AN ］invrPIRI CAL STUDY ON IISTENING・・SKILL−BUILDINq
N］ruROIj1NGUISTIC APPROACH 一
A Thesis
Presented to
the Faculty of the Graduate Course at
Hyogo University of Teacher Education
In Partial YNilfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Edueation
by
Tadashi Takahashi
December 1981
PRE］弘CE
Simon Belasc．o（1971） states that ”he was j olted by the
「ea” ?｣th3t、’t’s poSslble t。 deVρユop so−caユ1ed’sp畔「，
i．ng’ ability and yet be virtually ineompetent in understanding
七he sp・ゆユ与卿ag・・“Th・「e seem81i㌻Ue e▽iゆCe to supP。「t
the transfer of learning from ． productive aspect to recepVv，e
aspect ．
Instead， a growing body of evidenee indicates ，that
forcing students to speak before they have．4．．pt，erp．alized the
language， has de．t． rimehtal effects． on ，the acquisition of lan−
guage gompetenee．
Based on the evidence which indicates that shifting
from a foeus on speaking to a focus on listening is advanta−
geous， the language learning process shouid be improved by
the language teaehing profession．
Mhis paper is divided into five ehapters．
．エnChqPte「1・afte「「evi・wing th・ギ・r・ign lqnguag・in・伽・。
tipn in Japan， 1 tried，to p． res，ent the problem that the lan−
guage learning process should be shifted from a focus on
speaking to a focus on listening． As the possible solutlpn，
two instructional startegies bqsed on the concept of． delayed
oral response were taken up and proposed to be reexamined
in Japan．
エnChapt・r…th・．r噸・pt。f d・ユay・d・ra尊臼・Pp，nse i・d・qu一
皿・nt・d by ru鵬riゆg what a「e七he「eactions again・t th・
audiQ・一lipgual approach， why delqy of Qral response is
iii
c。ns’de「ed’mp9「tant・
o。wユ。ng the、・。「aユ「espρ讐鮮副！“r手騨・
an母，噸t・a「e．・the efξrcts oμhi8 d夢ユay on thg langUage
learning proeess．
In ehapter 1．11，．the documented instruetiQnal s，tr．ategi，es
advocg七ed i嚇r∫墜㌻♀d Stateρ．贈int「qduced with・ttte
researeh eviddnce．
工nChapte：r IV， th．e：result of the expe：riments is：reported and
the、 conc↓usi。n f。「est3埠i争＃ing a七entat坤p「ρ脚fo「
listening−skill building is shown．
Chapter V is a lesson−by−lesson ：plan、which is based on ’七he
result of the experiments described in Chapter IV’．
1 wish ’to express my hearty gratitude to Professor
Shoroku Aoki for the gu，idanc e and encppragement he extended
to me．
Madashi Takahashi・
December 1981
田AB：LE OF CON田ENTS
PA GE
PREFACE ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ．
’ ii
ABSTRACT ． ． ． ． ． ．・ ． ． ． ．
． v
I．
INTRODUCT工ON ． ． ． ． ． ． ． 。 ．
II．
THE BASIC CONCEPT OF DELAYED ORAL RESPONSE
1・︵∠︵∠
The Reaction Against the Audio一“ngual
Approach ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ．
Why Should Speaking Be Delayed？ ． ． ．
How Long Should Speaking Be Delayed？． ．
The Effeets of Delaying Oral Response ．
III．
rvlETHODOLOG］ES BASE［D ON THE CONCEPT OF
DE工」AYED ORA：L RESPONS：E ． ． ． ． ．
●
The Total Physical Response Approach
The Optimized Habit Reinforcement
工V．
THE EXPERIMENTS
］ibcperiment 1 ．
Experiment 2 ．
Experiment 3 ．
Experiment 4 ．
Conclusion ． ．
A
●
○
■
■
■
●
■
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
O
○
●
●
●
●
●
■
■
●
●
●
●
■
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
O
■
●
●
●
●
●
●
■
●
●
●
●
●
■
●
PROGRAM ：FOR：L工STENING・一SKI］⊃：L BUII」DING
BIBLIOGRAPHY
e e e
一 一 e e − e 一 一
●
v．
188226
CHAPTER
●
ABS［E｝RACT
The Ministry of Education i s sued 21ts−e ggtyL1s1urse dgLf 1E1nug一．s！｝一li h
in 1952． The 「balanced knowユedge of Eng］．ish based on the fou：r
skil：Ls with p：riori七y to o：ra＝L ski］ユs was expounded in it．
For that new phase of English education in Japan， American
linguists played a significant role in introducing the eral
