PART I. THEORETICAL ASPECTS OF TEACHING AND IMPROVING THE SPEAKING SKILLS OF THE EFL STUDENTS
CHAPTER 1. THEORETICAL ASPECTS OF THE COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCES
1.1. Features of spoken language
The communication that began from the very dawn of human existence became a necessary element for man, when he emerged and was part of his social relations. It has a human character, because it is formed and developed in each person through the relationships with the establish with those who surround it for it plays an important role the activity that each individual plays. This shows that the roots of communication are in the same vital material activity of men. The gradual enrichment of social relations and the realization of dissimilar activities conditioned the increase of communication and the development of the inner world of man. This interaction includes the planning and development of joint activities among men, the acceptance and transmission of moral and behavioural norms; as well as the satisfaction of their affective and cognitive needs. Once the men began to speak, the word was the first and most important means of communication, although from the beginning, gestures, gestures, actions, and poorly articulated sounds were the first means of communication.
However from the early stages of development, society was accompanied by the improvement of the media. The emergence of writing enabled the development of communication by signs, which allowed the transmission and reception of all socio – historical cultural experience achieved through time. In the same way that society develops, communication between men has put greater challenges, which demands of the growing preparation of the people in correspondence with the demands of each epoch. At the beginning of the 21st century this mission becomes more complex, due to the scientific and technical development achieved by humanity. The development causes a vast flow of information that men demand, a communicative competence that allows them to decode the most diverse sources of information. This situation has led to the intensification of studies and research on communication, as the vehicle for developing the intelligence of modern civilization. To further substantiate this statement, there is no more to reflect on the different forms of scientific, cultural, artistic and political exchange that are carried out daily in the world through different events, forums and conventions. In the present time it is common to hear talk of communication and there are innumerable authors who have publications about such a controversial topic. This approach is evidenced by the different existing criteria for the definition of communication, which are briefly illustrated below.
The concept of communication can be associated with different terms that contribute to its definition, without major discrepancies on the part of researchers, such as: mutuality, reciprocity, communion, community, possession of something in common, participation, transmission, information, pollution , Expression, coding, accessibility, decoding, similarity, treatment, expansion, interaction, and sympathy. From the etymological point of view comes from the Latin word “communicatio” which in turn has its origin in the term “communis” meaning common. These terms do not express a synonymy relationship but allow a better description of the complex communicative phenomenology that exists only when, between two subjects, there is an uninterrupted continuum and mutual exchange not only of messages, but also of a certain affectivity and affinity. According to Bateson Gregory (1990) is a word of Latin origin (communicare) that means sharing or doing common.
When we communicate with someone we strive to share, to do something common with others. It is the action of communicating or communicating, it is the treatment, the correspondence between two people, the union that is established between them. It is a continuous chain of learning contexts and, fundamentally, premises for communication. Hall Walfriman and Sheflon (1980) express that communication is conceived as the matrix of all human activities, as a permanent and circular process of interactions in which each man participates. Ellis (1196: 272) argues that it is a process of social interaction through symbols of message systems that produce as part of human activity. It can also be understood as exchange, dialogue, life in society, all indissolubly related to the productive needs of men and can not exist without language.
Underwood (1984) says that communication is an essential process of all human activity, since it is based on the quality of the interactive systems in which the subject performs, and also has a fundamental role in the psychological atmosphere of every human group. For B.F Lomov (1989: 293) communication is the interaction of people who enter into it as subjects, which is not only the influence of one subject with another, although this is not excluded, but the interrelation between both. In it an exchange of activities, representations, ideas, orientations, interests, etc. is carried out, the system of subject-object relations is developed and manifested, necessitating at least for its realization, two people, each of which acts as subject. This author considers it a category closely related to the activity category and proposes the following principles:
1- Communication is not reduced to verbal language because the whole organism is an instrument of it.
2- It is not restricted to the transmission of information, not only propagates but is created within the communicative process itself.
3- The communication resolves the contradiction between the particular and the general of men, between their general and particular qualities.
4- Man realizes and assimilates in the communication its general essence.
