatives – in short, those grammar features that have
historically frustrated, annoyed, and confused speakers of English who are
learning or teaching Russian.
For the 1996 Institute, a special attempt was made to coordinate the grammar
presentations with the grammar that was focused on in the Skills Enhancement
seminar. In addition, contextualized grammar study was used in conjunction
with the video, Peers (Lekic [1994]). Participants viewed the video and analyzed
the use of aspect in its unscripted conversations.
From time to time, participants in this seminar made short grammar pre-
sentations to the group. The presentations were followed by questions and
commentary by the instructor. This exercise gave yet another opportunity for
the participants to perform a professional task in Russian in front of a supportive
audience.

Evening activities
Augmenting the themes of the Institute, the evening activities provided partici-
pants with the cultural knowledge they would need to teach not language alone
but language and culture. In several cases, both materials and suggestions for
teaching cultural topics were given to the participants.
On average, three evenings of each week were scheduled for required NEH/
CORLAC Institute activities. Films (all in Russian), as well as lectures (some
delivered in Russian, others in English) on art, music, historical developments,
234 Zita Dabars and Olga Kagan

economy, and architecture, broadened the participants’ knowledge of Russian

culture and contemporary Russian reality and served to develop participants’
sociocultural and sociolinguistic competence – essential components of com-
municative competence for SD-level speakers.
The films reflected the themes of the reading assignments in the Skills
Enhancement seminar. For example, when the participants were reading
Akhmatova’s “Requiem” and Chukovskaia’s Sofia Petrovna about the Stalin
years, the film version of Sofia Petrovna was shown, as was the documentary,
The House with Knights. Both conveyed, each in its own manner, the hope-
lessness and terror experienced by many Russian citizens during the Stalin era.
During the week in which the participants read children’s literature, Cinderella
and Three from Prostokvashino were presented. For all of the films, the teach-
ers of the Skills Enhancement and Methodology seminars prepared handouts
that focused on expressions and facts with which the participants might experi-
ence difficulty. After the films, optional discussions were held over soft drinks,
wine, and cheese, providing participants with the opportunity to develop in-
formal, social linguistic skills, another feature of SD proficiency. In the Skills
Enhancement seminars the following day, the participants could express their
reactions to the films and raise any concerns regarding comprehension.
Through the Cultural Evenings, the participants became acquainted with
films that an educated Russian would have seen. In addition, the Institute staff,
where appropriate, pointed out expressions from films that have become classics
and of which anyone aiming for the Distinguished level should be aware. For
example, after viewing Cinderella, all the participants knew that the expression
“I am not yet a magician, I’m only an apprentice” entered the Russian language
because of this film.
Distinguished scholars delivered lectures in their areas of expertise. For ex-
ample, an English-language music lecture by a well-known specialist (held at
several of the Institutes) taught participants how to listen effectively to Rus-
sian music and how to teach music to their students. (The participants also
received audiotapes of the music played as examples at the lecture.) Similarly,
two Russian-language lectures on Russian art served not only to instruct the par-
ticipants, but also to enable them to share their knowledge with students. (Each
of the participants received every one of the fifty-eight slides shown in these
lectures, each individually labeled with painter, title, and date, as well as hand-
outs with art terminology in Russian.) Lectures were almost always followed by
an informal discussion with the lecturer. (Afterward, many a participant burned
the midnight oil getting ready for the next day’s classes!)

Technology
A secondary goal of the Institute – and a necessity – was to provide instruction
in and access to various computer hardware (Macintosh, IBM) and software
 Teaching Russian language teachers in Institutes 235

programs with both English and Russian word-processing and graphic capa-
bilities. In addition, participants became familiarized with electronic mail and
computer-assisted instructional programs.
Computer support, assistance, and training was made available to all par-
ticipants who wanted or needed it. The goal, in many cases, was to expose
participants to word processing in English and Russian, although some partic-
ipants were already quite proficient in basic computer skills and were able to
develop more advanced skills while at the Institute.
A suite of three rooms in the Denbigh dormitory and the room adjoining
the instructor’s quarters were the primary areas in which the participants used
computers. The Computer Center was also available, and during the last two
Institutes, when it had extended hours, was heavily used.
In the application to the Institute, applicants were asked what hardware and
software they used. For almost all of the Institutes, there was not a single
participant who had not by the end of the Institute prepared a project using
the computer – this included a number of people who had never even used a
typewriter prior to the Institute. This was especially significant during the early
years when computers were not as prevalent as they are today.

Special events
During two of the Institutes, Bryn Mawr College was the site for conferences of
the Presidium of the International Association of Teachers of Russian Language
and Literature. Institute participants were challenged to understand lectures on
a variety of topics pertinent to their profession – all delivered in Russian. At a
banquet that included the international guests, as well as students and staff from
Bryn Mawr College’s Russian Language Institute and participants and staff from
the NEH/CORLAC Institute, a happy cacophony of Russian was heard. As the
banquet ended, the Project Director invited a number of the international guests
to visit the Institute dormitory. There guests, participants, and staff mingled
informally. (One of the tenets of the Institute was for no distinction to be made
between Institute staff and participants. The latter were the staff’s colleagues –
we were all teachers. More than one Outside Evaluator commented that such
an attitude fostered a caring, supportive atmosphere and did much to alleviate
any anxiety that teachers may have encountered in using Russian.)

Evaluation
Assessment of the Institute’s effectiveness was based on informal observations
of intermediate results and formal evaluative instruments and activities used
in qualitative analysis, including instructor observations, formal participant
feedback to the Institute, formal participant feedback to NEH, and external
236 Zita Dabars and Olga Kagan

evaluation. (Given the short duration of the Institutes, quantitative measure-

ments of proficiency gain were not feasible.)

Instructor observations
Instructors observed that participants’ command of the Russian language notice-
ably improved in areas of both fluency and accuracy. Their range of vocabulary
and precision in word choice grew, as they became exposed on a daily basis to
a wide variety of lexical domains: professional terminology, literary and media
language, words of the hearth and home, and expressions needed for social
interactions.
Computer literacy also noticeably increased. Unlike language proficiency,
computer literacy was measurable by objective criteria. The fact that partici-
pants who had not used a computer before enrollment at the Institute word-
processed their projects for the Materials Adaptation/Development seminar
served as evidence of their improved skills.
Participants also became aware of the latest methodological insights in teach-
ing. Their presentations in the Methodology seminar, along with the Materials
Adaptation/Development projects, indicated an increased awareness of teach-
ing for communicative competence.
The faculty considered the Institute a success, based on the criteria estab-
lished as goals for the Institute and by the rapport established with the partic-
ipants. Continuing use of the informal “networks” that developed also served
as evidence of success.

Formal participant feedback to the Institute

Participants had three separate, scheduled opportunities to assess the value of
the Institute’s work to their individual professional needs and to evaluate the
living arrangements. The first one took place two weeks into the Institutes,
when the Project Director met with the participants with no staff present. Any
concerns were shared with the appropriate parties and, where deemed possible,
adjustments were made in the remaining two weeks of the current Institute.
On the last day of the Institutes, the participants filled out an anonymous
five-page questionnaire. The questionnaire asked for participant feedback on
the seminars, the lectures, films, other activities, and the organization of the
Institute on a scale of 1 to 5. In addition, thirteen other questions were asked
about suggested changes for the curriculum and scheduling for future years,
about the availability of computers, and whether the Institute would make a
difference in the way the participants taught.
Participants stated, without exception, that the Institute had met their expec-
tations. Among the positive aspects, teachers identified an increased confidence
 Teaching Russian language teachers in Institutes 237

in using Russian, acquisition of or improvement in computer skills, stimulat-

ing evening activities, experience in the preparation of curricular materials,
and contacts they had made, as well as rating the Institutional organization as
effective.
Specific areas in which participant feedback influenced subsequent Institutes
included sending more materials to participants in advance of the Institute, in-
creasing the amount of history studied, and a greater emphasis on concrete
application of theoretical explanations in the Methodology seminar and Gram-
mar lectures. The need for more time, especially for preparing projects, was a
recurring theme but not one that was easily remedied in the short duration of
the Institute.
Most participants indicated that they would significantly change their teach-
ing methods. All were appreciative of copies of the projects and other teaching
materials (such as slides, lyrics and audios of songs) that they were given free
of charge to take home. Most teachers expressed gratitude for the opportunity
to attend the Institute.

Formal participant feedback to NEH

Following the Institute, the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH)
solicited participant feedback. After deleting the name and institution of the
responding participant, NEH forwarded the evaluations to the Project Director,
who distributed them to the staff. The questionnaire contained two sections:

1) Summarize your overall assessment of this Institute experience, taking into con-
sideration the director, contributing faculty, Institute colleagues, topics, organization,
discussions, extra activities, and effect on your teaching and scholarship. Do you have
any suggestions for improvements?
2) Evaluate the host institution, particularly with respect to hospitality, housing arrange-
ments, and the suitability of library facilities.

In general, the feedback was highly positive. The results from the NEH ques-
tionnaire paralleled those obtained from the Institute’s questionnaire, described
above.

External evaluation
At each of the eight Institutes, an Outside Evaluator, renowned for scholarship
on Russia, spent two days at the Institutes, during which time he or she observed
the classes, met separately with the participants and with the staff, and wrote
an evaluation of the Institutes. Representative comments made over the years
by various evaluators are shown in Figure 11.2.
238 Zita Dabars and Olga Kagan

Assorted Comments (1987-1996) October 4, 1995 (Grammar Seminar)

• “. . . stimulating lectures and reading”; “These lectures have a twofold benefit for
• “. . . command of . . . Russian . . . improved, the participants. On the one hand, the
and they became aware of the latest information conveyed, complete with
methodological insights in teaching”; handouts, . . . addresses points essential to a
• “Computer literacy was greatly good working knowledge of Russian that
increased”; are not often covered in the coursework . . .
• “ . . . aware of the latest developments in On the other hand, the participants are
the Russian profession, especially as they exposed to a model of a non-native speaker
impacted the future of . . . Russian of Russian who is genuinely fluent—a term
teaching”; that is unfortunately all-too-often misused
• “International as well as U.S. visiting and devalued in today’s parlance . . . this
scholars were introduced to the model of what can be achieved by a non-
participants.” native speaker, like the other models of
excellent teachers . . . in the Methodology and
August 6, 1996 Skills sections, and the example set by the
“By the time I arrived all of the director . . . is in itself of great importance to
participants were able to give these participant/teachers. To continue to
presentations in Russian, to complete grow as a teacher, one must discover new
major pedagogical projects in Russian, incentives, be exposed to new challenges,
and to speak publicly with excellent become aware of higher goals. This, in
pronunciation and intonation, to say addition to a new appreciating and
nothing of grammar and vocabulary . . . understanding of Russian culture and
[participants] had made significant language, is what this institute has also
progress . . . at the Institute.” given the participants.”

Figure 11.2

Issues
Issues that were important in the conduct of the Institute fell into four areas:
affective variables, time management, mixed levels of language proficiency,
and mixed exposure to the Proficiency Movement. In addition, depending on the
year of the Institute, participants needed more or less exposure to and practice in
new methodologies and computer literacy. At all times, attention was to be paid
to faculty staffing and participants’ interaction with various faculty members.
Each of these issues is discussed in greater detail below.

Affective variables
Faculty was attuned to affective variables and noticed that while all partici-
pants were highly motivated, many were frequently anxious. In some cases,
participants were overwhelmed initially.

Motivation
Participants at the Institutes were highly motivated learners and not only be-
cause of the pledges that they had to make and the support they had to garner
 Teaching Russian language teachers in Institutes 239

before attending. They saw the Institutes, and the time they would spend there,
as an opportunity to improve their knowledge of language and culture to ap-
proach more closely the levels that they needed (or wanted) for professional and
personal reasons. They also bonded with the faculty. Finally, they were gen-
uinely interested in the language. Hence, their motivation was both integrated
and instrumental (Gardner and Lambert [1972]), both intrinsic and extrinsic
(Deci and Ryan [1985]).

Anxiety
Many of the Institute participants exhibited stress and anxiety, making the de-
velopment of rapport between the faculty and the participants an important
factor in the success of the Institutes. Faculty members not only provided infor-
mation to but also learned from the participants, all of whom were experienced
language teachers and learners. In fact, some of the participants had been teach-
ing longer than their instructors and brought a wealth of experience with them.
Further, communicative approaches were new and controversial in the Russian
profession in the mid-1990s, and many senior participants felt threatened by
new methodologies. It was vitally important for the Institutes’ faculty to re-
spect their experience and incorporate it rather than dismiss it out of hand. The
instructors, for example, facilitated, rather than directed, the learning process.
They continuously assessed the needs and desires of the participants through
direct questioning. This “gauging” served several purposes: it alleviated some
of the participant anxiety, allowed for program flexibility, and demonstrated ef-
fective teacher–student communication and teacher behavior. Participants were
never referred to as students by the faculty, they were thought of as colleagues.
Since one of the goals of the Institutes was to expose participants to new com-
municative methodologies, this learner-centered approach served as meal and
vessel.

Time management
Closely associated with anxiety – and perhaps a cause of it – was the rel-
atively small amount of time available to accomplish the relatively extensive
assignments. This was especially true for the Skills Enhancement and Materials
Adaptation/Development seminars.
Without exception, all participants, even the native speakers, found the as-
signments of the Skills Enhancement seminar challenging. Many, especially
those who had not been in a classroom recently, simply had not been exposed
to such extensive reading for years, if ever, and found the pace of the Institute
quite demanding. It helped that the Institute faculty repeatedly stated that par-
ticipants should do what they could – and were understanding of the emotional
drain accompanying participants’ hard work.
240 Zita Dabars and Olga Kagan

The participants of the Institutes could be justly proud of the teaching ma-
terials that they developed in the Materials Adaptation/Development seminar
and their mastery of the mysteries of the computer. However, some participants
experienced difficulty with time management in this area, too: some of the
projects were so ambitious that they took up an extraordinary amount of par-
ticipants’ time.

Mixed proficiency levels and backgrounds

Addressing a large group with varying language ability from Intermediate Low
to Distinguished was a demanding task for all the undivided seminars. However,
it was a particularly daunting task for the Grammar lectures. There a decision
had to be made whether to offer lectures that improved the participants’ com-
mand of Russian or to concentrate on how to teach a difficult grammar point,
such as the use of aspect or verbs of motion, to the participants’ students. Each
choice reflected a goal of the Institute – (1) to improve participants’ grammat-
ical competence, and (2) to demonstrate teaching methods – and a combined
approach was used as much as possible. Although smaller groupings might
have been desired, there is no evidence that sharing Grammar lectures with
participants with lower levels of proficiency in any way adversely affected the
increasing proficiency of the Superior-level participants.
Some Institutes had a few participants who were native speakers of Rus-
sian, educated in Russia. They were attending the Institutes to learn about new
methodologies and did not need language practice. Their needs were handled
variously, especially for the Skills Enhancement seminar. In some years, they
were grouped with the most advanced section and served as sources of linguistic
and cultural information while also observing the approach to teaching. One
year, two native speakers served as assistants, assigned to lower-level sections
where participants needed more individualized help and where the native speak-
ers could acquire teaching skills. In all cases, they enhanced the atmosphere of
the Institutes, providing extra native-speaker input.

Mixed exposure to the Proficiency Movement

As with the mixing of proficiency levels, mixing of knowledge levels (in this
case, of teaching for proficiency, the basis of the methodology used at the
Institute) created some anticipated difficulties. Typically, although not always,
the senior, more experienced teachers were the least familiar with principles
of teaching for proficiency, and many were reluctant to turn in their tried-and-
true techniques for methods with a new promise. Additionally, a number of
the affective issues and linguistic difficulties typical of such a senior group
 Teaching Russian language teachers in Institutes 241

were present. What was significant overall, however, was the need to teach,
in Russian, new teachers, experienced teachers, and heritage speakers with
varying amounts of teaching experience and education together in one group
with varying proficiency levels. This situation had the greatest impact on the
Methodology seminar; it was handled best by having participants work in small
groups, where like levels of linguistic proficiency and content knowledge could
be combined advantageously.

Conclusion
The eight Institutes can be described as a total immersion content-based expe-
rience for adult professional learners. The Institutes resembled a venue where
a native speaker might naturally find him/herself: a professional development
seminar.
While it is unrealistic to expect that within a period of four weeks, however in-
tensive, a learner could move to the next level of proficiency, there were, indeed,
tangible results. Observable language improvement was noted by the instruc-
tors and the participants. Participants’ increasing ease at table talk, discussions
with visitors, and formal presentation provided some objective evidence of this.
This increased proficiency was recorded by the Outside Evaluators, as well.
Moreover, the participants gained in confidence. Not only were they required
to engage in professional discussions and formal presentations, but they were
able to do so with increasing success – and this led to their increased self-
confidence (which, in turn, led to even more language improvement).
In addition to intellectually meaningful exchanges on topics of professional
interest, participants expanded their sociocultural understanding through inter-
action with texts, as well as in discussions with native speakers among their
instructors. They analyzed their own teaching preferences and habits, deciding
to accept or reject the new approaches offered in the course of methodology
lectures.
Although the summer Institutes are no longer offered through CORLAC
at Bryn Mawr College, they could be revived by other institutions. Similar
institutes could be developed for other languages – particularly languages that
share the problems that were extant in the Russian field in the mid-1980s and
the mid-1990s: inaccessibility of the culture and country and a profession mired
in teaching traditions of the past.
As for the eight NEH/CORLAC Institutes, there are many teachers in the
Russian profession today who benefited linguistically, culturally, technologi-
cally, and in terms of classroom materials. Frequently, the participants wrote to
the organizers that, following the Institutes, they were proud of the fact that they
as teachers of Russian had ideas and materials that were of interest to French,
242 Zita Dabars and Olga Kagan

Spanish, and German language teachers in their schools. A number have used
their improved skills to the advantage of the Russian teaching field as a whole,
including becoming involved in national Russian organizations and projects,
and many former Institute participants give papers at conferences. Through the
generosity of the National Endowment for the Humanities many young teachers
have been molded and more experienced teachers were able to enhance their
professional confidence and acquire new insights into their profession.
Part III

Learners and users

12 Understanding the learner at the
Superior–Distinguished threshold

Madeline E. Ehrman

This chapter discusses second language acquisition at the Superior–Distingui-

shed (SD) threshold from the point of view of language-learning psychol-
ogy. Some important elements of learning psychology include linguistic fos-
silization, learning strategies and strategic competence, individual differences,
affective factors, learner autonomy, and relations among teachers and learners.
Since the important elements of learner psychology at the SD threshold can
best be understood in the context of actual programs, this chapter uses exam-
ples of concepts as they have been realized or encountered in SD programs at
the Foreign Service Institute (FSI).1

About the SD threshold

To talk about learners and learning at this level, it may be useful to summarize
what the SD threshold entails. First, it represents the boundary between the
Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) 3 or 3+, at which a language user
is capable of performing professional work and carrying out a social life but
with considerable imperfection, and the 4 and beyond, at which there are few
limitations on what a user can do with the target language. Byrnes (Chapter 2)
points out that integration of language, meaning, and social context is essential
for really effective Distinguished language use. Another way to view really
high-level proficiency is as an expansion of choices and options, especially of
register, or, more specifically, a maximization of sophisticated choices.

SD programs at FSI
The “Beyond Three” initiatives undertaken at FSI since the early 1990s and pro-
grams explicitly aimed at helping students reach the ILR 4 have made a shift

The content of this chapter does not represent official policy of the US Department of State; the
opinions and observations are those of the author.
1 FSI is the training bureau of the US Department of State; it offers full-time intensive training in
over sixty languages to members of the US foreign affairs community. Average student age is
41; approximately two-thirds are between 30 and 50 years old when they enter training.

