SHARE
An
Electronic Magazine by Omar Villarreal and Marina Kirac ©
Year 9
Number 183 February
6th 2008
12,478 SHARERS are reading this issue of SHARE this week
__________________________________________________________
Thousands of candles can be lighted from a single candle, and the life of the
candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being SHARED
__________________________________________________________
Dear SHARERS,
A new year begins and with it a plethora of good
intentions and the typical “resolutions” (that we hope this year will be a
little less typical) fills our minds.
This will be a hard year for all of us in our family
with plenty of tough work ahead but with the promise of many good things to
come.
We have started planning our Third SHARE Convention that, as usual, will take place during the
winter holidays. We intend it to be a memorable event with a rich balance of
times for discussion, debate and reflection and times for listening and
learning from top-notch specialists from our country who are well aware of what
is happening in ELT all over the world but have a deep knowledge of our
Argentinian reality and can offer “real solutions for the real classroom”. But
this is only one of the very many delicacies we have on our plate and that we
intend to SHARE with you. Marina is planning a special event for mid September
geared towards the ELT research community and both Martin and I are already
doing our tiny little bit to revitalize the National
Congress of Teachers and Students of
English (already in its thirteenth edition) and we are not alone in this
enterprise, a handful of heads, coordinators and lecturers from the finest
Colleges and Universities in our country are in a state of mobilization to
bring back our dear old Congress back to the front of the scene again.
Of course, we are not alone: we count on each one of
you, our dear SHARERS, in our each one of our projects and we know you will be
by our side as in these last nine happy years of SHARE.
Love
Omar and Marina
______________________________________________________________________
In SHARE 183
1.- Beliefs about Silence in the Classroom
2.- Factores lingüísticos y la alternancia try to/try and en el inglés americano
3.- Advanced Vocabulary in Context: Tuxedos
4.- Curso de Posgrado en
5.- Primer Coloquio Nacional Adquisición y
Didáctica de las Lenguas
6.- Great
Back To School Ideas! At
7.- I° Congreso de Autores Ingleses en
8.- Courses on Drama Techniques and
Storytelling in
9.- Jornadas Internacionales de Lingüística
Sistémico Funcional y Enseñanza de
Lenguas
10.- Courses on New Technologies in
Education at Net-Learning
11.- Cursos del Calendario Académico de
12.- Carrera de Especialización en
Análisis del Discurso en
Nacional del Litoral
13.- III Jornadas de Español como Lengua Extranjera
14.-
The History of Rock & Roll in your school
15.- Cursos y Seminarios de Posgrado en
de Córdoba
16.- Calendario
Escolar 2008
17.- ELT e-reading Group
18.- URUTESOL National Convention: Call for
Participation
19.- Specialist Course on Intonation in Córdoba
20.- Actividades de Capacitación 2008 en CETI
21.- News from ROOTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.- BELIEFS ABOUT SILENCE IN THE CLASSROOM
Beliefs about Silence in the Classroom
Adam Jaworski
Centre for Language and Communication Research,
Itesh Sachdev
Department of Applied Linguistics,
A questionnaire methodology
was used to elicit beliefs and attitudes about silence in
the classroom from 319
students aged between 14–16 in three secondary schools in
city’. The socio-economic
background of the students may be described as mainly
‘working class’ for the
rural and inner-city schools, and ‘middle class’ for the suburban
school. The inner city
school had the highest proportion of students who reported
ethnolinguistic backgrounds
other than Welsh. Our overall finding was that students
believed that they were more
silent in the classroom than their teachers, complementing
earlier findings of
ethnographic and discourse analytic studies. We suggest that for
pupils silence is the
relatively unmarked, underlying linguistic form in the classroom,
while for teachers silence
is relatively marked and talk is unmarked. Our results also
confirmed the relative
importance of silence for learning rather than for teaching.
Specifically, students
believed that they were more silent when learning than their
teachers are when teaching.
Furthermore, students in the rural and inner-city schools
valued silence in the
classroom more than the students in the suburban school, which
we explain in terms of the
social make up of the three schools.
Introduction: Silence, Communication and
Education
Recent years have witnessed a rise in the interest of
how inter-personal and
inter-group relations are both marked and affected by
the use of communicative
silence (see, e.g. papers in Tannen &
Saville-Troike, 1985; Jaworski, 1997b).
Silence has been shown by many to go beyond the
non-communicative absence
of speech and has been described as a complex linguistic
item, whose functioning
needs a comprehensive descriptive and explanatory
treatment with reference to
various pragmatic and sociolinguistic frameworks, for
example, ethnography of
communication (Basso, 1972; Braithwaite, 1990;
SavilleTroike, 1985), politeness
theory (Sifianou, 1995, 1997), relevance theory
(Jaworski, 1993), discourse
analysis (Bilmes, 1994; Watts, 1997; Coupland &
Coupland, 1997a) and narrative
analysis (Hall et al., 1997), to
name just a few. As has been attested by these
studies, the functioning of silence cannot be
relegated to a few simplistic rules
represented across languages in a plethora of popular
proverbs about speech and
silence, whose survey is offered in Charteris-Black
(1995). On the contrary, silence
appears as a rich communicative resource whose
understanding requires the
sophistication of a fine-grained, interdisciplinary
analysis. For instance, although
ethnographic research has provided a richly layered
perspective about the role
of silence in communication referring to values (e.g.
Scollon, 1985), no systematic
measurements of beliefs and attitudes has been
undertaken to date. One notable
exception in this respect is a study by Giles et al. (1991,
discussed below) although
their work is not specifically concerned with
educational settings. The present
study fills this gap by focusing on secondary school
students’ beliefs about the
use of silence in the classroom and begins by
examining conceptual approaches
to the study of silence. To this end, silence is
discussed with reference to
markedness theory, the ethnography of communication
and the functions of
silence in communication. First, however, we need to
explain how we conceptualise
silence in this
paper.
Definitions of ‘silence’ vary greatly, depending on
the theoretical frameworks
and methodologies adopted for its study. Bilmes (1994:
79) rightly observes that
‘there are as many kinds of silence as there are of
relevant sounds’. He
operationalises silence in terms of two general
categories: the simple absence of
sound, which he calls ‘absolute silence’, and the
relevant absence of a particular
kind of sound, which he calls ‘notable silence’. A
sub-type of the latter type of
silence is absence of (relevant) talk and is labelled
by Bilmes as ‘conversational
silence’. In this study we explore students’ beliefs
about silence construed as an
absence of relevant talk (i.e. ‘notable/conversational
silence’) and not simply as
absence of noise in the classroom (i.e. ‘absolute
silence’).
Sobkowiak (1997) argues that communicative silence is
the pragmatically
marked member of the opposition silence-speech, though
it is difficult to refer to
markedness criteria associated with the form and
content of silence except in
terms of its duration. He suggests that the number of
communicative situations
where silence is preferred to talk or where it is
expected as a norm, appears to be
rather low. Additionally, silence is particularly
deficient in metalingual and
referential functions of communication (Jakobson,
1960: 357), though participants
may use silence in a facilitative way for the exchange
of ideational
meanings through the participants’ use of pauses,
slowing down tempo of
speech, taking extra time in answering another’s
question, etc. (see Scollon &
Scollon, 1987). According to Sobkowiak (1997) due to
the limited range of
communicative functions that silence can perform,
limited number of communicative
contexts in which it is anticipated, and due to its
indeterminacy regarding
its content, silence can be said to be relatively marked
in relation to speech. It is
noteworthy that Sobkowiak also argues that silence can
only be considered
unmarked or normative in situations which themselves
are socially marked. In
our discussion (see below), we argue that the
markedness view of the opposition
speech-silence would merit from a less rigid, more
context-sensitive approach.
In her taxonomy of situations, ‘levels and domains’ of
silence, Saville-Troike
(1985) mentions, among others, silences determined by
the following institutional
settings: temples, libraries, religious services,
legal proceedings, funerals,
classes in school and public performances (operas,
movies). Many other locales
where silence appears to be the ‘norm’, or where it is
highly valued, can be added:
recording studios (Enninger, 1987), hospitals,
museums, galleries, and so on.
However, Saville-Troike states that many of these
settings are also characterised
by different (sometimes limited) forms of talk, and
both talk and silence are
determined contextually, ritualistically or
professionally. Priests, members of the
congregation, librarians, borrowers, judges,
plaintiffs, teachers, pupils, actors,
audiences, etc. do remain silent and talk in all of
the respective locales (mentioned
above). Analyses may thus consider the degree to which
the communication that
takes place in these settings is structured through
talk and through ‘silence’
(Philips, 1985), and which of these modes is to be
considered the dominant (or
unmarked) one. Clearly, in such analyses, not only do
we need to consider
whether the setting (and the communication in it) is
characterised as being silent,
but also how silence is distributed as a function of
the participants in the setting
(Saville-Troike, 1985).
Ethnographic research on participants and their characteristics
have yielded
two important factors affecting the degree and use of
silence in communication.
Firstly, in his classic paper, Basso (1972) has linked
the use of silence among the
Western Apaches to the notion of ambiguity,
uncertainty and anxiety in
interpersonal relations. Basso’s explanation of
Western Apache silence in
situations such as ‘meeting strangers’, ‘courting’ or
‘children coming home’ was
that ‘In Western Apache culture, the absence of verbal
communication is
associated with situations in which the status of
focal participants is ambiguous’
(Basso, 1972: 83). On examination of a large body of
ethnographic research,
Braithwaite (1990) suggested that Basso’s hypothesis
was corroborated by many
studies of diverse speech communities, although
ambiguity of status between
participants was only one of the dominant factors
leading to the use of silence.
The other important factor related to levels of
silence was the presence of a
significant power differential between participants
with greater silence normally
being associated with participants in low power
situations.
One author who brought the notions of power, ambiguity
and silence together
(in a critical psychoanalytic tradition) is Walkerdine
(1985), who links relationships
of power, conflict, speaking rights and silence with
the position of boys and
girls in the primary school setting. Walkerdine (1985)
argues that girls (in a
societally low power situation, especially those from
a working-class background)
face anxiety and conflict, frequently leading to the
state of being silenced,
due to the clash of expectations with which they are
confronted at school. On the
one hand, they are expected to conform to the
traditional ideal of the passive,
nurturing female, and on the other hand they are also
expected to fall into the
modern category of an active, enquiring, discovering
child. In the case of boys
(favoured in terms of societal power), their
masculinity proscribes passivity and
there is less of a likelihood of a clash of
expectations. Hence feelings of anxiety
(at least in terms of expectations) on their part are
considerably attenuated, saving
them the intra-personal conflict and the silence
associated with it (see also
interact with ambiguities of role expectations in
order to predict observed
patterns of silence.
Generally, the above review of research suggests that
the use of silence is
regulated by a number of factors including the
relative markedness of silence,
communicative goals, the setting (and sociolinguistic
norms within it), ambiguity
of roles and expectations, and the relative power of
participants. Although
attitudes and beliefs about silence are implicit in
these studies, they have been
largely neglected in previous research. One notable
exception to the paucity of
this type of research on silence in the social
psychology of language is the work
of Giles et al. (1991), who examined beliefs about talk and silence
cross-culturally
and cross-generationally. Starting from the premise
that ‘beliefs include the
evaluation of language behaviours and function at
least in part to guide these’,
Giles et al. (1991) obtained beliefs associated with talk and
silence from several
groups. For instance, Chinese respondents appeared to
perceive silence as more
important, more enjoyable and being used to a greater
degree for social control
than Caucasian Americans. Such differences in beliefs
about silence complement
the results of previous ethnographic research reviewed
briefly above and confirm
that silence and talk are related to issues of control
and affiliation in communication
(Giles et al. 1991).