Approaeh based on the behaviorism and the structural linguis−
tics．
Since the stimulus oriented methodologies were intro−
duced， it has been clairned that praetice in production is
one of the best means of developing recognition． Many
teachers in the profession at present seem to believe that
the primary skill to be taught in foreign language is speak−
ing． Many a］一so seem to be］．ieve that the bes’七way ’七〇 ユ．earn
to speak is to praetiee speaking． Some professionals in the
past have even argued that speaking is one of the best ways
to develop recognition or listening ability．
Char．les C． Fries（1945）， for example， expressed it
like this ；
This recognition of the difference between productive
and receptive controls of language does not imply a mechan−
ical separation of the materials into ”practicest’ in
producing：fgr t4e sqke of． produetion only， and ’tpractieesft
in．recog4itAi’04 for tbe sake of receiving’bnly． As a
matter qf fact practice in production isV oneV of the best
means of developing recognition． （p．8）
Howdver， this assumption that praetiee in production
（speaking） is one of the best means of developing recognition
（listening comprehension） is not a ”matter of fact or datai，．
There seems little empirieal・・eSrtSde’ nee to support the transter
vi
of ］．ea：rning from speaking 七〇ユistening， t：rom produc七ive
aspect to regeptive aspec七・
工nstead， 尤here a：re a numbe：r of studies ’t；hat heユp
crea七e 七he idea of focusing on listening whiユe developing
the o：ral ：response as an a1七ernative apP：roach to fo：reign
じ
language teaching （Ashe：r， 1969， Pos七〇vsky， 1971， Wini七z，
1973）・S・m・ ’wri七・r・ar・n・w indi・a七ing that th・y hav・n。七
found 七his type of transfer which ］hries took fo：r granted．
Sim・n B・lasc。（1971）・f・r・xampl・・writes tha七h・
wa8 電蜜．．．jolted by the ：realization tha’七 it ：is possible to
q・v・1・P・・一caユ1・d’・p・aking’ability（v・cali・ing）and y・七
be viエ・七ually incompeten七 in unde：rstanding th『 spoken lan−
guage．駒 The audio−1ingual app：roach which Belasco uSed， has
always pユaced listening fi：rst in ’七he sequence of ski］ユs， but
in practice this has la：rge：Ly been listening for speaking
rathe：r than listening for unders’七anding。 The ba8ic idea has
been fo：r the 8tudent to imitate 七he sounds by immediate】．y
r・p・at塊th・m aft・r th・y h・ar th・m・On・・f七he causes・f
confusien may be unde：rstanding the role of imitat：ion． Many
consider ：language learning to 『be a form of imita七ion・
Agrowing body of evidence indicates tha七fo：rcing
・七ud・n七・t。・p・昨b・f。r・th・y 4av・、int・rnalized七h・ユanguagρ・
has de七rimenta：L effect8』on the acquisi七ion of the language
com：petence （Asher， 1969， E：rvins 1970， ：Postovsky， 1971， Winitz，
1973，Fltirgu・。n，1974， Ga；y， ．1 975）． Th・rdquir・m・nt t。 rer，
spond。「aliy imm・dia七・ly aft・r。n・h・ar・anative sp・ak・r’s
voice， as in the mimicry−memorization pattern practice of
vii
the audio
１ingual apP「oaeh．・9・m・t・r・duce th・rpt・n七i。n
of mate：ria：L． 偲he ：reduction in：retention may be due to the
effects of， stress， or it may ≧）e due to 七he ＝Lack of in七e：rnal
info「mation P「oc №唐唐奄獅〟E． O； it．may、be dpe t。 b。th of them・
The adVantages t。 shif七ing fr・m a f・eu・・n・peqking
to a focus on ユistening a：re．．．1） the g：reater utiiity of
listening ove：r 七he othe：r s1（i］ユ8， 2） the g：reate：r po8i七ive
transfe：【・from ：Listening to the othe：r 8ki1ユs， ろ＞ noこ． negao
tive transfe：r f：r◎m speaking to other skiユls， and 4） the
posi七ive at七itude even among those of］．ower aptitude foエ・
a1｝apprρach which seems to 七hem mo：【・e effec七ive．
When one’recognizes the need fo：rユis七ening skiils，
