1 Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the European Association of Specific Purposes (AELFE) Actas del XII Congreso de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos (AELFE) A Coruña, Spain, 5 th 7 th September, 2013 Coordinador: Alan Floyd Moore
2 2 INDEX/ÍNDICE I. FOREWORD II. PRÓLOGO III. SPONSORS / PATROCINADORES IV. PLENARY SPEAKER Jean-Claude Bertin An emergentist model to language-learning environments 11 V. PANEL: DISCOURSE ANALYSIS / ANÁLISIS DEL DISCURSO Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric: Teaching Cultural Values to Students of English in their Writing Compositions 27 Francisco Miguel Ivorra Pérez Corpus Stylistics and the Freakonomics Podcast 36 Paul Brocklebank La construcción de un discurso jurídico incluyente en las TIC s 44 María Lage Cotelo VI. DIDACTICS AND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION / LA DIDÁCTICA Y LA ADQUISICIÓN DE IDIOMAS Intercultural leadership in Spanish as a foreign language: a comparative content analysis 53 Lieve Vangehuchten Estrategias de lectura como apoyo al aprendizaje del inglés en un contexto AICLE 65 Mª del Carmen Lario de Oñate
3 3 María Vázquez Amador Linguistic Barriers in Doctor-Patient Communication in Algeria 77 Khadidja Belaskri Experiencing Vocabulary Learning Using Small Language Corpora 86 Višnja Kabalin Borenić Sanja Marinov Martina Mencer Salluzzo L intercompréhension entre langues romanes dans un monde multilingue: une façon de se rapprocher des immigrants grâce aux nouvelles technologies 98 Mercedes Eurrutia Cavero ESP or GE courses? English as academic language vs. content 110 Hadrian Lankiewicz Interlanguage pragmatics of the speech act of request: A case study of EFL learners in the academic context 119 Anna Szczepaniak-Kozak VII. APPLICATION OF ICT s IN LSP / APLICACIÓN DE LAS TIC s EN LFE Preparing the Way for Internationalisation: the Incorporation of Social Networks into the Sciences Curriculum for Learning English 132 Verónica Pérez Gómez SECMA tool: new software for standard maritime English teaching 143 Rosa Mary de la Campa Portela Ana Bocanegra Valle Learning the integration of DDL in Secondary Education EFL teaching: The
4 4 importance of ESP 155 Alejandro Curado Fuentes El uso de las TIC en los cursos de Español Académico para alumnado Internacional 165 Ana María Gil del Moral Guías temáticas en Lingüística Aplicada y la concienciación del género del artículo de investigación / On-line thematic guides in Applied Linguistics and their role in promoting students research article genre awareness 173 Teresa Morell Moll La utilización de las TIC en el aula de inglés técnico marítimo: 15 años después del proyecto MARCOM 181 Rosa Mary De la Campa Portela Ana Bocanegra Valle VIII. COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS AND LANGUAGES FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES / LINGÜÍSTICA COGNITIVA The workplace use of English by Public Relations practitioners in Poland: a survey 192 Emilia Wąsikiewicz-Firlej Difficulties of Russian as a foreign language through the eyes of teachers Cognitive Linguistics and Languages for Specific Purposes 207 Тatiana Strokovskaya Bilingual Polytechnic Dictionary of Metaphors: Spanish to English 218 Ana Roldán Riejos Silvia Molina Plaza
5 5 A critical analysis of religious metaphor in the discourse of conservative political ideology. /Análisis crítico de las metáforas de religión en el discurso político de ideología conservadora 229 María Antonia Urquía Muñoz IX. TERMINOLOGY AND LEXICOLOGY / TERMINOLOGÍA Y LEXICOLOGÍA La función comunicativa de los neologismos: caracterización a partir de criterios basados en el uso 240 Elisabet Llopart Saumell Judit Freixa Aymerich The Effect of Dialect: Teaching Lexical Variants to Healthcare Professionals 252 Ashley Bennink X. TRANSLATION / TRADUCCIÓN Términos de percepción visual en las notas de cata de vino en inglés y español y sus traducciones al polaco 262 Bozena Wislocka Breit ANEXO (sección VI) Un ejemplo de multilingüismo: la enseñanza del alemán y del francés en la Universidad Politécnica de Madrid 275 Javier Herráez Pindado Isabel Serra Pfennig