So far we have focused mainly on research on silence
outside of the classroom
context. Though few studies have focused on silence
inside the classroom there
is some evidence suggesting that high levels of
anxiety (associated with students’
lack of confidence) in the classroom are likely to
result in silence regardless of the
cultural background of students and the teaching
objectives. For instance, a study
involving Finnish learners of English (Lehtonen et al., 1985) has
demonstrated
that the learners’ increased levels of anxiety lead to
an increase in their reticence
in the classroom. Arguably this anxiety is generated
(at least in part) by the
ambiguity in students’ self-perceptions about their
own levels of knowledge.
An important basis for perceived ambiguity in the
classroom today is the
multi-ethnic and multilingual background of pupils
which characterises many
British urban educational contexts (e.g. Edwards &
Redfern, 1992). We are not in
a position here to review the literature on that
subject, but it is worth pointing
out that research has previously suggested that the
multiethnic and multilinguistic
educational environment is strongly associated with a
‘culture of
silence’ (see also Nicholas, 1988, 1989; Searle,
1992).
Biggs & Edwards (1991) have observed that teachers
in multi-ethnic, primary
school classrooms interact less frequently with
non-white children than with
their white counterparts, and that their interactions
with non-white pupils are
less elaborate and shorter in duration than with white
children. Additionally,
teachers spend less time discussing the particular
task that has been set with
non-white than with white children. Interestingly,
there seems to be less diversity
in the numbers and types of interactions initiated by
white and non-white
children with their teachers. The (non)speaking
patterns reported by Biggs &
Edwards in their study can be related to the notion of
‘notable/conversational
silence’ suggested by Bilmes (cf. above). We believe,
that it is the absence of
teachers’ specific or relevant talk addressed at a
specific audience that matters
here, and for which ‘silence’ is an accurate label.
The qualitative data collected by Biggs & Edwards
suggest that the source of
the discriminatory linguistic treatment of non-white
children by teachers has its
source in nonlinguistic racism and prejudice against
non-white children. Biggs
& Edwards’ argument of institutional racism
operating in teachers’ attitudes
towards non-white pupils may also be linked further to
the idea of silence as a
common response to ‘deviation’ from the accepted
‘norm’ (Bruneau, 1973). The
perception of someone’s ‘otherness’ will, of course,
depend on one’s stereotypes
and prejudices. The more different another person
appears to be from one’s self,
the more profound will be the silence of puzzlement,
embarrassment or
anticipation of disambiguation of the situation.
Fat persons, dwarfs, very tall persons, crippled
persons with mobility
problems, blind persons, persons with pronounced
speech or hearing
disorders, etc., have known nervous silences toward
them. Differences in
appearance, such as perceived ugliness, dress, and colour
of skin, when
different than the situational norm, seem to be
greeted by initial silences.
The strength of these silences seems to depend on the
uniqueness of the
difference of the observer. (Bruneau, 1973: 32)
Explanations of silence based on observer
distinctiveness underplay the
important dimension of power differences between
teachers and students in the
classroom. Gilmore’s (1985) study of silence in a
predominantly black inner-city
school setting has concerned itself with the
transmission and reproduction of
power through silence. Gilmore’s study of ritualistic
displays of silence,
combined with other types of students’ and teachers’
nonverbal behaviours,
provides further insights into the nature of
communication in the school setting.
The author interprets a range of students’ and
teachers’ uses of silence and
correlates them with certain types of the
participants’ orientation and attitudes
in classroom interaction. For example, coupled with
specific body movements
and facial expressions, teachers use silence to show
disapproval of their students,
scold them, or try to restore order in class. The
clear, silent, messages sent by
teachers to their students often mean: ‘pay attention
to me’ or ‘what you’re doing
is unacceptable to me’ (Gilmore, 1985: 147). The black
students’ silences
accompanied by non-verbal behaviour in response to
teacher directives or
criticisms may not only signal compliance but may also
signal defiance.
Moreover, defiant ritualistic displays of silence
(‘stylised sulking’) not only
challenge authority, but may also constitute
face-saving in front of the student’s
peers.
Teachers’ silence always marks their dominant status
over the students’. This
is how they get and focus the students’ attention,
interrupt them, or relieve the
moments of tension. Students’ silence is subordinate,
although it need not be
submissive, as in the case of stylised sulking which
is a sign of the students’
reluctance to submit to their teachers’ authority.
Gilmore’s work centres on the cultural values attached
to the manifestations
of silence in a black neighbourhood elementary school
in a
Despite the inequality of status between students and
teachers, ‘the uses and
meaning of their silences are actually very similar’
(Gilmore, 1985: 154). The
similarity lies in both teachers’ and students’ uses
of silence in situations of
negotiating power: exerting and displaying it in the
case of teachers; defying and
claiming it in the case of students. In either case
great emotional involvement and
tension are present.
Other studies confirm the idea that power relations in
the educational setting
are constructed and reproduced through silence. For
example, Hilsdon (1996)
demonstrates how teachers in a secondary (or high)
school ELT classroom in
Edwards and Redfern (1992) demonstrated how various
silencing and gagging
orders have been used to dominate minority children
and languages in
‘mainstream’ educational settings in
Treichler (1990) argue that in a male-dominated
university seminar, females who
are dominated are literally silenced by the males. It
is noteworthy that much
research on language and gender in education suggests
that boys are less silent
than girls in the classroom (e.g. Swann, 1988, 1992).
In early work in this area, for
example, Spender (1982) and Clarricoates (1978) argued
that, other things being
equal, boys are allowed to talk more than girls, that
they are allowed to choose
topics which interest them more than girls, and that
teachers pay more attention
to boys (including addressing them more frequently as
individuals rather than
as a group as in the case of girls) in order to
control their disruptiveness through
display of attention and keeping them interested.
However, the use of talk by
boys to dominate and silence girls in a school context
needs further investigation.
In fact, Jenkins and
groups of mixed-sex pupils (5 persons in each group)
although girls used more
features of supportive and collaborative talk, ‘boys
did not use interruption to
silence girls or to control the conversation’.
The main focus of the literature thus far has been on
the control and affiliative
functions of silence with little discussion about the
facilitative functions of
(teachers’) silence in the classroom such as increased
‘wait-time’ (Rowe, 1974),
slowing down the tempo of speech in student-led
discussions (Kurtz, 1988;
quoted in Schratz and Mehan, 1993: 248), and so on.
For instance, in an early study
Rowe (1974) examined the enhancing role of increased
silent periods for
communication, called ‘wait-times’ and the quality of
instruction in the classroom.
Wait-time was operationally defined as the length of a
pause between
teacher question and student response, and between
student question (or
response) and next teacher response (or question). The
findings of this study
revealed dramatic changes on several measures of
students’ performance
following the training of teachers to increase
wait-time from 1 to 3 seconds. For
instance, the length of student response increased
from a mean of seven words
to a mean of 27 words; the mean number of appropriate
unsolicited responses
increased from five to 17; the mean failure to respond
dropped from seven to one;
the mean incidence of evidence-inference statements
increased from six to 14; the
average incidence of soliciting, structuring, and
reacting moves increased from
five to 32; number of speculative responses increased
from a mean of two to a
mean of seven; the incidence of student-student
comparisons of data increases;
the frequency of student-initiated questions increases
from a mean of one to a
mean of four (Rowe, 1974: 221-2). Clearly, slowing
down the rate of speech and
increasing the lengths of pausing more than usual
improved the quality of
(classroom) interaction (see also Scollon &
Scollon, 1987). Given that teaching and
learning are primary objectives in the classroom
setting the facilitative use of
silence for learning and teaching is likely to account
for the greatest variance in
the use of silence in the classroom.
A broad conceptual framework for the study of silence
in education has been
outlined above based on the ethnography of
communication looking at the
notion of relative (un)markedness of silence and
speech in relation to participants’
characteristics, the situation in which they operate,
their interactional goals
and preferred schemas and beliefs for enacting
communication.
The main issues which we would like to consider here
then, are whether and
to what degree is the classroom (and the whole of the
educational process)
perceived as a silent domain. Is silence positively or
negatively valued in the
classroom? When is it perceived as a marked or
unmarked form of communicative
behaviour?
Our conviction is that the classroom, just as any
other locale or domain, affects
communication in such a way that there are varying
forms of accepted/desired
uses of talk and unacceptable/undesirable ones. Put
differently, some silence(s)
in the classroom are facilitative and highly preferred
by teachers and pupils, and
others will be rejected or perceived as disruptive,
embarrassing or unpleasant.
Naturally, teachers and pupils will often be in
disagreement about which silences
are attractive or offensive. This paper aims to
investigate a few aspects of the use
of silence in the classroom that may shed some light
on the desirability and
conditioning of silence among secondary school students.
With respect to the notion of markedness and
unmarkedness, we believe that
due to the different characteristics of participants
in the classroom, for some
silence will be marked while for others it will be
unmarked. Given that, other
things being equal, teachers enjoy greater status and
power than pupils, it is their
privilege to control speech and silence. Teachers can
self-select to speak,
nominate new speakers, choose to be silent or silence
others with greater freedom
than the pupils. Therefore, we might argue that in a
classroom situation, in the
teaching frame, talk is unmarked for teachers while
silence is unmarked for the
pupils. The teacher is expected to lecture and the
pupils are expected to listen (in
silence). Pupils can only talk when they are nominated
by their teachers, which
makes their speech desirable at times, but also rather
extraordinary. However,
as previous research has shown, pupils may also try to
claim interactional power
by defying teachers’ authority by adopting silence as
a marked form of
behaviour, signalling refusal to talk when they are
expected to do so (cf. stylised
sulking above). In this particular situation teachers’
talk when trying to discipline
students may be viewed as marked.
Given the above, we set out to explore beliefs about
silence in the classroom
amongst secondary school students in rural, inner-city
and suburban contexts in
that students would report higher levels of silence amongst
students for learning
than amongst teachers for teaching. In general,
students were also expected to
assign high value to silence in classroom contexts
given the facilitative functions
of silence discussed above. The relative markedness of
silence was assessed by
asking participants to make comparisons between the
beliefs held by themselves
(personally) and those they perceived their peers to
hold. It was expected that
self-beliefs would be perceived as being more
consistent with the norm than those
held by peers (cf. Weary, 1979). Expectations about
the prevalence of beliefs about
silence for purposes of controlling classroom
interactions was unclear in the light
of an equivocal research literature (see above). It
was equally difficult to make
predictions about the relationship between
socio-demographic variables and
silence given the paucity of previous research.
Participants
In total, 319 students aged between 14 and 16 (153
males, 162 females, four did
not provide this information) were recruited from
three schools in
Silence in the Classroom 279
three schools which were selected (and agreed) to take
part in the study can be
described as rural (School 1, 73 participants) vs.
urban (Schools 2 and 3), of which
the latter were, generally speaking, ‘inner city’
(School 2, 114 participants) and
‘suburban’ (School 3, 132 participants). The
socio-economic background of the
students who took part in the study may be described
as mainly ‘working class’
for the rural and inner-city schools, and ‘middle
class’ for the suburban school.
Rural and suburban school students were most
homogeneous in terms of
ethnicity with the vast majority of students being
Welsh in these schools (rural:
85% Welsh, 14% English; suburban: 76% Welsh, 20%
English). In contrast the
inner city school had the highest proportion of
students who reported ethnolinguistic
backgrounds other than Welsh (54% Welsh, 7% English,
39% other
backgrounds from countries in Asia, Africa and the
Design and Procedure
The main independent variable for the purposes of
statistical analyses was the
type of school (three levels: rural, inner city and
suburban). Dependent variables
comprised (i) beliefs about the general value of
silence in classroom; (ii) beliefs
about amount of silence by students and teachers;
(iii) beliefs about amount of
silence for control of classroom interaction; (iv)
beliefs about amount of silence
for learning and teaching. On all these measures
participants also provided
information about their own personal beliefs and those
they perceived their peers
to hold. Additionally, background information on age,
ethnicity, parental
occupation and level of education was obtained from
participants.
