Gregory S. Hadley
Teachers express their
frustration with "advanced" L2 learners who read and write well in English,
yet lack the confidence to speak. Brazil (1994:3) suggests that many learners
feel insecure because they cannot pronounce words properly. Brazil attempts to
fulfil this need in Pronunciation for Advanced Learners of English
(PALE). PALE was " . . . designed for learners of English who, having
achieved an advanced stage of competence in written English, feel the need for
a structured programme of improvement in speaking it" (p. 1).
PALE introduces Brazil's
systematic treatment of Discourse Intonation (DI) " . . . from the point
of view of how it can best enable them to make their meanings and intentions
clear to a listener" (p. 2). The aim is to teach advanced L2 learners how
to use intonation to communicate the implied meanings of spoken language. Japanese
learners have been typically portrayed as proficient readers, marginal writers,
and unsuccessful English speakers (cf. Ellis 1991, Finkelstein et al 1991,
Wadden 1992, Cohen 1995, and Law 1995). If Brazil's discourse-based approach to
intonation can accomplish its goals, then PALE would be a welcome resource in
Japanese EFL classrooms. The question is, has Brazil been able to make the jump
from linguistic theory to classroom practice? This paper will review Brazil's
organization of DI, and examine PALE by comparing it to other well-known ELT
textbooks commonly used in Japan. We will then discuss PALE's applicability and
potential contributions to Japanese ELT.
Let us begin by defining what
we mean by the word intonation. Roach (1992) says intonation has:
"...two
rather different meanings: (1) in a restricted sense, the variations in the
pitch of a speaker's voice used to convey or alter meaning. (2) in a broader
and more popular sense, equivalent to prosody, where variations in such
things as voice quality, tempo and loudness are included . . . The approach
most widely used in Britain takes the tone unit as its basic unit and
looks at the different pitch possibilities of the various components of the
tone unit" (p. 56).
While our learner's pedagogic
needs will undoubtedly cause us to include prosodic features (voice
quality, stress, rhythm, loudness, tempo, etc.), for better understanding
Brazil's system, we will focus on intonation's restricted sense.
Brazil, building on the work
of Halliday (1973) and Sinclair and Coulthard (1975), has developed his own
unique way of analyzing and transcribing tone units. Brazil defines a tone unit
as "the basic building block of speech," which consists of
"either one or two prominent syllables" (1994:8-9).
According to Coulthard (1985:101) Brazil's tone unit consists of four options: prominence,
tone, key, and termination.
Prominence refers to the
changes in stress, pitch or emphasis that allows for added meaning to be
inferred in what is being spoken. The last prominent syllable in a tone unit is
called the tonic syllable. Brazil defines it as " . . . the place
at which a significant pitch movement or tone begins" (1994:8). Tone is
divided into five types: Falling, Rising, Rise-Fall, Fall-Rise, and Level.
Similar to Halliday's system, these tones either proclaim some new
information, or refer to a common experience already shared between the
speakers.
Brazil's system contains three levels
of Key: High Key, Mid Key, and Low Key. Coulthard (1985:111) explains that High
Key conveys the meaning that something has happened contrary to one's
expectations. Mid Key signals that a person has completed a series of tasks
simultaneously: "he did this and that." Low Key implies that
an action resulted in something that was already expected. The choices a
speaker makes in tone, key and prominence are all decided beforehand in what
Brazil calls termination. Except for termination, Brazil attempts to
teach these concepts and also his system of transcription in PALE (see Figure
One), which was designed to be a practical application of Discourse Intonation.
Before introducing their
learners to the latest developments in applied linguistics, teachers would do
well to keep Cohen's (1995) advice in mind:
"...if
we do decide to introduce discourse analysis into our classes on anything but
the most superficial level, we should have clear ideas as to our aims in doing
so and a clear sense that our students' ability to use the L2 will become
enhanced in some way. If this is not the case then we can only conclude that we
have been using our students as some sort of applied linguistic guinea pigs and
have failed in our responsibility as language teachers" (p. 27).
In keeping our learner's
pedagogic needs at the forefront of our discussion, we can better decide if
Brazil has succeeded in making DI accessible to learners. We will review PALE
from the perspective of its applicability to the classroom.
Each chapter in PALE begins
with a Listening for Meaning section. This is a pragmatic part of the text
where the learners listen to a variety of anecdotes and/or conversations. This
is followed by Listening to Intonation, where aspects of the tone unit are
taught. Learners are also taught in this section how to use Brazil's system of
transcribing various phonological items (see again Figure One). The next
section, Listening to Sounds, requires students to listen and repeat more
examples of the tone unit elements that were presented earlier in the chapter.
