Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations

From Language Proficiency to Interactional Competence
Author(s): Claire Kramsch
Source: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 70, No. 4 (Winter, 1986), pp. 366-372
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/326815
Accessed: 08-10-2015 23:10 UTC
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations and Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal.


This content downloaded from on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 23:10:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FromLanguage Proficiency






leashed by the proficiencymovement in this

country reminds one of the enthusiasm generated in Europe ten years ago by the communicative approach.' There, the renewal
came from the needs of foreignworkers and
adult professionalstravellingwithinthe EEC.
It had a high degree of social and political
urgency and carried with it a great deal of the
idealism of the sixties. Here, the proficiency
landslide is born out of national militaryconcerns and economic interests;several setbacks
in US international diplomacy have made it
clear that US monolingualism and monoculturalism are puttingthis nation at risk.2 The
push forforeignlanguage proficiencyin schools
and universitiesaims at "aligning government
and academic goals," i.e., goals of the defense
department and those of education.3
This paper will firstsummarize the educamovementas they
tional goals ofthe proficiency
are expressed in particular by Higgs and
Lowe.4 It will thenexamine the extentto which
the means proposed by such proficiencyadvocates as Bragger, Byrnes, Galloway, Medley,
Omaggio, and Liskin-Gasparro to design promaterials are likelyto realize
these goals.5


Despite divergent interpretations of the

ACTFL/ETS Proficiency
ACTFL, 1986), and of what
constitutesa "proficiency-oriented
advocates of the movement share common beliefs about the nature and purpose of foreign
language learning in schools. First, language
Journal,70, iv (1986)
?1986 TheModernLanguage

is primarilyafunctional
tool, one forcommunication. Learning a language is learninghow to
use it, mainly forprofessionalpurposes. Higgs
and Cliffordwrite:"We are promotinglanguage
forcareers."6These purposes include all functional uses "fromsurvival as a touristor a student to negotiatingtreaties."7The goal of language teachingis to enable studentsto take part
in the "normalgive-and-takeoftargetlanguage
Second, language is bound to its situational
contextand to what is being communicated in
that context, i.e., to the topic or content.The
specificpurposes forwhich language is put to
use correspond to specific levels of difficulty
which should be made explicit and can be targeted for instruction.9
Third, language proficiencyis a marketable
skill.As such, it should be accountable not only
to the taxpayerswho financethe training,but
to the trainees on the job market. Accuracyin
functionsis thereofthe different
the fulfillment
fore of paramount importance. Accuracy can
be tested, forexample, throughthe Oral ProficiencyInterview, and measured against the
norm of the educated native speaker.10Grammatical accuracy in particular distinguishes
learners who have had formal training in instructionalsettingsfromthose who picked up
the language on the street,as it were. The ultimate functionalsuccess of instructioncan be
determinedforthe speaking skillsby the Oral
ProficiencyInterviewand in turnthe Oral ProficiencyInterviewcan yield guidelineson what
skills to teach and how."
Advocates of proficiency believe that by
stressingfunction,content,and accuracy at all
curlevels of instruction,a proficiency-oriented
riculumwillunbind tongue-tiedAmericansand
increase their "communicative ability," i.e.,
"theirabilityto functioneffectivelyin the lanSince the avowed
guage in real-lifecontexts."'12
cultures" and to

This content downloaded from on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 23:10:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

to Interactional
"interactsuccessfullywithnatives of otherlanguages, especially in questions of diplomacy,
defense, and commerce," we have to assume
that the finaljustification for developing students' proficiencyin a foreignlanguage is to
make them interactionallycompetenton the international scene. The ACTFL/ETS Proficiency
Guidelinesspell out clear and discrete ways of
developing proficiency. But is proficiency
synonymous with interactional competence?
Wells defines interactionas a "collaborative
activity"involving "the establishmentof a triangular relationshipbetweenthe sender,the receiver, and the contextof situation."'3Whether
it is a face-to-faceinteractionbetween two or
several speakers, or the interactionbetween a
reader and a writtentext, successful interaction presupposes not only a shared knowledge
of the world, the referenceto a common external contextof communication, but also the
construction of a shared internal context or
"sphere of inter-subjectivity"that is built
through the collaborative effortsof the interactional partners. These effortsaim at reducing the uncertaintythateach speaker has about
the other'sintentions,perceptions, and expectations. Thus, interactionalways entails negotiatingintendedmeanings, i.e., adjusting one's
speech to the effectone intendsto have on the
listener. It entails anticipatingthe listener'sresponse and possible misunderstandings,clarifyingone's own and the other's intentionsand
arrivingat the closed possible match between
intended, perceived, and anticipated meanings.*14