A questionnaire (see Appendix) incorporating dependent
measures was
administered to high school students in the three
Welsh schools. Most measures
were obtained on 5 point Likert scales with higher
ratings indicating greater
use/positive beliefs. Participants were debriefed and
thanked following completion
of the task.
Results
Preliminary analyses were conducted to see if there
were any global gender
differences on any of the beliefs measures. These
indicated no significant gender
differences on any of the measures except for a
marginal effect for gender
concerning beliefs about the degree to which teachers
used silence to control
students, t = 1.98, df = 310, p = 0.05. Inspection of the means suggested that females
(m = 2.6) felt that teachers used silence for control
slightly more than males (m =
2.3). Given that there were no other differences,
further analyses did not use
gender as an independent variable.
Two-way ANOVAs were conducted with School Type (3
levels: rural, urban
and suburban) as the between subjects factor and
student beliefs (3 levels: self,
other students and teacher) as the repeated measures
factor on all belief measures
(except the measure for the beliefs about general
value of silence in the classroom
which required a one-way ANOVA). Post hoc comparisons
were conducted using
the Newman-Keuls procedure where necessary.
Two repeated measures effects were obtained which were
general in terms of
being observed across all schools (i.e. no significant
interaction effects or main
effects for school were obtained in the following
measures). First, a significant
effect for the repeated measures factor was obtained
in the amount of silence
believed to be used by self, other students and
teachers, F (2, 626) = 35.18, p <
0.001. Regardless of school, post hoc comparisons (p < 0.01)
revealed that students
felt that they were generally more silent (m = 3.1)
than either other students (m
= 2.7) or teachers (m = 2.6) in the classroom (the
latter two means were not
significantly different from each other).
Second, a significant effect for the repeated measures
factor was obtained in
the amount of silence used specifically for learning
and teaching, F (2, 630) =
104.95, p < 0.001. Post hoc comparisons
revealed significant differences between
all the relevant means (all significant at p < 0.01).
Regardless of school, students
felt that silence was used most often by themselves
for learning (m = 3.5),
significantly less often by other students for
learning (m = 3.3), and least by
teachers for teaching (m = 2.6).
Analyses of measures for beliefs about the use of
silence for control in the
classroom yielded two significant effects: (i) a
significant interaction effect for the
type of school (rural, urban and suburban) by the
repeated measures factor (i.e.
self, other student and teacher), F (4, 614) =
4.81, p < 0.002; (ii) a significant
repeated measures effect, F (2, 614) =
16.69, p < 0.001. Post-hoc comparisons
suggested that rural (m = 2.7) and inner city (m =
2.7) students felt that they used
silence more frequently to disobey teachers than
teachers used silence to control
them (m = 2.1 and 2.4, respectively in rural and inner
city schools, p < 0.05 for
both sets of comparisons). Suburban school pupils did
not differentiate between
student (m = 2.6) and teacher (m = 2.5) use of silence
to control interactions in the
classroom. Additionally there were no significant
differences between the self
and other students’ beliefs.
Analyses of beliefs about the general value of silence
in the classroom yielded
a significant effect for school type, F (2, 315) =
6.98, p < 0.002. Post hoc comparisons
amongst the means revealed that beliefs about the
general value or importance
of silence in the classroom context were higher in the
rural (m = 3.5) and inner
city (m = 3.4) schools (both working class) than in
the suburban, middle-class
school (m = 3.2).
These are overall differences and they say little
about what specifically
contributes to the use and value of silence in the
classrooms. In other words, how
do the facilitative and control functions of silence
contribute (i) to the overall
value of silence in the classroom, (ii) to students
use of silence in the classroom,
and (iii) to teachers use of silence in the classroom?
Multiple Regression analyses
were conducted on the data from the three schools
separately with beliefs about
the overall value of silence as well as students’ and
teachers’ use of silence in the
classroom as dependent variables and facilitative and
control functions as the
independent (predictor) variables. Since preliminary
bivariate correlational
analyses revealed a similar picture to the Multiple
regression analyses only the
outcome of multiple regression analyses is presented
in Table 1.
Results in Table 1 show that only beliefs about
‘Silence for student learning’,
i.e. facilitative silence, significantly predicted the
amount of silence generally
used by students in the classroom, and the general
value assigned to silence in
the classroom in all three types of schools. However,
differences in predictors
between schools were obtained in the use of silence by
teachers. Specifically, in
the rural school the use of silence for teaching was the significant predictor. But
in the inner city school the significant predictor was the use of silence for control
by teachers. In the suburban school, the situation was more mixed with both
facilitative and control functions being marginally associated with teachers’ use
of silence.
Discussion
Our overall finding that students feel that they are
more silent in the classroom
than their teachers is consistent with the earlier
findings of the ethnographic and
discourse analytic studies of classroom interaction
research. As Gilmore states,
‘the traditional classrooms I observed support the
generalisation that most of the
talk is by the teacher [¼] and children’s time is spent overwhelmingly
in listening
and reading’ (Gilmore, 1985: 143). Likewise, Hilsdon
(1996) comments on the
general shortage of wait time in the classroom and
quotes others who have shown
that most teachers rarely wait for as long they
perceive, and are often surprised
when reading transcripts of the lesson that so little
time was allowed (Chaudron,
1988; Brock, 1986; Long & Sato, 1983; see also
Phillips, 1994).
In terms of our framework outlined above, we suggested
that for pupils silence
is the unmarked, underlying linguistic form in the
classroom, while for teachers
silence is marked and talk is unmarked. This
discrepancy stems from the
institutionalised power imbalance between teachers and
pupils, teachers’ right
to control the discourse, privilege of self-nomination
for another turn, granting
speaking rights to pupils, demanding speaking turns
from pupils and of allowing
or demanding silence from them (see, e.g. Cazden,
1988; Mehan, 1978; Sinclair &
Coulthard, 1975). Additionally, the primary function
of teachers is to teach, and
this activity is, at least in the western world,
associated with lecturing, giving
verbal instruction and explanation (see Philips, 1972
for an alternative view of
the teaching process in the American Aboriginal
context). Of course, we do see
school discourse as situated action in which meaning
is co-constructed by
teachers and pupils alike (e.g. Edwards, 1993; Edwards
& Mercer, 1987),
however, in terms of the interactants’ broad,
pre-discursive goals which suit their
needs of selfrealisation and alignment with others
(Tracy & Coupland, 1990), the
fundamental division between teacher and pupil talk is
that of ‘teaching’ and
‘learning’, respectively.
Thus, because our finding is very general (cutting
across all three schools,
genders and ethnic groups), it allows us to believe
that our distinction in the
relative markedness and unmarkedness of silence with
regard to teachers and
students is supported by the students’ expressed
beliefs about the amount of their
own and their teachers’ use of silence. At a more
conceptual level, this finding
allows us to argue against a universalist, rigid view
of silence as marked
(Sobkowiak, 1997; cf. above). As we demonstrate here,
the perception of the
(un)markedness of silence depends to a great extent on
participants’ characteristics,
role-relationships and their power relations.
Our results also confirm the relative importance of
silence for learning rather
than for teaching. Specifically, students’ believed
that they were more silent when
learning than their teachers were when teaching. Of
course, we realise that, new,
progressive styles of learning introduced in many
schools, involve students more
actively, engaging them verbally to a considerable
extent, encouraging them to
ask questions, form opinions, discuss ideas and voice
their doubts. Given that
our results suggest that silence is perceived to be
important for learning, teachers’
expectations for students to be verbally more active
in the classroom may be a
potential source of anxiety and conflict for some
students (we touch upon the
teachers’ negative and positive beliefs about
‘reticent’ and ‘voluble’ students
below).
Our findings about the general value of silence in the
classroom suggested that
students in the rural and inner-city schools valued silence
in the classroom more
than the students in the suburban school. One possible
explanation for these
findings may be based on the common belief that rural
environments are
relatively silent (‘serene’ or ‘tranquil’) with an
absence of undesirable noise, while
urban, especially inner-city, environments, are
polluted by the invasive noise of
motorcars, trains, industry, etc. (Rooney, 1987). In
the context of these assumptions
it could be argued that participants in the rural
school valued silence in a
manner that was convergent to the relatively silent
nature of their environment.
In contrast, inner-city students may have valued
silence highly in a divergent
manner as a reaction against their noisy environment.
Future research in
ecolinguistics (cf. Coupland & Coupland, 1997b;
Alexander, 1993) may be
designed to investigate the validity of such
explanations.
A different possible explanation of this finding has
got to do with the social
make up of the three schools. The rural and the
inner-city schools had
predominantly working-class students while the
suburban school had mainly
middle-class students. Assuming that mainstream
schooling in
subscribes to a white, middle-class ethos (e.g.
Walkerdine, 1985; Edwards &
Redfern, 1991), non-white and non-middle class
children are likely to face
difficulties concerning the educational process at
several levels including the flow
of talk and maintenance of silence in the classroom.
Obviously, our notion of the white, middle-class ethos
does not imply a
clear-cut distinction between all white, middle-class
teachers, parents and pupils,
and their non-middle-class, non-white counterparts.
However, long-standing
educational research in the
Entwistle, 1978; Lawton, 1975; Brantlinger, 1993)
gives compelling evidence of
how the prevailing values and ideologies in education
serve the dominating
classes in (re)producing the social and cultural
relations of capitalist economies.
Additionally, Hemmings (1996: 30) points out that in
an American, urban
educational setting, the accepted idea of a ‘model’
student includes the adoption
of ‘the language, styles of discourse, values,
manners, and aesthetic tastes
associated with middle-class society and
professionals’. Hemmings argues that
for many working-class, Afro-American students who do
aspire to achieve the
status of a ‘model’ student, this means a conflict of
having to find unique ways
of conforming to two opposing ideals: that of the
school and their peer group.
On the other hand, those whose primary aim is not set
on educational
achievement are more likely to drop out from school
than their white and/or
middle-class counterparts.
Likewise, we are not suggesting here that there is
only one ‘white’, ‘middleclass’
ethos across all of the educational system in the
western world. There are,
no doubt, many, different competing ideologies, and
students (as well as teachers
and parents) embrace them in ways more complicated
than our brief considerations
allow us to mention. However, it seems reasonable for
us to argue that,
other things being equal, non-white and
non-middle-class students face more
conflict, anxiety and uncertainty in trying to conform
to the school ‘norm’ than
white and middle-class students.
Again, we refer to the work of Walkerdine (1985), who
critically examined the
problems of gender identity, conflict and silence in
relation to the wider problems
of an individual’s class values and institutional
norms. She argued that the need
to define (and redefine) the boundaries of one’s
identity within the world of
(middle-class dominated) institutions may be a
silencing experience for working-
class people. She illustrated this with data from
several interviews including
one with a male academic recounting schoolday
memories. Coming from a
working-class background, the interviewee explained
how having to reinvent
himself in a middle-class institutional context was an
anxiety-provoking
experience, which terrorised him and made him yearn
for remaining ‘invisible’
(or silent):
It goes back to the instance I described in primary
school, made to stand in
front of the class and do up my shoe laces, stand up
in front of the class and
do up my tie and secondly, the, this school was, as I
would not put it, in
class terms, completely removed from the kind of
experience I’d had in
what had been a very localised primary school and so I
didn’t want to be
drawn to attention in front of these people about whom
I felt very edgy [¼]
in case I couldn’t keep up that standard. (Walkerdine,
1985: 233)
Walkerdine’s work may thus be useful in explaining
results showing greater
belief in the general importance of silence in the
classroom among the rural and
inner-city school children than suburban school
children. Since both the former
schools catered to working-class populations, what we
may be unravelling here
is working-class pupils’ beliefs about silence in the
classroom, which according
to Walkerdine stem from the anxiety and conflict which
is felt by the powerless
individuals who are forced to redefine the boundaries
of their identities by
changing their practice in the face of authority.