245
246 Madeline E. Ehrman

of emphasis from traditional grammar and lexical activities to helping students

learn to sharpen their focus on fine points, incorporate new learning in sociocul-
turally appropriate ways, and maximize aware exposure to real language use.
The earliest of these programs (1984–1989) was an Advanced language pro-
gram initiated in response to needs for Level 4 speakers expressed by the US
Ambassador to Moscow. This six-month content-based program for Superior-
level diplomats was designed anew by the students themselves with each iter-
ation. In addition to selecting course topics, students served as peer instructors
in their areas of specialty, augmenting their knowledge with research using au-
thentic materials. In this course, the teachers served as language, not content,
experts. Classroom work was augmented by student participation as presenters
and interpreters in a public conference in Russian, “internships” that partnered
students with émigrés for real-life language use, and professional seminars on
diplomacy-relevant topics. Teachers helped students prepare for language use
activities, debriefed them, served as language models, role-played Russian offi-
cials, and the like. Individual interests were used to target teaching and learning.
Authentic reading and listening texts taught tactics, nuance, genre, and register
(Leaver and Bilstein [2000]).
The demands of training diplomats to serve in newly opened missions in the
states of the former Soviet Union prompted a renewal of the advanced Rus-
sian program in the early 1990s. Entering students were required to be at the
Superior (ILR 3) level and preferably to have spent a significant amount of
time in a Russian-speaking milieu. They began with a thorough grammar re-
view – especially fine points and discourse structure – during the first weeks
of the program. The remaining 44 weeks emphasized massive and diversified
reading, including 13 long novels (eighteenth- to twentieth-century) and con-
temporary intellectual journals, classroom discussion of the readings, and a
variety of short field trips with immigrants in the Washington DC area and
immersion trips to Russian-speaking locales in the US, and ordinarily training
immersions overseas. A highlight of this program was a week in a New York
émigré community participating in literary salons and discussions with leading
writers. As much of the training as possible took place outside the classroom –
for example, going to an airport café to converse with a lot of ambient noise.2
The next initiative was “Beyond Three,” part of an overall revision of FSI
language training in 1994, that was initiated in French as the pilot language.
The “Beyond Three” program, meant to help learners at the ILR Level 3 achieve
Level 3+ or 4 proficiency, adapted some of the Russian SD innovations and
2 The author thanks FSI program administrators James Bernhardt, Marsha Kaplan, Thomas
Madden, and Natalia Lord, for providing essential and extensive information on the “Beyond
Three” programs in Russian and French that has informed the description of those programs
throughout this chapter. I am also grateful to the Distinguished-level speakers who took the time
to share their experiences as language learners and the lessons they have learned about achieving
very high language proficiency.
 The learner at the Superior–Distinguished threshold 247

created approaches taking advantage of the relatively close relationship between

French and English. Its students come, usually one at a time, with a tested ILR
3 in speaking cum interactive listening for 1–10 weeks of “refresher” training.
They receive a highly individualized program that at the same time is intended
to provide structure and enhance learner confidence. To reduce learner anxiety
(often intense in the high-stakes FSI setting), the goals are better tools and
comfort level rather than a specific proficiency level; the end-of-training test is
made optional; and students set their own performance objectives, negotiated
throughout the program as their needs change (Kaplan [1997]).
Three tools provide focus and structure in “Beyond Three”: learner diag-
nostics, a learning contract, and self-assessment. The diagnostic exercises in
the first few days pinpoint learning needs and provide objectives. The contract,
negotiated between the learner and the teaching staff on an ongoing basis, is
the “backbone” of the program (1997), and students indicate that the process is
more useful than the actual document. Finally, students constantly self-assess:
comfort level in a given activity, need for focus or review, accomplishments, and
ideas about how to follow up. Among areas of student focus are public speaking,
press statements (and fielding questions), informal consecutive interpreting and
note-taking, representational interactions, coping with provocations, managing
meetings, and telephone talk (e.g., proper requests for appointments). Attention
to register pervades these programs (1997).
“Beyond Three” has expanded to other languages, such as Greek and Polish.
Its principles are adapted on an ad hoc basis in a variety of other languages
for learners at the ILR 3 level or above. Additionally, FSI has been providing
training to Level 4 for years at its overseas field schools in Beijing, Seoul,
Taipei, Tunis, and Yokohama (where the usual mission is to enable students
to go from the ILR 2 to the ILR 3 or 3+). Madden (1989), who has directed
both of the Chinese field school programs, notes that because learners at the
SD threshold usually arrive one or two at a time, these programs have been
highly individualized, in terms of both language needs and professional goals.3
Students are given four or five hours daily of individual instruction, relevant
and challenging materials, and teachers who work well with very advanced
students, as well as support for Chinese language, culture, and personal contacts
3 Professional needs listed by Madden (1989) include listening, reading, and speaking tasks.
Listening tasks are used with face-to-face discussions (gathering specific information), speeches,
presentations at professional meetings, radio and television broadcasts, overheard conversations
at social gatherings, monitoring development of third-party discussions, and monitoring an inter-
preter. Reading tasks are used with materials from the local press, local government documents
and legislation, source materials for preparation for interviews on specific topics, contemporary
literature, official documents, handwritten documents, and correspondence/translations (with
these, a monitoring task is used for ensuring the accuracy of local staff). Speaking needs include
opening and closing face-to-face encounters, interviewing and exchanging information, making
presentations, leading or moderating discussions, formal negotiating, socializing, supervising
local employees, and informal interpreting.
248 Madeline E. Ehrman

in which the program is embedded. Deep exposure to culture and literature is

an important emphasis of the program.
Online reading maintenance courses are a recent innovation in FSI’s “Beyond
Three” language instruction. Targeted to State Department officers with R-3,
3+, and 4 level proficiency in reading, their goal is to help officers maintain and
refresh their reading proficiency throughout their careers and while stationed in
posts around the world. The course is taught through the Department’s Intranet,
with mentoring by a trained teacher through e-mail and online conferencing
software.4
The first such course was the Russian Reading Maintenance Course; the pro-
gram is now available too in French, Spanish, and Portuguese. The Russian
course consists of six self-paced units, each of which features two authentic
readings of 2–6 pages each about cultural analyses and Russian–American re-
lations. Readings are supplemented by vocabulary glosses, brief cultural and
historical commentaries, interactive comprehension, grammar, vocabulary, and
discourse exercises with feedback. There is a wide range of suggested on-
line language references and resources as well. Participants post responses in
Russian or in English to open-ended interpretive questions on an electronic
bulletin board. The mentor probes responses, facilitates discussion, and pro-
vides a supportive learning environment. Linguistic issues are generally taken
up privately with the mentor via e-mail. The French, Spanish, and Portuguese
courses are similar.
The State Department has been experiencing increasing need for speakers
who can use language at the Distinguished level. In response, FSI has recently
begun an initiative to ascertain what is involved in learning to this level for
its students, building on what is known from previous programs. Among the
criteria that have already been noted in the beginning of the needs assessment
are an extraordinary breadth of topics with which the individual can cope at a
high level of accuracy, extensive sociocultural competence, speed and stamina
in reading massive amounts of material accurately, and, above all, flexibility
and versatility. Former Ambassador to the USSR Jack Matlock indicated that
he needed a speaker who could cope equally well with visits to fisheries, steel
mills, and hospitals as well as the usual political and economic business of
diplomacy (James Bernhardt, personal communication, May 23, 2001). Before
him, Ambassador Hartmann noted that he needed a Level-4 speaker once every
2–3 months. Such conditions require language that does not disappear with only
occasional use. Many teachers have noted such stability as a characteristic of
Level-4 proficiency over years of working with refresher students: although all
language skills become latent with disuse but available with sufficient refresher,

4 The author is indebted to Marsha Kaplan for providing the description of the Russian On-line
Maintenance Course.
 The learner at the Superior–Distinguished threshold 249

Level-4 skills are much more rapidly recovered (e.g., David Argoff, personal
communication, March 10, 1999).

Fossilization
Fossilization, which has long been considered an obstacle in moving beyond
lower levels of proficiency (Higgs and Clifford [1982]), is indicated in this
volume as a key problem for SD learners. Heritage learners present a unique
variation of this phenomenon, inasmuch as their fossilization is in register and
lexicon more than in the basics of language.
There seem to be several varieties of fossilization. These include (1) func-
tional (including structural and morpho-semantic), (2) instruction-fostered, (3)
domain restriction, (4) affective fossilization, and (5) arrested strategic devel-
opment.

Functional fossilization
This well-known type of fossilization (Selinker [1992]; Gass and Selinker
[1994]) is defined as the continued use of incorrect or limited linguistic forms,
structures, and semantic domains that may be functional but not precise, usually
as a result of ability to function satisfactorily and consequent lack of motivation
for continued linguistic development. Remediation of this kind of fossilization
is a top priority in many, if not most, SD programs, among them the FSI
“Beyond Three” courses and overseas field school programs. Superior-level
learners have learned compensation strategies that have served them well for
the tasks they have needed to perform at the lower proficiency levels, but higher-
level tasks demand a level of lexical, structural, sociocultural, and semantic
precision of which they may not be aware (Kubler, this volume). Angelelli
and Kagan (this volume) address the fossilization that takes place among heri-
tage learners, whose language fails to develop beyond that characteristic of
earlier ages or social relations within their settings of origin and suggest that
its remediation is an important focus for heritage learner programs.

Instruction-fostered fossilization
Linguistic fossilization may also be the result of overly compliant interlocutors,
teachers and non-teachers, who adapt to the learner’s errors. The term, iatro-
genic illness, means illness caused by a doctor’s efforts to cure disease. This
kind of fossilization is a kind of “iatrogenic” effect, the result of well-meaning
but perhaps misfocused efforts to help students learn. Countless FSI student
end-of-training questionnaires speak of how much teacher efforts to “push”
them were appreciated; effective “Beyond Three” teachers are rigorous about
lexical, structural, discourse, and sociocultural precision.
250 Madeline E. Ehrman

Domain fossilization
Another form of linguistic fossilization comes from narrow language use, for ex-
ample the routinizing of language that often affects consular diplomats, whose
work consists largely of issuing visas, or a secretary in an international or-
ganization answering phones and routing calls. An explanation suggested by
interviews of students who have participated in FSI’s Language Learning Con-
sultation Service is that repeated use of stereotyped language is likely to result
in withdrawal of the attention to differences that leads to continued linguistic
development. This kind of fossilization results from too narrow a definition of
language task needs by learners. (Another possible explanation, of course, is
that this is fossilization of the first kind: students perceive no need to go beyond
what they already know.)

Affective fossilization
A fourth type of fossilization can be called affective fossilization. It is related to
the sense of self-efficacy as learners that is essential to a long, difficult task like
learning languages to a high level. Very goal-oriented students can tune out what
they think is irrelevant, and some students limit themselves in order to minimize
the risk of being corrected. Students may fear being criticized overtly by teachers
or covertly by classmates; still more, they may fear their own self-criticism for
not living up to their expectations of themselves (see Stevick [1980]). In short,
students may avoid expanding their proficiency because they are protective of
their self-esteem and self-image. Reduction of this kind of self-limitation is one
of the goals of the Rogerian (Rogers [1968]) psychology-based learning ap-
proach of Counseling Learning (Curran [1972]). In the FSI “Beyond Three”
courses, for example, every effort is made to enhance students’ sense of freedom
to learn, including the mutually negotiated (and negotiable) contract based on
needs analysis drawn up with the student, and presentation of the program as
if it were a “consulting firm” to the student rather than a directive, judgmental
course.

Strategic fossilization
Finally, fossilization can appear in the use of strategic techniques (such as global
comprehension that ignores what is not known) that work well at the lower
proficiency levels but can lead in the case of some students to lack of attention
to distinctions important at the higher levels. Without developing attention to
the complex relations among language form, meaning, and context, learners
find it difficult to cross the SD threshold (see Byrnes [this volume]).
In addition, Superior-level learners often have schemata about how to learn
firmly in place – a kind of “cognitive” fossilization, especially if they have been
 The learner at the Superior–Distinguished threshold 251

successful with a specific classroom method. For example, during the transition
at FSI from audiolingual methodology to a more communicative approach in the
1970s and early 1980s, it was commonplace for students who had reached the
Superior level in audiolingual classrooms to express considerable doubt about
the changes they encountered on returning for “refresher” training or training
in a new language.

Learning strategies and strategic competence

Learning strategies have been among the most discussed topics in educational
psychology for years (Dansereau [1988]; Pask [1976]; Riding and Rayner
[1998]; Schmeck [1988]; Weinstein, Goetz, and Alexander [1988]), as well
as in second language education (Chamot and O’Malley [1994]; Cohen [1998];
Ely [1989]; Oxford [1990]; Wenden and Rubin [1987]). Strategic competence
is often associated with levels of proficiency lower than the SD threshold be-
cause the best-known example of strategic competence is compensation strate-
gies, ways of working around what one does not know, that are in fact vital at
lower proficiency levels. When the balance of known to unknown changes, as
noted throughout this volume, compensation strategies become not only less
useful but, as indicated by Leaver and Shekhtman (this volume), potentially
counterproductive. Strategic competence does not, however, consist only of
compensation strategies.
What kinds of strategic competence, then, would characterize the SD thre-
shold? There are a number described in the preceding chapters. Leaver and
Shekhtman (this volume) suggest that teachers can encourage the student in
developing strategies
to use what they already know and . . . how to “sell” their language and themselves in
communicating, . . . how to fill pauses, how to avoid direct translation of their native
language into foreign language, how to paraphrase, how naturally to elicit help in com-
prehending from a native speaker in unnoticeable ways that do not impede the flow of
thought, how to become linguistically an equal partner with native speakers.

They also mention such tactics as appropriate entrance into and exit from native-
speaker conversations. Kubler (this volume) urges focus on “processes and
strategies (e.g., how to learn, how to use Chinese in Chinese society) as well as
on inventory (e.g., vocabulary words, grammar patterns).”
Additionally, a key strategy in language learning is focusing attention on what
is not known, rather than ignoring it, and interpreting it in the light of increas-
ingly sophisticated understanding of the context in which the target language is
used, consistent with the shift in the ratio of known to unknown. This “tactic”
is one of the highlights of the specific activities in Chapter 6; most of the other
tactics that Shekhtman et al. describe, such as using questions to continue a
252 Madeline E. Ehrman

conversation or “islands” of mastered language, contribute to the development

of a sophisticated form of strategic competence as part of managing commu-
nication. Closely related is developing attention to fine distinctions of meaning
or register, a skill often neglected because of the necessity to gain the basics at
earlier levels (see Leaver and Shekhtman, this volume).
Seeking increasingly challenging opportunities for language use is an ex-
ample of high-level strategic competence that can be used at nearly any level
of proficiency. For example, the diplomat on the visa line could seek rotation
to other responsibilities or join community activities in the city where s/he is
posted; another instance for university learners could be making use of op-
portunities to read or listen to difficult material outside their immediate fields.
FSI SD learners are encouraged to develop hobbies that entail interaction and
potential formation of social relationships – anything will do, from Chinese
porcelain through children’s sports to the salsa dancing and consequent friend-
ships that took one learner over the SD threshold in Japan (Woo Lee, personal
communication, July 2, 2001).
Continuing exposure to language in real-use settings promotes development
of the rich associative networks that contribute both to grasp of nuance and to
emotional competence – the ability to be oneself in an authentic way for the tar-
get language and culture (Eshkembeeva [1997]). Receptivity to the surrounding
culture and sociolinguistic milieu is needed for truly Distinguished-level func-
tioning. The FSI “Beyond Three” programs are able to simulate partial real-life
“emotional” settings by virtue of using only native speakers as instructors. The
FSI field schools, of course, are in the best position to shape the development
of emotional competence since they are located in-country.
Metacognition is a key factor in self-directed, autonomous learning at all
levels, but nowhere more than in successful achievement of Distinguished-level
proficiency. Metacognitive considerations comprise a consistent explicit and
implicit theme in many, if not most, SD programs. In the “Beyond Three” French
programs at the FSI, for example, learners are encouraged to observe their own
language behaviors and to develop realistic assessment of their own progress.
The contract learning process, and the periodic reviews of the learning–teaching
contract, foster this kind of constructive self-examination.
Metacognition also applies to the concept of Communicative Focus (CF)
introduced by Leaver and Shekhtman (Chapter 1). Use of the balance between
CF and the need to attend to matters of linguistic form – Linguistic Focus (LF) –
to conceptualize teaching and learning at the SD threshold can serve as a base
for teacher and student metacognition in two ways. First, CF can contribute
to decisions about what to focus on in a class session or even from moment
to moment, based on what is affecting the learner’s ability to communicate
with appropriate precision. Second, a self-aware student can also make use of
 The learner at the Superior–Distinguished threshold 253

CF to make decisions about learning activities. Metacognitive strategies are

developed in the “Beyond Three” programs at the FSI in several ways: joint
needs analysis in which the student participates in determining learning goals,
extensive student participation in the development of the learning contract,
constant ongoing self-assessment with program guidance at first, and active
student participation in renegotiations of the learning contract in response to
changing circumstances.

Personality variables in learning

The programs in this volume, including those at the FSI, indicate that much of
the learning and teaching for crossing the SD threshold is done in response to
individual needs. Student proficiency profiles, interests, and professional needs,
of course, are a common source of individualization.
Personality is frequently mentioned by program managers and teachers at the
FSI as a factor. Tom Madden, who has headed Chinese field school programs
for many years, writes: “The efficacy of [a formal program aimed at the 4]
is too heavily dependent on having a student with innate talent (not just a
lot of previous training), a gung-ho attitude, [and] an outgoing personality”
(Madden [1989]). Another personality characteristic, tolerance for ambiguity
(Ehrman [1996]; Ely [1989]), plays a role in overcoming strategic fossilization
(overdependence on generalizing learning techniques like ignoring what is not
known) or in gaining greater experience with language in situ and especially
in interactions. Students who do not bring these qualities with them may need
different kinds of program support.
A number of studies have addressed the difference between students who
are active initiators of language use and learning opportunities (Seliger [1983]
called them “High Input Generators”), and those who are not, indicating a clear
learning advantage for the former (Naiman [1996]; Seliger [1983]). Goodison
(1987) at the FSI reported similar findings with respect to later improvement
and attrition of students who completed FSI Russian courses at the Superior
level. Type A students, like Seliger’s High Input Generators, who tended to
improve while assigned to overseas posts, were intrepid and willing to take
a variety of risks in language use. Type B students, whose language ability
declined, were extremely focused on accuracy over fluent language use and
tended not to take conversational risks. These differences showed up in the
classroom and were magnified when students were at post: Type As used the
language, and Type Bs tended to avoid it. These findings parallel the conclusions
reached by researchers using a longitudinal database of the in-country study and
family living experiences (and language gain) of students participating in the
254 Madeline E. Ehrman

study-abroad programs of the American Council of Teachers of Russian from

the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s (Brecht, Davidson, and Ginsberg [1993]).5

Affective factors: motivation, anxiety, self-efficacy

Motivation
Language learning is driven by various forms of motivation, the topic of innu-
merable papers in the second language acquisition field. One important distinc-
tion is that of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation (Deci and Ryan [1985]). The
former is something done for rewards outside of oneself; the latter because it
corresponds with the learner’s sense of self and enjoyment.
Motivation for students at the SD threshold can, like those at lower levels, be
both extrinsic and intrinsic. Learning may be driven by demanding task expec-
tations or, as is often the case in the US Foreign Service, by generous monetary
incentives. Career issues are likely to be salient for university students, whether
they hope to join the professoriate or enter the business world. Alternatively,
motivation may well be a matter of desire to assimilate to a new society, espe-
cially for those who expect a long-term stay in the culture where the language
is spoken. More personal factors such as need for achievement, perfectionism,
narcissistic drives, or sheer pleasure in the learning may also motivate the as-
pirant to Distinguished-level proficiency. More than anxiety, motivation varies
widely by individual. Classroom instruction at the SD threshold may well afford
a kind of interpersonal motivation through relationships with native-speaking
teachers, especially when outside the area where the target language is spoken,
and, of course, in-country, greater or lesser desire to integrate with the people
there can be a powerful motivator. All these kinds of motivation show up in SD
classrooms at the FSI.

Anxiety
Teachers and administrators of FSI programs have found that anxiety can play
a negative role, even at high levels of language learning. Anxiety can arise,
for example, when students are taught by teachers who do not adapt to student
expectations for classroom conduct, i.e., Western student-centered teaching
approaches (Kubler, this volume). The affective, then, is as important as the
linguistic for informing instructor selection and roles (Angelelli and Kagan
[this volume]).
5 One of the analyses of data from this database (Brecht, Davidson, and Ginsberg [1993]) also
pointed out at least two additional areas of interest: (1) the better the grammatical control before
students entered study-abroad programs, the greater the gain, and (2) males improved more than
females, perhaps, according to the researchers, a matter of the Russian society being more open
to the kind of social assertiveness that permits language use in a wider range of venues, on a wider
range of topics, at greater length, and with more visibility on the part of men than of women.
 The learner at the Superior–Distinguished threshold 255

Although lower-level learners are often made anxious by fear that they may
not be able to cope (Horwitz and Young [1991]; Reid [1999]), the student at
the SD threshold is likely to be confident of coping ability in most situations.
Instead, the SD learner is likely to be concerned about appropriateness of lan-
guage and behavior for given cross-cultural interaction because the ability to
tailor language to the situation is essential for successful accomplishment of
high-level tasks (see Leaver and Atwell, this volume). At every level, learners
can feel overwhelmed by the amount still to learn; at the Superior level, the
amount and range of subtle language and cultural background to be mastered
may seem to have multiplied exponentially from the grammar rules and basic
vocabulary of the earlier stages. In these cases, Madden (1989) emphasizes
the importance of high motivation to establish contact with the target-language
people and culture as a “key success-predicting factor.”
Anxiety is also characteristic of many heritage learners. Since they often
experience themselves as outsiders or as socially stigmatized and may have
serious difficulty with literacy, they may be more subject than “mainstream”
learners to various kinds of anxiety at all levels of proficiency. Their atypical
profiles can put them out of step with their classmates, leading them to focus
on what is wrong with them rather than what is right, including shame about
their backgrounds and the language they bring with them. They are vulnerable
to stereotype threat (Steele [1997]): people from stigmatized groups perform
worse in those settings when they believe that in some way their performance
is likely to reflect on them as group members.

Self-efficacy
Teacher selection can play an important role in helping students to develop
self-efficacy. Cross-culturally aware teachers who understand affective issues
as well are essential for validation of heritage learner home usage (Angelelli
and Kagan, this volume) and for making available the academic “secondary
discourse” that leads to greater social choices (Byrnes, this volume). The com-
ments of students in the translator–interpreter program described in Chapter
3 of this volume highlight this: they considered the professors to be the key
to program success. These professors functioned as individual coaches and
group facilitators, a typical mechanism used to develop self-efficacy. In FSI
“Beyond Three” programs, student self-efficacy is enhanced by the substantial
empowerment of the learner and regular confirmations of progress.

Learner autonomy
Learner autonomy has been discussed in the literature for some time, both in
general educational psychology (Deci [1992]; Schunk and Zimmerman [1997];
256 Madeline E. Ehrman

Winne [1995]) and in second language acquisition (Aoki [1999]; Benson and
Voller [1997]; Dickinson and Wenden [1995]; Ehrman [1996, 2000]; Ehrman
and Dörnyei [1998]; Rubin and Thompson [1994]; Ushioda [1996]; Wenden
[1991]). The literature addresses both learner autonomy – ability to learn on
one’s own – and learner self-regulation – ability to manage one’s own feelings
and cognition while learning whether in or out of a classroom, as well as the
role of teacher–student relations in formation of self-regulation. Self-regulation
is foundational for learning autonomy.
An increasingly desired outcome of formal instruction is development of
the ability to continue improving language proficiency through self-instruction
and experiential forms of learning (Benson and Voller [1997]; Dickinson and
Wenden [1995]). According to Holec (1981), learner autonomy depends on
these principles: (1) there is no one ideal method; (2) the teacher is not the
source of all methodological expertise; (3) knowledge of the mother tongue is
a useful resource for learning a second language; (4) experience gained as a
learner of other subjects can be transferred at least partially; (5) learners can
make valid assessments of their performance. I would add that (6) learners can
make valid decisions about what and how to learn.
On the other hand, there are limits to absolute learning autonomy. Most hu-
man beings find it difficult to be fully objective about themselves, and need out-
side feedback, especially when they have been using sophisticated, functional
language to meet most of their needs. They may have withdrawn attention from
linguistic and sociolinguistic specifics to focus more intensively on their tasks.
It would follow that a truly autonomous learner knows when to seek feedback
and assistance. Indeed, Pemberton et al. (1996) point out that such a learner
is at liberty to opt for teacher feedback or direction. Thus, autonomy is not
total freedom from outside influence; instead, it is an increasingly sophisticated
balance of internal decision making and external effects.6 This point is espe-
cially relevant to the role of formal instruction in crossing the SD threshold.
Making use of a resource to reduce the amount of time a learner would need to
accomplish this task is not a reduction in learning autonomy; instead, it is an
example of autonomous informed choice and a venue for increasingly effective
self-regulation.
Many foreign language learners at the FSI have strong potential for crossing
the SD threshold; however, conversations and surveys sent to students after they
have been at their overseas posts for some months indicate that many of them
experience trouble with linguistic precision once they leave their classrooms
6 In this vein, Esch (1996) clarifies what autonomy is not: (1) autonomy is not self-instruction/
learning without a teacher; (2) it does not mean that intervention or initiative on the part of a
teacher is banned; (3) it is not something teachers do to learners; (4) it is not a single easily
identifiable behavior; (5) it is not a steady state achieved by learners once and for all (p. 37).
 The learner at the Superior–Distinguished threshold 257

(most leave at the ILR 3 level). They indicate a desire for continuing class-
room training at their overseas posts of assignment because they have difficulty
learning structure on their own. A variety of factors could affect them, in-
cluding lack of attention to the specifics needed for precision, inability to use
inductive strategies to generalize from the examples around them, or lack of
self-regulation. The “Beyond Three” programs in French and other languages
have taken initial steps to increase the self-management skills of their learners
through encouraging self-observation and promulgation of effective strategies
for noticing and practicing subtleties of language use.