Current research in psycho- and socio-linguisticshas broughtto lightsome ofthe psychological, social, and linguisticstrategiesused by
speakers,listeners,writers,and readersto bring
about successful interactionand communication.15I will argue here that the oversimplified
view on human interactionstaken by the proficiencymovement can impair and even prevent the attainmentof true interactionalcompetence withina cross-culturalframeworkand
jeopardize our chances of contributingto international understanding.
The suggestedproficiency-oriented
ETS goals differfrom interactional goals on
three accounts: 1) they focus on behavioral
functionsrather than on conceptual notional
development; 2) theyhave a static ratherthan
a dynamic view of content; 3) they emphasize
accuracy to the detrimentof discourseaptitude.




The functionsstated in the Functional Trisection of Oral Proficiencylevels are a diverse

collectionof grammaticaltasks(ask and answer
questions), illocutionary acts (describe, persuade, provide information),and general activities such as "interpretfor dignitaries"and
"resolve problem situations." The languagespecific guidelines, e.g., for German, list,
in addition, situational transactions such as
"handlingsimple transactionsat the post office,
bank, and drugstore." The extremelyuneven
level of abstraction of these "functions"makes
it difficultto know what exactly is being
learned and tested. For example, what does
"asking and answering questions" mean? Is it
the ability to use interrogativesor to fulfilla
varietyof pragmatic functionssuch as gaining
time withrhetoricalquestions, elicitingclarification, or requesting information?If asking a
question is not meant to be a grammaticalskill
but an interactional ability, then it is part of
a much larger notion, i.e., the ability to organize one's thoughts and one's speech in
human interactions. It is then not enough to
know how to formulateand comprehend the
interrogative,one must understand the intention behind the question and comprehendhow
that question relates to the way the speaker
views the world.
Moreover, the low level of abstractionoften
makes transferof functionalskillsfromone activityto the next impossible for the learner.
What does asking fora stamp at the post office
have in common with discussing nuclear disarmament? Very little if we focus on the behavior or the situationitself.Much more, ifwe
are dealing on an abstract level, with such
notions as expressingmodality,judging intentions, and negotiating points of view.
The compelling linearityof the proficiency
levels stated in the Guidelines
hides the factthat
neither functionsnor notions are acquired in
linear progression. For example, one needs to
talk about past and futureactivitiesfar before
level two. Mapping different
functionsonto differentlevels reinforcesthe all-too-pervasivebeliefin linear, cumulativelanguage learningthat
has created false expectations and engendered
disillusions in the past.16 It will lead teachers
to view the Oral ProficiencyInterview as an
achievementtest,ratherthan a proficiencytest,
as Lantolf and Frawley pointed out recently."7

This content downloaded from on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 23:10:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions



Focussing on behavioral
on the concepts expressed has led the proficiency advocates to underestimate the differences in the way foreign languages concepin orderingthe
tualize reality.18The difficulty
afterthree years of French is hardly due to a
deficitin vocabulary and grammar, and rarely
to a lack of the appropriate gambit. It is more
likelydue to a lack of awareness ofthe different
social relationshipsexistingin France between
waiters and customers, of the differentaffective, social, and culturalvalues attachedto cups
of coffee, of the differentperception French
waiters might have of American citizens. In
short, the difficultylies in the differencesin
expectations, assumptions, and general representationsof the world between two speakers.
curricuHow well does a proficiency-oriented
lum teach American studentsto see the world
through the foreignnative speaker's point of
view and to question their own?
The argument has been made that such interactional skills can only be taught once a
ratherhigh level of proficiency(superior and
above) has been reached19- on the grounds, I
assume, that mutual understandingis less impaired if one's vocabulary and grammar are
correct than if one's intercultural skills are
deficient. But can even level one or two students hope to understand native speakers of a
foreigncultureiftheymouth foreignwords but
are not told what theymeanfora nativespeaker?
How can they make sense of the foreigncultural facts presented to them right from the
start?Textbooks, forexample, never offerexplicitlytheAmerican factualcounterpartsofthe
cultural factspresented about the foreignculture. So the student does not know which
American cultural bias lies behind the presentation of foreigncultural facts. For example,
how can students understand a German or a
French person speaking of stateschools, ifthey
have not criticallyreflectedon the difference
in value attached to the word "state" in the
United States and in Europe?
A recentarticleillustratesbest the typeof interactional failurelikely to occur. The author
proposes a beginning culture unit on the German school system,designed forthe sixthweek
of instruction,and statesas the culturalgoals to
be achieved in thatunit: "The studentwill gain
an accurate picture of the educational system

in Germany and be able to understand the

special connotations of the vocabulary associated with the system. The material is presented in such a way thatthe studentwill comprehend the rigidityofthe German systemand
how littleroom for individual development it
provides."20Postponing cross-culturalconcept
development until the superior level is tantamount to building American cultural stereotypes rightinto our students' language proficiency.




By stressing behavioral functions and the

lexical and grammaticalformsof the language,
the proficiencyguidelines emphasize the static
content structure,not the dynamic process of
communication. To be sure, contentstructure
is controllable, measurable, and easily teachable. Process, by contrast, is essentially relative, variable, unpredictable, and is less easy
to teach and test. However, communication is
predicatedon thisveryrelativityand on the unpredictability of interpersonal interaction.
Byrnes defines accuracy as "the success with
which meaning is conveyed."21Yet ifwe agree
that communication is not one-way, not the
sound of one hand clapping, but a two-way
we must admit thataccuracy
can only be achieved if the students have
learned to recognize and understand the process by which two speakers meet each other's
interactionalneeds withinthe requirementsof
the situation. In order to understand content,
it is not enough to experience it, one must reflecton it- paradoxically, one must remove it
from context.
Cummins distinguishesbetween two types
of language proficiency:context-embeddedand
context-reduced.22"Context-embedded communicationderivesfrominterpersonalinvolvement in a shared reality which obviates the
need for explicit linguistic elaboration on the
message." Context-reducedcommunication,by
contrast, derives from the fact that a shared
realitycannot be assumed; and thus linguistic
messages must be elaborated and interpreted
in greaterdepth so thatthe riskof misinterpretationis minimized.Cummins showsthatthere
is a continuumfromcontext-embeddedto context-reducedproficiency.If learning a foreign
language is being socialized in a different

This content downloaded from on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 23:10:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

to Interactional
of literacy, it entails developing not only language but also metalanguage skills in the foreign language, such as the abilityto reflecton
interactionalprocesses, to manipulate and control contexts,to see oneself froman outsider's
point of view.23 If we keep our studentsat the
context-embedded end of the continuum, we
do put them in the situationofchildrenacquiring their native tongue, but we deprive them
of the context-reducedliteracyskillsthat adults
are capable of and which theyneed in adult interactions.24Although research seems to indicate that "decontextualized"language skills,or
literacy training, once acquired in the native
language, are readily available in the second,
we cannot assume that all our foreignlanguage
learners have adequate control of "decontextualized"language skillsin theirnativetongue.25
curricuTherefore,an interactionally-oriented
lum must include a criticaland explicit reflection of the discourse parametersoflanguage in
use. Without it, students are at the mercy of
content structure,of the words they hear or
read, withoutbeing able to recognizeeitherthe
personal intentionsor the culturalassumptions
behind the words.