Each chapter contains pairwork and group tasks that ask the learners to discuss
their transcriptions with each other.
PALE's course layout is
graded, well-planned, and differs little from most existing ELT texts. However,
as we lay PALE side-by-side with other texts, we begin to see that, despite the
surface similarities, PALE differs significantly from textbook typically used
in Japanese EFL classrooms.
Most of the tasks used in most
textbooks are also found in PALE (see Figure Two). The main difference is in
the attention given to intonation. The overwhelming bulk of PALE features the
transcription, analysis, discussion and oral repetition of tone units. As seen
from Figure Two, only Interchange 2, English for Medicine and Listen
for It give any regular attention to intonation. Except for Listen for
It, these texts deal with intonation as a peripheral issue. The main
approach of these texts is to simply present phonological features to the
learners. Sometimes the texts will provide brief explanations of the meaning
implied in the intonation, but more often than not, the learners are encouraged
to infer the meaning for themselves. For example, unit three of Listen for
It and Interchange 2 briefly introduce prominence. In both tasks,
learners are required to listen for the prominence and repeat it. Interchange
explains that "we stress words that carry the most important
information" (p. 18), while no explanation as to the significance of prominence
is given in Listen for It. Neither text requires students to learn a
system of transcription nor other theoretical ideas. PALE, on the other hand,
devotes the entire first chapter to the concept of prominence, giving many
examples, and explanations of its significance in spoken discourse. However,
the system of transcription seems to detract rather than aid in the teaching of
this idea. We will return this issue later.

Figure 2
While the content matter in
PALE's Listening for Meaning section is similar to the other textbooks
surveyed, the group and pairwork assignments differed greatly. Most textbooks
focus on conversational topics such as cross-cultural discussions and social
issues. For example, unit fourteen, task six in Atlas 2 requires
students to read a newspaper article on stereotypes on American lifestyle
patterns, and to discuss the differences and similarities of their culture to
American culture. PALE's pair and group tasks were much more cerebral, and
focused on the technical and theoretical aspects of intonation. A typical
example is found in section 3.15 of Chapter Three in PALE:
"Listen
to the tone units from Task 3.14, this time spoken by someone who often
produces a final NLA sound. Then try saying them both with and without a final /w/,
/j/, or /r/. Make up your mind which you find easier and try to use it
consistently" (p. 40).
As we move forward to discuss
PALE's relative strengths and weaknesses, it will become more apparent if Brazil's
discourse-based approach to intonation can work in the Japanese ELT context.
PALE makes great efforts to
present DI in a well-planned, step-by-step manner. It consistently builds upon
earlier lessons. PALE provides learners with many extra listening activities to
supplement the lesson material. The tapes feature a variety of native speakers,
all with different accents and speech patterns. PALE emphasizes several
important goals in spoken discourse, namely, 1. Focusing on listening and
speaking for meaning, 2. Focusing on language as a set of units,
not words, and 3. Emphasizing the role of intonation as part of successful
communication.
Advanced students of English often
devote large amounts of time listening to radio or television broadcasts. Their
normal motivation in listening is to understand what is being said. However, a
great deal of meaning can be lost through such a mechanical
"dictionary-style" approach to learning. Brazil's concern is for
students to focus on how the discourse is being said. Considerable
attention, especially in the Listening for Meaning sections challenges learners
to focus more on what is implied rather than what is actually said. In other
words, Brazil attempts to teach the hoe (Japanese for "true
intention") of spoken English discourse.
Many textbooks concentrate on
teaching the proper of pronunciation of single words. While this may be
gratifying to some students, this focus on the mere form of phonology has very
little value for communication once the student is out of the classroom and in
an unpredictable conversation. A student well-versed in the pronunciation of
single words or a difficult vowel sound is similar to a student of Karate, who
can perform the kata with perfection, but unable to defeat an opponent
while sparring.
Brazil highlights the fact
that spoken language is not understood in words, but in information units.
These phrases are used to confer meaning. PALE presents language as an organic
whole, not as pieces of a puzzle to put together. In the listening section,
speakers are using the language for communication, such as getting directions
to one's house by telephone, or telling a frightening story. The aim is to get
students out of the habit of trying to understand every word individually, and
begin to appreciate the interconnectedness of language.
