https://padlet.com/azisan88/cjulo3cbbcin Made with serendipity en-us 2017-11-29 14:49:54 UTC 2017-11-29 15:31:23 UTC hello@padlet.com azisan88 https://padlet.com/azisan88/cjulo3cbbcin/wish/211430948 background/significance]]> 2017-11-29 15:07:14 UTC https://padlet.com/azisan88/cjulo3cbbcin/wish/211430948 azisan88 https://padlet.com/azisan88/cjulo3cbbcin/wish/211432267 2017-11-29 15:09:01 UTC https://padlet.com/azisan88/cjulo3cbbcin/wish/211432267 azisan88 https://padlet.com/azisan88/cjulo3cbbcin/wish/211440076  1 INTRODUCTION
 1.1 Significance of the Problem 
A teacher in an ESL/ EFL classroom is likely to have encountered certain difficulties in teaching spoken English. Some of them include how to deal effectively with the dialogues of a prescribed textbook that appear frequently and take a considerable amount of classroom time; how to have learners concentrate on the various listening and speaking tasks; and finally merely with classroom teaching within its limited time how to prepare learners so that they can take part in conversations outside the class. To find answers to these issues is definitely not an easy task; however, they are crucial in that they give something for classroom practitioners to think about and work on. Based on the writer’s experience of EFL teaching, it has been extremely difficult to find a workable approach that can help learners communicate effectively outside the class (see Farooq 1993-a and 1993-b). The issues seem to be more challenging if the class size is large, and a majority of learners are at an elementary level, and interested in conversational English, as predicted by Richards (1974: 177). EFL teachers accustomed to English education in Japan would be fully aware of the fact that this description of the situation closely matches that for most Japanese learners. For instance, Lougheed (1992: 2), from a reliable report on TOEFL scores of speakers of nineteen different first languages, informs us that the average score for Japanese learners was statistically proved lowest. This may imply that most Japanese learners would be beginners if seen at a global level. Additionally, since Japanese traditionally have been textbook- and teachercentered learners (Thompson 1995: 223) since childhood, in EFL classrooms they expect their teachers to take full responsibility for teaching. 2 The argument so far may suggest that teachers are likely to have a responsibility, especially ones working with EFL classrooms of Japanese learners, to look for an approach to deal with the above issues, by first getting some experience with the approach and then utilizing their experiences to help these learners. The literature also makes similar suggestions. For instance, Brazil commented on the learners’ aims regarding spoken English and their teachers’ responsibility as follows: it is clearly not enough that students should become proficient in discourse of lesson-like formality: the ability to take part in informal conversations must be counted among their aims, and the teacher therefore needs to know something about how such discourse works (1995: 109). In the light of the preceding discussion, this paper, therefore, is an attempt to focus on spoken discourse occurring in naturalistic conversation for the purpose of selfeducation prior to preparing learners to develop the ability to take part in communication outside the class. 
1.2 Objectives of the paper
 The objectives of the paper are (i) to record and transcribe a casual conversation between two speakers; and (ii) to make and evaluate an analysis using categories proposed by Francis and Hunston (see Brazil 1995: 141). The specific research questions addressed are as follows: (1) Will the categories of a casual conversation fit those proposed by Francis and Hunston?; and (2) What will be the possible problems with any misfit categories ? The report will first provide brief information on the background of the problem through a literature review; next describe the procedures involved in recording, transcribing, and analyzing the casual conversation; and last respond to the above questions (1)-(2). ]]> 2017-11-29 15:20:39 UTC https://padlet.com/azisan88/cjulo3cbbcin/wish/211440076 azisan88 https://padlet.com/azisan88/cjulo3cbbcin/wish/211442564  5 CONCLUSIONS 
5.1 Outcomes of the study 
This paper began with the following research questions (see section 1.2): (1) Will the categories of a casual conversation fit those proposed by Francis and Hunston?; and (2) What will be the possible problems with any misfit categories? They will be responded to below.
 5.1.1 Analytical categories 
On the assumption that the analysis of the casual conversation of this study that is reported in the preceding sections has been done with a reliable realization of all the acts, elements of move structures, elements of exchange structures, and transactions, then the analytical categories found in this study fitted those proposed by Francis and Hunston (1995). However, there were instances that posed difficulties in fitting the categories as explained below. 