The importance and role of teachers at the SD threshold

What happens in classrooms and between learners and teachers affects the
success of learning. This section, therefore, takes a brief look at teachers, class-
rooms, and student–teacher relations.
What is the place of formal instruction? As many of the chapters in this
book indicate, most students at the SD level seem to require, or at least ben-
efit from, explicit instruction where it has been available (Leaver and Atwell,
this volume). Surveyed learners have also reported real-life interaction with
the target-language society to be a crucial element in their success (Belcher
and Connor [2001]). Both of these processes entail attention to and awareness
of both linguistic and sociocultural features, which can be aided by teach-
ers who have extensive cross-cultural experience, not only by pointing these
out but also by giving a time and place away from society for controlled
practice.
Many Distinguished-level language users report that simply being in the
country where the language is spoken is not enough to achieve a level beyond
3+, nor, according to these learners, are good observation skills and well-
developed strategies for autonomous learning. In a classroom, these former
students point out, it is possible to learn in a short time – hours, weeks, or a few
months – what takes a few, if not many, years of immersion, in-country work
and study, and extensive real-life interactions (e.g., Thomas Miller, personal
communication, June 15, 2001; William Davney, personal communication, July
6, 2001).
The classroom can serve as a safe place to make mistakes. The nature of the
mistakes may vary by proficiency level, but the potential for miscommunication
and misunderstanding does not. The higher the linguistic level of the learner,
the more is likely to be expected, especially in the way of sociolinguistic so-
phistication. For example, many FSI teachers speak English very well; they
can operate effectively in many situations. As a result, their mistakes may be
attributed to incompetence or even bad character when in fact they are functions
258 Madeline E. Ehrman

of well-disguised deficiencies in their English language and/or culture skills.

Mutatis mutandis, the same applies to increasingly proficient learners of foreign
languages. It is much better for this kind of miscommunication to take place in
the sheltered environment of a classroom than for a learner to lose an important
sale or miscommunicate a crucial concept.
Many Superior-level learners do not realize how much improvement they
need to make to get “Beyond Three” (Kubler, this volume). An important role
for the teacher is to establish the kind of relationship that makes it easy for
learners to accept imperfections that may come as a surprise to them, espe-
cially if they have experienced themselves as effective and have taken pride
in their prowess as language learners. The expectation that the instructor will
not think less of them because they still need formal training makes it easier
to make needed repairs and achieve complex new learning for transitioning
from “cross-cultural” to “intracultural” communication, to use Kubler’s
description.
At every proficiency level, the relationship between learner and teacher plays
a key role in learning. At higher proficiency levels, the teacher–student relation-
ship may well be one of relative equals, especially when the student knows more
than the teacher about the subject-matter and has strong linguistic competence,
though the teacher knows even more of the language. At this level, however,
the situation is complicated for the teacher by the very fact that the student is so
much closer to being an equal. Curran (1972) pointed out that when the learner
is very advanced and knowledgeable, the teacher may feel threatened by the
possibility of no longer being needed. Such anxieties on the part of the teacher
of an SD student may lead to defensive behaviors like rigidity, avoidance, or
excessive laissez faire. The role of the learner is thus complicated in turn by the
necessity to assure the teacher that he or she is still needed and help the teacher
make the transition to more knowledgeable companion. Most of this dynamic
is unconscious, but effecting this change in relationship can nevertheless be
one key to successful learning at the higher proficiency levels, especially when
the “teacher” is a native speaker in an informal relationship with the learner
(Ehrman [1998]).

In conclusion
None of the students in these programs will remain in formal training. Even at
the linguistic stratosphere of the SD threshold, all that a learner can expect of a
formal program is to provide a certain amount of content, awareness, and level-
appropriate strategies for continued learning, and, as Caudery (this volume)
notes, this is all that teachers should expect of themselves. One of the most im-
portant outcomes of successful language programs at any level is an individual
 The learner at the Superior–Distinguished threshold 259

who is equipped to keep learning at the appropriate level without fossilizing

after leaving the classroom. The equipment needed by the SD learner to accom-
plish this goal is different from that needed at lower levels, both because of the
much greater knowledge brought by the learner to the task and because of the
linguistic and sociocultural demands of what a person with truly Distinguished
language can be expected to accomplish.
13 Preliminary qualitative findings from a study
of the processes leading to the Advanced
Professional Proficiency Level (ILR 4)

Betty Lou Leaver

with Sabine Atwell

Most of the chapters in this volume focus on the practices of language teaching at
Levels 3 (Professional Proficiency) and 4 (Advanced Professional Proficiency1 );
a few focus on theory of language learning at this level. This chapter takes a
slightly different direction; it reports on the purpose and nature of a highly
comprehensive examination of the processes involved in achieving Level 4
(Distinguished or Advanced Professional Proficiency) and higher levels of pro-
ficiency that is being conducted through the joint efforts of the National For-
eign Language Center (NFLC) and the Defense Language Institute (DLI).2 The
researchers have interviewed in great depth language users at several US gov-
ernment agencies and in academia who have developed one or more language
skills to Level 4 and beyond and asked them what did and did not help at various
points in their language-learning careers. The purpose of the investigation is
to examine the nature of Level-4 language from the perspective of those using
it in their daily and professional lives, to assess the behavioral aspects associ-
ated with Level-4 proficiency, and to determine the most important factors that
contribute to reaching that level.
The NFLC-DLI Superior/Distinguished Language User Study began in July
2001, is still in progress, and the full range of conclusions possible will not be
available for some time. While it is too early to report definitive results, some
trends do emerge from the data. This chapter reports on behaviors, attributes,

1 The Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) uses the labels 3 and 4 and the terms, Professional
Proficiency and Advanced Professional Proficiency. The ACTFL scale uses the term, Superior-
level proficiency (Breiner-Sanders [2000]), for both levels, but at one point had proposed the
term, Distinguished (ACTFL [1986]), for the upper level. Since very few language learners ever
reached Level 4, in time there appeared to be no need for separating the highly proficient from
the near-native. The US government does have a need to make this distinction; in this chapter,
we will be using the ILR terminology.
2 We thank the DLI and the NFLC for supporting this study and assistance in its conduct. Thanks
are also offered to the interviewees for their substantive participation in the study and feedback
on early versions of the interview guide. Special thanks are given to those interviewees who
provided detailed narratives.

260
 A study of the processes leading to ILR4 261

experiences, and opinions that are shared by at least 75% of the interviewed
population.

Methodology
The study described here is based principally on quasi-experimental methods,
sometimes called grounded theory. Using theoretical sampling, the researchers
collected qualitative and quantitative data through in-depth, open-ended inter-
views, then coded the quantitative data and those qualitative data that could
be quantified into categories that were suggested by the constant compara-
tive method of data analysis. In this method, the researcher simultaneously
codes and analyzes data in order to develop concepts (Glaser and Strauss
[1967]).

Data collection
The study began with a research focus – the 3+/4 threshold and its crossing –
and a plan of action – in-depth interviews of previously tested language learners
who had successfully crossed that threshold in one or more skill (although the
preliminary results reported reflect only speaking data). As with other qual-
itative studies (Bogdan and Biklen [1992]; Taylor and Bogdan [1984]), the
research design has evolved in accordance with emerging findings.
The data is being collected, so far, by two researchers, the authors of this
article. We both were previously tested by the DLI to be at Level 4 in mul-
tiple skills in one or more foreign languages and are very familiar with all
ILR levels, to include Level 4, as well as with the parallel levels established
by the American Council on Teaching Foreign Languages (ACTFL). While a
certified examiner at the Foreign Service Institute and an Outside Evaluator
for Molink (Washington–Moscow “Hot-Line”) translators, Leaver conducted
more than 1,000 proficiency tests, including many at the Advanced Professional
Proficiency level; she also led the effort at the American Councils for Interna-
tional Education to design a space-related specific proficiency test for NASA.
Atwell is a certified and currently active proficiency tester and tester trainer for
the US government; in the past, she has trained testers for ACTFL. Both are
experienced classroom teachers and language program managers. This back-
ground has aided the interview process, both in the design of an interview guide
(our practice interviews of each other resulted in significant revisions) and in
being able to obtain the most information possible from interviewees in terms
of quantity and insight.
We, however, have been careful not to use our personal experience to influence
or prompt interviewees; for this, the interview guide has proved to be very
262 Betty Lou Leaver and Sabine Atwell

helpful. Most interviewees do arrive at the interview having seen the guide and
having responses in mind. Often, they have firmly held ideas about how learning
takes place at the 3+/4 threshold.
The interview guide, which was developed with the assistance of the DLI
Research Division,3 contains descriptive, open-ended questions, as well as an
empirical questionnaire, incorporated into the body of the guide. Since the var-
ious skills involve differing, albeit, in many instances, overlapping variables,
the interview guide has five sections: demographics, speaking, listening, read-
ing, and writing. The demographics section is used with all interviewees. The
other sections are used as pertinent, based on test scores. (The interview guide,
consisting of some thirty-five pages, is too long to include here; however, it is
available at www.mindsolutionsinternational.org.)
Information is collected via in-depth interviews, e-mail responses (followed
by interview) to the questionnaire, and solicited or proffered narratives
(following interviews). As is typical of qualitative research, as new questions
and trends appear, prior responses from earlier interviews are clarified with those
interviewees; answers to such follow-up questions are obtained from intervie-
wees via e-mail or phone. Member checks are achieved by giving interviewees
the written interpretation of their responses for comment.
For the full study, data will be collected in more than 100 categories per
skill (reading, writing, listening, and speaking) and in 28 demographic areas.
The theories by which the study is informed include general second language
acquisition (SLA) theory and psychological theories of individual variables in
information acquisition; data about the latter are still being evaluated.
To date, interviews have not been taped; a number of interviewees have ex-
pressed hesitancy about being recorded. However, the interviewers have kept
interview journals that are transcribed and presented to interviewees for con-
firmation. Some interviewees have also chosen to prepare in advance and have
brought with them some typewritten thoughts that have been discussed during
the interviews. Plans also call for presenting interpretation of the data to the
interviewees for comment.

Interview
Interviews are conducted in person with either one or both of us questioning
one participant. Group interviews, a possibility for follow-up interviews, have
not been held to date, although since both interviewers are Level-4 language
users, we, in essence, form a small group with each interviewee.
3 We received substantial assistance in research design from John Lett, Director of the Research
Division of the Defense Language Institute, along with Gordon Jackson and Ward Keesling, also
of the DLI Research Division. Others who provided research design assistance and feedback
were John Thain and Marzena Krol of the DLI Research Division and Gary Buck, Director of
the DLI Testing Division.
 A study of the processes leading to ILR4 263

The speaking proficiency portion of the interview lasts from one to four
hours (the range in time reflects learner differences, with reflective learners
taking longer and, on some occasions, more than one meeting). Interviews are
followed up with transcripts, which are also discussed with the interviewees.
New questions that emerge during the study and are added to the interview guide
are subsequently asked of previous informants, thus increasing the amount
of time spent with each interviewee. Teachers have been the most skilled at
providing direct data; from non-teacher, non-tester language learners, some
data has been indirect. Interviewees have been very willing to reflect at length
and in detail about their learning experiences. Most have reached a level where
their language proficiency is taken for granted, compliments are no longer
forthcoming because they are not perceived as foreign, and their multi-year
efforts seem to be of interest to no one but themselves – or so a number of
them have told us; the opportunity to be interviewed was found to be “the most
interesting thing I have done all week,” in the words of one interviewee.

Written narrative
A number of the interviewees prepared written narratives that contain much
detail, as well as insight into philosophy and theory related to their learning
experiences. They are the beginning of a collection of case studies that can be
used to inform further the interpretation of data.

The participants
Participants in the part of the study presented here are a subset of all the par-
ticipants interviewed to date; the larger group includes anyone with a test score
of 4 (or Distinguished) on any proficiency test. The subset is composed of
those (1) with a tested Level 4 in speaking on a noncompensatory4 proficiency5
test, (2) whose test scores could be confirmed by existing records, and (3) who
considered their test scores to be an accurate reflection of their proficiency.
(In general, interviewees’ tested proficiency levels are a matter of institutional
record, and their positions and some biographical information are a matter of

4 There are at least two kinds of scoring mechanisms in use by the various testing agencies and
organizations: compensatory and noncompensatory. The former allow an averaging of subcom-
ponents to determine the overall level of performance. The latter require all subcomponents to
be at the higher level of proficiency in order to award the higher score. The DLI uses the latter,
and, therefore, although data collection has taken place on a much wider scale, for the purposes
of determining preliminary findings that we consider unambiguous, we have restricted the group
upon which we have based this report to those whose test scores were awarded by the DLI.
5 Proficiency tests have had two general intents: (1) to test global language skills and (2) to test
potential performance. We refer to the latter as performance tests, rather than proficiency tests.
In this chapter, we are using interviewees who have been tested and scored on a proficiency test
of global language skills.
264 Betty Lou Leaver and Sabine Atwell

public record.) The rationale for separating the subset from the larger group
was to avoid comparing unlike groups.

Source of participants
Names of potential interviewees were obtained initially through three sources:
(1) those personally known to the authors of the study, regardless of institution or
source of test score, (2) those available from Defense Language Institute testing
records (other agency records not being available to us for obvious reasons), and
(3) referrals from other interviewees. (Without a national database of Level-4
language users and given the paucity of such a human resource in general,
one of the most difficult tasks of this study has been to locate appropriate
individuals.) Identification of additional interviewees occurred in two ways:
(1) through asking colleagues and associates for names, and (2), as mentioned
above, through names provided by interviewees during the interview process.
These potential participants were contacted; approximately 80% were willing
and available to participate in the study. Although a number of the interviewees
have been known to one or the other of the interviewers, few have been known
to both of us, and that has controlled experimenter bias to the extent possible.

Proficiency of participants
The description for Level 4 was that defined in the ILR proficiency descriptors
(see Leaver and Shekhtman, this volume). All participants held test scores of
Level 4 or higher in speaking. Many also had test scores of Level 4 and higher
in other skills; however, those skills are not the focus of this chapter.

General characteristics of participants

To date, all of the participants have been adults; most have been over the age of
40. If younger examples of Level-4 users can be found, they will be interviewed.
So far, however, most of those who have been identified have not reached Level
4 until age 30–50, in some ways disproving the myth of the older learner as less
able.
None of the participants to date have been taught with communicative meth-
ods. This is clearly a matter of the era in which they undertook their initial
study.6
All of the participants have lived abroad and have had the opportunity to
acquire language and culture in context, although none were exclusively self-
taught. Many have personal ties to the countries where their foreign language is
6 This experience parallels that of another study of near-native language learners: in this case,
those who use L2 for academic writing (Belcher and Connor [2001]). It may be some time before
the communicative generation of learners produces language users at Level 4 and, therefore,
some time before the relative effectiveness of the two distinct approaches for ultimate language
achievement can be adequately compared.
 A study of the processes leading to ILR4 265

spoken, such as a spouse, children, or very close friends, and visit those counties
on a regular basis. More than two-thirds of the participants grew up in bilingual
or multilingual families or communities. (One might note that this is also typical
of individuals with well-developed academic writing skills in L2 [Belcher and
Connor (2001)]).
Nearly all the interviewees are working in positions that require use of their
language skills in some way. Among them are translators, interpreters, foreign
language educators (teachers, teacher-trainers, curriculum developers, and pro-
ficiency testers), administrators, and cross-cultural consultants.
It is particularly interesting to note that all have studied more than one foreign
language. Some have studied several languages to Levels 3 and 4. Foreign
languages at Level 4 in this group include Arabic (1), Croatian (1), English (10),
French (5), Russian (5), and Serbian (1). Native languages of English learners
were German (2), Greek, Hungarian, Norwegian, Russian, and Turkish (2).
Native languages of other language learners were Arabic (2), Bulgarian (2),
English (8), Farsi (1), Greek (1), and Turkish (1).

Hypotheses
A number of hypotheses that could be falsified and investigated empirically
emerged from the earliest data collected in this study; some are reported here,
and others will be investigated over time. The findings reported here relate to
those hypotheses (and in some cases, widespread assumptions or research at
lower levels of proficiency) that have clear and strong reflections in the data
collected to date and lend themselves to unambiguous interpretation. Two sets
of hypotheses were used: (1) hypotheses developed prior to interviewing and
(2) unanticipated hypotheses developed during and as a result of the interview
process.
A priori hypotheses were related to motivation, components of communica-
tive competence, and the role of direct instruction (including changing needs
across the proficiency spectrum). They included:
(1) the most successful language learners are motivated in integrative (attraction
to the culture) and intrinsic (interest in language study, love of learning)
ways;
(2) critical factors for reaching Level 4 include sociocultural and sociolinguistic
competence;
(3) Level-4 language users have unified personalities (not dual ones) in both
L1 and L2 cultures (emotional competence); and
(4) self-study and social interactions (i.e. comprehensible input) have a greater
impact on language acquisition at higher levels than does direct instruction.
Unanticipated hypotheses developed during the interview process were rela-
ted to multiculturalism, short-term memory load, skill integration, authenticity,
266 Betty Lou Leaver and Sabine Atwell

and changes in native-speaker attitudes toward language learners. Questions

were added to the later interviews, and earlier interviewees were reinterviewed
on these topics, in order to test these hypotheses. They included:
(1) multicultural experience is important for high-level language achievement;
(2) short-term memory capacity increases with automaticity, and a strong abil-
ity to hold new information in long-term memory while communicating is
typical of Level 4;
(3) skills are integrated, with literacy contributing more than speaking practice
to achieving Level 4 in speaking;
(4) access to authentic materials is critical to reaching high levels of proficiency;
and
(5) attitudes of native speakers toward language learners change as proficiency
increases.

Statistical analysis and manner of data interpretation

No statistical analysis has been done to date. Coding is beginning, but a larger
sample size is anticipated before undertaking a statistical analysis. For the
purposes of this early report, percentage statistics (rounded to the nearest
whole number) have been calculated for qualitative data that could be readily
quantified.

Preliminary results
The results reported here have proved to be strongly characteristic of this par-
ticular group of language users. The researchers are not yet ready to generalize
them to all Level-4 language users and will continue to test the hypotheses re-
lated to them. Table 13.1 lists those attributes, experiences, factors, and opinions
that characterize at least 75% of the population.

Motivation
We considered two kinds of categorizations of motivation: instrumental vs.
integrative and intrinsic vs. extrinsic. Our initial hypothesis, in keeping with
research on foreign language students at lower levels of proficiency, was that
integrative motivation would be the strongest (Gardner and Lambert [1972]),
and that intrinsic motivation would be high. The interviews, however, revealed a
very different situation. Less than half of the Level-4 language users reported in-
tegrative (38%) or intrinsic (48%) motivation. Further, none of the interviewees
reporting intrinsic motivation described an achievement orientation; rather, they
were polyglots with a genuine interest in foreign language study.
The overwhelming majority (82%) reported, instead, instrumental moti-
vation. For the most part, the motivation was to acquire a skill needed to
A study of the processes leading to ILR4 267

Table 13.1

Attributes of Level-4 speakers

Polyglotism 100%

Instrumental motivation 82%

Use of authentic texts in preparation 100%

Check presentations with native speaker 77%

Want feedback 80%

Unified bicultural personality 75%

Focus on sociolinguistics in speaking 90%

Loading of short-term memory 94%

Experiences of Level-4 speakers

Bi(multi)cultural childhood 100%

Foreign degree 77%

Native speaker attitude change 89%

Factors contributing to proficiency

Direct instruction 100%

In-country experience 86%

Informal conversations with NS 100%

Improved grammar 80%

Improved vocabulary 80%

Improved sociocultural competence 95%

Training in reading 86%

Training in writing 92%

Training in listening 77%

Extensive independent reading 95%

Improvement in formal language 83%

Opinion re study at 3+/4 level

Very different from lower levels 85%

Can/should be taught 77%

268 Betty Lou Leaver and Sabine Atwell

accomplish a specific job. At least one interviewee commented that if his only
purpose in learning a foreign language was to integrate with the culture, he
could have stopped learning at Level 3.
We did observe a language-specific trend: American learners of Russian and
Arabic were more likely to exhibit extrinsic or instrumental motivation, whereas
European learners of English were more likely to report integrative motivation.
As the study continues, this trend will be further analyzed to determine whether
it is unique to this group or more widespread.

Sociocultural competence
We expected sociocultural competence to be an important factor in reaching
Level 4. This expectation was based on our own language-learning experiences,
as well as input from a symposium on Level-4 reading held by the NFLC in
May 2001 (see Ingold [this volume] for a description of the factors – Generic
Learning Profiles – for Level-4 reading that were developed at that seminar).
The results were as anticipated. Included on the list of twenty (exclusive
of the category, “other”) pre-identified, potential factors critical to reaching
Level 4 were the seven components of communicative competence described
in other chapters of this volume (see Leaver and Shekhtman; Ingold): linguistic
competence (grammar and vocabulary), sociolinguistic competence, discourse
competence, sociocultural competence, strategic competence, emotional com-
petence, and social competence. Of these, sociocultural competence was rated
by interviewees as the most important factor in reaching Level 4. It was rated
as critical by 95% of the interviewees, compared to refined grammar (80%) and
improved precision of lexis (80%).
These results were obtained not only through the rating of suggested factors.
Sociocultural competence was mentioned without prompting by interviewees
themselves in the open-ended questions. All interviewees noted the need for
cultural appropriateness in informal speaking and in tailoring their presentations
to the cultural background of their audience.

Sociolinguistic competence
Similarly, we expected sociolinguistic competence to be an important factor,
based on our own language-learning experiences, input from the NFLC Level-4
reading symposium, and the description of Level 4 in the ILR standards. As
expected, sociolinguistic competence, especially register, figured strongly in
the interviews. While a slightly lower percentage of the interviewees (74%)
rated register as an important factor in reaching Level 4, most (90%) said that
in speaking they focused principally on sociolinguistics and the social appro-
priateness of the intercourse, as opposed to mechanics (21%), ideas (26%), or
 A study of the processes leading to ILR4 269

simultaneous processing of content and mechanics (53%). This concern for so-
cial appropriateness may be one of the components of the attribute that Kramsch
(1996) calls “politeness”: switching behavioral genres to match C2 (i.e., foreign
culture) social norms. A number of interviewees described specific instances
in which they found it necessary to tailor language to particular individuals or
circumstances.