Larson and Jones define proficiencyas "the

abilityto communicateaccuratelyin whichever
language modalityis pertinentto the communicative requirementsof the situation."26Byrnes
agrees that"communicationof meanings is dependent upon accuracy in the handling of lexicon and structure."27
The cryforaccuracy,triggered by the specter of the grammatical terminal 2 + raised by Higgs in 1982, has come
to mean grammatical accuracy, although
Byrnes extends the concept to all types of
formal accuracy.28 Why all this emphasis on
grammatical accuracy? Not so much because
grammatical errors impede communication,
but because it has been claimed that they irritate native speakers.29Since the whole point of
learning a foreignlanguage is to evoke a favorable attitude toward the American speaker,
grammatical accuracy should be stressed,it is
said, from the beginning of study.
This positionraises a numberof issues. First,
it is by no means proven that linguisticerrors
cause more irritationthan sociolinguistic or
paralinguisticerrors,which are in factlikelyto

lead to breakdownsin communicationor cause
serious offenseor insult without people even
being aware of these often subtle aspects of
communication.30Moreover, pragmatic failure, a term used by Thomas to indicate "the
inabilityto understand what is meant by what
is said," not onlypasses uncheckedby thenative
speaker or theteacher,but is attributedto some
other cause such as rudeness, indecisiveness,
or hypocrisy,and the speaker is stereotypedaccordingly.31For example, patternsof directness
or politenessin American discourse mightlead
foreignersto view Americans as aggressive or
hypocritical.In a studyof native speaker reactions to learners' spoken interlanguage, some
colleagues found that"learnersdo not improve
the attitudestheyevoke towardsthemselvesand
the contentof what theysay simplyby increasing their correctness."32 More studies are
needed as to what types of errormost impede
communication. A qualitative analysis of
learners' spoken interlanguage suggests that
errorsat the discourse level are those thatmost
block comprehension. This findingis important, as most pedagogical grammarsand materials pay littleattentionto suprasententialaspects of syntax.
Second, it is well known that learners attribute all theirdifficulties
to problemsofvocabulary and grammar and are not even aware of
having problems in the structureof their discourse.33 Having the teacher monitor lexical
and grammaticalaccuracy not only is no guarantee against fossilizationof errors,it deceives
the students into believing that success in
human interactionsis contingenton them saying the rightword, withthe rightendings, i.e.,
gettingtheirgrammar straightat the sentence
Third, I will not add to the virulentcontroversy surrounding the concept of the native
speaker.35 However, teacher authorityin demanding accuracy togetherwith the construct
of the educated native speaker norm are least
likely to fostercross-culturalawareness in the
classroom. Classroom discourse is institutionallyasymmetric,non-negotiable,norm-referenced, and teacher-controlled,thus hardly
conducive to developingthe interpersonalsocial
skills that require interpretationand negotiation of intended meanings.
Byrnes points out that ifwe want to develop
students' interactional competence in foreign

This content downloaded from on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 23:10:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions


cultures, we have to teach them the main discourse functionsneeded to allow fornatural interactionin the classroom.36These include, she
says, taking turns, holding and yielding the
floor,introducingand buildingtopics. Such behavioral strategiesare useful, to be sure, but
theyare only the firststep toward establishing
cross-culturalunderstandingin the classroom.
I use the term cross-culturalhere as Thomas
does, to describe not only native-nonnative
interactions,but any communication between
two people who do not share a common cultural background by virtueof regional, ethnic,
political,or economic class differences.
37As one
of my students expressed it: "How can you
expect me to understanda German? I am from
Montana and my fatherraises horses, and I
can't even understand thisotherstudentin the
class who is fromNew York and his fatheris
a universityprofessor!"Interactional competence begins at home. If we want our students
to mean what theysay and say what theymean
in the foreignlanguage, we must be ready to
develop less theiraccuracy and more theirdiscourse aptitude in and throughthe foreignlanguage.
The Proficiency
hardlymentiondiscourse aptitude,and when theydo, theyremain
at the textual level of discourse cohesion,e.g.,
the rightuse of cohesive devices such as pronouns or verb inflections.They do not address
the much more crucial issue of discourse coherence,whichrequiresenteringtemporarilysomeone else's frameof referenceand followingthe
culturallogic of theirconversation.As the Chinese saying goes: "Not to let a word get in the
way of its sentence/norto let a sentence get in
the way of its intention/butto send your mind
out to meet the intentionas a guest/THAT is

The ACTFL/ETS Guidelines

thatlanguage teachingand learning are inputoutput processes, guided by a linear acquisi-