PALE attempts to show that
intonation of words and tone units change according to what the speaker wishes
to express. After being shown the potential meanings of intonation patterns
(for example, making an invitation more urgent by using a rising tone Brazil,
1994:68), learners are encouraged to listen and repeat tone units rather than
simple words or long sentences. Students are then called upon to attempt to use
proper intonation themselves in the pairwork and group discussions. In other
words, the learners are encouraged to learn through application of the principles
introduced in the text.
Yet despite these admirable
points, Brazil's treatment of intonation has several serious weaknesses. The
main concerns center on the following points: 1. The difficulty of Brazil's
system for teachers and learners alike, 2. unreliable transcriptions, and 3. No
common standard for learner levels. I see these as problems facing any advanced
learner, not only Japanese learners attempting to study PALE while residing in
Japan.
Because the nature of
discourse is complex, it is natural to assume that any system of discourse
analysis would also be complex. However, as stated earlier, I found the process
of remembering Brazil's system for transcription a distraction rather than an
aid in understanding intonation. Learners must first master a metalanguage of
concepts, terms and transcription symbols before even starting the task of
intonation. The group discussions on their transcriptions, the combinations of
prominence, tone and key would be seen as tedious and irrelevant to many.
Especially after the first two chapters, the demands on learners to remember
the correct place to put tonal unit marks, arrows, underlining for prominence,
etc., while listening to the taped dialog becomes challenging. Brazil's
transcription system is very helpful, and I am not suggesting that it be
discarded. However, being asked to transcribe according to his system while
listening to tape transcripts is tedious.
This difficulty is not limited
only to students. Feeling daunted by the complexity of the transcription tasks
myself, I contacted several teachers familiar with PALE. All agreed to the
difficulty of transcribing tapescripts in PALE. If learning the transcription
framework is this difficult for trained, well-educated native teachers of TEFL,
I suspect it would be even more difficult for many of our learners.
Brazil (1994:6) admits that
"it is not always possible, even for practised ears, to agree about what
is happening" in the listening samples provided in PALE. This is an
understatement. Similarity in the transcription intonation in Brazil's (1994)
teacher's key, Cauldwell and Allen's (1995) commentary and my personal research
occurred only when the actors on the tapes were artificially trying their best
to produce certain tonal qualities. In later sections where the actors spoke
more extemporaneously, there was little or no agreement in our transcriptions.
Cauldwell and Allen (1995) admit that it is this variation in the opinions of
trained listeners that cripple any serious attempt to teach intonation in a
classroom setting:
"An inherent problem in
the study of intonation is that it is often very difficult to hear intonation
patterns and many people are very unconfident of the ability to listen to
intonation with any degree of success. This is possibly one reason why
intonation is such a neglected issue in language teaching" (p. 3).
Japanese learners, as well as
students from other Asian countries with a Confucian-based educational system,
have been disciplined all their lives to find "the answer" to a
question made in a classroom setting. In Japan, most learners refuse to answer
a question unless they are confident of the correctness of their answer. The
inherent unpredictability of potential answers endemic in DI is an issue that
would be difficult for many students (or teachers) in a Japanese setting to
feel comfortable with.
Brazil's course is designed
for advanced learners. Yet, how do we define an "advanced learner?"
Brown (1994) recently discovered in his survey of international publishers'
eighteen most popular EFL textbooks that there is no general measure for
deciding the level of L2 learners:
"Clearly
the idea of level when not grounded in any well established set of standards
takes on certain characteristics more typical of a mirage. This lack of
standards in levels is one that plagues [the] professional evaluation of many
aspects of the ESL/EFL profession and one which should be addressed in its own
right" (p. 71).
Certainly, tests like TOEFL
and TOEIC are available to measure the level of a student's ability in English,
but the applicability of such tests for a learner's actual speaking,
phonological, reading and written ability is questioned by many experts in
testing (cf. Brown and Yamashita, 1995). An "advanced" Japanese
learner on the TOEIC test might be only mid-intermediate according to TOEFL
(Gilfert, 1995).
While there is no real measure
for gauging what level of learner that Brazil envisioned as able to study PALE
or another discourse-based text, I would venture that, at least for the
Japanese context, a learner would probably come from the upper echelons of
Japanese society: university professors of English or Linguistics, medical researchers
who present regularly at international conferences, professional interpreters,
or those needing to talk on complex, technical levels with native speakers for
long stretches of time, such as media correspondents or embassy staff. However,
most EFL teachers rarely have the opportunity to work with this level of
learner in Japan. With no disrespect intended to our learners, the overwhelming
number of Japanese students could not even hope to handle a text of PALE's
level, which is challenging even for educated native speakers.
While Brazil's approach in
PALE is potentially-valuable for linguists interested in the field of
discourse, it seems ill-suited for the classroom in its present form. However,
this does not mitigate against the success of a discourse-based approach to
intonation in Japan. Instead of transcribing the tape dialogs, I suggest that
we do away with that part of the course all together. Brazil's transcription
system could still be taught to learners, but presented as already written on a
tape transcript sheet (according to the interpretation of the teacher).
Students could listen while following along with the provided transcript. In
pairs and as a class, they can be asked to repeat following the intonation
provided on the tapescript. In information gap activities, Brazil's system
could then be incorporated into the material. When learners provide information
to their partners, they could follow the suggestions for intonation on their
information sheet, thus making the activity even more communicative. In role
play activities, abnormal or contrived pronunciation patterns could be included
so that students could become more aware as to the importance of intonation for
meaning and communication. Instead of lengthy, cerebral explanations of the
meanings of various intonation patterns, DI might better be used as a
consciousness-raising (CR) tool, similar to the approach in Listen for It,
but with a little more explanation. If Brazil's ideas could be further incorporated
into present teaching practice along lines such as these, then a DI approach
would find a welcome home in Japanese EFL classroom.
My past five years of teaching
in Niigata has taught me that students of all levels show great interest in
pronouncing English correctly. Unfortunately, I suspect that inordinate number
are interested in pronunciation merely as a skill that can set them apart from
others in terms of style and status. By taking many of Brazil's ideas as our
lead, we can encourage our learners to move away from focusing on the
"form" of good pronunciation merely as stylistic perfection, and
focus on the need for intonation for improved communication.
We must keep in mind that Discourse
Intonation is still a new field in linguistics, and there are more questions
than answers as to the proper way to analyze and teach it. It is this
fragmented understanding of discourse that relegates DI and other discourse
"grammars" to the same position that the structuralist "armchair
grammars" held forty-five years ago. Perhaps in another forty years, with
the arrival of more advanced computers, projects similar to COBUILD will be
developed to reliably show the frequently-occurring patterns of intonation
existing in spoken discourse. If such information were made available to
learners, perhaps then Discourse Intonation would flourish.
But that day is still a long
way off. Today, while DI has great potential in the classroom, we must stay
conservative in our opinion of it until more information becomes available.
Brazil, D (1994) Pronunciation
for Advanced Learners of English Teacher's Book and Student's Book).
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Brown, J. B. (1994)
"Conversation instruction: Do we know what we're doing?", Keiwa
College Bulletin, vol. 3, 63-90.
Brown, J. D. and Yamashita, S.
(Eds.) (1995) Language Testing in Japan. Tokyo: The Japan Association
for Language Teaching.
Cauldwell, R. and Allen, M.
(1995) Phonology. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
Cohen, A. (1995) "Spoken
discourse analysis in Japanese university classes", Niigata University
Journal of Linguistics and Culture, vol. 1, 27-31.
Coulthard, M. (1985) An
Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.
Ellis, R. (1991)
"Communicative competence and the Japanese learner", JALT Journal,
vol. 13, no. 2, 103-129.
Finkelstein, B., Imamura, A.,
and Tobin, J. (eds.) (1991) Transcending Stereotypes: Discovering Japanese
Culture and Education. Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press.
Gilfert, S. (1995) "A
comparison of TOEFL and TOEIC". in Brown, J.D. and Yamashita, S. (Eds). Language
Testing In Japan. Tokyo: The Japan Association for Language Teaching.
Glendinning, E. and Holmström,
B. (1987) English in Medicine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973) Explorations
in the Functions of Language. London: Edwin Arnold.
Helgesen, M. and Brown, S.
(1994) Active Listening. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kusuya, B. and Ozeki, N.
(1993) Speak Up: Conversation for Cross-Cultural Communication. Hong
Kong: Lingual House.
Law, G. (1995)
"Ideologies of English language education in Japan", JALT Journal,
vol. 17, no. 2, 213-224.
Nunan, D. (1995) Atlas 2.
Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Richards, J., Hull, J. and
Proctor, S. (1991) Interchange 2. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J., Bycina, D. and
Aldcorn, S. B. (1995) New Person to Person. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Richards, J., Gordon, D., and
Harper, A. (1995) Listen for It: A Task-Based Listening Course. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Roach, P. (1992) Introducing
Phonetics. London: Penguin.
Sinclair, J. McH., and
Coulthard, R. M. (1975) Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Wadden, P. (1993) A
Handbook for Teaching English at Japanese Colleges and Universities. New
York: Oxford University Press.