6 6 I. FOREWORD Those who attended and participated in this conference were struck by the following positive elements in the presentations and plenary sessions. Firstly, the sheer range of studies, themes and aspects it is possible to touch on in the course of the study of LSP. From engineering to economics, architecture to scams, business and management, legal and maritime English, the learning process, primary and secondary education, language in the workplace, travel blogs and tourism, doctor / patient relationships and healthcare, the application of technology to the learning situation, wine tasting to advertising, politics to research articles, academic language to football reports, and language teaching. Secondly, we were struck by the depth of learning, in spite of the range. People had gone into great detail in their studies, not remaining on the surface but digging deeper, were not self-satisfied but understood that the job of university teachers is to lead others where they suspect there may be rewarding findings at the end of their research. Thirdly, not only the range and depth but the realism, together with the enthusiasm displayed by the plenary speakers and the participants in parallel presentation sessions. Contributors are well aware of the difficulties they face, the economic and financial problems that await them, the different priorities given to education and science by governments, the unwillingness of governments to look into even the medium-term future. And in spite of that, the way all contributors, young and older, have given themselves over to their professions, almost heroically at times, displays their enthusiasm for their chosen careers. Besides, the participants realised the importance of innovation, especially the use of ICT s, which formed the basis of many talks: the use of technology to open up analyses of corpora, the use of distance learning, to overcome the problems of time and the sheer number of students, making the learning process more flexible and adapted to individual students and teacher s circumstance, opening the door to future trends in individual and collective learning in LSP. Finally, we were impressed by the level of collaboration, by which we mean the way all those who have brought their ideas are willing to share them with others, have been helpful, collaborative, good speakers abut
7 7 also good listeners. But not only that, the door has been opened to collaboration between ESP organizations at international level in the future, with some national organizations feeling they can collaborate more fully and satisfactorily at an international pan-european level. We would like to take this opportunity to thank the sponsors who made the celebration of this conference possible. We hope that all those involved in the conference will have come away with a renewed sense of purpose, and we look forward to the 13 th conference, to be held in Stockholm in 2014.
8 8 II. PRÓLOGO A aquellas personas que asistieron al congreso y/o participaron en él les llamaron la atención los siguientes elementos. Primero, la enorme variedad de estudios, temas, y aspectos que se pueden exponer como resultado del estudio de las lenguas para fines específicos. Desde los reportajes de los partidos de fútbol a la ingeniería, desde la economía y la arquitectura a los correos electrónicos engañosos, desde el lenguaje de los negocios a la gestión de las empresas, desde el inglés marítimo y legal al proceso de aprendizaje de los idiomas, la educación primaria y secundaria, el lenguaje en el lugar del trabajo, los blogs de los viajes y el turismo, las relaciones médico / paciente y los servicios sanitarios, la aplicación de la tecnología a la situación de aprendizaje, la cata de vinos y la publicidad, la política y los artículos de investigación, el lenguaje académico y la enseñanza de idiomas. Todos estos temas se han tocado. En segundo lugar, nos ha impresionado la profundidad que han alcanzado los participantes. No se han conformado con estudios superficiales, sino que han cavado más profundo. Han entendido que la tarea del profesor universitario es guiar a los demás a donde sospechan que existen hallazgos gratificantes al final de sus investigaciones. En tercer lugar, no solo la variedad y profundidad, sino también el realismo, junto con el entusiasmo mostrados tanto por los conferenciantes plenarios como por los participantes en las sesiones paralelas de presentaciones. Son muy conscientes de las dificultades a las que se enfrentan, de los problemas económicos que les esperan, las diferentes prioridades otorgadas a la ciencia y la educación por sus gobiernos y gobernantes, la incapacidad de los gobiernos a mirar ni siquiera el futuro a medio plazo. Y, a pesar de ello, todos los participantes, jóvenes y no tan jóvenes, se han dedicado a sacrificarse para alcanzar sus metas en su profesión de elección, a veces casi con heroísmo. Los participantes se han dado cuenta de la importancia de la investigación: el uso de la tecnología para llevar a cabo los análisis de los corpus lingüísticos, la utilidad de la educación a distancia, para superar los problemas de tiempo y número de alumnos, haciendo que el proceso de aprendizaje sea más flexible, adaptado a las circunstancias individuales de alumnos y profesores, abriendo la puerta a futuras tendencias en el aprendizaje individual y colectivo en LFE.