Terrel (1991:231) shares the criteria given by Underwood (1984), the theoretical methodological nature of the relationship between personality and communication, since man is involved as a personality in the educational process, personality must be studied from of the communicative contexts. Only through communication do people express themselves and discover their essential irregularities; man as personality is the subject of the communicative process. Swan (1985) defines it as the process by means of which the man, using words, gestures and symbols, exchange an information or idea; or as the conscious activity that is established when two or more people are interrelated, with a motive defined by language (either oral or written). It coincides with the view that any definition of communication comprises the following common basic elements:
• The subject issuing the message (source).
• The content of the message.
• The ways and means used to convey the message.
• The subject or subjects receiving the message (recipient).
• The effect achieved by the issuer.
For Anderson (1993), communication is a complex process related to human behavior. Other authors such as Maldonado, Sebastián and Soto (1999) consider that communication is a process where a system transmits information to another system that is able to receive it. Andrieva G.M., states that communication is a way of realizing social relations that takes place through the direct and indirect contacts of people and groups in the process of life and social activity. In notes of the book Foundations Psychological of the Language (2000) appear valuations realized by Vigotski L.S. and Rubinstein S.L. who consider communication as an exchange of thought, feelings and emotions. On the other hand, Brumfit (2017) agrees with Leontiev’s criteria when he states that communication is the relationship between objects and phenomena, established between people, and more concretely, is the relationship that occurs between them in the verbal process.
Walter Ong (2013:88) considered that “orality is not an ideal, and never has been. Focusing positively does not mean enhancing it as a permanent state for every culture. Knowledge of writing opens up possibilities for word and human existence that would be unimaginable without writing. […] Orality can never be completely eliminated: reading a text is “orchestrated”. Both orality and the emergence of writing from orality are necessary for the evolution of consciousness. “
It is necessary to establish a conceptual delimitation of the term “language”, trying to describe the content to which this expression refers. When we face this task for the first time, what first strikes us is that there are multiple terms associated with this concept (e.g., communication, voice, information, etc.). While the term “language” can be used and understood in various ways, in the context of this chapter we are going to specifically refer to language as a specific human faculty of communicating through articulated sounds. We will begin this task of delimiting this way of conceiving language by initially supporting the distinction between Ferrandez, Ferreres and Sarramona (1982) and Sánchez (1988) between the concepts of language, language and speech. Language encompasses all peoples, all ages, all civilizations and all forms of expression. Language is one of the concretions of language as a communication system, therefore, it is an essential part of language. It is a social product, an oral code created by each society and present in the consciousness of its individuals, who use it to communicate.
Each society has its own language, which is the system of signs and rules accepted by its members and used by them to communicate. Language has a normal and primary manifestation that is phonics, that is, the spoken language. In this sense, speech would be an absolutely circumstantial act in which we choose signs and expressions of the language already possessed to communicate with others, that is, it would be the concrete realization of a language at a precise time and place. These considerations, generally derived from the Saussorian conception of language, are reflected in many of the proposed definitions; for example, Bloom’s and Lahey’s (1978) definition of language: “it is a code by which ideas are represented, through an arbitrary system of signs, for communication.” As Belinchón, Riviere and Igoa (1992) suggest, the different definitions of language in the last decades would account for the following facts:
a) the fact that language can be interpreted as a system composed of units , Linguistic signs) whose internal organization can be the object of a structural or formal description;
b) that the acquisition and use of a language by the speakers allows in these peculiar and specific forms of relationship and action on the medium; And
c) that language materializes in, and gives rise to, concrete forms of behavior, which allows it to be interpreted, as well, as a modality or type of behavior.
Accordingly, it is possible to identify the three most common dimensions or components of definition from which a general definition of language can be addressed: the formal or structural dimension, the functional dimension and the behavioral dimension.