Consistent with this analysis, our
rural and inner-city school pupils believed that they
use more silence for
controlling their teachers than their suburban
counterparts.
Our findings showed that the source of teacher silence
in the rural schools lay
in the facilitative function of silence (i.e.
teachers’ using silence for teaching).
However, we also observed that teachers’ use of
silence for control was the
greatest predictor of their silence in the inner city
school. This finding is consistent
with Biggs and Edwards’ (1991) research which
suggested that white teachers
often use silence with members of ethnolinguistic
minorities who make up
significant proportions of urban inner city classrooms
in the
lack of ethnic diversity in rural and suburban schools
did not allow for analysis
by school, it was possible to conduct supplementary
analyses concerning
differences between ethnolinguistic majorities (i.e.
the Welsh) and minorities
(non-Welsh) in the inner city school. Analyses yielded
non-significant differences
between Welsh and non-Welsh participants on all
measures with the exception
of beliefs about teachers’ use of silence in the classroom.
Consistent with the
findings of Biggs and Edwards (1991), non-Welsh
participants (m = 3.0) in the
inner city school reported that teachers used silence
to a greater degree in the
classroom than Welsh participants (m = 2.5; t = 2.30, df = 91, p < 0.05).
These
findings are supportive of earlier research suggesting
that multiethnic diversity
in the classroom may be accompanied by a ‘culture of
silence’ (e.g. Edwards &
Redfern, 1992).
In the present study analyses of gender-related
differences in beliefs about the
use of silence did not yield any significant
differences except one, though
previous studies had suggested that boys are less
silent than girls in the classroom
(e.g. Swann, 1988, 1992). The only significant finding
between the sexes obtained
in the present study was that relative to female
participants, male participants
believed that their teachers used silence for control
to a lesser extent. This finding
concurs with those of earlier studies (e.g. Spender,
1982) where teachers appeared
to be more verbally attentive to boys than girls in
order to control their
disruptiveness.
General Discussion and Conclusion
We have reported here some preliminary findings from
an exploratory study
of secondary school students’ beliefs about silence in
the classroom. Our work,
however tentative, corroborates the results of earlier
ethnographic research
which suggested that silence is often a mark of power
imbalance and/or
ambiguity of interpersonal relations and participation
structures in interaction.
Such claims find confirmation in what students report
as their and their teachers’
actual behaviour in the classroom. However, our
findings add a new dimension
to the existing ethnographic studies focusing on
issues of class and ethnicity.
Many types of silence need to be interpreted in
critical terms proposed by
Walkerdine (1985), where the confrontation of
students’ and teachers’ values may
work to the disadvantage of the former in that they
are effectively silenced and
rendered invisible.
From a conceptual point of view, our research
demonstrates yet again (see
Jaworski, 1993, 1997a) that, apart from being a
linguistic reflex of the lack of
communication, communication breakdown, feelings of
negativity and conflict,
silence is also a positive communicative item. In the
case of this study it seems to
be positively viewed as a facilitative device enabling
students to gain access,
organise and absorb new material.
One of the areas of future research resulting from
this study should be
teachers’ beliefs about silence in the classroom. Our
current work (Jaworski &
Sachdev, in preparation) suggests that these may be
very different from the
students’. Preliminary analysis of a sample of
references written by teachers for
their sixth formers’ applying for admission to
universities through the Universities
and Colleges Admissions System (UCAS) indicates that
articulateness,
volubility and general eagerness to talk are listed as
very positive and desirable
qualities in the students. Silence, reticence and
quietness fare less well, and when
mentioned, they are usually hedged about, softened and
played down in a
number of ways. Consider a few examples (all from 1996
UCAS applications of
students applying for places in a humanities
department of a British university).
In the first instance we quote teachers’ mention of
student talk (all names have
been changed):
(1) Anna is an articulate young woman whose unassuming
nature belies a keen
sense of humour and a positive approach to life.
(2) All who have come into contact with Rebecca have
commented on her
articulacy, sense of commitment and enthusiasm for
experience.
(3) She is a mature, articulate young lady, who
displays a great strength of
character.
(4) In her personal statement, Sheryl describes
herself as ‘effervescent and
enthusiastic’. She is certainly lively, outgoing, and
it is fun to be in her
company. Both staff and peer-group enjoy her chatty,
refreshing, and
individual personality.
In the above excerpts, articulateness is paired with
such positive qualities as
unassuming nature, keen sense of humour, sense of
commitment, enthusiasm for
experience, maturity, strength of character and fun. Such characterisations of
students are given in references whose task is
predominantly to comment on and
assess the academic qualities of students and their
suitability for higher
education. In contrast, teachers’ mention of the
students’ silence is couched in
relatively negative terms:
(1) Paul is quietly spoken, but enjoys class
discussion, and is prepared to
maintain his point of view.
(2) Although [Sophie] tends to be quiet in class, her
research work is disciplined
and she always has a thoughtful approach to the
subject.
(3) She is rather a quiet but clearly well-motivated
student, with a very mature
approach to her studies.
(4) Orally, John can be a touch hesitant. When he does
participate, however, he
can always be relied upon to make valid, sensible
contributions to class
discussions and is a useful person to have in
seminars. [Reference for a
mature student]
Here, most references to quietness are contrasted with
good academic
achievement as exemplified by the use of but in (1), although in (2) and and in (3).
Given that such testimonials are common-place, it is
clear that teachers’ beliefs
(and values) about silence may not only differ from
those of students’, but also
that they are likely to have a substantial impact on
the academic success of
students. In fact, a recent study of the ‘quiet child’
in a primary school context
has been based on ‘the premise that habitually quiet
non-participatory behaviour
is detrimental to learning’ (Collins, 1996: 195). As
far as we can agree that the
conceptualisation of silence as withdrawal is clearly
pedagogically undesirable
and detrimental to the child’s educational success, we
have also pointed out that
certain types of silence in the classroom need not be
negatively stereotyped. Some
types of silence in the classroom may be facilitative
in the learning process while
others may be used as a strategic, communicative
resource by pupils and teachers
in regulating the flow of communication in the
classroom. Future empirical work
may thus be designed to focus on how teacher and
student values and beliefs
about silence affect teaching and learning in the
classroom. Our recent work
Appendix: Silence in the Classroom
(Questionnaire for secondary school
students)
0. Introductory
1. How important is silence in the classroom
generally?
_______ _______ _______ _______ _______
not important very important
I. General:
silence in the classroom.
1. Students are generally silent in the classroom.
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always
2. I am generally silent in the classroom.
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always
3. Teachers are generally silent in the classroom.
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always
II. Control
and power.
1. Students are generally silent when trying to
disobey teachers.
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always
2. I am generally silent when trying to disobey my
teachers.
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always
3. Teachers are generally silent when trying to
control students.
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always
III. Learning
and teaching.
1. Students generally use silence in learning and task
solving.
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always
2. I generally use silence in learning and task
solving.
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always
3. Teachers generally use silence in teaching.
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always
About you
In part of the questionnaire, we would like to know a
few things about you.
Please write in your answers, circle the appropriate
one or tick, as appropriate.
1. How old are you: ____________ years
2. Are you: Male ______ or Female _____ (please tick)
3. What is your nationality:
___________________________
4. What is your ethnic group:
__________________________
5. What is your first language (i.e. the language that
you learned to speak first
as a child at home; if there is more than one language
like that please state
both)?
____________________________________________________
6. What other languages do you
speak:_____________________
_______________________________________________________
7. Did your father attend any of the following types
of educational institutions
(please tick as appropriate):
primary/junior ______
secondary/high school _______
sixth form/further education college_______
vocational above high school level _______
polytechnic/university ______
8. Did your mother attend any of the following types
of educational institutions
(please tick as appropriate):
primary/junior ______
secondary/ high school _______
sixth form/further education college______
vocational above high school level _______
polytechnic/university ______
9. What job does/did your father do (state the most
recent/current job)?
___________________________________________
10. What job does/did your mother do (state the most
recent/current job)?
__________________________________________
Language and Education
Editor: Viv Edwards (
Volume: 12
Number: 4 Page: 273–292
http://www.channelviewpublications.net/le/012/0273/le0120273.pdf
© Multilingual Matters 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.- FACTORES
LINGÜÍSTICOS Y
EN EL INGLÉS AMERICANO
Factores lingüísticos y la alternancia try
to/try and en el inglés americano
Dra. Rosa María Sanou
Mgter. Graciela Albiñana
Prof. Graciela Galli
Dpto. Lengua y Literatura Inglesa
Facultad de Filosofía, Humanidades y Artes
Universidad Nacional de San Juan
Marco teórico-metodológico
Aún en las comunidades más pequeñas, el comportamiento lingüístico de los
hablantes que integran una comunidad de
habla exhibe un amplio margen de
variación. En este artículo presentamos
algunos resultados del proyecto de investigación El inglés americano: variación sociolingüística en formas verbales
(Dpto. de L. y L. Inglesa, F.F.H.A., U.N.S.J.). Se encuadra en el campo de la sociolingüística, perspectiva
teórico-metodológica que analiza precisamente
de qué modo los distintos subgrupos de una sociedad definen sus
identidades sociales, a través de sus particulares pautas de selección, cuando
elaboran sus mensajes. En otras palabras, estudia el lenguaje enfatizando su capacidad de representar significados
inherentes al sistema social, su posibilidad de convertirse en símbolo de
grupo, de modo tal que los resultados de este tipo de trabajos constituyen un
aporte sustancial para diagnosticar la estructura social en general, para
explicar procesos de cambio histórico y para implementar un diseño de
planificación lingüística.
En nuestra condición de docentes–investigadoras
del Dpto. de Lengua y Literatura Inglesa,
nos motivó especialmente la posibilidad de estudiar el habla real de hablantes nativos
del inglés -que, en nuestro caso, integran la comunidad lingüística de New
Haven (Connecticut, EEUU)-- y así
ampliar el conocimiento del uso social del inglés americano y transferirlo a
nuestros alumnos.
En particular, nuestro estudio adopta el enfoque variacionista, que sostiene
como principio fundamental que la lengua no es homogénea, sino que está
estructuralmente ordenada dentro de la gran heterogeneidad que presenta el comportamiento lingüístico de sus hablantes.
Se trata de explicar cómo se manifiesta esa variación y qué valoración de la
misma hace el cuerpo social. Al respecto, dice Spolsky: “The
social prestige or stigma associated with these variations makes language a
source of social and political power.
Only by including both linguistic and social factors in our analysis can
this complex but rule-governed behaviour be accounted for.” (1998: 3).
Uno de los modelos variacionistas más difundidos
es el propuesto por Labov (1972) que, con
una metodología propia, se desarrolló principalmente en EE.UU. y
Canadá. Con un enfoque cuantitativo,
estudia las variaciones de la lengua en
uso y sus posibles correlaciones
con factores lingüísticos y extralingüísticos de los individuos que conforman una comunidad de habla.