9 9 Finalmente, nos ha impresionado el nivel de colaboración mostrado, la manera en la que todos han traído sus ideas con la voluntad de compartirlas. Han sido buenos conferenciantes, pero también buenos escuchantes y espectadores. Pero no solo eso, sino que se ha abierto la puerta a la colaboración futura entre organizaciones nacionales y AELFE. Algunas organizaciones piensan que pueden ganar en efectividad trabajando a nivel pan-europeo. Quisiéramos aprovechar esta oportunidad para darles las gracias a los patrocinadores, que han hecho posible la celebración de este congreso. Deseamos que todos que contribuyeron a lo que (consideramos) ha sido su éxito se hayan encontrado con nuevos propósitos renovados, y esperamos volver a encontrarnos en el XIII Congreso, que se celebrará en Estocolmo en 2014.
10 Facultade de Filoloxía III. SPONSORS / PATROCINADORES
11 11 IV. PLENARY SPEAKER Jean-Claude Bertin An emergentist model to language-learning environments Introductory remarks A fundamental problem with CALL literature is the impression created by the frequent use of such terms and expressions as «technology», «ICT», «computers», «CALL» or equivalent expressions in the different languages. Such generic terminology may indeed be the source of an ontological illusion which can lead the reader to believe that Computer-assisted language learning is a unified field and that the results of research may therefore be valid for any situation. This situation may be especially common in the media or, more of a problem, in political discourse, where technology is regularly presented as the answer to all educational evils. Such a unified or holistic perspective is first challenged by one of the characteristic features of the social sciences (as opposed to exact sciences ): the difficulty if not the impossibility to offer generalizations and rules. A closer look at the literature in the field also contributes to show a different image from the one revealed by the above-mentioned generic terms. Grosbois (2012), for example, shows how the recent history of digital technology has resulted in a wider choice of tools than the one available before. Research has also shown that this variety is reinforced by the way each individual user develops specific uses of a given technology, resulting in a gap between the formal instruction given to the learner and the actual strategies developed by individuals (Fisher 2007). Bertin et al (2010) confirm the multidimensional nature of technology by a review of the literature, in terms of situations, objects, type of learners, pedagogical objectives, contexts and point to the impossibility of drawing general conclusions from individual field studies.
13 13 (from Bertin et al 2010, pp ) This variety of objects and situations open up to two main questions for the researcher as well as the practitioner: How can we consider the field from a broad angle? How can researchers and teachers form appropriate representations of experience for their own specific situations? This paper will suggest that one can tackle these questions by Looking for constants in the variety of individual situations and studies in order to identify what might be referred to as fundamentals in CALL. Organizing these constants into explanatory and heuristic models grounded on explicit theoretical foundations, which will provide appropriate conceptual frameworks for the various actors. Elements of theoretical stance Three theoretical starting points will be highlighted, on which the model eventually presented is based.