Language is interpreted as a code, that is, as a structured set of signs, hence all language presupposes, by definition, the existence of signs. Hence, language can be the subject of a structural or formal characterization, which would include both the definition of its basic constituent units (for example, individual signs) and the conditions under which such signs can be combined (“grammar “Internal of that language). Therefore, all language in a system formed by signs can be the object of phonic, morph syntactic, semantic and pragmatic descriptions that specify the conditions in which combinations of signs and their uses are acceptable. The construction of these four types of principles constitutes one of the essential tasks of the linguistic perspective in the study of language. In addition, language serves as an effective communication tool. In this sense, the absence, in a given communication system, of a well-defined formal code that could be described in terms of units and fixed rules or constraints precludes its consideration as a language in a strict sense (gestural communication is interpreted More as a communication system than as a proper language). Although, in this sense, there are authors who fail to establish these boundaries when considering gestural communication as a communication system with the same properties that characterize language as a sign system (Foster, 2014). As for the functional dimension from which a general definition of language can also be addressed, it should be emphasized that the acquisition and development of language is always linked to the performance of activities such as communication and social interaction, knowledge of reality.
In this respect, Bühler (1934) would identify three basic functions of language: the representational or symbolic function, the appealing or call function and the expressive function. As for the symbolic function, it must be borne in mind that verbal linguistic signs are not necessarily or directly related to referents immediately present in time or space, and can therefore refer to aspects of present, past, or present reality.
Future, real or imaginary. The linguistic signs, therefore, categorize the reality and represent mental contents on the reality that transcend and modulate the direct reference to the things. Therefore, they imply meanings constructed through principles of generalization and individualization that must be known and shared by both the sender and the receiver. The use of language as an instrument of transmission of information by an issuer can only be effective as long as the interlocutor can properly interpret the signs. The appealing or calling function through it acts upon the listener to direct or attract his attention. Language is, first, a call to the listener. Likewise, it can be observed well in the early stages of children’s language. In the already developed language of man can manifest with some autonomy, as in the forms of the imperative. It should be noted, in this sense, that in relation to the origin of language has been said that its first phase is imperative.
And with respect to the expressive function, traditionally verbal language, like any other system of communication, has been interpreted as a process of transmission of information. From this perspective, some communication models (Shanon and Weaver, 1949) were proposed in which human communication is understood as a situation in which the sender encodes messages and a receiver decodes or decodes such messages by virtue of his knowledge of the same code. However, the validity of these models as a metaphor for human communication has been questioned and what stands out in the new perspectives is the “intentional” nature of human linguistic activity. In this respect, when conceptualizing the verbal communication process, it is necessary to account not only for what language has to use a code but also for interpreting the intentional (not just referential) meaning of the messages.
Finally, Belinchón et al. (1992) points out that language can also be defined according to a behavioral dimension. This means that if we analyze the language as a particular case of conduct or activity the first characteristic that must be emphasized is the freedom of its use. The use of language can be seen as an instrumental behavior, because it can be related to certain antecedent conditions of the emitter or the environment and with certain consequences or effects (behavioral, emotional or cognitive) on the environment. Requesting or obtaining an object or information, getting our interlocutor to do something, changing their opinion or knowledge through the information we provide, or attract their attention to some aspect of reality are examples of things that can be done with language and what children learn to do in the first years of their lives, before even having a very extensive or grammatically complex linguistic repertoire. The possibility of transforming the behavior, the knowledge or the emotions of others from the language becomes, therefore, one of the main instruments of interpersonal and social regulation.
This first characterization regarding what is understood by language in the scientific field has allowed us to approach a definition of language in a broad and theoretical sense. From such a theoretical analysis one could understand language, as suggested by Ervin-Tripp (2014), as “a social instrument of representation and communication, materialized in linguistic signs that are emitted with sounds that give rise to words and these are Organized by forming grammatical structures. ” That is, language could be understood as the integration of form, content and use. It is precisely in an attempt to get closer to the reality of language in natural contexts (i.e., school, family, etc.) that we will see below which aspects have been derived from basic research on language and communicative skills and development. This analysis is going to constitute a conceptual reference obligatory when it comes to the study of educational practices around oral language, which we will explain later in relation to the third research of this work.
