call for papers

[Benjamin Rifkin]

Dear Colleagues:

I share with you the following call for papers for the 1999 Annual Volume of
the American Association of University Supervisors and Coordinators (AAUSC).
Please note that I am NOT one of the editors of the volume.

Please direct any queries about the volume to the editors (Lee and Valdman,
both at Indiana U.), whose e-mail addresses appear in the quoted message.

Ben Rifkin

> CALL FOR PAPERS
>
>I would like to bring to your attention the 1999 volume which James Lee
>and I are co-editing.  As the text below indicates, it focuses on the
>relationship of form to meaning in language instruction.
>
>We would welcome, particularly, articles which relate to the training of
>prospective FL teachers and the supervision and coordination of
>language instruction at the university level.
>
>If you are interested in participating in the volume, as we very much hope
>you are, please direct a one-page summary to James Lee
>(leejames at indiana.edu) with a copy to me (valdman at indiana.edu).
>
>---------
>
>PROSPECTUS
>
>I. Introduction
>
>        Current language instruction is characterized by an antinomy
>between communicative goals and a linear grammatical syllabus.  The
>belief persists among language teachers that effective communication
>requires the control of a set of grammatical features.  Furthermore, these
>features are to be taught according to a rigorous procedure involving
>explanation, mechanical drill, meaningful drill, and simulated
>communicative use.  In the final analysis, it is generally the presence of
>this latter phase that buttresses claims about the communicative nature
>of language instruction.
>As Carl Blyth has underscored, this view of the role of grammar rests on
>a combination of behaviorism, structural linguistics, and cognitive-code
>theory (1997:51).  Its also reduces the scope of grammar to isolated
>sentences rather than discourse and fails to link structural
>features--phonological and grammatical--to the functions performed by
>language, namely linking form with meaning, speech acts, and the
>marking of social identity.
>
>        In reaction to reductionist applications of research on untutored or
>naturalistic second language acquisition wherein the objective of formal
>language instruction was the negotiation of meaning in highly
>contextualized situations, there has emerged a return to emphasis on
>formal treatment of grammar bearing the label "focus on form".
>
>        VanPatten (1988) examined the evidence used to argue for or
>against a focus on form in language teaching, or more specifically,
>grammar teaching.  He ends his essay calling for a redirection of the
>debate.  He proposed that the debate on a focus of form in grammar
>teaching should not center on whether or not to teach grammar but
>rather on how to teach grammar.  In developing his ideas, he proposed
>what he termed "processing instruction", based in psycholinguistic
>research (Lee & VanPatten 1995): VanPatten 1996).  Processing
>instruction relies on structured input activities that direct language
>learners to process the input for meaning but, in so doing, they must also
>process it for form. Clearly this work has helped frame a contemporary
>discussion of form in language learning and teaching.
>
>
>II.  Volume Structure
>
>        A.  What is Form?  Area-Specific Perspectives
>
>        We envision beginning the volume with papers that define, describe,
>and account for the term "form" from different research domains (areas).
> The overall goal of this part of the volume is for teachers to understand
>the term "form" in its broadest application.  For example, we project that
>we will include works on grammatical form; form in pragmatics; textual
>form from both comprehension and production perspectives;
>sociolinguistic perspective on form, and so on.  The call for papers
>would encourage contributions in these and other areas on linguistic
>inquiry.
>
>        B.  Pedagogical Perspectives
>
>        We envision the second part of the volume expanding on the first.
>Once we establish what "form" is, we can extrapolate pedagogical
>principles to guide language teachers' thinking on this issue.  We would
>especially encourage works that demonstrate interconnections between
>form and meaning or provide clear rationale for focusing on form without
>focusing on meaning.
>%       In what ways are "form" and meaning connected?
>%       Do all "forms" carry meaning?
>%       Can "form" be taught in all domains?
>%       How can one teach sociolinguistically-appropriate "forms"?
>%       When should a focus on form come into the writing process?
>%       How can instruction maximize the acquisition of "forms" through
>           reading?

////////////////////////////////////////

Benjamin Rifkin

Associate Professor of Slavic Languages
Coordinator of Russian-Language Instruction

Department of Slavic Languages & Literatures
University of Wisconsin-Madison
1432 Van Hise Hall, 1220 Linden Dr.
Madison, WI  53706  USA

voice:  608/262-1623
fax:  608/265-2814
e-mail:  brifkin at facstaff.wisc.edu

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\