it is necessary to ’bui：Ld up a lis七eningoski］ユ p著09：ram，
th：rough careful graded exposu ee just as it was fe＝Lt nece8−
sa：ry to build up the o七he：r 8ki1＝Ls by caエpeful＝Ly graded
・x・r・ise・Th・re ar・tw。 apP「。q・hes「ecently advoeated f。r
listening−skill building in t纂e United States ： one is ’e The
Total Physical Res：ponse Approach，t by Jame．s J． Ashe：r of San
ド Jose S七ate Unive：rsity， and the othe：r is tt．The Optimized
Habit R・inf。rcem・n．t ”（it・t・xt i・THE 1，EARNABLES）by Harris
Wini七z of the Universi七y of Missouri， Kansas Ci七y． They
we：re examined 七hrough ex：periments in Japan・
In addi七ion to this， by eXamining 七he indieations
㌻ha．t （pmprehension mus七 be buil七 in tichunks曹， or ，雪pauses髄，
ahypo七hetic『，l gradation fo：r ：listening com：prehension would
’be p：【じopo8ed through the experiments on how ehunks o：r
pauses wo：rk onユiste：ning comprehension．
viii
These empirieal studies have been attempted with
acute hope that mueh more attention should be paid to listen−
ing comprehension， and that drastie changes in ］1haglish lan−
guage edueation in Japan rnust be made．’， lt should be estab−
lished， for example， that the course primarily focuSes on
listening−skill building for a eertain amou4t of time！
especiaユ1y at the v・「y b．・ginning・taggr
Based on the conclusions derived from the experiments
and the evidence advocated by psycholinguists or neuro−
linguists， a tentative prograrn for listening−skill building
is deseribed．
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The purpose for foreign language education should
naturally be di￡fere．nt in each gountry refleeting her polit−
ical’ ≠獅п@social’necessitY， and also be varied as time goes
on． We might roughly say that the origin of foreign lan−
guage education in Japan started， in the Meiji Era， approx−
imately over a eentury qgo．・Judging from the situation at
that time ln，Japan， we could ．imagine that the emphqsis in
foreign language instruction was placed on the written form
of the ianguage rather than s ound form of the language in
order to catch up with the cultural development i．n foreign
countries． We tried hard to absorb the knowledge of tecri一一
noユ。gy・which was fa「adv鱒ced in肋opern co耳n頓es and
the Unitgd Stqtes， through written form of the material．
But can we find the reason why the emphasis on reeep−
tive skill of reading remained for over a century in spitg
of the． great；一social changes？ One of the reasons which made
a screen ，against the necgssity of direct eommunication
through the sound form of ．the language ．was the ．geggraphical
isolqtion from other countri，es， especially far from English
speaklng gountries． ln addition to this， shifting， from a
focus． on r．eeeptive skill to produetive skill was affected
by tl｝e isolationism tte had experieneed ln the Edo linra and
during 七he Wo：r：ld Wa：【F II．
ぞ。「e’g叫an興e手n8伽ct’on．1’n gapan was e。甲㌻「a’1，rd
2
by七h◎se exte「na1 e。ndi七ions・and wha㌻i8「wo「se Wa・thgt
七he his七〇ricaユ and socia：l chages we：re dis：rega：rded by such
’nt・rnal・gnd’t’onr’a・m・七hodo’or斗rρ、P「oughF’n by．th・
・anguag．・in・tru・t．・r・・An・th・nl r・a・ρ乎、w・haマ・．t。 r・ter t・
here ゴ，s 七he existence of ：English a8 a subject of e阜t：rance
rx今ゆat斗・n七・．lhe， h’gh・r’n・即t’・n・・．．wh’とh Play・d a「・’r
in maintaining 七he g：【●ammar一七：ranslation rPethod・
In p：rewa：r Ja：pan linguist8 0f English on the whoユe
followed Danieユ Jones in phonetics， Ot’七〇 Jespe：rsen in
gene：ral 七heo：ry and gramma：r t and Ha：【・old ：E． Palme：r in applied
linguis七ics． Aユ：though Pa］．mer made his best efforts， ］ing＝Lish
lin即istics in Japan was gene「a1｝y ．c。nce「ned with the