Dimensions of oral language analysis
When analyzing oral language, for reasons of diagnosis, re-education, aetiology, etc., the analysis that Launer and Lahey (1981) and Lund and Duchan (1983) have shown are quite illuminating. Conducted on how the study on language exploration has evolved. The review made by these authors covers the work carried out from the fifties to the eighties. As a synthesis of this review, we would note that initially there was some interest in the study of semantic acquisition, so that the receptive vocabulary (i.e. oral comprehension) was basically analyzed. Subsequently, interest shifts towards the study of language more globally and in natural situations and the exploration of phonetic correction. In the sixties, it continues in this same line; The importance of semantic aspects persists, but the importance of understanding and producing morphosyntactic rules is emphasized. At the end of the sixties the importance of analyzing the effectiveness of the communicative exchanges of children among themselves, and between children and adults, was emphasized. It is in the seventies that interest arises in not separating the analysis of language from the context in which it occurs. The content of language as well as the use must be analyzed according to the context in which it occurs and closely related to the sociocultural characteristics of the subject that produces it. Hence the basic context for the analysis of children’s language will be the familiar or the school. What comes to characterize the eighties is precisely a tripartite approach to language analysis. That is to say, all language exploration must include the analysis of content, form and use.1 Let us see, next, which aspects encompasses each of these dimensions.
Language Content
As Bloom and Lahey (1978) point out, the content of language is its meaning or semantics, that is, it deals with the “representation of what people know about the objects of reality, events and relationships.” Accordingly, language content refers to the analysis of meaning (comprehension or expression) either in semantic units (isolated words) or in context (understanding and expressing ideas). Accordingly, the study of language content would, according to Triadó and Forns (1989), deal with aspects related to lexicon, categorization, functions, word definition, spatial relations, and so on. It would be closely related to the cognitive system.
Language form
As for the analysis of the form of language, this would include the phonological and morph syntactic system. In this sense, for Bloom and Lahey (1978) the form of language can be described in different ways according to the different components of language itself. If we follow the form of sound units we refer to phonology. In this sense, the phonological evaluation deals with the analysis of the production of sounds and, in the articulator aspect, the analysis affects the conditions of the orthodontic apparatus, especially the breathing, or the point, the mode of articulation. If we refer to units of morphological significance and if we refer to formal grammatical units we must distinguish two dimensions: a) that has to do with morphology, that is, the formal categorization of grammatical units (nouns, adjectives, verbs , conjunctions, prepositions, etc.), and b) the one that has to do with the syntax, that is, the combination of those formal morphological values to form from minimal units such as the word to higher units like the sentence, through units of grammar organization intermediates as the syntagma.
Use of language
And, finally, the analysis of the use of language or pragmatic refers to the study of the social objectives or functions of language and the rules that govern the use of language in context. It is of special relevance that linguistic functions such as the functions of informing, repeating, asking, etc., or the various forms (eg, promise, mandate, question, criticism, etc.) can take a single phrase depending on the situation. The analysis of the functions of the language would be a clearly social aspect, since it informs us about the processes of communicative interaction of the subjects.
Reflections on the teaching of oral language
One has tried an approach to the study of what some teachers in Early Childhood Education think about oral language learning and what they do in the context of the classroom regarding this domain. In this sense, we intend to collect previously all contributions and suggestions from different authors who within the specific field of language didactics have suggested ways and forms of action in the field of oral language. We think that this approach to the approaches that have been generated around this issue justify the need to study both the implicit theories and practices in the teaching of oral language, as we have sought in this research.
Importance of context and oral communication
As we have gathered in the preceding pages, throughout the present century the development of language has been described and explained in different ways according to the theoretical currents of reference (we have referred to psychology, linguistics, sociology, or biology). Starting in the 1950s, there was an important and decisive turning point in the study of language development thanks to the contributions of cognitive psychology (Piagetian and Vygotskyan currents) and linguistics (mainly the Chomskyan one). Researchers have been particularly interested in the underlying mechanisms in the various interpretations that subjects of different ages give to the same statements. This reveals the importance that is beginning to be given to the procedures and strategies used by the speaking subjects. Since 1980, the interest of researchers in many disciplines of the human and social sciences has been directed towards interaction and communication. A large number of papers deal with the role of interactions in the emergence and development of language and the use of language by children in the context of production situations.
As suggested by numerous authors (Schnenwy and Broncart, 1985; Vila and Boada, 1989; Weck, 1994) given the different theoretical paradigms, it has been postulated the need to consider that the appearance of language needs a double development during the first year Of life of the children: a development in the intellectual aspect and a development in the aspect of the communication. These two areas are at first separated and by the year they are merged in such a way that the thought becomes verbal, and the language becomes intellectual. This approach, has a determining role in the general development of the child, and in particular in the language, has been minimized for a long time. That is, language can not appear without children engaging in interaction. These interactions with adults constitute a kind of miniculture. They learn not only the structure of the mother tongue (phonology, lexicon and morphosyntax, but also the uses of language and types of discourse (i.e., pragmatics).