14 14 1. The concepts of distributed learning and of co-construction of knowledge (Hutchins 1995, Vygotski, psychology and sociology) are based on the notion that knowledge results from the interaction between human beings, artefacts and the environment (Narcy-Combes et al 2013). Human beings think collaboratively thanks to the tools and the environments available in a given context. The first consequent hypothesis is that what really matters is not so much the description nor the classification of knowledge but the predictable social actions which will influence the final process. A second hypothesis is that the processes which are to be taken into account in any language teaching/learning situation are both intra-personal (neuronal connections) and inter-personal (socio-constructivism). 2. This focus on interaction calls for a perspective derived from Dynamic Systems Theory (DST). In a very schematic way, this approach is based on the notion that learning is a process organized as a system based on fundamental components which need to be identified in a first stage. The development of interactions between these components leads to retroactions on the nature of each component / actors whose nature will therefore be impacted in a dynamic way. Individual processes of appropriation of the various tools available in a learning environment will give birth to instrumentation processes (Rabardel 1995) which will themselves vary with time as a result from use. A major element of Dynamic Systems Theory is that it focuses more on the interactions between the components of a system and on their changes in time than on the impact of a given factor on a given learner (Verspoor et al 2008). 3. DST as a global approach to complexity has given birth to several perspectives. While reductionism aims to explain complexity by reducing it to its basic constituent parts, the concept of emergence, on which the present vision is grounded, is based on the principle that a global system is richer than the mere sum of its parts. When complexity increases, new properties emerge, which are specific to the system itself. For Larsen-Freeman & Cameron (2008) or Ellis & Larsen-Freeman (2009), language production and language learning are emergent processes which are both non-linear and unpredictable. The dynamic nature of the perspective opened by DST is a key factor in the comprehension and description of these processes. Modeling as an answer to complexity By providing a representation of the system in which language learning takes place, modeling can provide some kind of order in a constantly evolving environment. A model may fulfil three distinct and complementary functions:
15 15 Offer a guide within uncertainty: while it is not possible to predict what will happen precisely, the model may remind teachers/designers of the variety of interactions at work and help provide «organizing circumstances» (Spear & Mocker 1984) in learning/teaching environments. Structure what can be structured: a model offers researchers, teachers and designers, a framework to ensure the theoretical validity of the assumptions on which interactions are based. Design functions (of the technology) and roles (of the human actors) based on the interactions identified in the model. As a consequence, a model cannot be normative (e.g. algorithmic), as no second language acquisition theory provides a sound basis for predictions, but heuristic: its main function is to help raise appropriate questions in the specific contexts in which it is applied. It should therefore be flexible to fit the various situations and actors. It should also guide the identification of the nature of each component, of the interfaces where interactions will take place so as to ensure the global coherence of the learning environment. This is assumed to be a condition for the specific properties of the system to emerge. In other words, the model does not prescribe any particular vision (of the language, of language learning, of technology ) but is meant to be reconstructed in each individual case by the various actors. It is expected to help trigger a number of processes and performances (without offering any certainty as to the perfect match between the result of these processes and the teacher s objective). As a consequence, the model should be comprehensive, i.e. not limited to materials or technology, but holistic, i.e. it should describe the appropriate organization of the whole learning environment. The present approach moves away from prior studies in CALL, which tend to focus on the type of computer-based activities (e.g. Demaizière & Buisson 1992), the use of hypermedia materials (e.g. Tricot & Rouet 1998) or the structure of multimedia materials (Bertin 2001). This perspective marks a shift from functional descriptions of language learning situations to interactionist descriptions and the influence of the theories of complexity. Brief overview of the didactic ergonomics model In this paper, we will rapidly outline the didactic ergonomics model. The reader is referred to more specific publications for a more detailed description, notably Bertin et al 2010, Bertin 2011.
16 16 The model is constructed around 5 poles representing the constants which emerge from the scientific literature on CALL, and shows the interfaces where interactions develop between them. Based on the traditional pedagogic triangle (language, learner, teacher) (Houssaye 1988), the model shows how the components are organized into a system revolving around the learning process, embodied in the organisation of the materials and of the task. Technology (ICT or any other technology indeed) constitutes the fourth pole, bearing in mind that its actual nature in a given situation should be specified, as the variety of available technology (be it digital) prevents any generalisation on its functions and possible uses. Context is the fifth and last pole as it determines to a large extent the specific features of any learning environment or experiment. Context is defined according to three main dimensions: macro (European/national language policies and recommendations), meso (the institution in which the learning situation takes place), micro (class level, classroom organization...). Fig.1: the didactic ergonomics model (Bertin et al 2010) Any learning environment provides room for both technology-mediated and direct interactions between the learner and language on the one hand, the learner and the teacher on the other hand (dotted arrows on left
17 17 and right hand-side of the model). In the case of blended or distance learning, these 5 poles are mirrored by a number of other elements which should be given attention: peers and tutors, whose interactions may be facilitated or observed through a monitoring technical device. Considered as a whole, the model provides opportunities to study the way each pole interacts with the other components and to understand how the way each element is constructed and impacts the system. It is clearly grounded in a socio-constructivist perspective as it assumes that the social task should trigger language production and learning processes through interaction. Hence, the traditional focus on the teacher is here replaced by a focus on the teacher-learner-tutor relationship which constitutes the backbone of the learning environment. A further point to be made is that the model represented in fig. 1 should be understood as a static photograph of the learning environment, at a given time. The dynamic perspective introduced in our emergentist stance implies however that the system keeps moving and reorganising around one or the other of the poles (Bertin & Narcy-Combes 2011 )It should therefore be considered in the light of two important elements: its pedagogical potential and its dynamic nature (relation to time). The acquisition potential of the environment may be illustrated as in fig. 2.