wri七ten form of English。
In 1952， the Minist：ry of Education issued Mhe Cou：【・se
亘塑in which balanced㎞owledge of English based on
コ
the four skills with p：riori七y to o：ra：L ski：11s was expounded．
：Fo：r・七ha七 new phase of Engユish educa七ion in Japan， American
linguists such as Ftries， Twadde11， Ma：rckwa：rdt， 且i：11 e七 a：L．
played a signifieant ：【。ole in in’troducing 七he Oral Approach
based on 七he b、eha▽io：rism and the st：rmctural ユinguistics．
pattd：【・n p：rac七ice， cont：rastive s七udies of English and Japanese，
and langUage laborato：ry deve：lopments we：【●e all int：roduced
and emphasized ’by those iinguists．
田㎞ough a ユong his七〇：ry of foエ’eig尊 language ins七：rletion，
th・a七tenti。n hqs n・v・「been paid t・Engli・h a・amgan・…f
direc七 communication as today。 Sinee the stimulus o：【・iented
methodologies we：re introdueed， it has been cユaimed 七hat
3
practice in production is one of the best means of develop−
in’ 〟@recogn’
奄狽奄盾氏D Many teachers in the profession at present
seem to believe that the prilna：ry 8kiユ．l to be 七aught in
foreign language is speaking． Many also seem to believe
that the ’best way to ユearn to speak is to practi．ce speaking．
Some professionals in the past have even argued that speaking
is one of the best ways to develop recegnition or listening
ability．
1
Charles C． Rries（1945）， for example， expressed it
like this ；
Mhis recognition of the difference between productive
and reeeptive controls of language does not imply a
mechanical separation of the materials into ”practicest’
in producing for the sake of produetion only， and’
iepraetices’t in reeognition for the sake of receiving only．
produqtiop is one of the
As a matter ef fact practice in
best means of develoPing reeognition．（p．8）
However， this assumption that praetice in produetion
（8peaking）is・ne・fl the best means。f deveユ・ping rec・gni七i。n
（listening comprehension） is not a ”matter of fact or data．”
There seems little empirieai evidence to support the transfer
6f learning from speaking to ユistening， f：【・om p：roductive
aspect to receptive aspect．
Instead， there are a number of studies that help cre−
ate the idea of focusing on listening while developing the
o：【’aユresponse as an alterna七ive apProach to fo：reign language
teaching． Some writers are now indicating that they hav’e
1 Charle8 C・ ：Fh？ie8，幽and 工幽幽
素魚皇堕』」幽．A：nn Arbo：r， Michり The University
of Michigan ］？ress， 1945． p‘8．
4
not found this type of t：ransfe：r which ：FPri es took for．9：ranted．
2 ．．．
Simon Beユasco（1971）， fo：r example， w：rites tha・t；he was
闘．．．jol’七ed t）y ’七he ：realizatio：n that it i8 po8si「ble to develoP
・・一
窒＝cd、．1rp・a＃’ng．：・ab’1’七y’（一”・’ng）．and yrV． b・v’rPu−
aユユy incompetent in unde：rs七anding the spoken：language．te
The audio一＝Lingual approach which Beユasco used， has a：lway8
placed lis七ening fi：rst in 七he sequence of skills， but in
p：raetice 七his has ユa：rgeユy been ユ：istening、 fo：r speaking：ra七he：r
ド エ ロドジ
than ユistening for understanding． The 「basic idea has ’been
f。r the student t。 imitate the s・unds by i曲ediateユy repeat−
ing them after they hear them． One of the cause8 0f con−
fusion may be understanding the ：ro＝Le of imitation． Many
conside：r language learning 七〇 be a fo：rm of imitation．
A growing body of evidence indicate8 that forcing
s七uden七s 七〇 speak befo：re they have inte：rna＝Lized the ＝Language，
has de七rimenta］． effeets on’t；he acquisition of ］．anguage
competence （Asher，↑ウ69， Er▽in， 1970， Postovsky， 1971， Winitz，
197：5， Furguson， 1974， Gary， 1975， ：Bandura， 1977）． The ：re−
quiremen七 to：respond．ora＝Lユy immediately after one hea：r8 a