5.1.2 Problems in fitting the categories 
 In exchange 19, ‘You know’ (line 88) realized a post-h since it appeared a second time in the same exchange. It could be considered a separate Inform exchange with an observation move since “A wants to create the impression that A and B share a common ground” as is pointed out by Stenstrom (1996: 90). Exchange 27 was an incomplete interruption by speaker B before A finished his response. The exchange could not fit in as a bound-elicit, since it was not an elicitation of a response related to in the previous utterance as in Francis and Hunston’s (1995: 158, exchange 22) data. It was labeled an Elicit exchange, and therefore the following exchange a Re-initiation (see lines 128-157). Exchange 34 was difficult to fit in the structure I R/I R F. It appeared that B’s response/initiation in high key produced A’s response in the high key which in turn produced B’s acknowledge again in the high key. This may be because of the response/initiation produced by B in high key which indicated a surprise. Exchanges 13, 24, 26, and 29 have one thing in common. Each has either three- or four-act utterances of speaker A (see Appendix III: lines 43-53; 110-119, 126-150; and 158-167). For other examples of long utterances in the data see lines 64-69; 77- 88; 173-181; 194-201; 231-243; and 252-274. It was difficult to fit these utterances in accordance with the proposed structure of moves which has a maximum of four elements namely (s) (pre-h) h (post-h). According to Francis and Hunston (1995: 124), the structure of the exchange is I (R/I) R (Fn) which requires both I and R to form an exchange since R/I and Fn are optional. It seems that the structure in an exchange which consists of only one informing move without an R suggested by Brazil (1995: 123) is more appropriate. A similar structure i.e. [Inf (F)], with F as optional is proposed by Stubbs (1981) and exemplified by moves in a lecture where no response is required or expected. Stubbs also presented an example and commented that “Even in a casual conversation, it is arguable that one finds sequences of Infs, with only some acknowledged” (p 114), which supports the possibility of such instances in the current study. 16 In naturally occurring conversations it is unrealistic to expect or assume a balance of speakers' utterances and their speaking turns, unless one segment out of several conversations is carefully selected; and it is highly probable that one of the speaker’s utterances will be longer than the other (see examples in Carter and McCarthy 1997). In the current study, the average lengths of utterance of speaker A and B were 16 (i.e. 682 words/42 utterances) and 5 (203/42) words respectively. Speaker A had utterances which were three times longer than those of B, while in Francis and Hunston’s data it was 7 words for speakers A (282/40) and B (276/40). Stenstrom (1996: 9) states that the length of a tone unit depends mainly on how the speaker talks; the faster s/he talks the larger the number of words per tone unit. The rate in this study was 202.5 words per minute (wpm) (i.e. 885 words/ 4.37 min), fairly close to what was reported by Chaudron (1993: 66) as in the range of 134.5- 203.8 wpm. On the other hand, in Francis and Hunston’s (1995: 157-161) data, the rate was found to be 112 wpm (558 words / 5 min). Chaudron (1993: 66) reported a rate of 107-112 wpm when ESL native teachers addressed non-native beginning-level students. Strictly speaking, in everyday conversation between native speakers of English which is particularly focused by Francis and Hunston (1995: 125), one may expect a normal rate of speakers’ speed leading to longer utterances. If this is the case, then Francis and Hunston’s reported telephone data of slow or unnatural speed that resulted into shorter utterances requires justification as well as that of their exemplified data based on Singapore English (p 125 and 128) which is commonly regarded and also reported as ESL (see Trudgill and Hannah, 1994: 134-138). On the basis of the preceding examples, the related arguments, and the experience gained working on the analysis reported in this study, it is safe to suggest that if one is to analyze a conversation between two native speakers of English in situations reported by Francis and Hunston (1995: 123) with lengthy utterances of one or both the speakers, it is crucial to include an Inform exchange without an R along with their categories otherwise; there would be problems of fitting the proposed categories. 
5.2 Pedagogical implications 
 Based on experience gained in this study and the one in classroom teaching, a primary step an EFL teacher of Japanese learners in this direction is likely to take is to adapt and/or design regular classroom activities employing Francis and Hunston’s acts (Appendices II) and implement them through simulation and replication activities (see Willis, J. 1995: 178-179; and Coulthard 1996: 158) to have the learners realize their forms and functions in order to use them in conversation outside the class with confidence. To this end, two of such activities were designed (see Appendix IV for a brief description), and practically tested in classrooms of Japanese learners. In the first activity learners realize forms of acts of everyday conversation, while the second activity provides them with an opportunity to notice their functions as well and that how the acts are combined to form moves and consequently exchanges.
 5.3 Recommendation for further research 
A recommendation for further research would be towards focusing on Francis and Hunston’s (1995) model to explore whether a ‘movie discourse’ (see for instance Ephron 1990 ) fits in their proposed categories and what further refinement is possible since recording and transcribing naturally occurring data is not only difficult, it is also very time-consuming on the basis of writer’s experience in this study. Although, extensive samples of naturalistic conversational data is now available (see Carter and McCarthy 1997), the data focusing on audio recordings is likely to exclude the visual features of a spoken discourse which are important to analyze spoken discourse as pointed out by Sinclair (1995: 80) “Perhaps it will never be possible to describe discourse without such recourse”. Any work on the spoken discourse relating to a movie discourse which is pre-determined requires justification on the part of an analyst. However, if such a model is developed, it would be much easier, less time consuming and economical for teachers to bring examples of naturally occurring spoken language in their EFL/ESL classrooms. ]]> 2017-11-29 15:24:19 UTC https://padlet.com/azisan88/cjulo3cbbcin/wish/211442564 azisan88 https://padlet.com/azisan88/cjulo3cbbcin/wish/211444834 recommendation]]> 2017-11-29 15:27:30 UTC https://padlet.com/azisan88/cjulo3cbbcin/wish/211444834 azisan88 https://padlet.com/azisan88/cjulo3cbbcin/wish/211445470 2017-11-29 15:28:25 UTC https://padlet.com/azisan88/cjulo3cbbcin/wish/211445470 azisan88 https://padlet.com/azisan88/cjulo3cbbcin/wish/211445793 2017-11-29 15:28:52 UTC https://padlet.com/azisan88/cjulo3cbbcin/wish/211445793 azisan88 https://padlet.com/azisan88/cjulo3cbbcin/wish/211446628 2017-11-29 15:30:05 UTC https://padlet.com/azisan88/cjulo3cbbcin/wish/211446628