Children are considered as beings that communicate from their earliest age. Language is acquired by and for communication. These abilities of language are developed in dialogue, communication being the matrix in which all human activities are organized. Birdwhistell (1970) argues that culture emphasizes structure and communication in the process, both terms being linked to the idea of human interrelation. All this leads us to consider that the linguistic competence defended by Chomsky must be understood and extended in the sense of a communicative competence, since the rules of speech are not only linguistic but also cultural and social. All these approaches lead to the proposal of pragmatic proposals.
Brumfit (2017) summarizes that language or verbal language continues to be the reference system, and linguistics is the science that provides the basic method of research for all these fields of study. At this point, it must be said that today it seems clear that no message will be understood in all its implications without studying the context in which it occurs. Thus, we see how the structuralist current and everything that carries with it the study of language in the dimension of code and rules are only a part. The study of the analysis of communicative phenomena must be completed in the study of the contextualization of linguistic production. Derwing, and Murray (2013:163-185) proposes to focus attention on speech and on the actual communicative fact. Emphasis is placed on the importance of the study of concrete realizations. There should be no differentiation between the study of language as an essential and social system, and speech as accidental and / or individual use, since communication is jointly with language and speech, comprehension and production. Bygate, Swain and Skehan (2013:88-101) suggest that by using language we are always negotiating its meaning and meaning. For Vygotsky as well as for Bakhtine, interaction is the place par excellence where all the creative, instrumental and regulatory capacity of language is revealed. The interactive spaces are the privileged places of communication with the others and of planning of the own activity.
Authors such as Canales and Swain (1980) speak of communicative competence from four distinct dimensions. Linguistic competence (ie, linguistic knowledge of language), sociolinguistic competence (ie, adjustment to the communication situation), discursive competence (ie, knowledge of the rules of discourse) and strategic competence (ie, The ability to meet the gaps in the other three competencies).
How to approach a didactics of the oral language?
Trying to define concepts within the framework of what can be a work in the classroom, how to approach the teaching of language is necessary and essential. We have to know what theory underlies what we want to teach, what we want to teach and how we are going to do it. By answering these questions we could begin to construct what may be some reflections on the task of the language in the classroom. Oral language and written language are privileged instruments of communication and social interaction. Bronckart (1985) have recognized that oral discourses are plural and diverse according to the situations of communication in which language is produced, and its necessary adaptation to the representations that the interlocutor constructs from such situations. This theoretical position leads to introducing the problem of the norm and distinguishing between descriptive norms (related to the different discourses produced in specific communication situations) and prescriptive norms (which refer to the language system) and favour those that are Arbitrarily designated as a result of good use, ie standard language); The consideration of these two aspects involves two forms of entering the oral language and that are complementary, on the one hand, communication and, on the other, the language system.
Communication is a social interaction of exchange and is a situation typical of the oral language. Here one could speak of intentionality, number of interlocutors, types of speech, etc. The study of the language has focused and oriented towards grammar and lexicon, emphasizing the difference between oral and written language to emphasize the primacy of the latter. Today we speak of the need to have not only a syntactic theory valid for the written language but also another that accounts for the syntactic guidelines of the oral language.
If we talk about teaching oral language we are talking about developing communication skills that could be understood as:
• the speaker produces the different genres of speech.
• the speaker adapts to the situations of communication in which it is expressed.
To accomplish this, one will have to say, as Besson and Treversi (1994) say, that the school will select those models that allow the student to take an active role in intervening in situations of frequent interaction but which cause him difficulties: defending his point of view in a Debate, report an event where he witnessed, school situations in which the student should be able to make a brief statement, justify an attitude, verbalize a reasoning or explain some procedures performed. Authentic discourses will constitute, in the first place, the basic material of the teaching of the oral language, leaving for the reflection and observation discourses recorded and transcribed. Talking about the way we have done it and defining the concepts of context, interactive space, communication, competence, from the point of view of language, makes it an anteroom to begin to reflect on what could be the work of language Oral in classrooms. Thus, Pujol (1992) suggests that children come to school with an oral linguistic background, so that teaching should be oriented to their oral language. This is important to note, since we are going to encounter large linguistic deficiencies among children. Differences between the teacher’s language and their language, differences between the language spoken in the school and the standard one.