Emotional competence
Emotional competence – being able to express one’s own personality and emo-
tional states in culturally appropriate ways – is a newly suggested component of
communicative competence (Eshkembeeva [1997]) and may be another com-
ponent of politeness – the pragmatic-linguistic decision to follow or flout social
norms for affective goals. Although there is a widespread assumption in the
foreign language field that a bifurcation of personality accompanies language
gain – i.e., that a proficient L2 speaker has a different personality in C1 than in
C2 – based on our own language-learning experience we expected a unification
of personality across cultures. In our experience, at very high levels the two
personalities elide, and we based our hypothesis on this.
The results confirmed the hypothesis: only 5% reported no change in person-
ality. Likewise, very few (20%) reported a “dual” personality, one per culture.
Rather, the majority (75%) reported a unified, bicultural personality. A number
reported going through a process from single personality to dual to bicultural;
for the most part, they noted that it was at Level 4 that the elision occurred. They
considered very important the ability to express their personality in C2 in such
a way that they would be perceived by native speakers of C2 similarly to the
way in which they are perceived by native speakers of C1, be that for purposes
of persuasion, argumentation, manipulation, deception, insinuation, seduction,
intimidation, expressions of anger or joy, or any other affective motive. Beyond
negotiation of meaning, they were able (and wanted) to use words, gestures,
and behaviors in telic ways.

Role of direct instruction

In keeping with current learning theory, we expected self-study and social
interactions (i.e., comprehensible and personalized input) to have a greater
impact than direct instruction (Krashen [1985]; Pienemann [1985]), anticipating
that nonsystematic variability would be regularized and systematized through
in-country and at-work intensive exposure (Towell, Hawkins, and Bazergui
[1993]). In this hypothesis, we were probably also influenced by our knowledge
that 15 of the 20 interviewees had not had formal instruction in L2 at the 3+ level.
The results from this group of interviewees, however, did not support that
hypothesis. In fact, 100% of the interviewees considered direct instruction
270 Betty Lou Leaver and Sabine Atwell

essential to reaching Level 4. Although all of the interviewees learned their

L2 through a grammar–translation approach, the teachers in the group were
split in how they currently teach. Some continue to use the traditional methods
that they consider worked for them; others prefer communicative methods.
Most interviewees noted that the instruction was early in their language-
learning careers and provided an essential base upon which communicative
experiences later built. Although only five had had instruction at Level 3+ (and
considered it essential), 77% of the remaining interviewees felt that a class at
this time, appropriately tailored, would have cut down on the many years it took
most to reach Level 4; 85% felt that such a class should look very different from
classes at earlier levels. Specific activities that they suggested include:
(1) combining classroom work with interaction in the C2 community, with
the classroom providing structure and sociocultural–sociolinguistic infor-
mation needed to accomplish specific tasks and feedback on faux pas;
(2) reading very sophisticated materials that are highly embedded with cul-
ture: ideas that are often understood but rarely put into writing directly,
idiosyncratic expression of thought, unusual authorial intents, uncommon
erudition, connotative meanings that differ from denotative ones, and the
like;
(3) watching contemporary films and explaining the nonlinguistic behavior,
register, and sociocultural phenomena encountered in them;
(4) writing academic papers and articles for publication, as well as, where
appropriate, creative writing;
(5) tailored, content-based instruction that focuses on the specific professional
linguistic needs of individual students, such as work with the discourse,
grammar, and vocabulary to be used in the preparation (or rewrite) of
treaties and ongoing negotiations;
(6) practicing the mechanisms for successful persuasion and argumentation;
(7) making formal oral presentations (as preparation and rehearsal for a public
presentation to native speakers);
(8) analysis of the language used for various registers, including acquisition
of words that are “not in the dictionary”: slang, obscenities, kitchen talk,
dialects;
(9) stylistic analysis and production of creative works that emulate the styles
of various authors;
(10) development of a greater reserve of cultural knowledge (including the sto-
ries and games learned as children) and political history and the language
that accompanies it;
(11) interpreting nonverbal behavior and learning to use it appropriately;
(12) learning how to be a good observer of linguistic and cultural behavior,
i.e., learning how to learn from the authentic environment (as opposed to
simply coping with it).
 A study of the processes leading to ILR4 271

Moreover, though this population could be considered near-native, they con-

tinued to want correction. Since they were perceived as friends and colleagues,
rather than as foreigners and language students, by representatives of C2, the
80% that wanted native speaker feedback complained they rarely received it,
even when they asked for it, except when they asked for specific proofreading of
outlines, slides, or other materials related to a pending formal oral presentation.

Multiculturalism
Since early demographic information showed these high-level language learn-
ers to have some kind of multicultural background, we quickly developed the
hypothesis that early multicultural experience is important for high-level for-
eign language achievement. The venues in which this experience occurred were
home, school, community, and workplace, and we, therefore, proposed to ex-
amine each of the venues as a factor in achieving Level-4 language proficiency.
In total, 100% of the interviewees had had multicultural experience of some
sort before the age of twenty.
More than one-third (35%) came from families where more than one lan-
guage was spoken. Two-thirds (66.67%) grew up in bilingual or multilingual
communities. (In some cases, the languages of the family and/or community
were not the same as the Level-4 language for which the interviewee was being
interviewed; in these cases, they reported that the influence of the family or
community was a broadening of their understanding of communication – that
it can take many linguistic and cultural forms – and this prepared them for any
language study.)
Most interviewees travel abroad on a regular basis (57%). Even more (62%)
had worked abroad or married a native speaker of their foreign language (48%).
In keeping with what has been learned from studies of study-abroad gains
(Brecht, Davidson, Ginsberg [1993]), we hypothesized that authentic experi-
ence is important. We, therefore, expected to find much study-abroad experience
in the group. Quite surprisingly, only two interviewees had studied abroad in
programs for foreign students. (We are not yet ready to try to explain the sig-
nificance of study-abroad experiences; we have no information whether this
group is typical or atypical of Level-4 language learners in its absence of study-
abroad experience.) Alternatively, 76% had earned a foreign degree, typically
an advanced degree. They reported that being in the foreign educational system
together with native speakers and without the support system typically offered
to foreigners was a very important contribution to their language proficiency
and cultural understanding. (One mentioned that he was required to attend a
speech therapy class for two years together with students with speech defects
because of his accent; he now has no foreign accent when he speaks, although
he first started language study postpuberty.)
272 Betty Lou Leaver and Sabine Atwell

There was a small subset of learners who had reached Level 4 with very
limited time in the foreign country. When we explored how they managed to
reach this level without authentic experience, it turned out that all were very
actively involved in the expatriate/immigrant community at home. In short, not
one learner reached Level 4 in cultural isolation. (This could, of course, be
either a cause or an effect.)

Short-term memory load

In interviewing Level-4 language users, one characteristic appeared time and
again for which we did not even have a label. This was the ability to hold
new information (vocabulary, structure, content) in short-term memory while
continuing to interact in the language and ultimately acquiring and using the
new information on the spot. We labeled this attribute short-term memory load,
although we might have labeled it as a form of automaticity, as well. We hypoth-
esized that this ability is critical to Level-4 language use, and 94% did, indeed,
describe this attribute. From a purely psychological point of view, it is unlikely
that the memories of these individuals improved. Rather, as the processing of
language and meaning have become automatic, there is no longer competition
for cognitive resources when new linguistic information comes in while talking
or interacting.

Skill integration
There is a widely held assumption that one learns to speak by speaking. We
considered that a given, but we collected data, anyway, especially once evidence
of the importance of skill integration, not separation, began to appear early in the
interview process. Our new hypothesis, then, contradicted traditional thinking.
We considered that perhaps one learns to speak less by speaking and more by
reading and writing.
Reading and writing skills may become increasingly more important as profi-
ciency improves. Although all of the interviewees considered informal conver-
sations with native speakers (including a wide representation of social classes)
to be essential to reaching Level 3 (thereby providing a platform for contin-
uing on to Level 4), only 25% considered this kind of language and activity
essential to reaching Level 4. Rather, most (83%) considered formal aspects
of language – writing (92%) and reading (86%) – more important. Almost all
(95%) read “promiscuously,” to use the words of one interviewee. When ques-
tioned directly, many stated that once they had reached Level 3/3+, reading
and writing improved not only their reading and writing proficiency but also
their speaking proficiency, even without additional oral practice. Some of them
(77%) felt that listening also helped, but not quite as much.
 A study of the processes leading to ILR4 273

Authenticity
Another hypothesis, in keeping with current SLA theory, was that authentic
materials are critical to reaching high levels of proficiency. This hypothesis was
confirmed. Not only did interviewees report talking to a wide range of native
speakers and reading a wide range of text types, but they also preferred the use of
authentic materials to references and dictionaries in preparing formal presenta-
tions. Authentic materials – articles downloaded from the Internet and books on
related topics – were the resource of choice for 100% of the interviewees. Only
47% – typically translators and interpreters – reported using dictionaries and
more traditional aids, whereas 77% preferred to check with native speakers
(that figure was higher for those with test scores of Level 4, and lower for those
with scores of 4+ and 5 – the latter tended to trust their own language skills
and typically checked with neither reference nor native speaker).

Change in native-speaker attitudes

We had not originally thought to consider changes in native-speaker attitudes
toward foreign language learners. This was another topic that emerged from the
first interviews. Early on, then, we added the hypothesis that native speakers’
attitudes toward language learners do change as proficiency moves from Level
3 to Level 4. As it turned out, 89% confirmed that hypothesis.
Many noted that at Level 4, they have been treated like just any other native
speaker “with all the good and bad implications of that,” to cite one interviewee.
For 77%, that meant that they were more readily accepted into the culture. One
interviewee related that his French relatives began to “let their hair hang down”
when he reached Level 4. Another interviewee related that she was simply
expected to know things that come with growing up in a culture: once she had
found herself reciting a ditty in the center of a child’s circle game with teachers
from C2, and another time was handed a guitar at a party with people she had just
met with the expectation that she would be able to play a C2 folk song (and she,
fortunately, could).
What many have noted is that the compliments on their language skills be-
come fewer and even, in some cases, disappear. As one interviewee stated, if
an interlocutor pays a compliment, it means that s/he is aware that the language
user is a foreigner. Actually, for 41%, “compliments turn to criticism,” in the
words of one interviewee, as any faux pas is interpreted as intentional behavior,
cultural misunderstanding is considered to be intent to offend, and linguistic
error is met with surprise and, sometimes, irritation. This seems to vary by
language, with Russian language users most frequently reporting instances of
criticism and Arabic language users least frequently. This is an area that needs
greater exploration.
274 Betty Lou Leaver and Sabine Atwell

Discussion
Given that this study is in its very initial stages, we are reluctant to make
many claims in relation to what we have found. There are, of course, concepts
and findings for speaking, as well as for the other three skills, that we have not
included in this chapter simply because they are not yet clear, i.e., not confirmed
by at least 75% of the interviewed population. (Other hypotheses are still being
tested.) As a maximum, at this point in time, we feel confident in stating only
that important roles are played by literacy, direct instruction, and authenticity
and that issues of motivation (the research findings that have now become a
matter of assumption in SLA) might well need to be reexamined. We would
also suggest that reaching Level 4 might be a different process than reaching
Level 3, and that teaching to Level 4, as Leaver and Shekhtman (this volume)
contend and other authors in this volume illustrate, is not more of the same.

Role of literacy
Foreign language instruction does not often include the development of liter-
acy skills, except in the case of heritage learners. In fact, with the advent of the
communicative approaches, speaking has been given priority in many class-
rooms, perhaps unwisely (Byrnes, Chapter 2, this volume). Writing is not only
rarely instructed, but very few materials exist in any language with which to
teach writing skills – especially of the kind needed to reach Level 4: ability
to write within the framework of various genres and an understanding of L2
written discourse. However, the experiences of the Level-4 language users in
this study point to a critical role for literacy even for the development of oral
skills at highly advanced levels; perhaps the segregation of skills (or at least,
the distancing of the writing skill) that has taken place in communicative class-
rooms needs to be revisited. When the teaching of literacy should begin is a
topic for another article and one that may require considerably greater research.
Nonetheless, literacy clearly must be achieved by the time a student approaches
the 3+/4 threshold.

Role of instruction
The importance that Level-4 language learners placed on direct instruction is
very likely a surprise for most proponents of communicative approaches to
learning – or at least for those who advocate a “Natural Approach” (Krashen
and Terrell [1983]) or a natural order of acquisition (Pienemann [1985]). What
those who made it to near-native levels are telling us is that they did not do
it alone, that teacher input was essential, and that it did not even matter that
the teacher decided the order of presentation and required rote work. This will
 A study of the processes leading to ILR4 275

not be surprising for some. Schultz (2001) questioned more than 600 students
and teachers in Colombia and the USA and found that the majority of students
in both countries wanted various aspects of direct instruction; teachers, too,
considered grammar instruction and most, but not all, kinds of error correction
essential. Robinson (1997) found that automaticity of second language forms
occurred more regularly and more quickly when students were encouraged or
allowed to focus on form.
Instruction can take many forms, however, and the feedback from the Level-
4 language learners in this group, all of whom cut their teeth, so to speak, in
grammar–translation classrooms, raises more questions than it answers. Would,
for example, a communicative approach in their Novice years have allowed them
to reach higher levels faster? Or is time on task an inevitable adjunct to direct
instruction at this level? We will not know until we can identify and interview
a group of Level-4 language learners who began their cross-cultural journey in
communicative programs.
Was it the classroom drills that allowed the learners in this study to develop
the automaticity needed to hold information in short-term memory and com-
municate at the same time (parallel processing)? Or was it simply practice time
and time on task? The interviewees were almost evenly split in their view of the
role that grammar played in their language acquisition. While most felt that a
refined knowledge of grammar was essential, some achieved it through gram-
mar practice, others through drill, and yet others through explanation alone and
observation. DeKeyser (1997), in agreement with the first two subsets of the
population in this study, suggests that automaticity is built gradually through
practice. He also suggests that automatic control does not auto-develop: “The
ability to comprehend or produce sentences in a second language is not nec-
essarily acquired through the implicit mechanisms of a separate mental model
(as is generally accepted for first language acquisition)” (pp. 211–212). He
characterizes automaticity as a reduction in reaction time and error rate and di-
minished interference from focusing on mechanics when simultaneously com-
pleting other tasks. In most cases, interviewees in the study reported in this
chapter describe their own language processes in ways that DeKeyser would
label automatized, and we would note that the teaching framework described
by Shekhtman et al. (this volume) is based, in part, on the development of au-
tomaticity. Robinson (1997), in agreement with the third subset in this study
(those who learned through explanation and observation), suggests that there
is actually a complicated interaction between automatization and rule-based
generalizability that depends on the conditions of learning – implicit, inciden-
tal, enhanced, or instructed – and that memory-based implicit knowledge is
fast but limited in generalizability and other learned knowledge may be slow
but more generalizable. His conclusion is very much in keeping with the opin-
ions of the Level-4 learners in this study: “Instructed learning of rules results
276 Betty Lou Leaver and Sabine Atwell

in generalizable knowledge and fast decision-making about new sentences”

(p. 246).
If, then, direct instruction (including explanation and supervised language
practice) is critical, at what level is it most important? That, too, is unclear.
All interviewees had direct instruction at beginning levels, and all insisted that
dispensing with instruction is simply not possible if one aspires to Level 4. One
quarter of the interviewees also had instruction at the 3+/4 boundary, and all
of them thought that instruction at that level was important (although several
without that experience did not consider that the experience would have made a
difference). A larger sample size and more in-depth questioning will be required
in order to explore further whether instruction at Level 3/3+ will reduce the
length of time required to reach Level 4 and higher. (We would note, however,
that various authors in this volume make a convincing case for the usefulness
of direct instruction at this level.)

Role of authenticity
Authenticity in all its forms – locale, native speakers, materials – clearly is
a critical and, apparently, irreplaceable component in learning programs for
students aiming at Level-4 proficiency. There are many aspects of authenticity
to be explored. There is a qualitative difference between teachers providing
students with articles from newspapers to read and parse or to use for assigned
tasks in the classroom and language learners seeking representative articles
from the foreign press to serve as a template for their own professional writing.
There is also a qualitative difference between study abroad in a classroom for
foreigners and studying in C2 high schools, colleges, and graduate programs
alongside native speakers. Is the latter required, as this group of interviewees
would indicate, or is the former an acceptable substitute? Again, data needs to
be collected from a larger group of Level-4 language learners.
What is clear from this group is the very strong influence that authenticity had
and has on their language proficiency. They have graduated from dependence on
dictionaries (although nearly half still do use them at times – both monolingual
and bilingual dictionaries) and prefer to use articles and books published in
C2. Clearly, a part of this preference is that an article provides the full discourse
model, whereas a dictionary supplies little more than a missing word. Given
that few L2 programs teach discourse competence, perhaps these language
learners are learning text structure of various genres through a form of self-
study – which they can accomplish because they already possess the linguistic
system and, to a great extent, the cultural code of L2–C2. (This is perhaps
not unlike the native speaker who must produce a document in an unfamiliar
genre; it is not uncommon in such cases for a native speaker to ask for a
sample.)
 A study of the processes leading to ILR4 277

Reevaluating motivation
Given the surprising response in the area of motivation, we suggest continuing
research into the kinds of motivation that will take a student from Level 3 to
Level 4 – to determine whether that differs from the kind of motivation that
propels students to achieve Level 3. After all, many people who use language
professionally work their entire lives without surpassing Level 3. Can this phe-
nomenon be explained, in part, by differing kinds of motivation? Have we, for
too many years, underrated the strength of instrumental motivation? One in-
terviewee, who reported an exclusively instrumental motivation, stated that the
language was interesting but the culture “unsavory.” Several interviewees spend
as little time as possible in C2 – and some have not been back since achieving
Level 4 – because of a strong dislike for the culture, yet they reliably serve
as cross-cultural consultants, sometimes in very important positions, and re-
main abreast of cultural change through expatriates, television broadcasts, and
newspaper articles. Is perhaps the kind of motivation to some extent predicated
on C1–C2 political relations or the extent of differences in cultural values? In
other words, is it possible that the kind of motivation that results in successful
language acquisition will vary by language? Would one learner have a different
motivation in learning L3 from that in learning L2? In some instances in this
study, that is, indeed, the case. However, there are not enough instances to re-
port even a “finding” of this nature, let alone generalize it. Further investigation,
not only with additional learners, but with learners with Level-4 proficiency in
multiple languages, is needed.

Recommendations for teachers

Most of the recommendations fell into the sociocultural and sociolinguistic do-
mains, and, to a lesser extent in the areas of emotional, discourse, and linguistic
competences. Whether it happens in a classroom or in some other venue, one
thing is clear: even at Level 4, language users desire feedback. Most want cor-
rection, and when it is not naturally forthcoming, they seek it out. They want
their faux pas explained, and they want to make sure that their oral perfor-
mance, especially in formal situations, is as close to that of the educated native
speaker as possible – and they check their presentation materials and outlines
with native speakers. They are not looking for correction of errors that interfere
with meaning; that does not happen very often at this level. Rather, they are
looking for correction of language that is imprecise, not à propos, or lacking in
erudition. Many of the recommendations made by interviewees are very much
in line with the contents of the programs described in earlier chapters of this
volume, and we would refer readers to those chapters for ideas in establishing
their own programs at Level 3+/4.
278 Betty Lou Leaver and Sabine Atwell

Conclusion
For too long, teaching methods have been informed by the paradigm of the
moment – usually influenced by current educational policies in areas other than
foreign language, reactions against previous methods that “did not work” in the
minds of the current crop of teachers, advances in linguistic and psychological
theory, and research on students in beginning programs. Few researchers, if
any, have explored what Level-4 language proficiency is and how individuals
achieve it. Yet, that understanding would seem to be a very important base upon
which to build a language program – especially if, as some evidence appears
to suggest, some of the students who struggle early in the language-learning
process actually reach the highest levels.7 Such highly proficient learners have
much they can reveal of value, if we can appropriately formulate the questions
to ask them.
This study has many questions to be answered. What, for example, are the
factors critical for reaching this level? How many are generalizable? One multi-
literate writer contends that “every bilingual and multilingual person will have
a highly personal and idiosyncratic linguistic past” (Belcher and Connor [2001,
p. 59]). Does that mean, though, that there will not be at least some common
elements? We think that there will be – ones that can be defined and even
some that can be taught. We have seen this so far in this study. In analyzing
the uniqueness of each learner’s path to Level 4, we would ask about the role
played by learning style, personality type, or other individual variables. Also,
how much difference does early onset of language training really make? Many
of the interviewees in this study took their first language lesson in their L2 as an
adult, but those who started earlier did not reach Level 4 until adulthood, and
some who started as children reached it no younger than those who started as
adults. Is Level 4, by definition, “adult language”? What is the range of attributes
associated with Level-4 behavior? The ILR provides a general description, not
a detailed one. Is there a set of language aptitude factors that define who will
be a successful language learner at higher levels that differs from the traits dis-
played by successful learners at lower levels? (We have some evidence of this,
but not enough yet to report on it.) These questions and dozens more are being
addressed in this study. Only a few have been reported in this chapter; only
7 There is some evidence from a multi-year study of Russian students conducted at the FSI in
the 1980s (Leaver [1986]) that indicates that individual differences that advantage a learner
in the beginning stages of language learning (such as right-brain dominance and more global
learning) can, in turn, disadvantage them in achieving higher levels, and that some of those who
struggle at lower levels (especially, left-hemisphere-dominant and analytic students who often
do not tolerate ambiguity well) may blossom and outperform their peers in a tortoise vs. hare
fashion once they have passed Level-3 proficiency. Correlation of early data on such attributes
as learning style and tolerance of ambiguity with interviewee feedback indicates that teachers’
typical characterization of the traits of the “good learner” in pre-3 classes does not fully match the
traits that we are finding in the Level-4 population. That, too, of course, awaits further elucidation.
 A study of the processes leading to ILR4 279

a few have shown clear trends. Many answers, instead, have raised additional
questions and suggested topics not previously considered.
This study has several limitations, some of which will disappear with time
and an increasing pool of interviewees. First, all findings are preliminary; more
time and a larger population may change the results. Second, the pool is small –
not just the pool of those we have interviewed, but the pool of Level-4 lan-
guage learners in general. Third, locating Level-4 speakers is difficult. Except
for US government testing records, no lists of such learners are kept on file
anywhere. Thus, in sampling the population, we do not know what percent-
age of the total population we really have sampled. Further, we need Level-4
speakers of multiple languages – even more rare – to determine what attributes
are pertinent to one individual or to one language and which are generaliz-
able. Fourth, in some cases, similar interviews need to be taken with Level
3+ speakers to identify the behaviors that separate the Level-4 speakers from
lower levels; we have begun to do this. Fifth, not all Level-4 interviewees have
understood the proficiency scale. Therefore, when we asked interviewees to
identify changes in their behavior from Level 3+ to Level 4, not all could do
that easily. Sixth, we have not yet been able to control for the variable of lan-
guage distance. The early data from the interviewees here, who represent all
categories of language difficulty, indicate that language distance issues have
disappeared by this level, but will that trend hold with a larger group? We will
need a much larger population, and one balanced among language categories
to be able to comment on the importance (or lack of importance) of language
distance.
We will be seeking answers to these questions and testing a large number
of additional hypotheses with many more language users. Our goal is to reach
a sample size large enough in each language that we can be confident that
the results are representative of that language. When that goal is achieved, we
should be able to present findings that are firm, not preliminary.
Nevertheless, the findings from this study, for which we have been unable to
find a precedent, can do much to inform teaching practices at the 3+/4 level.
We have found that there are stories to be told by language learners at this level,
and those stories are varied, rich, and well worth the several hours of listening
time it takes a language user to relate his or her experience. The findings, while
only able to be considered as trends and preliminary at the moment, confirm
assumptions and hypotheses in some cases and are quite surprising in others.
Most important, the results, when ready, promise to provide reliable guidance
in establishing programs and otherwise assisting proficient language users to
become advanced professional users – to aim for that elusive “near-native” goal
that is talked about frequently and achieved rarely.8
8 Updated information about this study can be obtained at www.mindsolutionsinternational.com.
 References

ACTFL. 1986. ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines. Yonkers, NY: American Council on the
Teaching of Foreign Languages, Inc.
1999. Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century. Lawrence, KS:
Allen Press.
Akishina, Alla, and Olga Kagan. 1997. Uchimsya uchit’ (“We Learn to Teach”). Moscow:
RAN.
Aliev, Nizami N., and Betty Lou Leaver. 1994. A New Age in Two Lands: The Individual
and Individualism in Foreign Language Instruction. Salinas, CA: The AGSI Press.
Allott, Robin M. 1989. The Motor Theory of Language Origin. Sussex: Book Guild.
Angelelli, Claudia. 1996. “The Education of Translation/Interpretation Trainers: A
Pedagogical Dilemma.” Paper presented at the 37th Annual Conference of the
American Translators Association in Colorado Springs, CO.
2000. “Interpretation Pedagogy: A Bridge Long Overdue.” ATA (American Translator
Association) Chronicle: 40–47.
Aoki, Nacko. 1999. “Affect and the Role of the Teacher in the Development of
Learner Autonomy.” In Affect in Language Learning, ed. Jane Arnold. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 142–154.
Appel, René, and Pieter Muysken. 1987. Language Contact and Bilingualism. London:
Edward Arnold.
Arndt, Valerie. 1987. “Six Writers in Search of Texts: A Protocol-Based Study of L1
and L2 Writing.” ELT Journal 41(4): 257–267.
Atkins, Paul B., and Alan D. Baddeley. 1998. “Working Memory and Distributed
Vocabulary Learning.” Applied Psycholinguistics 19(4): 537–552.
Bachman, Lyle F. 1990. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Badawi, Elsaid. 1985. “Educated Spoken Arabic: A Problem in Teaching Arabic as
a Foreign Language.” In Scientific and Humanistic Dimensions of Language:
Festschrift for Robert Lado on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday on May 31,
1985, ed. K. Jankowsky. Philadelphia: J. Benjamin, 15–22.
Bailey, Kathleen M. 1983. “Competitiveness and Anxiety in Adult Second Language
Learning: Looking at and through the Diary Studies.” In Classroom-Oriented
Research in Second Language Acquisition, ed. H. W. Seliger and Michael H. Long.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 67–103.
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1986a. “The Problem of Speech Genres.” In Speech Genres and
Other Late Essays, ed. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University
of Texas Press, 60–102.