18 18 Fig.2: acquisition potential of the environment Learning as an emergent process implies the impossibility for anyone (teacher included) to predict what will take place once the learners are faced with the task (Bygate 2011). In other words, while the theoretical coherence of the various constituent parts of the model does not ensure final acquisition for the learners, it will however favour the emergence of specific properties in the form of language production activities favourable to language learning. Language acquisition itself for all/any learner remains impossible to predict. One can only assume that the more interaction with the language there is, the more likely the learners communicative competence is to develop (socio-constructivist background). The main consequence is that all we can do as teachers is to make sure the environment will include as many coherent components as possible and to observe how each learner takes part in the various forms of interaction provided. The teacher s tutoring role then focuses on observing the various uses of the environment and language activities while these are taking place, and on providing appropriate feedback and guidance.
19 19 The second essential dimension of emergentism is time (fig. 3). Fig. 3: a dynamic vision of the didactic ergonomics model New language production practices appear in a non-linear and unpredictable fashion, marked by a number of breaks which can only be analysed afterhand. These breaks mean that the representation of the relative weight of each pole within the system at a given moment will change with time and will have to be constantly reassessed. Individualisation implies being able to monitor the appearance of these breaks for individual learners and to provide appropriate feedback to help system reorganization. The function of the model is precisely to offer sufficient guidance so that the new representation remains coherent, i.e. keeps taking into account all the components of the system. Narcy-Combes et al (2014) argue that such reorganisations are facilitated by 4 main elements: Identification of the causes of the breaks and reorganisations (social, affective, cognitive aspects) Availability of several models of the learner (individual and cultural differences ) Availability of appropriate models of learning in a specific context (compared grammars, phonological systems ) Reconstruction of all these elements within the present model, bearing in mind it is submitted to
20 20 contextual influences and evolution. Using the model The type of heuristic model advocated in these lines can find three main applications for teachers and researchers: Providing a conceptual framework for a more accurate understanding of complex language learning situations, for both teachers and researchers; Providing a conceptual framework for learning environment, materials and task design, for teachers, designers and institutions; Providing a conceptual framework for the design of training courses for teachers and tutors. For example, Bertin (2011) has shown how the model can be deconstructed to highlight the various roles played by the different actors of the pedagogical situation (i.e. teacher, tutor and learner) and to provide guidelines for innovative perspectives of long-term teacher education (rather than short-term training ). We will here take two examples of how the didactic ergonomics model can be used in different contexts. Example 1: understanding complexity in language teaching and learning situations. This example is taken from A. Saverna s doctoral research (underway) on learners representations of mp3 players in EFL learning in a secondary school. Fig. 4: original assumption of MP3 player use in the classroom
21 21 Saverna s initial approach (fig. 4) was based on the assumption that learner motivation would be increased by using a familiar artefact, on the one hand, that this transparent object would be easy to use, on the other hand. Integrating the technology in the language class was felt to be a mere change from listening to music to listening to English. Observations in different similar contexts however showed that learner attitude to the mp3 player-based activity was not what had been anticipated. An explanation might be found by referring to the model (fig. 5). When placing the mp3 player on the technology pole, a more complex reality emerges. Fig. 5: placing the MP3 player in the model highlighting complexity Learners representations are no longer constructed from their usual leisure use of the mp3 player, but are a result of the artefact being the support of a language learning task provided by the teacher for a given pedagogical intention in a specific context. The psycho-social foundation of the representations should therefore be explained in very different and more complex terms from the ones anticipated. While the leisure use of the mp3 player might be relevant to models of informal, or incidental, learning such as the one described by Sockett (2013), the mp3 player-based task should be designed along lines derived from formal/institutional education only. The instrumentation processes differ in the two situations and the question the teacher should tackle is how to favour new representations of the artefact so that they might promote language learning.