na七ive speaker・s voice， as in the mimicryomemo：rization
pattern p：rac七ice of the audiQ−1ingual app；roach see鵬／’to
reduce the re七ention of ma尤e：rial． The ：reducti◎n in：reten七ion
2 Simon Be＝Lasco， 1「Can Cogni七ion and Ve：rba：L Behavioエ・
Coexist？璽曾 ユ詠口ggaga g． and 廷｝he田eache：r 3⊥三曲」ユェL螂
；t2gevELs！ls｝Ei s t i e s， Vol． XVIL． T owards a Cognitive A ppr o ach to
Seco：【1d 工angUage Acquisitユons ed． Robe：rt C。 Lugton，
Philadelphia：Center for Curricuユum Deveユopment， lnc．
1971． p．194’．
5
may． be due to the effects of stress， or it may be due to the
ユack of inte：rnal info：㎝atioll I）：rocessing． Or i七 may be due
to both o￡ them．
There are numbers of studies which indicate that a
ユis七ener need8 time to pro6ess the・ilnfo：rmation received
（locascio， 1972， Craik， 1973， Kappel et al．， 1973）． Much”
of this evidenee indicates that the longer this processing
七akes， 七he greate：r 七he retention wi1ユ be．
Mhere are a nurnber of advantages to shifting from a
response oriented approach to a stimulus oriqnted approach，
f：rom a focus on speaking 七〇 a fecus on ユistening． The advan−
tages are summarized as foilows ：’
1 ’t；he gでeater utili七y ofユistening ove：r the othe：r skil18，
2 the greater positive transfer’from Zistening to the
other skills，
3 no negative transfer from speaking to other skilis，
4 the positive attitude even among those of lower aptitude
f。「an apP「oach which 8eems to七he興。「e effective・
When one recognizes 七he need fo：r listening 8kills，
one may react by reexamining the audio−lingual procedutre，
in whieh a student is generally exposed to a great amount
of lis七ening opPo：rtunity， but an anaユysis indicates that
it may not be very effe 刀@tlve， beqause iistening oppg． rtu．nity
iS nOt alWayS eqUiValen七 tO ユiStening P：raCtiCe．
It is necessary to build up listening一，skill， through
careful graded exposure just as it was felt necessary to
build up the oth，er skills by cared
撃魔?撃撃凵@graded e？ce；ciFe．
Therefore， this paper will focus primarily on the approaches
6
recently adv・cated f。r listening−ski耳buildipg by七w・
outstanding schoユa：ns「in・、 the Uni七ed Sta七es ； one i8 te The To七aユ
Physical Response APproacht’ by James 」． As，her of San Jose
State University and the other is ”Mhe Optimized Habit
Reinforeement”（its t ext ’is g！1tlliL；［［EE L］iUtRNABLES） by Harri s Wini t z
of the University of Missouri， Kansas City． By examining
these two approaches through experiments in Japan， it will
be dSseussed whether they share the same result with those
in the United States or not．
工n addition 七〇』七his， by examining the indica七ions
that eomprehension must be built up in t’chunksit or ’tpausest’，
a hypothetieal gradation for listening comprehension would
be propos’ ?п@through the e．xperiments on how chunks or pauses
work on listening comprehension．
These empirical studies have been attempted with
acute hope that much more attention should be paid to the
listening comprehension， and that drastic changes in English
langvtage education in Japan must be made． It should be estab一一
lished ， for example， that the eourse primarily fo￠uses on
＝Listening−skiユ1 building fo：r a certain amount of time ； for
one year， though i七 i白unde七ermina’bコ．e， especia：L＝Ly at the
very beginning stage．
By foeusing our attention on listening comprehension
and by delaying oral response， the．language learning process
can be imp：【’oved by theユangUage teaching p：rofession．
Also， 七he p：【rocess can「be made much mo：re effec七ive fo：r the
learne：r and fa：r mo：re enjoyabユe for both the teacher and the
7
student． ln order to be on this stage， however， it ’will