280
 References 281

1986b. “The Problem of the Text in Linguistics, Philology, and the Human Sciences:
An Experiment in Philosophical Analysis.” In Speech Genres and Other Late
Essays, ed. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas
Press, 103–131.
Bazerman, Charles. 1988. Shaping Written Knowledge. The Genre and Activity of the
Experimental Article in Science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Becker, Alton L. 1995. Beyond Translation: Essays toward a Modern Philology. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Beebe, Leslie M. 1988. Issues in Second Language Acquisition: Multiple Perspectives.
New York: Newbury House.
Belcher, Diane, and Ulla Connor. 2001. Reflections on Multiliterate Lives. Buffalo:
Multilingual Matters.
Benson, Phil, and Peter Voller, eds. 1997. Autonomy and Independence in Language
Learning. Harlow: Longman.
Berkenkotter, Carol, and Thomas N. Huckin. 1995. Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary
Communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bermel, Neil, and Olga Kagan. 2000. “The Maintenance of Written Russian in Heritage
Speakers.” In The Learning and Teaching of Slavic Languages and Cultures, ed.
Olga Kagan and Benjamin Rifkin. Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers, 405–436.
Bernhardt, Elizabeth B., and Michael L. Kamil. 1995. “Interpreting Relationships be-
tween L1 and L2 Reading: Consolidating Linguistic Threshold and the Linguistic
Interdependence Hypotheses.” Applied Linguistics 16(1): 15–34.
Bialystok, Ellen. 1981. “The role of Linguistic Knowledge in Second Language use.”
Studies in Second Language Learning 4(1): 31–45.
Bialystok, Ellen, and Kenji Hakuta. 1994. In Other Words: The Science and Psychology
of Second-Language Acquisition. New York: Basic Books.
Birdsong, David. 1992. “Ultimate Attainment in Second Language Acquisition.”
Language 68(4): 707–755.
ed. 1999. Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bloom, Benjamin S. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: McKay.
1968. Learning for Mastery. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, UCLA-
CSEIP Evaluation Comment.
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bogdan, Robert, and S. K. Biklen. 1992. Qualitative Research for Education: An
Introduction to Theory and Methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Boyd, Rossana R. 2000. “Attitudes of Teachers of Spanish as a Foreign Language
Toward Teaching Spanish to Hispanic Students.” Ph.D. dissertation. Baton Rouge:
LA State University.
Brecht, Richard D., Dan E. Davidson, and Ralph B. Ginsberg. 1993. Predictors of
Foreign Language Gain During Study Abroad. Washington, DC: National Foreign
Language Center.
Brecht, R. D., and V. M. Frank. 2000. Impact of In-country Study on Language Ability:
National Security Education Program Undergraduate Scholarship and Graduate
Fellowship Recipients. Washington, DC: The National Foreign Language Center.
Brecht, Richard D., and Catherine W. Ingold. 1998. “Tapping a National Resource:
Heritage Learners in the United States.” In ERIC Digest. Washington, DC: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.
282 References

2000. “Literacy, Numeracy, and Linguacy: Language and Culture and General
Education.” Liberal Education 86(4): 30–39.
Brecht, Richard D., and William P. Rivers. 2000. Language and National Security in
the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Kendall Hunt and National Foreign Language
Center.
Brecht, Richard D., and A. Ronald Walton. 1993. National Strategic Planning in the
Less Commonly Taught Languages. NFLC Occasional Papers. Washington, DC:
National Foreign Language Center.
1994. “The Future Shape of Language Learning in the New World of Global Commu-
nication: Consequences for Higher Education and Beyond.” In Foreign Language
Learning: The Journey of a Lifetime, ed. Richard Donato and Robert M. Terry.
Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.
Breiner-Sanders, Karen E., Pardee Lowe, Jr., John Miles, and Elvira Swender. 2000.
“ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines – Speaking. Revised 1999.” Foreign Language
Annals 33(1): 13–18.
Brod, Richard, and Elizabeth Welles. 2000. “Foreign Language Enrollments in
United States Institutions of Higher Education, Fall 1998.” ADFL Bulletin 31(2):
87–93.
Brown, H. Douglas. 1994. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Bygate, Martin, Peter Skehan, and Merrill Swain. 2001. Researching Pedagogic Tastes:
Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. London: Longman.
Byrnes, Heidi. 1996. “The Future of German in American Education.” Die Unterrichts-
praxis 29(2): 251–259.
1998. “Constructing Curricula in Collegiate Foreign Language Departments.”
In Learning Foreign and Second Languages: Perspectives in Research and
Scholarship, ed. Heidi Byrnes. New York: MLA, 262–295.
1999. “Meaning and Form in Classroom-Based SLA Research: Reflections from
a College Foreign Language Perspective.” In Meaning and Form: Multiple Per-
spectives, ed. James F. Lee and Albert Valdman. Boston: Heinle and Heinle,
125–179.
2000a. “Languages across the Curriculum – Intradepartmental Curriculum Con-
struction: Issues and Options.” In Languages across the Curriculum: Interdisci-
plinary Structures and Internationalized Education, ed. Maria-Regina Kecht and
Katharina von Hammerstein. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press,
151–176.
2000b. “Of Standards, Articulation, and Curriculum: Finding a New Narrative.” ACTR
Letter 26(4): 1, 3–5, 23–24.
2001a. “The Dialogism of Meaning, the Discursive Embeddedness of Knowledge, the
Colloquy of Being.” In Hermeneutical Philosophy of Science, van Gogh’s Eyes, and
God: Essays in Honor of Patrick A. Heelan, S. J., ed. Babich E. Babette. Dordrecht:
Kluwer, 409–420.
2001b. “Reconsidering Graduate Students’ Education as Teachers: It Takes a Depart-
ment!” Modern Language Journal 85(4): 512–530.
Byrnes, Heidi, Cori Crane, and Katherine A. Sprang. 2002, in press. “Nonnative Teachers
Teaching at the Advanced Level: Challenges and Opportunities.” ADFL Bulletin.
Byrnes, Heidi, and Susanne Kord. 2001. “Developing Literacy and Literary Compe-
tence: Challenges for Foreign Language Departments.” In SLA and the Literature
 References 283

Classroom: Fostering Dialogues, ed. Virginia M. Scott and Holly Tucker. Boston:
Heinle and Heinle, 31–69.
Calvin, William H., and George A. Ojemann. 1994. Conversations with Neil’s Brain.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Campbell, Russell, and Joy K. Peyton. 1998. “Heritage Students: A Valuable Language
Resource.” ERIC Review 6(1): 31–35.
Canale, Michael, and Merrill Swain. 1980. “Theoretical Bases of Communicative
Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing.” Applied Linguistics 1(1):
8–24.
Carroll, Mary. 1997. “Changing Place in English and German: Language-Specific
Preferences in the Conceptualization of Spatial Relations.” In Language and
Conceptualization, ed. Jan Nuyts and Eric Pederson. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
2000. “Representing Path in Language Production in English and German: Alter-
native Perspectives on Figure and Ground.” In Räumliche Konzepte und sprach-
liche Strukturen, ed. Christopher Habel and Christiane von Stutterheim. Tübingen:
Niemeyer, 97–118.
Caudery, Tim. 1995a. “Multiple Drafting and Second Language Writing Skills.”
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Aarhus, Denmark.
1995b. “What the ‘Process Approach’ Means to Practicing Teachers of Second
Language Writing Skills.” TESL-EJ 1(4): A3. http://www.jyotosu.ac.jp/
information/ tesl-ej/ej04/a3.html.
Celce-Murcia, Marianne, Zoltán Dörnyei, and Sarah Thurrell. 1995. “Communicative
Competence: A Pedagogically Motivated Model with Content Specifications.”
Issues in Applied Linguistics 6(2): 5–35.
Chafe, Wallace L. 1998. “Language and the Flow of Thought.” In The New Psychology
of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, ed.
Michael Tomasello. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 93–111.
Chamot, Anna Uhl, and J. Michael O’Malley. 1994. The CALLA Handbook: Implement-
ing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. New York: Addison
Wesley.
Chaput, Patricia. 2000. “Fifteen Common Errors in Language Teaching; Assumptions
and Strategies.” In Twelve Years of Dialogue on Teaching Russian: From the Front
Pages of the ACTR Letter 1988–1999, ed. Betty Lou Leaver. Washington, DC:
ACTR/ACCELS Publishing, 283–299.
Charles, Maggie. 1990. “Feedback in the Writing Process: A Model and Methods for
Implementation.” ELT Journal 44(4): 286–293.
Child, James R. 1987. “Language Proficiency Levels and the Typology of Texts.” In
Defining and Developing Proficiency: Guidelines, Implementations and Concepts,
ed. Heidi Byrnes and Michael Canale. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook
Company, 97–106.
1990. “Language Skills and Textual Norms across Languages.” Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Association of Teachers of Spanish and
Portuguese, Miami, FL.
1998. “Language Skill Levels, Textual Modes, and the Rating Process.” Foreign
Language Annals 31(3): 382–391.
Child, James R., Ray T. Clifford, and Pardee Lowe, Jr. 1993. “Proficiency and Perfor-
mance in Language Testing.” Applied Language Learning 4(1 & 2): 19–54.
284 References

Christie, Frances. 1989. “Language Development in Education.” In Language Devel-

opment: Learning Language, Learning Culture, ed. Ruqaiya Hasan and James
R. Martin. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 152–198.
1999. “Genre Theory and ESL Teaching: A Systemic Functional Perspective.” TESOL
Quarterly 33(4): 759–763.
Clines, Frances S. 2001. “An Archipelago Called Russia.” New York Times, April 8,
Travel Section, 10, 18.
Cohen, Andrew D. 1998. Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. New
York: Longman.
Collins, Allan, John S. Brown, and Susan E. Newman. 1989. “Cognitive Apprenticeship:
Teaching the Craft of Reading, Writing, and Mathematics.” In Knowing, Learning,
and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser, ed. Lauren B. Resnick.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 453–494.
Cook, Vivian. 1992. “Evidence for Multicompetence.” Language Learning 42(4):
557–591.
1999. “Going Beyond the Native Speaker in Language Teaching.” TESOL Quarterly
33(2): 185–209.
Cope, Bill, and Mary Kalantzis, eds. 1993. The Powers of Literacy. London and
Washington: The Falmer Press.
Coppieters, René. 1987. “Competence Differences between Native and Near-Native
Speakers.” Language 63(3): 544–573.
Corin, Andrew. 1997. “A Course to Convert Czech Proficiency to Proficiency in Croatian
and Serbian.” In Content-Based Instruction: Models and Methods, ed. Stephen
B. Stryker and Betty Lou Leaver. Washington, DC.: Georgetown University Press,
78–104.
Council of Europe Modern Languages Division. 2001. Modern Languages: Learning,
Teaching, Assessment. A Common European Framework of Reference. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cowie, Anthony Paul, ed. 1998. Phraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Application.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crookes, Graham. 1986. Task Classification: A Cross-Disciplinary Review. Honolulu:
University of Hawaii at Manoa, Social Science Research Institute, Center for
Second Language Classroom Research (Technical Report No. 4).
Crookes, Graham, and Susan M. Gass, eds. 1993. Tasks and Language Learning:
Integrating Theory and Practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Cumming, Alister. 1989. “Writing Expertise and Second-Language Proficiency.”
Language Learning 39(1): 81–141.
Curran, Charles A. 1972. Counseling Learning. New York: Grune and Stratton.
Damasio, Anthony R., Hannah Damasio, D. Tranel, and J. Brandt. 1990. “Neural
Regionalization of Knowledge Access: Preliminary Evidence.” Cold Spring Harbor
Symposia on Quantitative Biology 55: 1039–1047.
Damasio, Anthony R., and Norman Geschwind. 1984. “The Neural Basis of Language.”
Annual Review of Neuroscience 7(14): 127–147.
Dansereau, Donald. 1988. “Cooperative Learning Strategies.” In Learning and
Study Strategies: Issues in Assessment, Instruction, and Evaluation, ed. Claire
E. Weinstein, Ernest T. Goetz, and Patricia A. Alexander. Orlando, FL: Academic
Press, 103–120.
 References 285

Deci, Edward L. 1992. “The Relation of Interest to the Motivation of Behaviour: A

Self-determination Theory Perspective.” In The Role of Interest in Learning and
Development, ed. K. Ann Renninger, Suzanne Hidi, and Andreas Krapp. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 43–70.
Deci, Edward L., and R. M. Ryan. 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination
in Human Behavior. New York: Plenum.
DeKeyser, Robert M. 1997. “Beyond Explicit Rule Learning: Automatizing Second Lan-
guage Morphosyntax.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19(2): 195–222.
1998. “Beyond Focus on Form: Cognitive Perspectives on Learning and Practicing
Second Language.” In Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition,
ed. Catherine Doughty and Jessica Williams. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 42–63.
Dew, James E. 1994. “Back to Basics: Let’s Not Lose Sight of What’s Really Important.”
Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 19(2): 40–41.
Dewey, John. 1938. Experience and Education. New York: Collier Books.
Dickinson, Leslie, and Anita Wenden, eds. 1995. “Autonomy, Self-direction and Self-
access in Language Teaching and Learning.” Special issue of System, 23(2).
Doughty, Catherine. 1998. “Acquiring Competence in a Second Language: Form and
Function.” In Learning Foreign and Second Languages: Perspectives in Research
and Scholarship, ed. Heidi Byrnes. New York: MLA, 128–156.
Doughty, Catherine, and Jessica Williams. 1998. “Pedagogical Choices in Focus
on Form.” In Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, ed.
C. Doughty and Jessica Williams. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 197–
261.
Draper, J., and J. Hicks. 2000. “Teaching Heritage Learners: The Road Traveled.”
In Teaching Heritage Language Learners: Voices from the Classroom, ed. John
B. Webb and Barbara L. Miller. Yonkers, NY: American Council on Teaching
Foreign Languages, 303–306.
Duri, Jayne. 1992. “Content-Based Instruction: Keeping DLI at the Cutting Edge.” Globe
5: 4–5.
Ehrman, Madeline E. 1996. Understanding Second Language Learning Difficulties.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
1998. “The Learning Alliance: Conscious and Unconscious Aspects of the Second
Language Teacher’s Role.” System 26(1): 93–106.
2000. “Affect, Cognition, and Learner Self-Regulation in Second Language Learning.”
In The Learning and Teaching of Slavic Languages, ed. Olga Kagan and Benjamin
Rifkin. Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers, 109–134.
Ehrman, Madeline, and Zoltán Dörnyei. 1998. Interpersonal Dynamics in Second Lan-
guage Education: The Visible and Invisible Classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ehrman, Madeline, and Betty Lou Leaver. 1997. “The E&L.” Unpublished learning
styles test.
Ely, Christopher. 1989. “Tolerance of Ambiguity and Use of Second Language
Strategies.” Foreign Language Annals 22: 437–446.
Esch, Edith. 1996. “Promoting Learner Autonomy: Criteria for the Selection of Appro-
priate Methods.” In Taking Control: Autonomy in Language Learning, ed. Richard
Pemberton, S. L. Edward, Winnie W. F. Or, and Herbert D. Pierson. Hong Kong:
Hong Kong University Press, 35–48.
286 References

Eshkembeeva, Ludmila Vladimirovna. 1997. “Emotional Competence.” Paper presented

at MAPRIAL (International Association of Teachers of Russian Language and
Literature) International Congress, Moscow.
Ferguson, Charles. 1959. “Diglossia.” Word 15: 325–340.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1979. “On Fluency.” In Individual Differences in Language Ability
and Language Behavior, ed. Charles J. Fillmore, D. Kempler, and W. S.-Y. Wang.
New York: Academic Press, 85–101.
Finlay, Ian. 1971. Translating. Edinburgh: The Edinburgh University Press.
Fishman, Joshua A., ed. 1978. Advances in the Study of Societal Multilingualism. The
Hague: Mouton.
2002. “300-Plus Years of Heritage Language Education in the United States.”
In Heritage Languages in America: Preserving a National Resource, ed. Joy
K. Peyton, Donald A. Ranard, and Scott McGinnis. Washington, DC: Delta Systems
and Center for Applied Linguistics.
Freedman, Aviva. 1999. “Beyond the Text: Towards Understanding the Teaching and
Learning of Genres.” TESOL Quarterly 33(4): 764–767.
Freedman, Aviva, and Peter Medway, eds. 1994a. Genre and the New Rhetoric. London:
Taylor and Francis.
1994b. Learning and Teaching Genre. Westport, CT: Heinemann.
Frith, James R. 1980. Measuring Spoken Language Proficiency. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Frodesen, Jan M., Christine Holten, Linda Jensen, and Lynn Repath-Martos. 1997.
Insights 2. Ed. Donna M. Brinton. New York: Longman.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1976. “The Nature of Things and the Language of Things.” In
Philosophical Hermeneutics, ed. David E. Linge. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 69–81.
Gardner, Robert, and Wallace E. Lambert. 1972. Attitudes and Motivation in Second
Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Gass, Susan M., and Larry Selinker. 1994. Second Language Acquisition: An Introduc-
tory Course. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gee, James P. 1986. “Orality and Literacy: From The Savage Mind to Ways with Words.”
TESOL Quarterly 20(4): 719–746.
1990. Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses. London: The Falmer
Press.
1998. “What is Literacy?” In Negotiating Academic Literacies: Teaching and Learn-
ing across Languages and Cultures, ed. Vivian Zamel and Ruth Spack. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 51–59.
Gee, Smiljka. 1997. “Teaching Writing: A Genre-Based Approach.” In Writing in the
English Language Classroom, ed. G. Fulcher. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall
Europe ELT, 24–40.
Gerver, D. 1976. “Empirical Studies of Simultaneous Interpretation.” In Empirical Stud-
ies of Simultaneous Interpretation, ed. R. W. Brislin. New York: Gardener Press,
165–207.
Gile, Daniel. 1995. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Givón, Talmy. 1993. English Grammar: A Function-Based Introduction. 2 vols.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
 References 287

Glaser, B. G., and A. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.
Gläser, R. 1998. “The Stylistic Potential of Phraseological Units in the Light of Genre
Analysis.” In Phraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Application, ed. Anthony Paul
Cowie. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 125–143.
Gonzalez-Pino, Barbara, and Frank Pino. 2000. “Serving the Heritage Speaker across a
Five-year Program.” ADFL Bulletin 32(1): 27–35.
Goodison, Ronald A. C. 1987. “Language Training and Language Use – The Uncertain
Connection.” Unpublished manuscript.
Grabe, William, and Robert B. Kaplan. 1996. Theory and Practice of Writing. London
and New York: Longman.
Grosjean, Françoise. 1982. Life with Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism.
Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward
Arnold.
1993. “Towards a Language-Based Theory of Learning.” Linguistics and Education
5(2): 93–166.
2000. “Grammar and Daily Life. Concurrence and Complementarity.” In Functional
Approaches to Language, Culture and Cognition. Papers in Honor of Sydney
M. Lamb, ed. David G. Lockwood, Peter H. Fries, and James E. Copeland.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 221–237.
Halliday, M. A. K., and James R. Martin. 1993. Writing Science: Literary and Discursive
Power. London and Washington: Falmer Press.
Hancock, Charles, and Edward Scebold. 2000. “Defining Moments in Foreign- and
Second-Language Education during the Last Half of the Twentieth Century.” In
Reflecting on the Past to Shape the Future, ed. Diane Birckbichler and Robert
Terry. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company, 1–18.
Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1995. “The Conception of Context in Text.” In Discourse in Society:
Systemic Functional Perspectives: Meaning and Choice in Language: Studies for
Michael Halliday, ed. Peter H. Fries and Michael Gregory. Norwood, NJ: Ablex,
183–283.
1999. “The Disempowerment Game: Bourdieu and Language in Literacy.” Linguistics
and Education 10(1): 25–87.
Hayward, Fred M. 2000. Internationalization of US Higher Education: Preliminary
Status Report 2000. Washington DC: American Council on Education.
Head, Henry, Sir. 1920. Studies in Neurology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hedge, Tricia. 2000. Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Heelan, Patrick A. 1998. “The Scope of Hermeneutics in Natural Science.” Studies in
the History and Philosophy of Science 29A(2): 273–298.
Heelan, Patrick A., and Jay Schulkin. 1998. “Hermeneutical Philosophy and
Pragmatism: A Philosophy of Science.” Synthese 115: 269–302.
Higgs, Theodore V., and Ray Clifford. 1982. “The Push toward Communication.”
In Curriculum, Competence, and the Foreign Language Teacher, ed. Theodore
V. Higgs. Skokie, IL: National Textbook Company, 57–79.
Hirsch, E. D. 1987. Cultural Literacy: What Every American Should Know. New York:
Vintage Books.
288 References

