Firth and Wagner 1997 On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research.

Calling for a discrepant and broadening understanding on SLA which challenges the conventional methodologies, approaches, theories and foci within SLA, the writer believes those existing methods has led to an oblique viewpoints on foreign language speakers while carrying out a conversation. He requires an enhanced awareness of the contextual and interactional dimension of language use in SLA research.

The writer starts by examining the predominant view on discourse and view within SLA, criticizing the imbalanced theoretical concern and methodologies in the SLA. To make SLA field more theoretically and methodologically richer and better explicate the process of second/foreign language acquisition, the writer analyzes the previously published date from which he gives disparate insights and conclusion.

The writer furthers his discussion from three aspects, discourse and communication, communication strategies, and input modification studies in his article.

Personally, I am very interested in the writer’s conversation analysis involving a well-educated American and a Japanese office worker at beginner level in the 3rd part, which were presented by Larsen-freeman and Long(1991)(P.293). It was a conversation with predictable, familiar and here-and-now topics. The writer disagrees with them by claiming both had not performed at their native and nonnative competencies due to a variety of reasons (setting-imposed tasks meeting for the 1st time, given roles). From my perspective, because of NS’s superior language competence, NNS will have a certain amount of pressure that they may make some mistakes and may not be able to express themselves at their best while having a conversation with NS. It is this concern and inconfidence that lead to more repetition and narrower range of topics.

Moreover, “The NS is not taking the initiative, NS is being given the initiative by NNS, and is taking it on this basis” NNS, a Japanese office worker, being at beginner level, was not proficient in speaking English. Under any circumstance, the NS is expected to take the initiative. However, if the NNS was at higher level and with an outgoing personality, who takes the initiative might be different.

By analyzing the NNS & NNS’s conversation（p.295）, the writer indicates it is acceptable to speak erroneous English, which is an integral part of progression, normal conversational discourse. I am far away from advocating either speaking correct English constantly or repeating the mistakes frequently. It is debatable if NNS should pay attention to the mistakes they have made or fluency they have improved. However, I know it depends on instructor’s teaching goal, if the instructor wants to encourage the students to improve their fluency, the teacher should not interrupt and correct their grammatical errors. If the instructor has a grammar focus lesson, the instructor is welcomed to correct their mistakes. Majority of teachers do not want to discourage their students enthusiasm in speaking English, especially obvious in some Asian countries in which people are told to avoid errors, therefore, they sometimes ignore students’ inaccurate English and compliment their progression in fluency. The issue I am facing is how should we balance them?

Please feel free to leave your suggestions and comments.