1A revised version of a paper presented at the Modern

Language Association Annual Meeting, December 1985.
2Judith Liskin-Gasparro, "The ACTFL Proficiency

tion of grammatical structuresand that the

major criterionof accuracy is grammarcorrection, to be attained by careful monitoringby
the teacher. Moreover, the Guidelines
maintain that successful communication will
take place ifthe learnershave the required proficiency,i.e., if they know how to put their
point across appropriately,precisely,and correctly,and withthe required degree of fluency.
This simplifiedview of language and communicationignoresthe advances offoreignlanguage acquisition research. By teaching only
what we can test,and by lettingonlythe testers
tell us what we should teach, we are missing
a unique opportunity,that of truly changing
foreign language education in this country.
Tests which have to break down language into
functions,structures,and accuracy levels have
their purpose, but they do not show learners
how to achieve the synthesisnecessaryto adapt
to new conversational partners, new cultural
contexts,new situations. For such a synthesis
to take place, the focushas to be on the notions
or concepts,on interactionalprocesses and discourse skills.
Proficiency,as described by the Guidelines,
will not automaticallylead to the interactional
competence necessaryforsuccessfulcommunication in diplomacy, defense, and commerce.
Indeed, by shiftingthe emphasis away fromthe
relativityof interpersonal communication to
target norms and testable featuresof speech,
proficiencymighteven preventitselffromever
reaching its goals.
I propose redirectingthe enthusiasm generated by the proficiencymovement toward a
push forinteractionalcompetence, so that our
studentsdo not dictatetomorrow'streaties,but
undernegotiatethemin a spiritof intercultural
standing. Aligning our goals with those of the
Department of State may result in short-term
gains, but it will not pay offin the long run,
and we will miss our chance to give our students a trulyemancipatory, ratherthan compensatory, foreignlanguage education.

Guidelines: A Historical Perspective,"Teachingfor

The OrganizingPrinciple,ed. Theodore V. Higgs (Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook, 1984), p. 12.
3Pardee Lowe, "The ILR Oral Interview: Origins, Ap16
plications, Pitfalls and Implications," Unterrichtspraxis,
(1983), p.

This content downloaded from on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 23:10:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

to Interactional
4Theodore V. Higgs & Pardee Lowe (see notes 2 and
3 above).
5See in particularJeannette D. Bragger, "The Development of Oral Proficiency,"Frank W. Medley, Jr., "Designing the Proficiency-BasedCurriculum," and Heidi Byrnes,
"Teaching Toward Proficiency:The Receptive Skills,"Proficiency,Curriculum,
Articulation.The Ties thatBind, ed. Alice
Omaggio (Middlebury, VT: Northeast Conference, 1985).
See also Vicki B. Galloway, "Perceptions of the Communicative EffortsofAmerican Studentsof Spanish," ModernLanguageJournal,64 (1980), pp. 428-33; Alice Omaggio, "The
Proficiency-OrientedClassroom," in Higgs (note 2 above);
A Guide to Proficiency-Oriented
TeachingLanguage in Context.:
(Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle, 1986); Judith
Liskin-Gasparro (note 2 above).
6Theodore V. Higgs & Ray Clifford,"The Push Toward
and theForeignLanCommunication," Curriculum,
guageTeacher,ed. Theodore V. Higgs (Skokie, IL: National
Textbook, 1982), p. 62.
7Higgs and Clifford (note 6 above), p. 60.
8Lowe (note 3 above), p. 238.
9Higgs & Clifford (note 6 above), p. 62.
'0Higgs & Clifford (note 6 above), p. 64.
11Pardee Lowe, "Proficiency-BasecCurriculum Design,"
18 (1985), pp. 241-42. See also Medley
(note 5 above).
12See Heidi Byrnes, "Communicative Competence,
Functions/Notions:Implications forand froma Proficiency
17 (1984), p. 197; Judith
Orientation," Unterrichtspraxis,
Liskin-Gasparro (note 2 above), p. 12.
13Gordon Wells et al., Learning ThroughInteraction.The
(Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.
Press, 1981), pp. 29, 46-47.
LanguageTeaching,ed. Wilga M. Rivers (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1986).
"5See in particular work done in psycho- and socio-linguistics: Dorte Albrechtsen, Birgit Henriksen & Claus
Faerch, "Native Speaker Reactions to Learners' Spoken Inter-language," Language Learning,30 (1980), pp. 365-96;
Larry Selinker & John T. Lamendella, "The Role of ExtrinsicFeedback in Interlanguage Fossilization," Language
Learning,29 (1979), pp. 363-75; Strategiesin Interlanguage
ed. Claus Faerch & Gabi Kasper (London:
Longman, 1983); Elite Olshtain, "Sociocultural Competence and Language Transfer: The Case of Apology," Lanin LanguageLearning,ed. Susan Gass & Larry
guage Transfer
Selinker (Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1983), pp. 23249; Robin C. Scarcella, "Discourse Accent in Second Language Performance," in Gass & Selinker (above), pp.
306-26; Jenny Thomas, "Cross-Cultural Pragmatic
Failure," AppliedLinguistics,4 (1983), pp. 91-112. See also
work done in communication and interaction processes in
language learning such as that by Jim Cummins, "Language Proficiency and Academic Achievement," Issues in
LanguageTestingResearch,ed. John W. Oller (Rowley, MA:
Newbury House, 1983), pp. 108-29; Claire Kramsch, Interaction
dansla classede langue(Paris: Hatier-Credif,
1985); Catherine Snow, "Beyond Conversation: Second
Language Learners' Acquisition of Description and Explanation," SecondLanguageAcquisitionin theClassroomSetting,
ed. James Lantolf& Robert di Pietro (Norwood, NJ: Ablex,
in press).