To summarize, differences of origin and governmental represent requirements. Authors such as Bain (1991) and Perrenoud (1991), in their work on children of different nationalities in the same classrooms, corroborate those approaches. All this raises how the demands of the school dictated by the governments themselves is an important and decisive factor to delimit what is done in the school. For this reason, I will refer to this later as a basic part of the design of oral language teaching. The “chore” in the classrooms has to do with the objectives that we set and the conceptual definition of the starting point of what we try to design. Thus, Pujol (1992) speaks of the following aspects that we must contemplate of the objectives that we propose:
1) types of texts and speeches that we will work,
2) linguistic units of these texts that will be a reason for teaching,
3) connections with other languages (second language)
4) the relationship with other subjects and extracurricular activities,
5) the evaluation that will be proposed
6) teacher training.
From the aspects listed above, and following with Pujol (1992), those related to texts and linguistic units are the two most important. Social reference models will be authentic communication situations. We will have to decide which models are most appropriate, according to ages and purposes and what criteria we will use in the selection of those we work and present in class, and also decide which ones will be produced by students (argumentative, informative, narrative, expository texts , etc). As for the internal characteristics of the texts, it is necessary to emphasize that the oral language has its own syntax. Some authors (Camps and Giralt, 1991) suggest that the syntax of oral language is no deformation of the syntax of written language, and that both syntaxes can explain the facts of the language. Admitting this implies a revolution in the didactic approaches of oral language.
The syntax of oral language shows us that the order of words in English is more varied, and that sentences that do not follow this order are less correct than those that follow it. We continue with Pujol (1992) as regards the transfer that can be done between different languages, this refers to Catalan and Spanish. The didactics of the language (oral and written) should not be reduced when it comes to language. Language is one of the privileged means of the other subjects. In terms of evaluation, we must first define the objectives we want to achieve and the criteria on which we will base the evaluation. And as far as the section on teacher training is concerned, it is necessary to see what training, what implicit theory underlies and prevails in teaching, and what kind of activities are worked in the classroom context.
Scinto (1986) poses from a psycholinguistic perspective that it is difficult to maintain a sharp separation between the oral language and the written language. The oral and written uses of the language are interrelated and mixed communication situations are created in which both codes participate. Payrate (1988) points out that from a communicative perspective, the proper use of language means knowing how to concretize, in a given context, the most effective option of the set of potentialities offered by a specific language (Payrato, 1998). Vila and Vila (1994), based on the Payrate approach, say that, methodologically, in relation to oral language in classrooms, real situations of communication must be created in which the students have to use the language to convey their intentions to Particular partners and in a specific situation. We think that there must be a balance between the use of oral language and metacommunicative and metalinguistic reflection as a way to influence the improvement of oral productions. Therefore, the most important skill that a person must acquire is the ability to modify their discourse in function of the contextual circumstances in which it occurs. Therefore, from its point of view, three phases or moments of the oral language are established:
a) planning phase,
b) production phase,
c) revision phase.
During the planning phase, it is time to prepare the text without losing sight of the purpose of the oral discourse (inform, convince, etc.), the content to be transmitted and the communicative context, and the previous knowledge of the Recipients. In the production phase is the staging. This phase involves the proper use of extra-linguistic resources and rhetoric to maintain the interest of the audience. And in the review phase it is suggested a collective assessment of the oral text in which students and teachers participate. Self-correction ability is encouraged. The discourse is analyzed based on the use made of the linguistic elements and the content exposed. Looking at what has been written so far about oral language work, it should be noted that the work that exists is almost always related to the study of a second language and often coincides with communities or countries that are bilingual. This must be pointed out because of them we are talking about and they are part of the work in the classroom. Thus, Cooper, Roth, Speece and Schatschneider (2002: 399-416) suggest that the basic contents of