Holec, H. 1981. Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon. (First
published [1979], Strasbourg: Council of Europe.)
Horowitz, Daniel. 1986. “Process, Not Product: Less Than Meets the Eye.” TESOL
Quarterly 20(1): 141–144.
Horwitz, Elaine K. 1988. “The Beliefs about Language Learning of Beginning University
Foreign Language Students.” Modern Language Journal 72: 283–294.
Horwitz, Elaine K., and Dolly J. Young. 1991. Language Anxiety: From Theory and
Research to Classroom Implications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Howarth, Peter. 1998a. “Phraseology and Second Language Proficiency.” Applied
Linguistics 19(1): 24–44.
1998b. “The Phraseology of Learners’ Academic Writing.” In Phraseology: Theory,
Analysis, and Application, ed. Anthony Paul Cowie. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
161–186.
Huckin, Thomas N. 1995. “Cultural Aspects of Genre Knowledge.” AILA Review 12:
68–78.
Hymes, Dell H. 1971. On Communicative Competence. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Hyon, Sunny. 1996. “Genre in Three Traditions: Implications for ESL.” TESOL
Quarterly 30(4): 693–722.
James, Dorothy. 1989. “Re-shaping the ‘College-level’ Curriculum: Problems and
Possibilities.” In Shaping the Future: Challenges and Opportunities, ed. Helen
S. Lepke. Middlebury, VT: Northeast Conference, 79–110.
Jones, Janet, Sandra Gollin, Helen Drury, and Dorothy Economou. 1989. “Systemic-
Functional Linguistics and Its Application to the TESOL Curriculum.” In Language
Development: Learning Language, Learning Culture, ed. Ruqaiya Hasan and James
R. Martin. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 257–328.
Jordan, R. R. 1990. Academic Writing Course (New Edition). London and Glasgow:
Collins ELT.
Kagan, Olga, Tatiana Akishina, and Richard Robin. 2002. Russian for Russians.
Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers.
Kaplan, Marsha. 1997. “Very Advanced Language Learning: ‘Beyond-Three’ and
Refresher Training.” Unpublished manuscript.
Kern, Richard. 2000. Literacy and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
King, Larry, and Margarita Suñer. 1999. Gramática Española. Analisis i Practica.
Boston: McGraw Hill.
Kintsch, Walter. 1988. “The Role of Knowledge in Discourse Comprehension: A
Construction-Integration Model.” Psychological Review 92: 163–182.
Klee, Carol A., and Diane J. Tedick. 1997. “The Undergraduate Foreign Language
Immersion Program in Spanish at the University of Minnesota.” In Content-Based
Instruction: Models and Methods, ed. Stephen B. Stryker and Betty Lou Leaver.
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 140–171.
Knowles, Malcolm S. 1990. The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species. Fourth edn.
Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.
Koike, Dale L., and Judith E. Liskin-Gasparro. 1999. “What is a Near-Native Speaker?
Perspectives of Job Seekers and Search Committees in Spanish.” ADFL Bulletin
30(3): 54–62.
Kramsch, Claire. 1993. Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
 References 289

1996. “Proficiency Plus: The Next Step.”ERIC Digest ED402789.

1997. “The Privilege of the Nonnative Speaker.” PMLA 112(3): 359–369.
Krashen, Stephen D. 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London:
Longman.
Krashen, Stephen D., and Tracy Terrell. 1983. The Natural Approach: Language
Acquisition in the Classroom. San Francisco: Alemany Press.
Kubler, Cornelius C. 1985. “The Five-Minute Lecture.” Journal of the Chinese Language
Teachers Association 20(2): 65–69.
Lado, Robert. 1964. Language Teaching: A Scientific Approach. New York: McGraw
Hill.
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical
Foundations. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
1988a. “An Overview of Cognitive Grammar.” In Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, ed.
Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 3–48.
1988b. “A View of Linguistic Semantics.” In Topics in Cognitive Linguistics,
ed. Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins,
49–90.
Lange, Dale L. 2001. “Postlude to the Dialogue on Articulation and Curriculum: Should
It Never End! Part II.” ACTR Letter 27(4): 1–3, 24–25.
Leaver, Betty Lou. 1986. “Hemisphericity of the Brain and Foreign Language Teaching.”
Folia Slavica 8: 76–90.
1997. “Content-Based Instruction in a Basic Russian Program.” In Content-Based
Instruction in Foreign Language Education: Models and Methods, ed. Stephen
B. Stryker and Betty Lou Leaver. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press,
30–54.
1998. Teaching the Whole Class. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Leaver, Betty Lou, and Paula M. Bilstein. 2000. “Content, Language, and Task in
Content-Based Programs.” In Languages Across the Curriculum, ed. Maria-Regina
Kecht and Katharina von Hammerstein. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University
Press, 79–118.
Leaver, Betty Lou, and Melina Champine. 1999. “Beginning a Journey: The Choice to
Study a Foreign Language.” In Passport to the World: Learning to Communicate in
a Foreign Language, ed. Betty Lou Leaver, Inna Dubinsky, and Melina Champine.
San Diego, CA: LARC Press, San Diego State University, 1–15.
Lee, James F., and Diane Musumeci. 1988. “On Hierarchies of Reading Skills and Text
Types.” Modern Language Journal 72(2): 173–187.
Lekic, Maria. 1990. The Glasnost Press – Ogonjok 1990. Lincolnwood, IL: National
Textbook Company.
Lekic, Maria, Nadezhda Nitkina, and Tatiana Kirsh. 1994. Rovesniki/Peers. Washington,
DC: ACTR/ACCELS Publications.
Lewis, Michael. 1996. Implementing the Lexical Approach. Hove: Language Teaching
Publications.
Lipson, Alexander. 1968. A Russian Course. Cambridge, MA: Slavica Publishers.
Logan, Gordon. 1988. “Toward an Instance Theory of Automaticization.” Psychological
Review 95: 492–527.
Long, Michael. 1988. “Instructed Interlanguage Development.” In Issues in Second
Language Acquisition: Multiple Perspectives, ed. Leslie M. Beebe. New York:
Newbury House, 115–141.
290 References

1998. “Focus on Form in Task-Based Language Teaching.” University of Hawai’i

Working Papers in ESL 16(2): 35–49.
Lotman, Yuri M. 1988. “The Semiotics of Culture and the Concept of a Text.” Soviet
Psychology 26(3): 52–58.
Luus, C. A. E., and G. W. Wells. 1991. “Eyewitness Identification and the Selection of
Distracters for Line Ups.” Law and Human Behavior 15: 43–57.
Madden, Thomas. 1989. “Advanced Chinese Language Study.” State Department cable
sent to the Foreign Service Institute.
Maly, Eugene. 1993. “Task-Based Instruction from the Teacher’s Perspective.” Dialogue
on Language Instruction 9(1): 37–48.
Martin, James R. 1985. “Process and Text: Two Aspects of Human Semiosis.” In Systemic
Perspectives on Discourse, ed. James D. Benson and William S. Greaves. Norwood,
NJ: Ablex, 237–274.
1992. English Text: System and Structure. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
1999. “Mentoring Semogenesis: ‘Genre-Based’ Literacy Pedagogy.” In Pedagogy and
the Shaping of Consciousness: Linguistic and Social Presses, ed. Frances Christie.
London: Cassell, 123–155.
McGinnis, Scott. 1996. “Teaching Chinese to the Chinese: The Development of an
Assessment and Instructional Model.” In Patterns and Policies: The Changing
Demographics of Foreign Language Instruction. AAUSC, ed. Judith E. Liskin-
Gasparro. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle, 107–121.
McLaughlin, Barry. 1987. Theories of Second Language Acquisition. London: Edward
Arnold.
McNamara, Tim F. 1996. Measuring Second Language Performance. London/New
York: Longman.
Miller, C. R. 1984. “Genre as Social Action.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 70(2):
151–167.
Miller, John P., and Wayne Seller. 1985. Curriculum: Perspectives and Practice. New
York: Longman.
Ministère de l’Education Nationale et de la Formation Professionelle. 1998. L’appren-
tissage précoce des langues . . . et après? Innovation et recherche pédagogiques.
(“Early Language Learning . . . and Then? Pedagogical Innovation and Research.”)
Luxembourg: Ministère de l’Education Nationale et de la Formation Professionelle.
Mitrofanova, Olga Danilovna, ed. 1996. Porogovoj uroven’: Russkij jazyk: Tom I:
Povsednevnoe obshchenie. (“Threshold Level: Russian Language: Volume 1:
Everyday Communication.”) Moscow: Sovet Evropy Press.
Moore, Zena. 1994. “The Portfolio and Testing Culture.” In Teaching, Testing, and
Assessment: Making the Connection. Northeast Conference Reports, ed. Charles
Hancock. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Publishers, 163–182.
Naiman, Neil. 1996. The Good Language Learner. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
National Foreign Language Center. 2001. LangNet Procedures Manual. Working
document.
Nattinger, James R., and Jeanette S. DeCarrico. 1992. Lexical Phrases and Language
Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
New London Group, The. 1996. “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social
Futures.”Harvard Educational Review 66(1): 60–92.
Nunan, David. 1988. The Learner-Centered Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
 References 291

Oxford, Rebecca L. 1990. Language Learning Strategies: What Every Foreign Language
Teacher Should Know. New York: HarperCollins.
Oxford, Rebecca L., and Betty Lou Leaver. 1996. “A Synthesis of Strategy Instruction
for Language Learners.” In Language Learning Strategies Around the World:
Cross-Cultural Perspectives, ed. Rebecca L. Oxford. Honolulu, HI: University of
Hawaii East-West Press, 227–246.
Pask, G. 1976. “Styles and Strategies of Learning.” British Journal of Educational
Psychology 46: 128–148.
Pawley, A., and F. Syder. 1983. “Two Puzzles for Linguistic Theory: Nativelike Selection
and Nativelike Fluency.” In Language and Communication, ed. Jack Richards and
Richard Schmidt. London: Longman, 191–226.
2000. “The One-Clause-at-a-Time Hypothesis.” In Perspectives on Fluency, ed. Heidi
Riggenbach. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 163–199.
Pellegrino, Valerie. 1999. “Plunging In: Taking the Risk of Learning a New Language
and Culture.” In Passport to the World: Learning to Communicate in a Foreign
Language, ed. Betty Lou Leaver, Inna Dubinsky, and Melina Champine. San Diego,
CA: LARC Press, San Diego State University, 111–129.
Pemberton, Richard, S. L. Edward, Winnie F. F. Or, and Herbert D. Pierson, eds. 1996.
Taking Control: Autonomy in Language Learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong
University Press.
Piaget, Jean. 1967. Six Psychological Studies. New York: Random House, 111–130.
Piaget, Jean, and Barbel Inhelder. 1973. Memory and Intelligence. New York: Basic
Books.
Pienemann, Manfred. 1985. “Psychological Constraints on the Teachability of
Languages.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6(2): 186–214.
Polinsky, Maria. 2000. “A Composite Linguistic Profile of a Speaker of Russian in
the US.” In The Learning and Teaching of Slavic Languages and Cultures, ed.
Olga Kagan and Benjamin Rifkin. Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers, 437–466.
Preisler, Bent. 1997. A Handbook of English Grammar on Functional Principles. Second
edn. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Readings, Bill. 1996. The University in Ruins. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Reid, Helen. 2000. Survey of Heritage Languages Teaching at UCLA, Fall 1999.
http://www.humnet.ucla.edu.flrc/.
Reid, Joy. 1999. “Affect in the Classroom: Problems, Politics and Pragmatics.” In Affect
in Language Learning, ed. Jane Arnold. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
297–306.
Reiser, Morton F. 1991. Memory in Mind and Brain. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Riding, Richard, and Stephen Rayner. 1998. Cognitive Styles and Learning Strategies.
London: David Fulton Publishers.
Riggenbach, Heidi, ed. 2000. Perspectives on Fluency. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Robinson, Peter. 1997. “Generalizability and Automaticity of Second Language
Learning Under Implicit, Incidental, Enhanced, and Instructed Conditions.”Studies
in Second Language Acquisition 19(2): 223–247.
2001. “Task Complexity, Task Difficulty and Task Production: Exploring Interactions
in a Componential Framework.” Applied Linguistics 22(1): 27–57.
292 References

Rogers, Carl. 1968. The Interpersonal Relationship in the Facilitation of Learning.

Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Rubin, Joan, and Irene Thompson. 1994. How To Be a More Successful Language
Learner. Second edn. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Schemo, Diana Jean. 2001. “Use of English as World Tongue is Booming, and So Is
Concern: In Washington a Lack of Linguists to Take Key Security Jobs.” New York
Times, April 16.
Schleppegrell, Mary. 1987. The Older Language Learner. Washington, DC: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.
Schmeck, Ronald R., ed. 1988. Learning Strategies and Learning Styles. New York:
Plenum.
Schneider, Alison. 2001. “A University Plans to Promote Languages by Killing Its
Languages Department.” Chronicle of Higher Education. March 9, A14–15.
Schultz, Renate A. 2001. “Cultural Differences in Student and Teacher Perceptions
Concerning the Role of Grammar Instruction and Corrective Feedback: USA-
Colombia.” Modern Language Journal 85(2): 244–258.
Schunk, Dale H., and Barry J. Zimmerman. 1997. “Social Origins of Self-Regulatory
Competence.” Educational Psychologist 32(4): 195–208.
Scovel, Thomas. 1991. “The Effect of Affect on Foreign Language Learning: A Review
of the Anxiety Research.” In Language Anxiety: From Theory and Research to
Classroom Implications, ed. Elaine K. Horwitz and Dolly J. Young. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 15–24.
Segalowitz, Norman. 2000. “Automaticity and Attentional Skill in Fluent Performance.”
In Perspectives on Fluency, ed. Heidi Riggenbach. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press, 200–219.
Seliger, Herbert W. 1983. “Learner Interaction in the Classroom and its Effects on
Language Acquisition.” In Classroom-oriented Research in Second Language
Acquisition, ed. Herbert W. Seliger and Michael H. Long. Rowley, MA: Newbury
House, 246–267.
Selinker, Larry. 1992. Rediscovering Interlanguage. London: Longman.
Shaw, Peter. 1997. “With One Stone: Models of Instruction and their Curricular Impli-
cations in an Advanced Content-Based Foreign Language Program.” In Content-
Based Instructions in Foreign Language Education: Models and Methods, ed.
Stephen B. Stryker and Betty Lou Leaver. Washington, DC: Georgetown University
Press, 261–282.
Shekhtman, Boris. 1990. How To Improve Your Foreign Language Immediately.
Rockville, MD: Specialized Language Training Center.
Shohamy, Elana. 1998. “Evaluation of Learning Outcomes in Second Language
Acquisition: A Multiplism Perspective.” In Learning Foreign and Second
Languages: Perspectives in Research and Scholarship, ed. Heidi Byrnes. New
York: MLA, 238–261.
Skehan, Peter. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Slobin, Dan I. 1996a. “From ‘Thought and Language’ to ‘Thinking for Speaking.’” In
Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, ed. John J. Gumperz and Stephen C. Levinson.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 70–96.
1996b. “Two Ways To Travel: Verbs of Motion in English and Spanish.” In
Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning, ed. Masayoshi Shibatani
and Sandra A. Thompson. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 195–219.
 References 293

1998. “Verbalized Events: A Dynamic Approach to Linguistic Relativity and

Determinism.” Working paper for the LAUD Symposium, March 1998.
Soudakoff, Steven. 2001. “Developing 3+/4 Reading and Translation Skills for
Presidential Needs: A Summary.” ACTR Letter 28(1): 1–3.
Spolsky, Bernard, ed. 1978. Approaches to Language Testing. Arlington, VA: Center for
Applied Linguistics.
Sprang, Katherine A. 2002. “Vocabulary Acquisition and Advanced Learners: The Role
of Grammaticization and Concept Formation in the Acquisition of German Verbs
with Inseparable Prefixes.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown Uni-
versity, Washington, DC.
Steele, Claude M. 1997. “A Threat in the Air: How Stereotypes Shape Intellectual
Identity and Performance.” American Psychologist 52: 613–629.
Stevick, Earl W. 1980. Teaching Languages: A Way and Ways. New York: Newbury
House.
1996. Memory, Meaning, and Method. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Stryker, Stephen B. 1997. “The Mexico Experiment at the Foreign Service Institute.”
In Content-Based Instruction: Models and Methods, ed. Stephen B. Stryker
and Betty Lou Leaver. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 174–
199.
Stryker, Stephen B., and Betty Lou Leaver. 1997a. “Content-Based Instruction: From
Theory to Practice.” In Content-Based Instruction: Models and Methods, ed.
Stephen B. Stryker and Betty Lou Leaver. Washington, DC: Georgetown University
Press, 2–27.
1997b. “Content-Based Instruction: Some Lessons and Implications.” In Content-
Based Instruction: Models and Methods, ed. Stephen B. Stryker and Betty Lou
Leaver. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 282–309.
Swaffar, Janet K. 1991. “Articulating Learning in High School and College Programs:
Holistic Theory in the Foreign Language Curriculum.” In Challenges in the 1990s
for College Foreign Language Programs, ed. Sally Sieloff Magnan. Boston: Heinle
and Heinle, 27–54.
Swales, John. 1990. Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, Leonard. 1991. “Path to Realization: A Typology of Event Conflation.” Paper
read at Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics
Society.
Taylor, Charles. 1991. “The Dialogical Self.” In The Interpretive Turn, ed. David R. Hiley,
James F. Bohman, and Richard Shusterman. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,
303–314.
Taylor, Steven J., and Robert Bogdan. 1984. Introduction to Qualitative Research
Methods: The Search for Meanings. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Teliya, V., Natalya Bragina, E. Oparina, and I. Sandomirskaya. 1998. “Phraseology as
a Language of Culture: Its Role in the Representation of a Cultural Mentality.” In
Phraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Application, ed. Anthony Paul Cowie. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 55–75.
Terrell, Tracy. 1986. “Acquisition in the Natural Approach: The Binding/Access
Framework.” Modern Language Journal 70(3): 63–76.
Thompson, Irene. 2000. “Assessing Foreign Language Skills: Data from Rus-
sian.” In The Learning and Teaching of Slavic Languages and Cultures, ed.
Olga Kagan and Benjamin Rifkin. Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers, 255–
284.
294 References

Towell, Richard, Roger Hawkins, and Nives Bazergui. 1993. “Systematic and Nonsys-
tematic Variability in Advanced Language Learning.” Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 15: 439–460.
Tribble, Chris. 1996. Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Turnbull, Miles. 1999. “Multidimensional Project-based Teaching in French as a Second
Language (FSL): A Process–Product Case Study.” Modern Language Journal
83(4): 548–568.
University of California at Los Angeles. Fall. 2000. Heritage Language Research
Priorities Conference Report. http://www.cal.org/heritage/.
Ushioda, Ema. 1996. Learner Autonomy 5: The Role of Motivation. Dublin: Authentik.
Valdés, Guadalupe. 1988. “The Language Situation of Mexican Americans.” In
Language Diversity: Problem or Resource?, ed. S. McKay and S. Wong. New
York: Newbury House, 111–139.
1989. “Teaching Spanish to Hispanic Bilinguals: A Look at Oral Proficiency Testing
and the Proficiency Movement.” Hispania 72(May): 392–401.
1992. “The Role of the Language Teaching Profession in Maintaining Non-English
Languages in the United States.” In Languages for a Multicultural World in
Transition (1992 Northeast Conference Report), ed. Heidi Byrnes. Lincolnwood,
IL: National Textbook Company, 29–71.
1999. “Nonnative English Speakers: Language Bigotry in English Mainstream
Classrooms.” ADFL Bulletin 31(1): 43–48.
2000. “The Teaching of Heritage Language: An Introduction for Slavic-Teaching
Professionals.” In The Learning and Teaching of Slavic Languages and Cultures,
ed. Olga Kagan and Benjamin Rifkin. Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers,
375–404.
Valdés, Guadalupe, and Richard Figueroa. 1994. Bilingualism and Testing: A Special
Case of Bias. New York: Ablex.
Valdés, Guadalupe, and Michelle Geoffrion-Vinci. 1998. “Chicano Spanish: The Prob-
lem of the ‘Underdeveloped’ Code in Bilingual Repertoires.” Modern Language
Journal 82(4): 473–501.
Valdés, Guadalupe, Thomasina Hannum, and Richard V. Teschner. 1982. Cómo se
escribe: curso de secundaria para estudiantes bilingües. New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons.
Valdés, Guadalupe, and Richard V. Teschner. 1999. Español escrito. Upper Saddle Back,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
VanPatten, Bill. 1998. “Cognitive Characteristics of Adult Second Language Learners.”
In Learning Foreign and Second Languages, ed. Heidi Byrnes. New York: MLA,
105–127.
Veltman, C. 2000. “The American Linguist Mosaic: Understanding Language Shift in
the United States.” In New Immigrants in the United States, ed. S. L. McKay and
S. I. Wong. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 58–93.
Vigil, Needy A., and John W. Oller. 1976. “Rule Fossilization: A Tentative Model.”
Language Learning 26: 281–295.
Way, Denise P., Elizabeth G. Joiner, and Michael A. Seaman. 2000. “Writing in the
Secondary Foreign Language Classroom: The Effects of Prompts and Tasks on
Novice Learners of French.” Modern Language Journal 84(2): 171–184.
Weinert, Regina. 1995. “The Role of Formulaic Language in Second Language
Acquisition: A Review.” Applied Linguistics 16(2): 181–205.
 References 295