16PatsyM. Lightbown,"ExploringRelationshipsbetween
Developmental and InstructionalSequences in Second LanResearchin SecondLanguage Acquisition," Classroom-Oriented
guageAcquisition,ed. Herbert W. Seliger & Michael Long
(Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1983), pp. 217-45.
'7James P. Lantolf& William Frawley, "Oral Proficiency
Testing: A Critical Analysis," ModernLanguageJournal,69
(1986), pp. 337-45.
18Wilga M. Rivers, "Foreign Language Acquisition:
Where the Real Problems Lie," AppliedLinguistics,1 (1980),
pp. 48-59. For a discussion of behavioral objectives in
foreignlanguage education see Nancy R. Tumposky, "Behavioral Objectives, the Cult of Efficiency,and Foreign
Language Learning: Are They Compatible?" TESOL Quarterly,18 (1984), pp. 295-310.
19See Byrnes (note 12 above), p. 203.
20Rachel Halverson, "Culture and Vocabulary Acquisition: A Proposal," ForeignLanguageAnnals,18 (1985), p. 331.
21Heidi Byrnes, "Second Language Acquisition: Insights
From a Proficiency Orientation." Paper presented at the
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages
Annual Meeting, New York, November 1985.
22See Cummins (note 15 above), p. 120.
23Ron Scollon & Suzanne Scollon, Narrative,Literacyand
Face in Interethnic
Communication(Norwood, NJ: Ablex,
1981); Rosalind G. Davidson, Susan B. Kline & Catherine
E. Snow, "Definitions and Definite Noun Phrases: Indicators of Children's Decontextualized Language Skills,"
Journalof Researchin ChildhoodEducation(in press); for the
importance of "disembedded" thinking in the ability to
organize and manipulate the experience that the linguistic
symbolsrepresent,see "Language, Literacyand Education,"
ed. Gordon Wells (Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Press, 1981), pp. 240-76.
24AlanR. Brown, "The Development of Memory: Knowing, Knowing about Knowing and Knowing How to
andBehavior,ed. Hayne
Know," Advancesin ChildDevelopment
Waring Reese (New York: Academic Press, 1975), pp.
25See Snow (note 15 above).
W. Larson & Randall L. Jones, "ProficiencyTest26Jerry
ing for the Other Language Modalities," in Higgs (note
2 above), p. 114.
27See Byrnes (note 12 above), p. 195.
28See Byrnes (note 21 above).
29Among the many studies published in the MLJ on this
topic between 1980-85, see in particular Vicki Galloway
(note 5 above); also Robert L. Politzer, "Errors of English
Speakers ofGerman as Perceived and Evaluated by German
Natives," ModernLanguageJournal,62 (1978), pp. 253-61.
30See in particular Teun A. van Dijk, Prejudicein DisAn AnalysisofEthnicPrejudicein Cognitionand Convercourse.:
sation(Philadelphia: Benjamins, 1984); Deborah Tannen,
Style:AnalyzingTalk amongFriends(Norwood:
Ablex, 1984); Robin C. Scarcella, "Discourse Accent in
Second Language Performance," Language Transfer
in LanguageLearning,ed. Susan Gass & Larry Selinker (Rowley,
MA: Newbury House, 1983), pp. 306-26.
31See Thomas (note 15 above), p. 91.
32See Olshtain (note 15 above), Thomas (note 15 above).
See also JohnJ. Gumperz, Languageand SocialIdentity
(Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1982), and Deborah