take more than one person響s opinion based on thoseユimited
findings． lt will take a massive movernent of the entire
profession to pay attentioh to the listening comprehension
and to reexamine some of its most basie assumption．
CHAPTER I I
T且E BAS工C CO耳CEPT O：F DEI」AY：E］）ORA：L RES：PONSE
A． The Reaction Against the Audio−lingual Approach
In reeent years eogniVve psyghologists havg， bggun to
challenge the basic principles of behavioristic theories of
learning． Their theories rest uPon neure−psychological bases
of thought and language， and as suc4 are said to be mental−
istic． Learning is not viewed as an array of eonditioned
responses to previously met stimuli， but as the aequisition
and sterage of knowledge． Behavioristic psychologists focus
on the individual’s response while cognitive psyehologists
emphasize the mental processes underlying that response．
The major complaints against the audip−lingual approaeh，
in generai， are as fonowsi：
1．
Claims that ”New Key” procedures would produce biiin−
9Ual gradua七es are no尤 「being reaユized．
2．
Reユiance upon onユy o且e sense modaユity in begin：ningユa：n−
guage work may hinder some students who are more eye．
oriented．
3．
Meachers find it impossible to eliminate the mother
tongue from the elassroom ； nor do they feel that sueh
apractice is desirabユe．．
4．
Avoiding any discussion of grammar untii the Structure
has．been overlearned is time consuning and frustrating
to the students．
5．
The continuous repetition required for overlearning is
monotonous 七〇 the s七udents and places considerabユ．e
physical strain upon the teacher．
1Ke㎜e七h Chastain，、一Secondr幽Skills：
⊆蟄So Practice， 2nd ed．， Rand MgNa＝L］．y Coユユege ］？ub：lishing
Company， Chicago， 1976． pp．132−133．
9
加・ub。ユ（1964）2r。ject。七瓦e c。ndi七i。血9 th。。ry。f
Zearning saying， ”．．．it is evident that the use of the
conditioning paradigm to explain the proeess whereby repre−
sentational meaning is．．acquired eonstitutes an unwarranted
extension of principles that are valid for certain simpie
kinds of learning to a more eomplex task and qualitatively
different kind aer learning．tt Behavioristic theories， then，
L
may explain simple levels of learning． However， they are
not sufficiently encompassing to explain sueh complex proc−
sSes aS rep：resen’t；ationa：L lea：nning， i． e．9 七he abiユity to
symbolize the world through words．
3
1n fact， the model fer’learning whieh Ausubel（1968）
postulates is quite di￡ferent from behavioristie teehniques．
He feels that the learning process must be one of ”meaning−
ful learning．” lnformation acquired in a rote fashion，
i． e．， t’arbitrarily and verbatimt’ is of little use to the
ユ．earne：r・and is quick＝Ly forgotten． The impo：rtant criterion
is whether the new knowledge can be’ incorporated， or ttsub−
sumed’t， into the learner t s existing cognitive strueture，
i． e．， wha’七 he aユ：ready lmows． In orde：r fo：r the learne：r to
relate new material to what he has learned previously this
material must be “’relatable to his structure of knowledge
on a nonarbitrary and nonverbatim basis．” Mhe implieation
2 工）avid P． Ausubei， ttAdults ve：rsus Child：ren in
Secondr：La：nguage ：Lear：ning ： ：Psychoユogicaユ Co：nsiderations，tt，
Mode：rn ⊇塑皇 Jou．：rna］．， 48， 7， 1964． P。65．・
3 David ：P． Ausubel， Educa七iona］．．幽 ：＿∠L yegg：o
New York： Holt Rinehart’一Zind−WifitSI6hJ；ton 1 grmt8T．3s．
nitive View．
10
here is that the instructional materials should assist the
studen七 七〇unde：rs七and aユユ tha七he is 七〇 ユearn and to：reユa七e
all new material七〇prior㎞owledge。田his newly「
≠モ曹浮奄窒?