Con el fin de poder cuantificar y analizar la
variación en el habla de los hablantes, se
utiliza una unidad estructural de trabajo: la variable dependiente. Esta es una abstracción teórica que se
manifiesta en el habla real a través de diferentes variantes y en conjunción
con variables lingüísticas, estilísticas y sociales.
En nuestro caso, analizamos la variación que
ofrece el comportamiento lingüístico de
los informantes en cuanto al sistema verbal de la lengua inglesa;
particularmente nos ocupamos ahora de la variable TRY TO, que ofrece dos variantes: try
to (try seguido de un
infinitivo con la marca "to") y try and (try seguido del nexo
coordinante 'and' y otro verbo). Por ejemplo: Try to open the door with this key. / Try and open the door with this key. El primer miembro de la pareja de variantes
representa la forma canónica, nuclear, más conservadora, no marcada; mientras
que el segundo miembro constituye la forma no canónica, periférica, más
reciente, marcada, que está reconocida como forma coloquial, en algunas obras
especializadas (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006).
En cuanto a los factores
o variables independientes tenidos en cuenta
en este trabajo, se seleccionaron las variables sociales de edad, sexo o
género, y nivel socioeducativo.
La mayoría de los estudios sociolingüísticos de
poblaciones urbanas muestra una marcada correlación entre el uso del lenguaje y
el sector social al que pertenecen los individuos. En nuestro caso es más
apropiado hablar de nivel socioeducativo, ya que tuvimos
en cuenta la ocupación y los años de educación formal. Estos grupos son
conjuntos de individuos que tienen un estatus social, económico y cultural
similar. Los miembros de una comunidad marcan las diferencias sociales que
existen entre ellos mediante rasgos particulares de su pronunciación, su gramática o su vocabulario, tal como lo hacen en lo extralingüístico por
medio de su auto, su vestimenta, etc. El
prestigio que se le asigna a los estratos sociales más altos se
transfiere a sus usos lingüísticos (Silva-Corvalán, 1989).
Con respecto a la variable sexo
o género, es un hecho que el habla masculina y femenina difieren entre sí.
Dado que la diferenciación sexual está
íntimamente asociada a las diferencias en el rol social del hombre y la mujer
en cada sociedad, los resultados
obtenidos en distintos estudios no apuntan todos en la misma dirección.
Sin embargo, hay mucha evidencia que
indica que, en general, "las
mujeres prefieren las formas de prestigio, ya sea porque tienen valor en la
movilidad social o porque evitan las formas estigmatizadas" (Lastra, 1992:
307).
El comportamiento lingüístico de los hablantes
varía según el grupo etario al que pertenecen tanto el hablante como su
interlocutor. Algunas variables lingüísticas funcionan como indicadores de ciertos grupos generacionales, pero además, el factor edad es de crucial
importancia para estudiar los mecanismos del cambio lingüístico. Por medio de
la metodología del “tiempo aparente”
(Labov, 1972:9), el habla de los informantes mayores se compara con la
de los más jóvenes, y así se pueden observar cambios lingüísticos que están en
pleno proceso.
Respecto de las variables lingüísticas, se tuvo en
cuenta, por una parte, el hecho de que el verbo estuviera modalizado
o no, y por otra, que se tratara de un mandato o no.
En lo que concierne al corpus, se entrevistó a 112 hablantes nativos,
residentes de la ciudad de New Haven, de ambos sexos, distribuidos en tres
grupos etarios -jóvenes, adultos y mayores- y pertenecientes a tres grupos
socioeducativos: medio-alto (MA), medio-bajo (MB) y bajo (B).
Se aplicó un instrumento que constaba de un
cuestionario sobre datos sociodemográficos de los sujetos y su grupo familiar,
y de una encuesta escrita, que incluía un conjunto de situaciones
comunicativas, contextualizadas y diseñadas de manera tal que unas promovían
mensajes informales y otras, formales. Cada informante debía elegir una de las
dos opciones que le proponían estos intercambios verbales.
Análisis de los datos lingüísticos
Procesados los datos lingüísticos, el análisis de
los mismos mostró que, en la muestra total, los
informantes optaron por la forma marcada try
and en un 23% de todas las instancias, frente a un 77% de la variante
estándar try to. Esto evidencia que
la forma marcada no constituye todavía una variante de uso generalizado en el
inglés americano de esa comunidad de habla. Esto se ve reforzado por el hecho
de que de los 112 informantes, más de la
mitad (60) no la eligio ni una sola vez.
En cuanto a la variable edad, los jóvenes y
los adultos muestran la misma proporción de frecuencia de uso de la variante no
estándar try and: 24%, en comparación
con el 19% del grupo etario mayor. Esta diferencia mínima de sólo 5% indica
que, si bien la edad no funcionó como un factor de influencia sobre la variable
en estudio, try and constituye una
variante relativamente nueva, menos elegida por los mayores.
Al estudiar el comportamiento de los informantes
en relación con la variable sexo, se observó que el margen de diferencia entre la
frecuencia de uso por parte de hombres y mujeres fue de sólo un 7% (26% los
informantes masculinos y 19% las femeninas). Aunque esta pequeña brecha
confirmaría, hasta cierto punto, la preferencia femenina por las formas
estándares, el género, en realidad, prácticamente no incidió en las elecciones
de la forma try and.
Con respecto al último factor social, nivel
socioeducativo, el procesamiento de los datos evidenció que no se da una clara
estratificación sociolingüística, ya que las clases media baja y la media alta
usan la forma marcada en una proporción virtualmente idéntica (20% y 21%,
respectivamente), frente al 30% del nivel bajo. Es decir que los dos estratos
del sector medio se comportan de la
misma manera y se distancian del sector social más bajo de la escala, la cual
emplea la forma no estándar con un 10% más de frecuencia. (Gráfico 1). Este
margen probaría que el nivel socioeducativo de los sujetos tiene una incidencia
relativa sobre las realizaciones de la variante no estándar try and, que constituye la forma menos prestigiada
socialmente.
Esta alternancia que resultó, en general, poco
influenciada por factores sociales, sí se vio fuertemente marcada por los
factores lingüísticos. Respecto del primero, definimos como modalizados aquellos verbos que van acompañados por los auxiliares
modales will, would y should. Por ejemplo: We’ll try and call your
husband at work. /
We’ll try
to call your husband at
work.
Tomando la muestra total de 112 informantes, la
condición modalizado / no modalizado del verbo incidió en
las opciones de los informantes: los sujetos optaron por try and en un 25% de las instancias en que el verbo estaba
modalizado, y en un 16%, en el caso contrario.
Los porcentajes de frecuencia de uso según este
factor lingüístico se polarizaron mucho más, cuando analizamos solamente las
encuestas de los 52 informantes que optaron
por try and, ya sea una o más veces (Gráfico 2). Ahora, en las opciones de try and, hay un importante 19% de brecha
entre las instancias de verbos modalizados (54%) y las de no modalizados (35%);
vale decir que la presencia de un verbo auxiliar modal hace que, en más de la
mitad de las situaciones comunicativas propuestas, los sujetos prefieran esta
variante marcada.
Por otra parte, en lo que concierne al segundo
factor lingüístico incluido,
discriminamos entre mandato directo o no, lo cual se
aplica a aquellas situaciones comunicativas en que el emisor tiene el propósito
de influenciar a su interlocutor, ya sea para aconsejarlo, sugerirle algo, o darle una orden. En la primera instancia –mandato directo-, se
usa sólo un verbo en modo imperativo, resultando una orden fuerte y abierta,
que no pretende disimular su intención imperativa. Por ejemplo: Try not to slam the door next time! /
Try and not slam the door next time!
En la segunda, cuando no hay un mandato directo,
el verbo puede aparecer modalizado (sólo con would y should, pero no
con el modal will del futuro), o ser
una forma imperativa acompañada de la expresión
de cortesía please. En estos
dos últimos casos, el emisor pretende
ser más cortés en su intento por influir en el comportamiento de su
interlocutor; por lo tanto, el mensaje adopta
ya sea la forma de consejo,
advertencia o sugerencia, como en: You should try to see another
doctor. / You should
try and see another doctor; o la forma de
una orden atenuada o ‘suavizada’, presentada más bien como un
pedido, tal como en: Try
and think it over, please. / Try to think it over, please.
Una vez procesados
los datos de las 52 encuestas que incluían al menos una instancia de try and
(Gráfico 3), los valores muestran que su frecuencia de uso es
muchísimo más alta en los contextos en
los que el hablante quiere atenuar su intención de influir en la voluntad del oyente: 62%. Por el
contrario, el porcentaje de elecciones de esta variante baja a 35% en aquellos
contextos de un mandato abierto, que no respeta las reglas de cortesía, ya
que no emplea ni auxiliares modales, ni
la expresión please. Esta brecha de
un importante 27% entre ambas proporciones representa el margen de diferencia
más grande que se encontró entre todos los factores tenidos en cuenta.
Conclusiones
Las principales conclusiones se pueden resumir en
los siguientes puntos:
1. En la muestra total,
sólo 52 de los 112 informantes eligieron al menos una vez la variante no
estándar try and, y el porcentaje de
situaciones comunicativas en que los sujetos optaron por ella fue sólo un
23%. Esto indica que es una forma relativamente nueva, aún no aceptada
masivamente en el inglés americano coloquial de esa comunidad.
2. En general, las
variables sociales tenidas en cuenta no operaron como factores de incidencia,
excepto el nivel socioeducativo, que influyó moderadamente: los informantes de
la clase media ( MA y MB) recurrieron a la variante marcada un 10% menos que los de la baja, mostrando
así que la variante try and goza de menos prestigio social que try to.
3. Los factores
lingüísticos, en cambio, resultaron tener un efecto muy importante sobre
las elecciones de los entrevistados, especialmente al analizar sólo las
encuestas de los 52 sujetos que eligieron
al menos una vez la forma try and.
La condición de modalizado/ no modalizado del verbo incidió decisivamente: en los primeros, el 54
% le correspondió a try and, frente al 35% de los no moralizado.
4. Finalmente, la
intención del emisor de comunicarse en términos de mandato/no mandato
constituyó el factor de más peso entre todos los estudiados. Cuando se trata de una orden enfática, directa o no cortés, la
frecuencia de uso de try and es de sólo 35%, pero este porcentaje asciende
a un elevado 62%, en aquellos mensajes elaborados como una invitación, consejo,
sugerencia o pedido más cortés.
Bibliografía
- Chambers, J.K. 1995. Sociolinguistic Theory.
- Eckert, P. y McConnell-Ginet, S.
2003. Language and Gender.
- Eckert, P. y Rickford, J. (eds).
2001. Style and Sociolinguistic Variation.
- Freeman, R. y Mc Elhinny, B.
1996. “Language and gender” en Lee McKay, S. y Hornberger, N (eds.). Sociolinguistics
and Language Teaching.
- Kramsch, C. 2000. Language
and Culture.
- Lakoff, R. 2003. “Selections
from ‘Language and Woman’s
Place’” en Paulston, C.B. y Tucker, G. R. Sociolinguistics. The Essential
- Lastra, Y. (1992). Sociolingüística
para hispanoamericanos, México: El Colegio de México.
- Lopez Morales, H. 1993. Sociolingüística. Madrid: Gredos.
- Quirk, R.1979. A University
Grammar of English.
- Romaine, S. [2003] 2005.
“Variation in Language and Gender” en Holmes, J. y Meyerhoff, M. (eds.). The Handbook of Language and Gender.
- Sanou, R. M. y Nicolás, M. M. T.
(eds.). 2000. Lenguaje e identidad
social en adolescentes sanjuaninos. San Juan: Facultad de Filosofía, Humanidades y Artes; Universidad Nacional de San Juan.