This content downloaded from on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 23:10:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions



Tannen, "Ethnic Style in Male-Female Conversation," in

Gumperz (see above), pp. 217-31.
33See Faerch & Kasper (note 15 above), p. 45.
34See Selinker & Lamendella (note 15 above), p. 372;
see also Lightbown (note 16 above), p. 240.
35SandraSavignon, "Evaluation ofCommunicative Competence: The ACTFL Provisional ProficiencyGuidelines,"
ModernLanguageJournal,69 (1985), pp. 129-34, and Lantolf

& Frawley (note 16 above). See also in a humoristic vein,

Thomas M. Paikeday, TheNativeSpeakeris Dead! (Toronto:
Paikeday, 1985).
36See Byrnes (note 12 above), p. 197.
37See Thomas (note 15 above), p. 91.
38Ascited in Jack Richards, "Listening Comprehension:
17 (1983),
Approach, Design, Procedure," TESOL Quarterly,
p. 219.

A Wordof Thanks






consultantsand refereesat various times during the preparation of volume seventyof the
MLJ. In printingtheirnames here, the editor
expresses publicly his sincere gratitude for
many hours of expert service to: James Alatis,
Lyle F. Bachman, Harry P. Bahrick, Marva
Barnett, Simon Belasco, Elizabeth B. Bernhardt, Garland Bills, Diane W. Birckbichler,
Fred Bosco, Daniel T. Brink, Richard Brod,
Mary E. Call, Phillip J. Campana, Patricia
Carrell, Aloysius Chang, Kenneth Chastain,
John L. D. Clark, Ray Clifford,JerryL. Cox,
David Curland, Michael Danahy, Robert J.
DiPietro, Mary Donaldson-Evans, John R.
Edwards, Gerard Ervin, James F. Ford, Alan
Galt, Elvira Garcia, Alan Garfinkel, Nina
Garrett,FrankM. Grittner,Gail Guntermann,
Shaw Gynan, Deanna Hammond, David P.
Harris, Laura Heilenman, Theodore V. Higgs,

Elaine Horwitz, Carol Hosenfeld, Gilbert

Jarvis, Elizabeth G. Joiner, Constance Knop,
Jolene Koester, Claire J. Kramsch, Stephen D.
Krashen, Dale L. Lange, James P. Lantolf,
Timothy Light, Pardee Lowe, Jr., Sally S.
Magnan, Carmen McClendon, Myriam Met,
Anthony Mollica, Genelle Morain, Kurt
Miiller, W. Lee Nahrgang, Diana Natalicio,
Anne Nerenz, Craig Nickisch,James S. Noblitt,Howard Nostrand, Solveig Olsen, June K.
Phillips, JoAnn Recker, Harry Reinert, Julianna C. Rogers, Renate A. Schulz, JeanCharles Seigneuret, Leon Serafim,Wm. Flint
Smith, Charles W. Stansfield, Earl Stevick,
JefferyStokes, Steven Summerhill,Janet K.
Swaffar,Heimy Taylor, Richard E. Teschner,
Leon Twarog, ChristineUber Grosse, Rebecca
M. Valette,Ray Verzasconi,Joel Walz, Helene

This content downloaded from on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 23:10:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions