Filled pauses in language teaching: why and how
Filled pauses in language teaching: why and how
复制标题
语言教学中的停顿：原因和方式
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2008
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Ralph L. Rose
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ralph L. Rose
充满停顿(嗯，嗯)是自发言语中普遍存在的元素，但在第二语言教学中相对较少受到关注。也许这是因为充满停顿通常被认为是由于语音处理困难而导致的毫无意义的因素。本文从不同领域的研究中得出结论，说话人和听话人都会有系统地、有意义地使用它们。这些事实被用来生成自发言语中充满停顿的统一而连贯的模型。这一模式被用来发展交际能力的概念，在这个概念中，充满停顿在语用约束和交际策略之间的交界处起作用。文章最后对如何将充盈的停顿融入到第二语言教学课程中提出了切实可行的建议。在Collins COBUILD英语口语语料库中，最常见的标记之一是第一人称代词的形式(Rose，1998)。大约三分之二的常见形式是第三人称中性代词、不定冠词和充满停顿(FP；例如，嗯，um)。据推测，所有的英语教学文本都至少对代词和冠词给予了隐含的关注，任何避免第三人称中性代词或不确定冠词的文本在语言课堂上的价值都是值得怀疑的。然而，令人惊讶的是，英语教材中对FP的关注却很少。造成这种情况的原因尚不清楚。文献中偶尔也有这样的呼吁(参看Crystal&Davy，1975；Di Pietro，1980；Fayer&Krasinski，1987；Leeson，1970；Voss，1979)。在语言教学课程中缺少功能语法的原因可能有三个。首先，对FP的常识性看法是，当说话者试图决定说什么时，就会使用FP。用稍微专业一点的术语来说，它们是演讲规划的副产品。因此，它们被认为缺乏交际价值--仅仅是自发言语的一次性元素。虽然它们可能表明言语产生的过程--关于这一点有广泛的共识(参见，Dalton&HardCastle，1977；Fairch&Kasper，1983；Goldman-Eisler，1961)--但这并不意味着它们是无意义的。它们表明言语产生过程这一事实本身就是有意义的。说话者和听话者在分别对语音进行编码或解码时都可以利用这一事实。他们可能传达或感知到比周围词语本身所暗示的更多或不同的东西。在自发言语中，FP的这种系统性使用不能仅仅从言语产生或感知机制的角度来解释，还必须从语言知识的角度来解释。到目前为止，FP尚未被纳入语言教学的第二个原因可能源于这样一个事实，即在演讲中使用FP--尤其是在公共演讲场合--被污名化了。人们普遍认为，听众对使用FP的说话者会形成负面判断。第二语言学习者的中介语已经不足了--这是争论的结果--那么为什么语言教师要用如此明显的不流利因素来进一步阻碍他们呢？在COBUILD语料库中，FP被呈现为ER和ERM-英国英语中这些项目的首选拼写呈现。
Filled Pauses (uh, um) are ubiquitous elements of spontaneous speech but have received relatively little attention in second language teaching. Perhaps this is because filled pauses have often been regarded as meaningless elements resulting from speech processing difficulties. This paper draws from research in widely disparate fields to show that speakers and listeners use them systematically and meaningfully. These facts are used to generate a unified and coherent model of filled pauses in spontaneous speech. This model is then used to develop a concept of communicative competence in which filled pauses play a role at the interface between pragmatic constraints and communication strategies. The article concludes with practical recommendations for how filled pauses may be incorporated into the second-language teaching curriculum. One of the most common tokens in the Collins COBUILD corpus of spoken English language is forms of the first-person pronoun (Rose, 1998). Roughly two-thirds as common are forms of the thirdperson neuter pronoun, the indefinite article, and filled pauses (FPs; e.g., uh, um). Presumably, all English language teaching texts give at least implicit attention to pronouns and articles, and any text which avoided third-person neuter pronouns or indefinite articles would arguably be of questionable value in the language classroom. However, surprisingly little attention has been paid to FPs in English language teaching materials. The reasons for this are unclear. There have been occasional calls in the literature for such attention (cf., Crystal & Davy, 1975; Di Pietro, 1980; Fayer & Krasinski, 1987; Leeson, 1970; Voss, 1979). There may be three reasons for the dearth of FPs in the language teaching curriculum. First, the common sense view of FPs is that they are used when the speaker is trying to decide what to say. In slightly more technical terms, they are a byproduct of speech planning. As such, they are considered devoid of communicative value—mere throwaway elements of spontaneous speech. While they may indicate speech production processes—and there is wide concensus on this (cf., Dalton & Hardcastle, 1977; Faerch & Kasper, 1983; Goldman-Eisler, 1961)—it does not follow that they are meaningless. The mere fact that they indicate speech production processes is meaningful. Both speakers and hearers may exploit this fact when encoding or decoding speech, respectively. They may communicate or perceive something more than or different from what the surrounding words alone indicate. This kind of systematic use of FPs in spontaneous speech cannot be explained merely in terms of speech production or perception mechanisms, but must also be explained in terms of knowledge of the language. A second reason why FPs have not been integrated into language teaching thus far may stem from the fact that the use of FPs in speech—particularly in public speaking situations—is stigmatized. It is widely believed that listeners form negative judgments about speakers who use FPs. The interlanguage of second language learners is already deficient—so the argument goes— so why should language teachers further handicap them with such overt elements of disfluency? In the COBUILD Corpus, FPs are rendered as er and erm—the preferred orthographic rendering of these items in British English.