- Silva Corvalán, C. 1989. Sociolingüística. Teoría y análisis.
Madrid: Alhambra S.A.
- Spolsky, B. 1998. Sociolinguistics.
- Swan,
M. (1980) Practical English Usage.
- The Random House Unabridged Dictionary (2006), disponible en www.dictionary.com
- Tusón Valls, A. 1999.
“Aportaciones de la sociolingüística a la enseñanza de la lengua” en
Lomas, C. y Osoro, A. (compiladores). El
enfoque comunicativo de la enseñanza de la lengua. Buenos Aires:
Paidós.
- Yule, G. 1998. Explaining
English Grammar.
© 2007 by Sanou, Albiñana & Galli
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.- ADVANCED
VOCABULARY IN CONTEXT: TUXEDOS
Dinner Suit Jacket.
Hilton style. This classic Double breasted Dinner jacket has been crafted for your comfort and style. With the mix and match trousers, you can be sure of a suit that will fit.
45% wool, 55% polyester.
Fabric weight 310g.
Matching Balmoral range trousers are available for complete flexibility.
Single breasted option available.
White Tuxedo Available.
Plain back.
1 button to fasten on front ( 6 shown).
Satin Facings.
Selection of Dinner Suit Accessories
Formal Dress Shirt.
Available in Standard sizes 36 to
Our Price £101.99
Complete quality suit (jacket and trousers) just £149.98
Classic White Tuxedo
Key Features:
1 button single breasted white jacket.
43% wool, 55% polyester, 2%lycra.
Fabric weight
Side vents.
Teflon Fabric Protector.
Can purchase jacket and trousers separately.
Black Trousers
Twin pleats.
Side adjusters.
Lined to knee.
Satin stripe side seams.
Available in Standard sizes 36 to
Complete Suit price £165.98
Folkespeare Designer Waistcoat
A
distinctive range of waistcoats to complete your look, ideal for either wedding
suits or to make you feel special whatever else you wear!
Go on, try
one of these waistcoats to liven up your suit, for unmatched luxury feel.
These
waistcoats have the following special features:
2 front
pockets for classic style.
6 button
for superb shape and fit.
Attractive
buckle and strap detail on the back.
Excellent
Crease recovery.
100%
polyester.
Weight 280
grm for a solid feel.
Available
in boys sizes 22" to
Matching
cravats in most options.
Our
Waistcoat Price £49.99
© EshopOne,
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.- CURSO DE POSGRADO EN
La sede del curso será
El curso
está dirigido a traductores de todos los idiomas, docentes, investigadores
y egresados de profesiones afines, y será dictado en castellano.
Informes e
Inscripción: Departamento de Traducción, Escuela Superior de Idiomas-UNCo Perú
2151, General Roca (8332), RN, Patagonia Argentina
TE/FAX: +54 02941 422057. E-mail: tradu.esi@gmail.com
Contenidos del curso
1. Les Belles Infidèles y la
tradición de la domesticación
2. Los Románticos Alemanes y
3. Las teorias lingüísticas de Catford, Newmark y Nida
4. Los Estudios Descriptivos de
5. La teoria de Skopos
6. Traducción y Género: teatro, poesía, novelas, textos técnicos, sites de
Internet,
subtítulación
7.
8. Análisis de textos
Bibliografia básica
Bassnett, Susan. Translation
Studies. London, Methuen, 1980 revised 1991.
Lefevere, André. Translation,
Literature and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. London: Routledge, 1992.
Milton, John. O Poder da Tradução,
Ars Poética, São Paulo, 1993 (reeditado como Tradução: Teoria e Prática.
Gentzler, Edwin. Contemporary
Translation Theories.
Venuti, Lawrence. The
Translator's Invisibility.
ed. Venuti,
Toury, Gideon. Descriptive
Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.- PRIMER
COLOQUIO NACIONAL ADQUISICIÓN Y DIDÁCTICA DE LAS LENGUAS
San Miguel de Tucumán - 8
al 10 Mayo 2008
Independientemente de las especificidades vinculadas a la adquisición o al
aprendizaje de una lengua, la didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras dirige
actualmente su eje de preocupaciones en torno a las dimensiones generales y
contextuales de la apropiación y de la transmisión de las lenguas-culturas.
Desde esta perspectiva, advertimos la necesidad de generar un verdadero ámbito
de discusión y de intercambio de ideas y de experiencias entre docentes de
distintas lenguas extranjeras deseosos de conocer las problemáticas y
perspectivas de enfoque que ofrece el estudio del lenguaje en el campo de las
lenguas extranjeras.
El coloquio se propone reunir trabajos de docentes e investigadores que
nutren sus investigaciones y prácticas en distintos marcos conceptuales
preocupados por instaurar y sostener en
el país líneas de estudio puntuales acerca de las problemáticas vinculadas a
Concebido pues como un espacio de reflexión y de debate profundo, el
Coloquio invita a docentes e investigadores a cuestionarse acerca de los
resultados de sus trabajos en términos de pertinencia y/o de impacto para la
enseñanza / aprendizaje de las lenguas extranjeras.
Más información
Facultad de Filosofía y Letras. Av. Benjamín Aráoz 800 (4000) San Miguel de
Tucumán.
Tel:
0381-4222146 (Int: 7411, 7412)
E-mail: coloqaydle.tuc08@gmail.com
Modalidades de participación
• Ateliers
Las reuniones se desarrollarán en tres sesiones de trabajo de medio día
cada una (jueves a la tarde, viernes a la mañana y a la tarde) y serán
coordinadas por un relator especialista.
Las comunicaciones no serán expuestas por sus autores sino por el relator
de cada atelier quien presentará una síntesis de las mismas y, a posteriori,
sugerirá a los expositores algunos puntos para el debate. La sesión de trabajo
concluirá con una discusión abierta entre los asistentes del atelier y el
expositor.
• Plenaria final
El sábado a la mañana, los relatores de cada atelier presentarán una
síntesis final sobre el trabajo realizado en cada una de las sesiones que
coordinaron. Seguidamente, esta síntesis será objeto de discusión general entre
todos los asistentes al Coloquio.
Organizan
Departamento de Francés. Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, UNT
Maestría en Didáctica de las Lenguas. Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, UNT
Ejes temáticos
Los ejes
temáticos, que buscan propiciar la articulación entre teoría y práctica, se
relacionarán con las siguientes problemáticas:
• Posicionamiento epistemológico de la
adquisición del lenguaje e implicaciones en la enseñanza / aprendizaje de la
lengua extranjera.
• Articulación entre dispositivos de
investigación y dispositivos de enseñanza / aprendizaje de la lengua
extranjera: el paso de la investigación a la aplicación en terreno.
• Modalidades de evaluación de prácticas y
de procesos en la enseñanza / aprendizaje de
• Relaciones entre adquisición y didáctica
de las lenguas extranjeras.
• Enseñanza / aprendizaje de lenguas
extranjeras y contextos de apropiación.
Modalidades y plazos para presentación de trabajos
Los resúmenes y trabajos serán remitidos por mail en formato RTF.
Los trabajos serán presentados en español y se deberá asegurar la presencia
del (de los) autor(es). Cada trabajo deberá ser inédito, podrá contar con un
máximo de tres autores y deberá consignar básicamente: problemas investigados,
objetivos, metodología y conclusiones.
Los resúmenes y trabajos serán enviados en formato RFT por correo
electrónico a la siguiente dirección donde también podrá recabarse más
información acerca de las pautas de presentación: coloqaydle.tuc08@gmail.com
Cronograma presentación de resúmenes y trabajos
Presentación resumen 15-02-08
Devolución 27-02-08
Presentación de trabajo 15-03-08
Devolución 30-03-08
Presentación final para publicación 04-08-08
Inscripción:
|
Inscripción |
Fecha límite |
Arancel expositores |
Arancel asistentes |
Arancel estudiantes |
|
1ra. |
Hasta el 20/02/08 |
$ 80 |
$ 50 |
$ 20 |
|
2da. |
Hasta el 20/04/08 |
$ 90 |
$ 60 |
$ 20 |
|
3ra. |
Hasta el 08/05/08 |
$ 100 |
$ 70 |
$ 20 |
Pago de
aranceles:
• Personalmente: Tesorería de
• Transferencia: Banco Nación, San Martín
682, San Miguel de Tucumán
Denominación de
Nombre y Apellido
del titular: Julio César Mazziotti
Tipo de Cuenta:
Cuenta Corriente
Número:
48.110.191/63
CBU:
01104817-20048110191634
Nº CUIT:
30546670240 EXENTO
Una vez realizada
la transferencia deberá enviarse el número de operación, monto abonado, nombre y apellido del inscripto a coloqaydle.tuc08@gmail.com o bien una copia del comprobante al fax:
0054-381-4310171
-----------------------------------------------------------
6.- GREAT
BACK TO SCHOOL IDEAS! AT
Five Workshops and one Intensive Course to cater for different needs
February 18th to 22nd from 9 to 11:15 a.m.
At: Maryland E.L.T.C - Centro
de Capacitación Docente DGEGP C – 454
Av. Suárez 1525 – Cdad. de Buenos Aires
Workshops:
KINDER TEACHING by Susana Ortigueira
Teaching English in Kindergarten: a real challenge.
Discover special characteristics of children aged 3
-5 and learn how to exploit specific material with them
Susana Ortigueira is a
profesora de Inglés from Facultad de Filosofía y Letras de
TEA TASTING SESSION by Fernando Armesto
Tea leaves give flavour to life
Fernando Armesto is a Profesor de Inglés e Inglés Técnico from
Instituto Nacional Superior del Profesorado Técnico de
ADOLESCENTES HOY by Diego Pozzi
¿La educación tiene que estar al servicio de los
jóvenes?
Diego Pozzi es psicopedagogo
(Instituto del Profesorado del Consudec)
y Licenciado en Psicología (Universidad Católica de
READY,STEADY & GO! by Fernando Armesto and Martha Ortigueira
Start the
academic year with a handful of useful tips and activities to make the most of
your classes.
BLENDED LEARNING by Martha Ortigueira
Technology
in the classroom: Is that for me? A paractical overview of of the different
technologies available and suggestions as to how we can use them in class.
Martha Ortigueira is a Profesora en Inglés - Facultad de Filosofía y Letras
de
Special Course:
EMPOWERING LEGAL ENGLISH
TEACHERS by Cecilia
Irrazábal
Starting on February 18th
from
5 sessions – Monday to Friday
This seminar is aimed at helping teachers who are willing to get started
in this developing ESP field: LEGAL
ENGLISH
Attendants will receive help in understanding the law, especially in the
areas included in the International Legal English coursebook and
Also, the instructor will provide materials for classroom use and some
practical tips on how to teach English for lawyers and law students.
Cecilia Andrea Irrazábal is a Traductora Pública en Idioma Inglés, (UCA). Associate Professor of
Legal Translation at UCA. She has been
teaching English for Law Students and Lawyers for the last six years. She
currently works as Legal English Instructor at UCA’s
Fees
Before
February 16th $ 40 each workshop
More than
2 workshops $30 each.