22 22 Example 2: designing methodologies for ESP teaching. In this second example, we will start from the model to show how it can help raise appropriate questions when designing and ESP course (fig. 6). Fig. 6: the heuristic dimension of the model the case of ESP teaching As the model reflects a systemic view of the teaching/learning situation, changing the nature of one element means consequent evolutions in the rest of the system. Defining the language pole as English for Specific Purposes therefore entails a number of evolutions on the other poles and interactions of the model, which will prove essential for course designers. Here are examples of such questions guided by the model: 1. Language pole: What does specificity refer to? How to identify a specific domain? How to identify the limits between specific and non-specific language in order to determine specific pedagogical objectives? Which criteria for language description? (vocabulary? Pragmatic functions of the language?
23 23 Types of professional communication? Types of indicators?...) 2. Learner s expectations, representations, motivation: ESP students will most commonly expect a new start in language learning (i.e. distinct (and supposedly more motivating) from the type of General English they have experienced before. This means notably that the course will be expected to reflect the needs or representations of the professional world. 3. Needs analysis: if the concept dates back to the 1970 s and the communicative approach, it needs to be reassessed in the light of the more recent methodologies (i.e. task-based). Focus will not so much be on contents (input) as on the required competences and on the identification of situations for authentic tasks. 4. Teacher s personal representations of the domain, of the LSP, of the professional world and activities, will be impacted by the nature of the target ESP. 5. Choice of teaching methodology: which methodology is best suited the specific type of ESP to be taught? A number of options are open: No specific methodology? Content-oriented approach (authentic materials)? Task-based (TBL or TBLT?) Content Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)? Conclusion What this paper has tried to show is the added value that a model can bring to teachers as well as researchers because of the complex and dynamic nature of the objects and processes under consideration. The examples given aim at showing how the model cannot be normative but heuristic: users should reconstruct their own model from the overall pattern suggested in order to take stock of their individual context. Its main interest lies in the fact that it offers a comprehensive framework to be referred to by teachers, course/environment designers and designers alike. More specifically: It provides a comprehensive framework which avoids strict focus on one of the poles (e.g. technology and overtly technology-oriented approaches);
24 24 This enlarged perspective favours the capacity of the learning environment to produce the expected results; It is a stimulus for dynamic thinking. References Bertin, J.-C. (2001). «Call material structure and learner competence». In Chambers A. & Davies G (eds), ICT and Language Learning, a European perspective, Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger Publishers, pp Bertin, J.-C., Gravé, P. & Narcy-Combes, J.-P. (2010). Second-language distance learning and teaching: theoretical perspectives and didactic ergonomics, Hershey, USA: IGI Bertin, J.-C. (2011). An Emergentist Approach to the Evolving Roles of the Teacher in Distance Learning Environments. In Arab World English Journal, Vol.2 No.3 August org/?article=58 Bertin, J.-C. & Narcy-Combes, J.-P. (2011). Ordo Ab Chao: la modélisation pour gérer le chaos? Dispositifs d enseignement/apprentissage en langues médiatisés et à distance. Colloque «Apprendre les langues à l université au 21 e siècle» 9-11 juin 2011, Universités Paris 3 et Paris 6. Bygate, M. (2011). Does learners language pattern on pedagogic tasks, and why might it matter? Keynote speech at conference University Language Learning in the 21st century, DILTEC, Paris 6 La Sorbonne nouvelle, June Demaizière, F. & Dubuisson, C. (1992). De l EAO aux NTF comment utiliser l ordinateur pour la formation, Paris: Ophrys. Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The Psychology of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: OUP Ellis, N & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Language as a complex adaptive system. Ann Arbor, MI. Wiley. Fischer, R., (2007). How do we know what students are actually doing? Monitoring students behaviour, in CALL (Computer Assisted Language Learning), Vol. 20/5, p , London, Routledge. Grosbois, M. (2012). Didactique des langues et technologiess de l EAO aux réseaux sociaux, Paris: PUPS.