Weinstein, Claire E., Ernest T. Goetz, and Patricia A. Alexander, eds. 1988. Learning
and Study Strategies: Issues in Assessment, Instruction and Evaluation. New York:
Academic Press.
Wenden, Anita. 1991. Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy: Planning and
Implementing Learner Training for Language Learners. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Wenden, Anita, and Joan Rubin. 1987. Learner Strategies in Language Learning.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wertsch, James V. 1990. “Dialogue and Dialogism in a Socio-Cultural Approach to
Mind.” In The Dynamics of Dialogue, ed. Ivana Markovà and Klaus Foppa. New
York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 62–82.
Winne, Philip H. 1995. “Inherent Details in Self-Regulated Learning.” Educational
Psychologist 20(4): 173–187.
Wirt, John. 2001. The Condition of Education 2001. Washington, DC: National Center
for Education Statistics, US Department of Education, Office of Educational
Research and Improvement (NCES 2001–72).
Yokoyama, Olga. 2000. “Teaching Heritage Speakers in the College Russian Language
Classroom.” In The Learning and Teaching of Slavic Languages and Cultures, ed.
Olga Kagan and Benjamin Rifkin. Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers, 467–475.
Young, Richard, and Agnes W. He, eds. 1998. Talking and Testing. Discourse Approaches
to the Assessment of Oral Proficiency. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Zemskaya, Elena A. 2001. “Umiraet li jazyk russkogo zarubezh’ja?” (“Is the Russian
Language Dying Out in Russian Communities Abroad?”) Voprosy Jazykoznanija
1: 14–30.
Zifonun, Gisela, Ludger Hoffman, Bruno Strecker, et al. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen
Sprache. 3 vols. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.
 Subject index

Aarhus University, 182 anxiety, 16, 73, 76, 220, 235, 239, 247,
academic reading, 200 254–255, 258
academic writing, 72, 104, 107, 182, 183, Arabic, 142–143, 153, 156–176, 199, 265,
264, 265 268, 273
accent, 41, 105, 210, 271 architecture, 232, 234
acculturation, 198 argumentation, 76, 269–270
accuracy, 6, 18–19, 21, 24–26, 35–38, 40, art, 101, 203, 224, 233–234
44–45, 51–53, 56–57, 65–66, 79–80, articulation, 143, 231
82, 91, 98, 100, 109, 115, 127, 179, assessment, see testing
182, 201, 212, 222, 232–233, 236, Associated Colleges in China (ACC), 99, 118
248, 253 attention, 21–23, 45, 54, 56, 69, 89, 127–128,
acronyms, 147, 229 140, 147, 149, 173, 190, 250–252,
ACTFL, see American Council on Teaching 256–257
Foreign Languages attentional focus, 147
active listening, 78, 80, 87, 89, 94 Audio-Lingual Method, 9, 79, 107, 157, 220,
ACTR, see American Council of Teachers 251
of Russian aural skills, 219
adaptive performer, 81 authentic
adult learning, 14, 17–18, 35, 38–39, 41, 49, culture, 3
55, 97–98, 113, 156–157, 159–160, 172, language, 119
176, 225, 241, 264, 278 materials, 10, 14, 16, 20, 29, 31, 85, 93, 170,
Advanced proficiency, see Interagency 175, 186, 203, 209, 218, 229, 246, 266,
Language Roundtable, Level 2 273
aeronautics, 30 task, 14, 56, 119
affective variables, 16, 21, 31, 55, 64, 67, text, 14, 29, 61, 71, 136, 167, 171, 175,
81, 86, 154, 214, 220–222, 238, 240, 184–185, 190, 204, 206
245, 249, 250, 254–255, 269 authorial intent, 29, 152, 270
agriculture, 100 automaticity, 5, 8, 24, 124, 126, 130, 136, 266,
allusion 272, 275
cultural, 147 automatization, see automaticity
historical, 228 autonomy, see learner autonomy
literary, 115 awareness, 3, 51–54, 56, 62–63, 65, 69, 121,
American Council of Teachers of Russian, 175, 177, 182, 184, 186, 189, 194–195,
221 257–258
American Council on Teaching Foreign
Languages, 5, 12, 32–34, 36, 41, 61, Barnard College, 200, 202–204, 214
83, 142, 145, 148, 150, 152, 159, Beijing Language and Culture University,
198, 212, 223, 229, 260–261, 280 100–101
American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), 99, Beijing University of Foreign Languages, 176
100, 103, 112, 118 “Beyond Three” courses, 99–100, 103, 150,
American University in Cairo, 156, 245–247, 249–250, 252–253, 255,
168 257–258

296
 Subject index 297

bilingualism, 90, 197–199, 204–205, 265, 278, communicative language teaching, 12, 14, 25,
212–214 38, 49, 119, 161, 201, 215, 220, 230–231,
Boston University, 101, 116 251, 274–275
briefing (as teaching device), 55, 88, 94, 115, compensation strategies, 6, 145, 249, 251
128–130 complexity of language use, 35, 66
Bryn Mawr College, 221, 235, 241 complication tactic, 120, 128, 130, 134
Bulgarian, 265 composition, 49, 101, 102, 107, 114, 199,
business, 29–30, 48–49, 55, 70, 77, 98, 205, 212, 229
101, 107–108, 114, 137, 179, 212, compositional values, 44
216, 254 comprehensible input, 15, 18, 58, 265
computer-assisted instruction, 235
calligraphy, 101, 163 construction-integration model, 46
Capital University of Economics and content-based (content-mediated) instruction,
Business, 99 4, 14, 30, 32, 103, 112, 115, 137, 171,
Center for Arabic Study Abroad (CASA), 156, 201–202, 205, 216, 222, 241, 246, 270
161–164, 166–168, 171, 175 context, 8, 23, 26, 35–36, 38, 40, 47, 54, 56,
Center of Russian Language and Culture 66–68, 74, 95, 124, 142, 149, 152,
(CORLAC), 221 159–161, 168, 171, 173, 177, 181, 184,
Central Ministry of Education of China, 176 186, 191–194, 225, 227, 233, 245,
CET/Beijing, 101–103, 116, 118 250–251, 264, see also cultural, context
CET/Harbin, 102, 116, 118 conversation, 10, 49, 99, 101, 103, 106, 109,
China, 19, 96–118, 176 116, 120–121, 123, 126, 128, 133,
Chinese, 19, 81, 96–118, 134, 142–143, 153, 219–220, 225, 252
168, 199, 213, 216, 247, 251–253 conversational management, 66
Chinese characters, 113 cooperative learning, 136
chunked language, 51, 69 CORLAC, see Center of Russian Language
Classical Chinese, 99–103, 106–108, 111, and Culture
113 creative writing, 186, 270
codability, 45 creoles, 197
cognates, 96, 178 Croatian, 265
cognition, 5, 18, 50–56, 202, 256 cross-cultural issues, 5, 29, 227, 255, 257–258,
cognitive, 272; see also metacognition; 265, 275, 277
metacognitive strategies cultural
apprenticeship, 58 allusion, see allusion, cultural
fluency, 9, 43, 50–52, 192, 228 appropriateness, 9, 20, 36, 86, 91, 147
fossilization, 250 “bridge”, 80
grammar, see linguistics below competence, 80, see also sociocultural
learner focus, 52–53 competence
learner focus, cognitive, 52 context, 37, 67, 161
linguistics, 40, 43 knowledge, 40, 55, 183, 221–222
mentorship, 58 popular, 153
needs of adult learners, 39, 154 praxis, 58
overload, 70 salience, 51
resources, 272 schema, 16
style, 144 sensitivity, see appropriateness above
cognitive code methods, 6 situatedness, 55
Colloquial (Arabic), 158–164 Cultural Training Institute, 108
colloquial speech, 72, 109, 112, 130, 171, culture, xiv–xv, 9, 15, 41, 48–49, 62, 66,
182, 190, 198, 227 70–71, 79, 96–97, 99–108, 113–117, 127,
Columbia University, 200–203 141, 149, 158–159, 164, 173, 181,
communicative approach, see communicative 185–186, 197–198, 200–204, 207, 209,
language teaching 215–220, 225, 228–229, 231–233,
communicative competence, 9–10, 14, 19, 238–240, 247, 252, 254, 264, 266, 269,
27–28, 31, 145, 147, 219, 234, 236 271–274, 276, see also authentic, culture;
Communicative Focus, 20–25, 130, 136, cross-cultural issues; sociocultural
252–253 competence
298 Subject index

current affairs, 31 102, 105–106, 108, 111–112, 114,

curriculum, 35, 39, 43, 56, 83, 99, 101–103, 135–136, 148–149, 158, 165, 167, 170,
106–108, 155–158, 162–163, 170–174, 172–173, 177–198, 201–204, 208, 215,
205–206, 211–212, 214, 236, 265 230, 232–235, 247–248, 257–258, 265,
cursive script, 40, 100, 105, 113–114, 117 268
customs, 31, 101, 170, 232 English as a Second Language, see English
error, 6, 8, 24–25, 82, 90, 97–98, 100,
DAAD, 62, 64 102–103, 109, 114, 120–121, 124,
debate, 87, 109 126–127, 129, 135–137, 182, 214, 217,
decoding, 167 249, 257, 273, 275, 277
Defense Language Institute (DLI), 32, error correction, 19, 109, 115, 275
144, 260–264 etiquette, 108, 215
Denmark, 177–180, 183 Europe, 178
description, 87, 94, 172 evaluation, 63, 164, 174, 236, see also
diagnostic assessment, see testing testing
dialect, 23–24, 36, 98, 111, 145, 147, exercise, 9, 24–26, 40, 71–72, 76, 85, 87–89,
158–159, 198, 206, 213–215, 270 95, 99, 102, 106, 108, 116, 127–128,
diaries, 101, 192 130–131, 133–134, 136–137, 173, 186,
dictation, 89–90, 157 189, 192–193, 195, 207, 209, 227,
dictionary, 89, 136, 167–168, 172–174, 195, 231–233, 247–248
273, 276
diplomacy, 30, 98, 246 facts of common knowledge, 228
direct instruction, 9, 199, 214, 219, 265, faculty, 34, 36, 61–62, 70, 81–83, 92, 99–100,
269, 274–276 102, 104–105, 114, 116–117, 140,
discourse, 22, 36–41, 46, 48–49, 51–52, 162–163, 203, 205, 213–214, 219–223,
56–57, 62, 65–66, 69, 71–76, 85–87, 91, 225, 231–233, 236–239
109, 123, 127–130, 133, 182, 201–202, Farsi, 265, see also Persian
206–207, 210, 213, 215, 224–225, 227, field trip, 87–89, 94, 246
246, 248–249, 255, 270, 274, 276–277 film, 99, 107, 109, 200, 203, 233–234, 236,
analysis, 18 270
competence, 9, 10, 14, 16, 23, 27, 29, 37, first language acquisition, 275
80, 145, 152, 201, 276 fluency, 21, 24–26, 35–38, 51, 56–57, 65–66,
schemata, 20 72, 74, 109, 116–117, 127, 147, 163, 179,
structure, 246 198, 222, 224, 228, 236
Distinguished language proficiency, see focus on form, 25, 57, 275
Interagency Language Roundtable, folklore, 228
Level 4 foreign affairs, 245
DLI, see Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Education, 3–4, 6, 9, 14,
drills, 99, 102, 108, 110, 116, 140, 220, 275 32, 34–39, 45, 47, 49, 58, 61, 207
Foreign Languages Across the Curriculum,
economics, 31, 85, 100–101, 104, 114, 131, see Languages Across the Curriculum
149, 234 Foreign Service Institute (FSI), 11–12, 99,
editorials, 112–113, 141, 149, 153, 192 136, 138, 144, 150, 219, 245–257, 261,
educational philosophy, 4, 28 278
educational psychology, 251, 255 Foreign Service Institute Field School
Egypt, 19, 158–159, 162–164, 170–171 FSI/Beijing, 102–103, 112, 118
elementary school, xiii formal instruction, 155, 256–257, 269, see
embellishment tactic, 120, 127–128, 134 also direct instruction
emotional competence, 10, 22–23, 26–27, fossilization, 6, 52, 98, 102–103, 109, 124,
128, 147, 252, 265, 269, 277 127, 245, 249–250, 253, 259
encoding, 9, 45, 51–52 four-handed teaching, 31, 133
encyclopedia, 191–192 French, 19, 27, 77, 79, 81–83, 86–87, 90,
English, xii–xv, 6, 15, 23, 27, 45, 46, 48–49, 92–95, 103, 127, 140, 157, 167, 219,
54, 75, 77, 79, 81, 90, 94, 96–97, 100, 241, 246–248, 252, 257, 265, 273
 Subject index 299

FSI, see Foreign Service Institute Hopkins-Nanjing Center for Chinese and
Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary American Studies, 105, 115, 118
Education, 141 Hungarian, 265

games, 26, 270 ideation, 21, 22, 25

genre, 23, 29, 43, 47–50, 52–54, 56–57, ideational function, 47
62–63, 65, 68, 86, 145, 166, 170, 172, identity, 27, 42–43, 49, 50–51, 66, 69, 74–75,
175, 181–182, 184–185, 190, 192, 194, 147, 200–201, 204, 215
202–204, 216, 224–225, 228–229, 246, idioms, 23–24, 44, 75, 128, 158, 161, 165,
269, 274, 276 168–169, 171–173, 185, 220, 224, 227,
geography, 100, 103, 115 229
Georgetown University, 12, 19, 35, 43, 62, ILR, see Interagency Language Roundtable
67, 71 immersion, xiv, 19, 36, 61, 69, 80, 97, 103,
German, 19, 35–36, 43, 46, 54, 61–76, 81, 222, 241, 246, 257
90, 140, 178–179, 241, 265 in-country activities, 18–19, 53, 92, 98, 118,
gesture, 45 219, 252–253, 257
gloss, 165, 248 independent study, 99
glossaries, 85, 87 individual differences, 14–15, 230, 245, 263,
Goethe Institute, 66, 68 278
grammar, 6, 8–9, 14, 19, 21–26, 28, 31, 37–38, Inter-University Program for Chinese
41–44, 45, 47–48, 50, 54, 69, 72, 79–80, Languages Study (IUP), 106–107, 118
84–85, 88–90, 93–94, 96, 97, 98, Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR),
100–101, 103, 105–106, 109–111, xiv–xv, 11, 32, 34, 36, 41, 111–113, 138,
115–116, 121–124, 126–131, 133, 135, 142–143, 145, 148, 152, 154, 212, 229,
139, 140, 145, 161–162, 164, 166–168, 245–247, 257, 260–261, 264, 268, 278
173, 182, 195, 201, 203–204, 207, Level 0, 143
209–210, 220–222, 232–233, 237–238, Level 1, xiv, 10, 19–20, 23, 30, 37, 39, 80,
240, 245–246, 248, 251, 255, 268, 270, 85, 96, 101–102, 104, 106–108, 110, 143,
275, see also structure 162–163, 175, 168, 207, 220, 235, 240
grammatical competence, 147, 207, 240, Level 2, 11, 156, 175–176
see also linguistic, competence; structural Level 3, xiv–xv, 3–7, 10, 12, 14–34, 36,
competence 77–78, 80–83, 85, 91–93, 96, 100, 112,
grammatical metaphor, 50 115, 121, 123, 125–128, 130, 134–139,
grammar–translation teaching method, 25, 26, 142–143, 145, 150, 154, 165, 167, 177,
79, 220, 270, 275 179, 182, 196–200, 204–207, 210,
Greek, 111, 170, 247, 265 213–215, 217, 219, 223, 225, 227–228,
group instruction, 31, 115 240, 245–246, 248–251, 253, 255, 258,
260, 268, 270, 272–274, 277, 279
handwriting, 113–114, 147, 247 Level 4, 3, 6, 9–12, 15, 17, 27, 34, 36, 78,
heritage language, xv, 197–218 80, 91, 96, 100, 103, 109, 111–112,
heritage speakers, 20, 23, 78–79, 98, 180, 115–116, 127, 130, 137–138, 142, 145,
197–201, 204–207, 209–218, 227, 240, 147, 149, 150, 152, 154–156, 159, 164,
249, 255, 274, see also home-background 176, 246–249, 260–266, 268–270,
speakers 272–274, 276–279
high school, 78, 107, 228, 231 intercultural speaker, 42
higher-order thinking skills, 14, 16–17 interlanguage, 8, 18, 25, 34–35, 57
Hindi, 142–143, 153 Intermediate proficiency, see Interagency
history, 24, 31, 68, 96, 90, 99–101, 104, 107, Language Roundtable, Level 1
113, 115, 141, 158, 165, 170, 186, 200, International Chinese Language Program at
202, 214–217, 221, 225, 228, 230, National, 106, 118
232–233, 237, 248, 270 international relations, 104
home-background speakers, 197–199, internship, 101, 108, 116
204–207, 209, 212–216, see also heritage interpersonal function, 47
speakers Interpersonal mode, 200, 217
300 Subject index

interpretation, 19, 30, 52, 77–95, 100, 103 learning styles, 15, 26, 29, 66, 137, 142, 144,
interpreter, 22, 77–81, 90–92, 112, 246–247, 148, 230, 232, 278, see also cognitive,
255, 265, 273 style
interpreting (ideas/meaning), 82, 85, 91, 101, lecture (as a teaching device), 22, 99–100,
112, 149, 247, 251 105, 109, 111, 121, 130, 163, 192,
interpretive mode, 38, 42–43, 50, 198, 200, 202–204, 222, 230, 233, 238, 240–241
217, 248 lexical
interview (as teaching device), 11, 13–14, 66, accuracy, 23, 37, 78–80
93, 99, 100–102, 116, 118, 137–138, 213, competence, 145, 152
223, 229, 247, 250, 262–264, 266, constraint, 46
268–270, 272, 273, 275, 277, 279 error, 8, 126
intonation, 102, 201–202, 210, 238 precision, see accuracy above
Islam, 157 structures, 9
“island” tactic, 121–123, 131, 133 lexicalization, 8, 22, 45, 51
Italian, 113 lexicon, 26, 44, 96, 99–100, 126, 145, 178,
181–182, 189–190, 224, 227, 229, 236,
Japanese, 81, 82, 143 246, 249, 268, see also lexical, structures;
jargon, 31, 129, 147, 202 lexis; vocabulary
journalism, 14, 216 lexis, see lexicon; vocabulary
journals (in teaching), 71, 85, 112, 114, 209, linguistic
225, 228, 246 competence, 9, see also grammar,
grammatical competence; structural
K-12 programs, 19, 36 competence
“kitchen talk,” 270 determinism, 45
knowledge, 4–5, 14, 40–41, 43–46, 61, 63, focus, 252
77–78, 80–81, 97, 111, 113, 119, 127, relativity, 45
135, 155, 164, 167, 172, 178–179, schema, 15
182–183, 185 listening
declarative, 124 comprehension, 46, 78, 80, 85, 87, 89,
procedural, 124 94–95, 101, 105, 109, 111, 115–117, 119,
knowledge structure, 69 136, 142, 145, 157, 160, 163, 205, 210,
Koran, 158, 165, 168, 171 216, 219–220, 224, 232, 246–247, 262,
Korean, 81, 199 272, 279
interactive, 247
LangNet, 20, 141–155, 168 noninteractive, 109
Language for Special Purposes, 32, 89, 100, literacy, 43, 49–50, 57–58, 63–64, 68, 71, 103,
103, 112, 114–115, 117, 205, 206, 212, 113, 180, 217, 236, 238, 255, 266
216 literary criticism, 202, 203, 206
language form, 35, 43, 51–52, 69, 250, 275, literature, xiv, 14–15, 46, 68, 77, 86, 99–102,
see also focus on form 107–108, 112–113, 115, 122, 158, 167,
language pledge, 67, 99, 102, 107, 116 175, 186, 200, 202, 206, 216, 224–225,
Languages Across the Curriculum, 14, 228, 234, 247–248
205–206, 217 lower-order thinking skills, 16
Latin, 111, 113, 153
Latin America, 153, 205, 207, 216 magazines, 85, 99, 101, 107, 112, 136, 138,
law, 107, 114, 247 178, 190
learner autonomy, 245, 255–256 Mandarin, 98, 100, 105, 107–108, 111, 113,
learner-centered instruction, 15, 18, 45, 67, 83, 117, 143
137, 217, 230, 239, 254 Mandarin Training Center at National Taiwan
learner journals, 66 Normal, 107, 118–119
learning contract, 247, 253 materials
learning object, 141–142, 144, 148–149, adaptation, 222, 224, 231–232, 236, 239
152–153, 155 development, 38, 222
learning strategies, 5, 9, 15, 45, 70, 142, 149, evaluation, 231
195, 245, 251 math, 122
 Subject index 301

meaning-making, 40, 43–45, 47, 50–53, 57–58 negotiation, 108, 270

mechanics, 21, 22, 25, 147, 206, 275 New Paradigm, 4, 15–16
media, 63, 85, 99, 103, 107, 163, 178, 198, news bulletins, 158, 163
233, 236 newspapers, 73–74, 85–86, 99, 101–102,
memory, 8–9, 25–26, 45–46, 51, 53–54, 80, 107–108, 112–113, 136, 138, 163, 165,
95, 113, 122, 124–125, 147, 265–266, 191–193, 228–229, 276–277
272, 275, see also recall noise, 246
declarative memory, 9 nonlinguistic expression, 270
episodic memory, 9 nonverbal expression, 9, 270
long-term memory, 26, 46, 266 Norse, 113
overload, 272 Norwegian, 113, 178, 265
permanent memory, 122 Novice language proficiency, see Interagency
procedural memory, 9 Language Roundtable, Level 0
rote memory, 26, 55, 86–87, 89, 90, 171,
202, 207, 237, 241, 274 obscenities, 24, 270
semantic memory, 9 Oral Proficiency Interview, 11–13, 32, 36, 38,
short-term memory, 265–266, 272, 275 79, 83, 138, 212
metacognition, 5, 10, 22, 54, 252–253
metacognitive strategies, 252–253 parsing, 162, 167, 276
metalinguistic knowledge, 5, 52, 206, 225 participant structure, 66
missionary, 98, 107, 108 Persian, 199, see also Farsi
mistake, see error personality, 10, 22, 26–27, 81, 97, 253, 269,
Modern Standard Arabic, 158–161, 163–165, 278
168, 170–171 personalization, 17–18, 155
Monterey Institute of International Studies, persuasion, 87, 270
19, 77, 93 placement, 32, 137, 205, 213, 223
motivation, 54, 55, 56, 67, 68, 74, 97, 112, poetry, 113, 165, 216, 225, 228
198, 204, 218, 238–239, 249, 254–255, political science, 57, 66, 68, 80, 85, 153, 176,
265, 266, 268, 274, 277 216, 228, 248, 270, 277
extrinsic, 14 polyglossia, 156–157, 160–161
instrumental, 14 practica, 99, 101, 108, 115–116
integrative, 14 practicum, see practica
intrinsic, 14 pragmatics, 4, 37–38, 44, 69, 269
movies, 88, 178, 191 precision, 16, 22–23, 26, 78–80, 98, 109, 115,
multicompetency, 41–42, 43 182, 184–185, 187, 190, 222, 224, 227,
multilingualism, 35, 265, 271, 278 229, 236, 249, 252, 256–257, 268,
multiliteracy, 278 see also accuracy
music, 122, 163, 178, 224, 233–234 presentation, 28, 72, 80, 86–89, 94, 99, 101,
129–130, 181, 201–203, 207, 233, 241,
NASA, 32, 261 250, 270–271, 274, 277, see also public
National Endowment for the Humanities, speaking
221–222, 232–233, 235, 237, 241 Presentational Mode, 86, 130, 198, 200, 206,
National Foreign Language Center (NFLC), 210, 212–213, 217
141, 144–145, 153, 260, 268, 290 presentational structure, 130
National Foreign Language Standards, 5, 12, process-oriented thinking, 50
152, 198, 206–207, 268 process writing, 114, 201
National Security Education Program, xv, 143 proficiency
National Taiwan University, 106 descriptors, 12–13, 264
native language, 8, 17–18, 23–24, 28, 39, 96, Movement, 10–12, 240
120, 123, 125–126, 130, 251, 264–265 tests, 4, 11, 31–32, 138, 142, 154, 212,
Natural Approach, 7, 274 229–230, 261, 263, 265
“near-native” levels of proficiency, 6–7, 14, Projective Mode, 80
18, 26, 30, 33–34, 36, 97, 127, 137, 145, pronunciation, 8, 23, 96, 102, 109, 111, 157,
200, 260, 264, 271, 274, 279 198, 210, 238
needs assessment, 83, 248 psychology, 216
302 Subject index