LEGAL
ENGLISH: $190
Methods
of Payment:
Bank
Deposit: Banco Supervielle cuenta ahorro 51- 502016/6 G. Ortigueira
Bank
Transfer: CBU: 02700519 80020050201662
CUIT 27166673416
On Site
Before the Workshops $45 each, $35 more than 2 workshops
LEGAL
ENGLISH: $200
Avda. Suárez 1525 – Ciudad de Buenos Aires
e-mails: workshops@institutomaryland.com.ar
Phone
numbers: 4301 – 8533/ 4302 –9471(9 to 12)
Office
Hours: Monday to Thursday 5:30 to 8:00 p.m
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
7.- I°
CONGRESO DE AUTORES INGLESES EN
DE CUYO
Universidad
Nacional de Cuyo
Facultad de
Filosofía y Letras
Secretaría de
Extensión Universitaria
I° Congreso de
Autores Ingleses
Asociación de
Colegios e Institutos de Inglés de Mendoza
Valores
y Cultura en
26, 27 y 28 de
junio de 2008
Objetivo:
trabajar junto con la lengua inglesa la mejor literatura en inglés, susceptible
de rescatar valores altamente humanos, “la posición del hombre en el mundo, en
la sociedad y respecto de lo trascendente”.
Fecha: 26, 27 y
28 de junio de 2008.
Lugar: Facultad
de Filosofía y Letras – U.N. Cuyo –Pque. Gral San Martín – Mendoza
Convocatoria:
profesores y estudiantes a la preparación de trabajos para su presentación
Tema: Valores y
Cultura en
Estructura:
conferencias plenarias luego, comisiones simultáneas de profesores y de
estudiantes.
Publicación: no
se aceptarán ponencias que no se ajusten
al tema propuesto. La publicación será electrónica.
Presentación de
resúmenes y ponencias
Enviar los
resúmenes hasta el 2 de mayo de 2008, máximo 100 palabras, por correo
electrónico: lauracasetti@yahoo.com.ar , con
copia a nestorgabriellujan@yahoo.com.ar
Los trabajos, en
soporte papel y disquete, deben especificar título, autor/es, institución de pertenencia. Deben tener un
máximo de 2.000 palabras.
Únicamente serán
leídos aquellos trabajos cuyos autores estén presentes en el Congreso.
Se publicarán
solamente los trabajos entregados durante el Congreso según las normas
señaladas.
Aranceles: se
comunicarán oportunamente, como asimismo los hoteles aconsejables por precio y
cercanía.
Prof. Laura
Cassetti de Racca - Coord. Gral. Congreso
Néstor G. Luján -
Pres. Comisión Organizadora
Informes: extension@logos.uncu.edu.ar , lauraracca@yahoo.com.ar
, nestorgabriellujan@yahoo.com.ar
Teléfono: 0261-4240278 2615122638
--------------------------------------------------------
8.-
COURSES ON DRAMA TECHNIQUES AND STORYTELLING
IN
One-session
courses for teachers at InterHotel:
Storytelling in the Language Classroom
February 13th
2008 (9 to 12)
By Alejandra Alliende
• The power of stories in the language
classroom
• Techniques for the storyteller
• Choosing and adapting stories to tell
• Storytelling techniques
Drama Techniques for Teachers
February
20th 2008 (9 to 12)
By
Alejandra Alliende
• Drama techniques for the Language Teacher
• Drama techniques for the Language
Classroom
• Effective role playing activities
Lots of
tips and ideas to put into practice!
Venue for both courses:
Esmeralda 1056 1º “M”, Ciudad de Buenos Aires.
Fee: $40
per course.
- Handouts,
certificates and coffee break included for both courses
Enrollment
and Further Information: 4311-1615 / 4311-0883
Alejandra
Alliende is a graduate Teacher of English from ISP Dr. Joaquin V
Gonzalez. She also
graduated as an Actress from Conservatorio de Arte Dramático in 2000.
She has
attended storytelling workshops with Jan Blake and A. María Bovo.
She has
taught English in companies and in schools for many years.
She is an
experienced actress both in Spanish and in English and has performed in a
number of plays.
She has
been an actress from The Bs.As Players Theatre Company and has been an acting
teacher from
For the
past six years, she has taught acting at Centro Cultural San Martín and has
done storytelling in schools both in English and in Spanish.
She
currently teaches English at Colegio Integral Caballito – a primary bilingual
school.
------------------------------------------------------------
9.- JORNADAS INTERNACIONALES DE LINGÜÍSTICA
SISTÉMICO FUNCIONAL
Y ENSEÑANZA DE LENGUAS
Disertante invitado: William Greaves - York University- Canada
“Intonation in SFL”
Presentation of the book “Intonation in the Grammar of English”
Halliday, M.A.K and Greaves, William
23 al 26 de abril
de 2008
Auspiciado por
ALSFAL - Asociación de Lingüística Sistémico Funcional de América Latina
Plazo de Entrega de
Resúmenes: 29 de Febrero de 2008.
Los resúmenes
deben tener una extensión no mayor a 500 palabras y enviarse por correo
electrónico a: jornadaslsf@uda.edu.ar
Pueden
presentarse en español o inglés y deben responder a la siguiente
estructura:
Título del
trabajo en mayúscula, nombre de los autores, nombre de
dirección
electrónica, área temática y cuerpo del resumen
Texto
justificado, sin sangría,interlineado: simple. Procesador de texto: Microsoft
Word, formato RTF. Fuente: Arial 11
Ejes temáticos:
Enseñanza de la
lengua extranjera dentro del marco de
Aspectos teóricos
y enseñanza de la entonación en inglés
La teoría del
género en el marco de
Alfabetización
académica desde la teoría del género.
Valoración
(evaluation/ appraisal)
Traducción y LSF
Destinatarios:
Investigadores,
profesores de lengua materna, profesores de lenguas extranjeras, traductores,
alumnos de las carreras de profesorado y traductorado de inglés.
Las jornadas
estarán organizadas de acuerdo con el siguiente esquema:
Martes 23/4 a
Viernes 26/4 de 09:30 a 13:30
Conferencias
plenarias dictadas por el profesor
William Greaves
Martes 23/4 a
Viernes 26/4 de 14:30 a 15:00 y de 15:15 a 16:45
Presentación
simultánea de ponencias
Para mayor información dirigirse a: jornadaslsf@uda.edu.ar
------------------------------------------------------------
10.- COURSES ON NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN
EDUCATION AT NET-LEARNING
Implementando
E-Learning con Moodle
Dictado por profesores
de España y Argentina
Modalidad virtual
(7 semanas).
Inicio: 11 de
Marzo de 2008
Learning
2.0:
Dictado por
Modalidad virtual (3 semanas).
Inicio: 13 de
marzo de 2008
Taller
Presencial
Mobile
Learning - El aprendizaje en
Dictado por Raúl
Santiago Campión, Profesor de
Certificado por
Inicio: 26 de
Marzo de 2008
Experto
Universitario en Diseño Didáctico Instruccional para E-Learning
Dictado por profesores
de España, Alemania y Argentina (7 semanas).
Modalidad virtual (3 meses y medio)
Título otorgado
por
Inicio: 15 de
Abril de 2008
Diploma
Universitario en "Diseño, Gestión y Evaluación de Proyectos
E-Learning"
Dictado por profesores
de España, USA, Alemania y Argentina.
Modalidad virtual
(Duración: 500 Horas, 9 Meses)
Título otorgado
por
Inicio: 22 de
abril de 2008
Más información e
Inscripción:
www.net-learning.com.ar
info@net-learning.com.ar
Tel: (011)
4796-0181 / (011) 4464-0350 - desde el exterior (54 11) 4796-0181
Fax: (011)
4032-1247 - desde el exterior (1-315) 71-1615
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.- CURSOS DEL CALENDARIO ACADÉMICO DE
Dra. Alicia María
Zorrilla
Presidenta y Directora
Académica
Diplomatura
en Enseñanza del Español como Lengua Extranjera
Duración: dos
años (dos veces por semana)
Título no
oficial: Diplomado en enseñanza del español como lengua extranjera
Modalidad:
presencial
Formación
del Traductor Corrector en Lengua Española
(Convenio firmado
con el Colegio de Traductores Públicos de
Duración: ocho
meses
Modalidad: a
distancia
Terminología:
Herramienta para comprender, redactar y traducir el conocimiento especializado
Profesoras:
Traductoras Estela Lalanne de Servente y Gabriela Pérez
Duración: cuatro
meses (una clase de dos horas por semana)
Modalidad:
presencial
Conceptos
Generales de Lexicografía
Profesor: Dr.
Francisco Petrecca
Duración: cuatro
meses (una clase de dos horas por semana)
Modalidad:
presencial
Sintaxis
y Traducción (inglés-español)
Profesora: Lcda.
Angélica Vaninetti
Duración: ocho
meses (una clase de dos horas por semana)
Modalidad:
presencial
Informes e
Inscripción:
Avda. Callao
262 Piso 3.° 1022 Buenos Aires
República
Argentina
Tel./Fax (54-11) 4371-4621
(54-11) 4784-9381
Horario de
atención: de lunes a viernes, de
fundlitterae@arnet.com.ar . Visite
la página Web: www.fundlitterae.org.ar
-------------------------------------------------------------------
12.- CARRERA DE ESPECIALIZACIÓN EN ANÁLISIS DEL DISCURSO EN
LA
UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DEL LITORAL
Universidad Nacional del Litoral
Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias
Carrera de Especialización en Estudios del Género y Semántica del Discurso
en Inglés-Lengua Extranjera
Título que otorga.
Especialista en Análisis del Discurso en Inglés- Lengua Extranjera.
Alcance del título:
Los egresados podrán desarrollar actividades en:
• Instituciones educativas de
los distintos niveles del sistema educativo
• Institutos y centros de
investigación.
• Organismos públicos y/o
privados con competencia en el ámbito de la educación.
Modalidad presencial
Duración: cuatro cuatrimestres (7 seminarios de 60 h. teórico-practicas y un
trabajo final integrador)
Régimen de Cursado: Quincenal.
Sábados de
Inicio de Clases: Abril 2008
Plan de Estudios de
Seminarios, Cursos y Talleres
1 Fundamentos de los Estudios
sobre el Discurso
2 Discurso, Cultura y Cognición
3 Discurso y Educación
4 Análisis del Género
5 Análisis Crítico del Discurso
6 Semántica del Discurso
7 Seminario Taller de
Integración y Síntesis
8 Trabajo Final Integrador
Arancel: Inscripción $300 y 15 cuotas de $200
.
Coordinación Técnica: Abog.Martín Izaguirre- mizaguir@unl.edu.ar
Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias UNL, Ciudad Universitaria Pje.
El Pozo 3000 Santa Fe
Dirección Ciudad Universitaria Pje. El Pozo 3000 Santa Fe
(0342) 4575105 int.121. Fax: (0342) 4575105 int.120.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.- III
JORNADAS DE ESPAÑOL COMO LENGUA EXTRANJERA
III Jornadas de
Español como Lengua Extranjera
I Congreso
Internacional de Enseñanza e Investigación en ELSE
21 al 23 de mayo
de 2008
Facultad de
Lenguas, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba
Av. Valparaíso
s/n, Ciudad Universitaria
Organizan:
Maestría en
Enseñanza de Español como Lengua Extranjera y Área de Español Lengua
Extranjera,
Secretarías de Posgrado y de Extensión y Relaciones Internacionales, Facultad
de Lenguas, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba.
Destinatarios:
Docentes,
investigadores y alumnos del nivel superior universitario y no universitario,
nacionales y extranjeros cuya área de interés o especialización sea el español
como lengua segunda lengua o extranjera.
Para mayor
información, escribir a: elsecongreso@fl.unc.edu.ar
o elsecongreso@gmail.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.- THE HISTORY OF ROCK & ROLL IN
YOUR SCHOOL
A Special Event for your Secondary Pupils
A History of Rock &
Roll
An educational presentation in English for adolescents and adults, AHRR provides an overview of modern music from its roots in Africa, the early accoustic blues of the Deep South, up the Mississippi River to Chicago and the Classic Electric Blues, to the birth of Rock and Roll in the 1950s, and then over to England where the music was transformed by the Beatles and Rolling Stones.
The presenters, Mick Hillyard of
Topics covered include racial segregation, economic development, and how the evolution of both technology and society worked together to create the music that we all know and love. The presentation lasts approximately 90 minutes, including a question and answer period at the end.
Contact Ben Zuckerman on benzuckerman@yahoo.com
or Tel: 5411
45434549
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.- CURSOS Y SEMINARIOS DE POSGRADO EN
DE CÓRDOBA
Seminario: Procesos y Estrategias de Aprendizaje en una Segunda Lengua
Profesora: Mgtr.
Ana Longhini
Días: 15, 16, 29
de febrero y 1º de marzo Horario:
Seminario: Literatura Étnica de los EEUU
Profesora: Mgtr. Mirian Carballo
Días: 15, 16, 29 de febrero y 1º de marzo Horario:
Curso: Metodología de
Profesor: Dr.
Mario López Barrios
Días: 28, 29
marzo, 11, 12, 25 y 26 de abril
Horario:
Curso: Literatura Norteamericana de
Profesora: Mgtr.
Laila Nicola
Días: 28, 29 de
marzo; 11, 12, 25 y 26 de abril
Horario:
Informes e
inscripción: Secretaría de Posgrado - Av. Vélez Sársfield 187 – Terraza, 1º piso.
Secretaría de
-----------------------------------------------------------
16.- CALENDARIO ESCOLAR 2008
Extraído de EL DÍA (
Las clases
comenzarán el 3 de marzo
El ciclo lectivo
del año próximo comenzará el 3 de marzo en
También se
adelantó que sería el ministro de Educación nacional electo, Juan Carlos
Tedesco, quien lo inaugurará para todo el país en esa fecha, desde Chubut.
El Consejo
Federal de Educación (CFE), que reúne a los titulares de las carteras del país,
fijó las vacaciones de invierno 2008 del 14 al 25 de
julio, a excepción de las escuelas de
En Corrientes,
donde en el actual año escolar se perdieron 45 días lectivos por huelgas
docentes,
-----------------------------------------------------------
17.- ELT E-READING GROUP
We would
like to invite you to visit the ELT e-reading Group webpage on the British
Council Literature website and see the texts we have been discussing for
the past four months.
Texts are all chosen from free online sources. The group meets online and
participants post their comments to a discussion board. So far we have threads
open to debate the following short stories:
'In the National Gallery' by Doris Lessing
'The Curse' by A.C. Clarke
'A House in the Country' by Romesh Gunesekera
'Ullswater' by Romesh Gunesekera.
For further information on the group and to join us,please visit
http://www.britishcouncil.org.
arts-literature-creativereading-eltereading.htm
The ELT e-Reading Group was created by a collective of English language
educators from all over the world with the support of the British Council. It
aims at encouraging ELT professionals to read literature in English, helping to
build bridges between cultures and
contributing to build tolerance and intercultural competence through the
discussion of works literature.
Chris Lima
Project coordinator
------------------------------------------------------------
18.- URUTESOL NATIONAL
CONVENTION: CALL FOR PARTICIPATION
URUTESOL
NATIONAL CONVENTION: “CHALLENGE AND ACHIEVEMENT”
Celebrating
our 20th anniversary
Call for
Participation
Topics of
Interest
Participants
from all TESOL contexts and related fields are invited to submit proposals.
Particularly welcome are proposals related to next year's theme ”Challenge and
achievement”, focusing on building communities of practice, inquiry and
cooperation . URUTESOL also welcomes proposals concerning the future of the
profession, especially those with a global perspective on professional
development. Presentations on research in language teaching and learning and
presentations using interactive formats that engage the audience and focus on
classroom practices are also encouraged.
Types of
Proposals
URUTESOL invites proposals for papers, demonstrations, workshops , colloquia and
poster session.
Paper (45
minutes): An oral summary, with occasional reference to notes or a text, that
discusses the presenters work in relation to theory or practice. Handouts and
audiovisual aids may be used.
Demonstration
(45 minutes): Shows, rather than tells, a technique for teaching or testing The
presenter should briefly explain the theory underlying the technique. The
presenter provides handouts and may use audiovisual aids.
Workshop (1
hour, 30 minutes): A carefully structured, hands-on professional development
activity. The leader helps participants solve a problem or develop a specific
teaching or research technique.
Colloquium
(1 hour, 30 minutes): A forum for a group of scholars to formally present and
discuss current EFL and ESL issues. Presenters exchange papers in advance and
formally respond to each other's positions. The colloquium organizer is
responsible for securing participants who represent various viewpoints in the
field before submitting a proposal.
Poster
Session: (45 minutes): A self-explanatory exhibit that allows for informal
discussion with participants.
The poster
is to be mounted on a display board that includes a title, the name and
institutional affiliation of the presenter(s), and a brief text with clearly
labeled photos, drawings, graphs, or charts. Presenters are available for
discussion.
Submission
To submit
your proposal via e- mail, please complete the following steps:
1. Send the completed, two-page proposal form
and the abstract for the academic
committee by the appropriate deadline to urutesol@gmail.com
2. URUTESOL must receive proposals by the due
date, March 15, 2008
3. URUTESOL will send you an e-mail message
to confirm receipt of your proposal.
4. If your e-mail address changes after the
submission of your proposal, send an e-mail message to urutesol@gmail.com as soon as possible.
Abstract
for the Academic Committee
• will not exceed 300 words. Proposals
submitted with longer session descriptions will be disqualified.
• will have a clearly stated purpose and
point of view
• will include supporting details and
examples
• will contain evidence of current
practices and/or research
• will use an appropriate format (e.g.,
paper, demonstration)
• will include a variety of techniques
(e.g., activities, visuals)
• will show appropriate amount of material
for the allotted time
• will demonstrate careful editing and
proofreading
The
Convention Academic Committee seeks balance in
• range of topics
• level of expertise
• interests covered
• professional and geographic distribution
of the participants
• relevance of the proposal to the needs of
English language teaching professionals and the convention' s theme
Another
important factor is how well the abstract for the academic committee is written. Abstracts should possess:
• accuracy
• clarity of purpose
• succinctness
• appropriateness
• significance for the intended audience
• evidence of a high standard of research
(if relevant)
Factors
Disqualifying a Proposal
1. The presentation promotes commercial
interests ( except those sponsored by publishers or bookshops).
2. The proposal is not completed according to
the guidelines outlined in this Call for
Participation
3. The proposal was not received at Urutesol
´s mail by the appropriate deadline: March 15, 2008
Web
page: www.urutesol.org
E-mail
address: urutesol@gmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
19.- SPECIALIST COURSE ON INTONATION IN CÓRDOBA
Intonation
in English
William S.
Greaves
El Prof. William
S. Greaves (York University, Toronto, Canada) desarrollará y actualizará
conceptos fundamentales sobre la entonación del inglés desde la perspectiva de
Fechas: mes de
abril 2008, con días a confirmar
Duración: 20
horas reloj
Modalidad:
Presencial con uso de laboratorio de idiomas (programa Praat)
Destinatarios:
Profesores, traductores y licenciados en inglés con la fonética y fonología
como área de interés
Por las
características del curso, el cupo será limitado a no más de 20 participantes.
Facultad de
Lenguas - Universidad Nacional de Córdoba
Av. Vélez
Sársfield 187 y Av. Valparaíso S/N, Ciudad Universitaria
CPA X5000JJB •
Tel/Fax +00 54 0351 4331073 al 75 int. 30
William S.
Greaves is Emeritus Associate Professor in the English Department at
------------------------------------------------------------
20.- ACTIVIDADES DE CAPACITACIÓN 2008 EN CETI
El CETI se
complace en anunciar las nuevas propuestas para sus cursos de capacitación y
actualización profesional y compartir con estudiantes y colegas los proyectos
orientados a que los asistentes estén mejor preparados para enfrentar el
mercado laboral:
Curso
de Perito Intérprete para traductores públicos
Duración: tres
cuatrimestres. Articulable con el Curso de Interpretación de Conferencias.
A partir del 2 de
abril, los días miércoles de
Curso
de Interpretación de Conferencias
Idiomas de
trabajo: Inglés-Español y Portugués-Español.
Inglés: a partir
del 2 de abril, los días miércoles de
Portugués: a
partir del 1º de abril, los días martes de
Coordinación de
ambos cursos: Olga Álvarez de Barr traductora pública e intérprete de
conferencias, miembro del CTPCBA (Colegio de Traductores Públicos de
Admisión a ambos
cursos: En función de un diagnóstico desarrollado durante una entrevista
personal.
Curso
de Traducción para Subtitulado y Doblaje
Duración: Seis
meses
Coordinación:
Julia Benseñor, traductora pública y técnico científica, directora del CETI.
A partir del 1º
de abril, los días martes de
Actualización
en lengua inglesa
A cargo de
Alfredo Jaeger, MSc en ELT Management, Gran Bretaña. Profesor Titular de Lengua
y Literatura Inglesa, IES en Lenguas Vivas "Juan R. Fernández". Ex
consultor del Proyecto OEA/CONET en el área de Inglés con Fines Específicos.
A partir del 3 de
abril, los días jueves de
Traducción
de textos médicos (Módulo I)
A cargo de Pamela
Fioravanti, traductora pública y técnico-científica especializada en medicina.
Colaboradora de instituciones hospitalarias.
A partir del 3 de
abril, los días jueves de
Módulo II: a
partir del 5 de junio. Duración: 8 clases.
Inscripción y
aranceles
Vacantes: 12 por
taller
Horario de
inscripción: de
Aranceles
(Incluye el material): Bonificaciones para asistentes a más de un curso
Interpretación de
Conferencias (primer año): 8 cuotas mensuales de $240 + matrícula de $120
Perito Intérprete
(primer año): 8 cuotas mensuales de $240 + matrícula de $120
Traducción para
subtitulado y doblaje: 8 cuotas mensuales de $200
Talleres
bimestrales de lengua y traducción: $220 por mes
Forma de pago:
Consultar por correo electrónico
Se expiden
constancias de asistencia
CETI
Centro de
Traducción e Interpretación
Junín 143
Telefax: (54 11)
4953-1212 - ceti-talleres@datamarkets.com.ar
------------------------------------------------------------
21.- NEWS FROM ROOTS
Our dear SHARER Silvia Mackenzie from ROOTS Bookshop writes to us:
Dear Colleagues,
We are four Years Old! Ad good news!!!!
We are relocating to new premises.
As from February our new address will be:
Primeros Pobladores 899 – (8300) Neuquen (It's a free parking area)
We are keeping our telephone and our mail: 0299 443 1881
ROOTS Bookshop -
The
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We would like to finish this issue of SHARE with a message from our dear SHARER Diana Englebert Moody:
Dear Omar & rest of Villareal Clan:
Another year, another chapter closing in our path.
What really counts, besides all the ups & downs we
may have encountered, is our mutual compromise as SHARERS.
May 2008 deepen our spiritual and
professional values within our teaching community guided by our Greatest
TEACHER and let us all SHARE and enjoy our blessings!
Love to you all!
Diana
HAVE A
WONDERFUL WEEK!
Omar and
Marina.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SHARE is
distributed free of charge. All announcements in this electronic magazine are
also absolutely free of charge. We do not endorse any of the services announced
or the views expressed by the contributors. For more information about
the characteristics and readership of SHARE visit: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/ShareMagazine
VISIT OUR
WEBSITE : http://www.ShareEducation.com.ar
There you can read all past issues of SHARE in the section SHARE
ARCHIVES.
------------------------------------------------------------------------