public speaking, 80, 89, 100–101, 107, 111, schema theory, 14, 16
115, 247, see also presentation science, 85–87, 94, 122, 216
puzzles, 87, 89, 232 Second Language Acquisition, xiv–xv, 3, 5–6,
31, 34, 245, 256, 262, 273–274
questions (as teaching activity), 17, 32–33, 62, secondary school, xiii, 223
65, 68, 87–88, 92–94, 101, 104–106, 111, self-assessment, see testing
120, 122–123, 125, 127–129, 133, 136, self-correction, 38, 126
201, 206, 217, 221, 231, 233, 236–237, self-efficacy, 250, 254–255
247–248, 251, 262–263, 266, 268, 275, self-identity, 201
278–279 semantic structure, 43
semantic value, 43
radio, 89, 101, 107, 109, 158, 163, 247 semantics, 9, 23, 43–44, 48, 51, 66, 69,
reading, 14, 19–20, 27, 29, 39, 46, 52–53, 57, 71–73, 76, 159, 165, 167, 173, 195, 249
63, 65–66, 69, 71–76, 80, 84, 86–89, semiosis, 39, 41, 46, 48–50, 69
98–107, 112–115, 117, 119, 141–180, semiotic contact, 47
182, 189, 194, 200–203, 205, 207, 209, Serbian, 265
215–217, 219–220, 222, 224, 225, Shekhtman Method of Communicative
228–230, 232, 234, 238–239, 246–248, Teaching, 119–139
262, 268, 270, 272–274 Sheltered Content, 205
aloud, 165 short stories, 166, 169, 171–172, 175, 228
extensive reading, 52, 149, 152, 165–166, simplification, 120, 125, 128, 134
168, 175, 202, 216, 228, 239 skill integration, 265, 272, 274
intensive reading, 165, 168, 215 skimming, 29, 72, 165
recall, 8, 26, 80 slang, 23, 31, 128, 147, 270
reference materials, 130, 136, 195 small-group dynamics, 16
reflective learner, 66, 263 small-group instruction, 100–102, 136, 194,
register, 8, 19, 24, 26, 48, 51, 53–54, 68, 207, 230, 262
79–80, 85, 91, 98, 100, 109, 147, social action, 47, 50
181, 198, 201–202, 204, 210, 213, social relation, 47, 50, 249, 252
215, 227, 229, 245–247, 249, 252, sociocultural appropriateness, see
268, 270 sociocultural competence
relationship, 6, 15, 48, 124, 140, 181, 186, sociocultural competence, 6, 10, 16, 21–24,
254, 258 30–31, 40, 52, 147, 152–153, 165, 198,
reports (as teaching activity), 26, 53, 73, 206, 210, 213, 222, 224–225, 234, 241,
87–89, 94, 99, 100–102, 114, 116, 143, 246, 248–249, 257, 259, 265, 268, 270,
163, 192–193, 202 277
research (as teaching activity), 70, 81, 86, sociolinguistic
88–90, 95, 98, 102, 116, 202, 203, 207, appropriateness, see competence below
212, 246 competence, 6, 9, 10, 16, 20–24, 30–31,
rhetorical 36–37, 40, 51, 80, 91, 127, 147, 182, 198,
action, 47–50 206, 209, 213, 224, 234, 252, 256–257,
device, 109, 149 265, 268, 270, 277
risk-taking, 15 sociology, 104, 216
role plays, 4, 66, 75–76, 95, 103, 192, 246, Spanish, 19, 23, 45, 77, 79, 81–83, 85–86,
278 90, 92–95, 115, 140–143, 153, 197,
Russia, 81, 220, 225, 230–231 199, 204–210, 212–216, 218–219, 241,
Russian, 15, 19–20, 31–32, 46, 81–82, 103, 248
115, 119–140, 143, 150, 197, 199–204, speaking, 36, 38–39, 43, 45, 52–53, 57, 63,
209–210, 212–213, 215–241, 246, 248, 65–66, 69, 72–74, 100, 105–106, 109,
253–254, 265, 268, 273, 278 115–117, 119–121, 124–125, 127,
Russian Reading Maintenance Course, 248 130–131, 133, 142, 145, 147, 158–161,
163, 200–201, 203, 205, 210, 212, 216,
scaffolding, 52, 54, 62 219, 224, 228, 247, 261–264, 266, 268,
scanning, 29, 149, 165 272, 274
 Subject index 303

Specialized Language Training Center, 90, television, 89, 102, 107–109, 158, 163, 178,
136, 137, 138, 140 192, 247, 277
sports, 232–252 temporal fluency, 38, 51, 53
Stanford University, 204–205, 207, 212, tenor, 48, 50, 56
214–215 test design, 79
stereotype threat, 255 testing, xiv, 4–5, 11, 24, 31–32, 34, 36–39, 41,
strategic activity, 142, 144, 148–149, 54, 61, 64, 66, 79, 83, 85, 98, 135, 138,
152–153 142, 144, 148, 150, 152–155, 164, 166,
strategic competence, 9–10, 28, 37, 91, 145, 174, 202, 204, 212–213, 217, 229–232,
227, 245, 251–252 261–262, 263–264, 279
strategic generalization, 69 tests
stress, 10, 28, 81, 136, 239 achievement, 31, 166, 199, 213, 229, 264,
structural competence, 13, 78–79, 145, 157, 266
172, 182, 249, see also grammar, diagnostic, 25, 30–31, 79, 135, 144, 155,
grammatical competence 213, 247
structure, 9, 11, 22–25, 27, 43–44, 48, 50, 57, performance, 5, 32, 263
74–75, 91, 105, 119, 122–124, 126, 133, self-assessment, 144, 148, 247, 253
145, 159, 167, 169–172, 174, 176, text structure/organization, 9, 23, 29, 69, 145,
181–186, 191, 203, 206–207, 209, 212, 181–182, 203, 224, 229, 276
215, 218, 220, 227, 229, 246, 249, 257, text transformation tasks, 192–194
272, 276 text typology, 80
student-centered, see learner-centered textbooks, 6, 20, 26, 29, 79, 95, 107, 122, 128,
instruction 135–136, 143, 163, 176, 178, 209–210,
study abroad, xiv, 24, 36, 63, 67–68, 72, 101, 212, 218, 231–232
143, 156, 161, 254, 271, 276 Thai, 199
stylistics, 101, 202, 224, 227 theme-based teaching, 48, 54, 70, 85, 103,
substandard language, 210 232
Superior language proficiency, see Interagency time management, 238–240
Language Roundtable, Level 3 time on task, 18, 139, 219, 275
syllabus, 11, 63, 65–66, 85, 104, 186, 201, tolerance of ambiguity, 278
214, 230 transaction, philosophy of, 4–5, 28, 38
symbolic system, language as, 43–45 transformation, philosophy of, 4, 44, 56,
synonymous expression, 8, 26, 89, 126, 128, 192–194
133, 201 translation, 19, 25–26, 42, 45, 77–95,
synonymy, see synonymous expression 100–101, 103, 113–114, 124, 161, 220,
syntactic structure, 182, 185, 194, 251, 270, 275
227 translator, 22, 45, 77–81, 90–92, 112, 176,
syntax, 8, 24, 38, 40, 44, 46, 55, 62, 100, 124, 255, 261, 265, 273
126, 129, 178, 182, 185, 194, 201–202, transmission, philosophy of, 4
227 Turkish, 265
synthesis, 16 tutorial instruction, 99–103, 106–107,
115–117, 136
tactics
as learning strategy, 108, 214, 246 University of California at Los Angeles,
as teaching method, 119–120, 123, 199–200, 203–204, 214–215, 217, 281,
125–126, 128, 130–131, 133–136, 206, 291, 294
251 US/China Links, 108, 116
Taipei Language Institute, 107–108,
118 video, 64–65, 74, 85, 87–88, 94, 166, 180,
task-based instruction, 4, 14, 16, 32, 35, 52, 203, 231, 233
55, 57, 62, 66, 162, 174 Vietnamese, 199, 212, 216
Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, 16 vocabulary, 8, 11, 14, 23, 26, 30–31, 48, 50,
Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language 69, 71–75, 84, 86, 89, 94, 96–98,
(TAFL), 158, 168 100–101, 103, 106, 109–112, 115–116,
304 Subject index

vocabulary (cont.) writing, 20, 27, 32, 39, 46, 49, 53, 63, 65–66,
124, 126, 129–131, 133, 135, 139, 157, 70–75, 80, 83, 89, 96, 98, 100–101, 104,
159, 165–167, 170–174, 176, 182, 185, 105, 107–108, 114–116, 137, 145, 147,
190–191, 195, 201–203, 221–222, 152, 158–160, 163, 169, 171–175,
224–225, 227, 229–230, 232, 236, 238, 177–196, 200–203, 205, 207, 210,
248, 251, 255, 270, 272, see also lexicon 212–215, 217, 219–220, 225, 228, 229,
262, 264–265, 270, 272, 274, 276–277
word choice, 22, 91, 100, 109, 126, 236
word study, 110–111 Zone of Proximal Development, 58
 Author index

Akishina, A., 231, 280 Brecht, R. D., 18, 141, 143, 198, 254, 271,
Akishina, T., 210, 288 281–282
Alexander, P. A., 251, 295 Breiner-Sanders, K., 36, 282
Aliev, N. N., 15, 280 Brod, R., 143, 282
Allott, R., 8, 280 Brown, H. D., 15, 282
American Council on Teaching Foreign Brown, J. S., 54, 284
Languages (ACTFL), 5, 12, 32–34, 36, 41, Bygate, M., 55, 282
61, 83, 142, 145, 148, 150, 152, 159, 198, Byrnes, H., 6, 10, 19, 34–58, 61–76, 98, 143,
212, 223, 229, 260–261, 280 245, 250, 255, 274, 282–283, 294
Angelelli, C., 19–20, 27, 77–95, 98, 197–218,
230, 249, 254–255, 280 Calvin, W., 7, 283
Aoki, N., 256, 280 Campbell, B., 199, 283
Appel, R., 197, 280 Canale, M., 9, 10, 37, 145, 147, 283
Arndt, V., 183, 280 Carroll, M., 46, 283
Atkins, P. B., 26, 280 Caudery, T., 19–20, 27, 177–196, 258, 283
Atwell, S., 9–10, 15, 19, 21, 27, 255, 257, Celce-Murcia, M., 201, 283
260–279 Chafe, W., 44, 283
Chamot, A. U., 251, 283
Bachman, L., 34, 37, 207 Champine, M., 138, 289
Badawi, E., 19, 156–176, 280 Chaput, P., 14, 283
Baddeley, A. D., 26, 280 Charles, M., 194, 283
Bailey, K., 220, 280 Child, J., 80, 91, 283–284
Bakhtin, M., 48, 57, 280 Clifford, R., 6, 80, 98, 124, 249, 284, 287
Bazergui, N., 269, 294 Clines, F., 122, 284
Bazerman, C., 50, 281 Cohen, A., 251, 284
Becker, A., 47, 281 Collins, A., 54, 284
Beebe, L. M., 15, 281 Connor, U., 257, 264–265, 278, 281
Belcher, D., 257, 264–265, 278, 281 Cook, V., 42, 57, 284
Benson, P., 256, 281 Cope, B., 181, 284
Berkenkotter, C., 48, 281 Coppieters, R., 42, 284
Bermel, N., 198, 281 Corin, A., 13, 284
Bernhardt, E., 53, 281 Council of Europe, 152, 284
Bialystok, E., 42, 210, 281 Cowie, A. P., 51, 284
Biklen, S. K., 261, 281 Crane, C., 52, 54, 282
Bilstein, P., 19, 112, 150, 205, 246, 289 Crookes, G., 55, 284
Birdsong, D., 42, 281 Cumming, A., 183, 284
Bloom, B. S., 5, 16, 281 Curran, C. A., 250, 258, 284
Bloomfield, L., 44, 281
Bogdan, R., 261, 281, 293 Dabars, Z., 10, 16, 20, 27, 31, 81, 89–90,
Boyd, R., 211, 281 219–241
Bragina, N., 293 Damasio, A. R., 124, 284
Brandt, J., 124 Damasio, H., 124, 284

305
306 Author index

Dansereau, D., 251, 284 Hancock, C., 12, 287

Davidson, D., 143, 254, 271, 281 Hannum, T., 207, 294
DeCarrico, J. S., 189, 290 Hasan, R., 47, 287
Deci, E., 239, 254, 255, 285 Hawkins, R., 269, 294
Degueldre, C., 19, 27, 77–95, 98, 230 Hayward, F., 143, 287
DeKeyser, R., 9, 25, 275, 285 He, A. W., 34, 37, 295
Dew, J. E., 96, 285 Head, F., 16, 287
Dewey, J., 5, 285 Hedge, T., 183, 287
Dickinson, L., 256, 285 Heelan, P. A., 58, 287
Dörnyei, Z., 16, 256, 283, 285 Hicks, J., 214, 285
Doughty, C., 35, 55, 285 Higgs, T. V., 6, 98, 124, 249, 287
Draper, J., 214, 285 Hirsch, E. D., 103, 287
Drury, H., 54, 288 Hoffman, L., 54, 295
Duri, J., 216, 285 Holec, H., 256, 288
Holten, C., 203, 286
Economou, D., 54, 288 Horowitz, D., 181, 288
Edward, S. L., 256, 291 Horwitz, E., 15, 220, 255, 288
Ehrman, M. E., 15–16, 144–145, 150, Howarth, P., 51, 288
245–259, 285 Huckin, T. N., 48, 281, 288
Ely, C., 251, 253, 285 Hymes, D., 9, 288
Esch, E., 256, 285 Hyon, S., 48–49, 288
Eshkembeeva, I–V, 10, 27, 147, 252, 269, 286
Ferguson, C., 157, 286 Ingold, C. W., 10, 20, 141–155, 198, 268,
Figueroa, R., 197, 294 281–282
Fillmore, C., 42, 51, 286 Inhelder, B., 18, 26, 291
Finlay, I., 81, 286
Fishman, J., 197, 286 James, D., 61, 288
Frank, V., 143, 281 Jensen, L., 203, 286
Freedman, A., 48, 50, 54, 286 Joiner, E. G., 39, 295
Frith, J. R., 11, 286 Jones, J., 54, 288
Frodesen, J. M., 203, 286 Jordan, R. R., 183, 288

Gadamer, H., 58, 286 Kagan, O., 10, 16, 20, 27, 31, 81, 89–90,
Gardner, R., 15, 239, 266, 286 197–241, 249, 254–255, 280–281,
Gass, S., 55, 249, 284, 286 288, 294
Gee, J. P., 38, 49, 286 Kalantzis, M., 181, 284
Gee, S., 181, 286 Kamil, M. L., 53, 281
Geoffrion-Vinci, M., 198, 294 Kaplan, M., 247, 288
Gerver, D., 80, 286 Kaplan, R., 181, 287
Geschwind, N., 124, 284 King, L., 209, 288
Gile, D., 80, 286 Kintsch, W., 46, 288
Ginsberg, R., 143, 254, 271, 281 Klee, C., 13, 288
Givón, T., 54, 286 Knowles, M., 17, 288
Glaser, B. G., 261, 287 Koike, D., 34, 36, 39, 61, 288
Gläser, R., 51, 287 Kord, S., 35, 62, 282
Goetz, E. T., 251, 295 Kramsch, C., 42, 198, 255, 268–269, 288–289
Gollin, S., 54, 288 Krashen, S., 58, 124–125, 269, 274, 289
Gonzalez-Pino, B., 199, 287 Kubler, C., 19, 53, 96–118, 249, 251, 254, 258,
Goodison, R. A. C., 253, 287 289
Grabe, W., 181, 287 Kuznetsova, E., 119–140
Grosjean, F., 197, 287
Lado, R., 122, 280, 289
Hakuta, K., 42, 281 Lambert, W., 15, 239, 266, 286
Halliday, M. A. K., 39–40, 47–48, 50, 57–58, Langacker, R., 43–44, 289
190, 287 Lange, D., 143, 289
 Author index 307

Leaver, B. L., 3–33, 36, 89–91, 112, 119–140, Pierson, H. D., 256, 291
144–145, 150, 171, 205, 219, 227–228, 246, Pino, F., 199, 287
251–252, 255, 257, 260–279, 280, 285, 289, Polinsky, M., 198, 291
291, 293 Preisler, B., 190, 291
Lee, J., 39, 289
Lekic, M., 233, 289 Rayner, S., 251, 291
Lewis, M., 195, 289 Readings, B., 57, 291
Lipson, A., 122, 289 Reid, H., 199, 255, 291
Liskin-Gasparro, J., 34, 36, 39, 61, 288 Reiser, M. F., 8, 291
Logan, G., 25, 289 Repath-Martos, L., 203, 286
Long, M., 25, 55, 289, 290 Riding, R., 251, 291
Lord, N., 119–140 Biggenbach, H., 51, 291
Lotman, Yu., 57, 290 Rivers, W., 143, 282
Lowe, P., 36, 80, 283 Robin, R., 210, 288
Luus, C. A. E., 8, 290 Robinson, P., 25, 55–56, 275, 291–292
Rogers, C., 5, 250, 292
Madden, T., 247, 253, 255, 290 Rubin, J., 251, 256, 292, 295
Maly, E., 14, 290 Ryan, R. M., 239, 254, 285
Martin, J. R., 40, 48, 50, 54, 58, 287, 290
McGinnis, S., 213, 290 Sandomirskaya, I., 46, 51, 293
McLaughlin, B., 136, 290 Scebold, E., 12, 287
McNamara, T. F., 34, 37, 290 Schemo, D. J., xiii, 292
Medway, P., 48, 50, 54, 286 Schleppegrell, M., 18, 292
Miles, J., 36 Schmeck, R. R., 251, 292
Miller, C. R., 48, 290 Schneider, A., 34, 292
Miller, J. P., 4, 290 Schulkin, J., 58, 287
Ministère de l’Education Nationale et de la Schultz, R. A., 275, 292
Formation Professionale, 143, 290 Schunk, D. H., 255, 292
Mitrofanova, O. D., 10, 147, 290 Scovel, T., 220, 292
Moore, Z., 204, 290 Seaman, M. A., 39, 295
Musumeci, D., 39, 289 Segalowitz, N., 52, 292
Muysken, P., 197, 280 Seliger, H. W., 253, 292
Selinker, L., 249, 286, 292
Naiman, N., 253, 290 Seller, W., 4, 290
National Foreign Language Center (NFLC), Shaw, P., 117, 202, 292
141, 144–155, 260, 268, 290 Shekhtman, B., 3–33, 36, 89–91, 98, 119–140,
Nattinger, J. R., 189, 290 145, 219, 227–228, 230, 251–252, 264,
New London Group, The, 49, 57, 294 274–275, 292
Newman, S. E., 54, 284 Shohamy, E., 39, 292
Nunan, D., 15, 18, 290 Skehan, P., 38, 51, 55–57, 282, 292
Slobin, D., 45, 57, 292–293
Ojemann, G., 7, 283 Soudakoff, S., 6, 28, 293
Oller, J. W., 98, 294 Spolsky, B., 9, 293
Oparina, E., 46, 51, 293 Sprang, K., 43, 52, 54, 282, 293
Or, W. F. F., 256, 291 Steele, C. M., 255, 293
Ovtcharenko, E., 119–140 Stevick, E. W., 8, 250, 293
Oxford, R. L., 15, 18, 251, 291 Strauss, A., 261, 287
Strecker, B., 54, 295
Pask, G., 251, 291 Stryker, S., 9–10, 13, 171, 293
Pawley, A., 51, 291 Suñer, M., 209, 288
Pellegrino, V., 15, 291 Swaffar, J., 293
Pemberton, R., 256, 291 Swain, M., 9–10, 55, 145, 147, 282–283
Peyton, J., 199, 283 Swales, J., 182, 293
Piaget, J., 17–18, 26, 125, 291 Swender, E., 36
Pienemann, M., 269, 274, 291 Syder, F., 51, 291
308 Author index

Talmy, L., 45, 293 Veltman, C., 204, 294

Taylor, C., 57, 293 Vigil, N. A., 98, 294
Taylor, S., 261, 293 Voller, P., 256, 281
Tedick, D., 13, 288
Teliya, V., 46, 51, 293 Walton, R., 18, 141, 282, 289
Terrell, T., 26, 125, 274, 289, 293 Way, D., 39, 295
Teschner, B. V., 207, 294 Weinert, R., 51, 295
Thompson, I., 219, 256, 292, 294 Weinstein, C. E., 251, 295
Thurrell, S., 201, 283 Welles, E., 143, 282
Towell, R., 269, 294 Wells, G. W., 8, 290
Tranel, D., 124 Wenden, A., 251, 256, 285, 295
Tribble, C., 294 Wertsch, J. V., 57, 295
Turnbull, M., 55, 294 Williams, J., 35, 55, 285
Winne, P. H., 256, 295
University of California at Wirt, J., xv, 295
Los Angeles (UCLA), 199–200,
203–204, 212–214, 215, 217, 281, Yokoyama, O., 213, 295
291, 294 Young, D. J., 220, 255, 288, 295
Ushioda, E., 256, 294 Young, R., 34, 37, 295

Valdés, G., 42, 197–199, 205–207, 212, Zemskaya, E. A., 200, 295
214–215, 217, 294 Zifonun, G., 54, 295
VanPatten, B., 19, 294 Zimmerman, B. J., 255, 292