knolArl edge must not be learned in an arbitrary or verbatim
fashio：n． In othe：r wo：rds， 七he student must be abユe， af七er
learning， to state what he knows in his own terms． Ausubel
4
（1968）’again states that ”the acquisition of large bodies
of knowledge is simply irnpossible in the absence of meaning−
ful iearning．ie
Mhe assumption based on behavioristic theories， has
been that language i8 conditioned ve：rbaユ behavior． Howeve】：㌧
1 ．！
many writers in language， psychology， and linguistics are
now saying that language i s much mor−e c．omplex than had been
s
previousiy supposed． Spolsky（1966） draws an important dis−
tinetion when he states， ttKnowing a langvtage involves not
just the performanee of language−like behavi ors， but an
underlying competence that makes sueh performanee possible．
By ignoring this， it has been easy to make exaggerated claims
for the effectiveness of operant c．onditioning in second−
6 ．
language teaching．” Chornsky（1966） questions the behavioristie
interpretation of language learning saying， ’！．．．it seems to
me impossible to aceept the view that linguistic behavior
4 David P． Ausubel， 1968． op． cit． p．61．
5 Be；nard Spolsky， ”A
Psyeholinguistic Critique of
覆野中。？o「e’gn ’anguage lnst「uct’。n・1．ユ幽、V・ユ・IV・
雑1耀繋llhl凹凹舞e罵al量・驚allad，
11
is a matter of habit， that it is slowiy aequired by rein−
forcement， association， and generalizqtion．．．”
工七層n・wapPears七hat th・infini七e variety・f p。ssible
communicative utterances in the native speaker’s repertoire
cannot be aceounted fer the basis of stimulus−response
7
1。arning． Miユ1・r・t a1．（1960）・ay that if the c． Enditi・ning・
of stimulus−response cgnnections were the means of language
acquisition， a chiユdhood 100 yea：res long wi七hout any inte：r−
ruption for sleeping， eating， etc．， and a perfect retention
of eve：ry s七ring of 七wen七y words af七e：r one presen七a七ion wouユd
be necessary to aceount for the language skill． MeNeil
8
（1965） seeonds this notion and emphasizes the ereative
aspects of ：Language when he explains， ttThe use of language
resembユes more writing a ：Pユay than pe：rfo：rining in one．rt
g
Ohmann（1969） points out that the native speaker is
so farniZiar with his own langUage tha尤he is ユikely to be
awa：re of the complexity of the skiユ1 he l）ossesses． He has
the ability to comprehend and to use an infinite variety of
sentences， many of thern eompletely novel． To emphasize the
compl exity of language Ohmannusss as an exampl e a situation
in which twenty−five native speaker．s are asked to deseribe
，諏訪田n器i論黙：；1麦1雌曾「意・葛n幽晦蟹in・hart
8D：，IP g N e i l，tatm e 1TnguggEsh h t ．g1tL 2E1t1；1s1zr s t Jg1tsd Seeond Lan一
羅守門畿；1驕。S．3弓a「va「d Un’v・r・’ty・σ・n七・r f・r
墨垂R欝諸欝；羅難1藩辮’S
12
a seene in which a tourist is waiting outside a telephone
booth whiユe a bea：【・taユks on 七he phone． A compute：＝r a：rlaユysユ8
0f the twenty−five descriptions showed that they contain
enough linguistie data for ”19．8 billion一 sentenceS， all
describing’ just one situatiQn．” He goes on to say that，
’tWhen one reflects that the number of seconds in a century
is enZy 3．2 billion， it is clear that no speaker has heard，
read， or spoken more than a tiny fraction of the sentences
he could speak or understand， and that no one learns ］inglish
by learning any parti￠ular sentences of English．tt
In addition to these reactions， more researeh evidence
of the detrimental effects of the oral response in the
audio−lingual approach will be deseribed next．
B． Why Should Speaking Be Delayed？
An increasing evidence shows that speaking before
having internalized the language has detrimental effects on
ユanguage acqu・isition． The redue七ion o：￡re七ention by 七he
immediate reprgduetion may be due to the psychological
causes as mentioned before． There are a number of studies
which indieatq that the depth of the cognitive processing
of info：rmation ：received， clo8eユy relates to the ：retenti◎n
（Craik，1973， L。・a8ci。，1972’ C KapP・ユ・t al．，1973， FtU，9U。。n，
1974）．
Action such as speaking right after hearing， as in
the mimicry−memorization pattern practiees of the audio一一
lingual approach seems to be detrimental to the depth of
13
proeessing the information reeeived． Mhe study o f Craik
（1973）10
堰B e8peciaユユy h。ユpfu、 i＿d。rStanding七hi。 ph。＿一
enon。 工n one expe：riment the subjec七8 we：re given a ：iist Qf
single words． About each word， they were asked Qne question，
but not all of the questions were alike． Mhere were fiire
questions， each designed to foree the． learner to process
the word at a greater ”cognitive depth” than the questien
which preceded it．
In this experiment， it was assuned that eaeh question
would force the student to， make a deeper decision about the
word．． Mhe deeper decisions required some additional time，
but this led to dramatically better performance on both a
ll
recognition 七ask and on a：recaユ1 ta8k． C：raik（1973） 『beユieves
that when attention is diverted from an item that is in
primary mernory， ’tit will be lost from primary memory and
will bg forgotten．．．．at a rate appropriate to its level ．of
analysis ． t．t
In related experiments， some−of the subjeets were
；equired to pronounce aloud the words in a list while o，ther
subjeets only read the items silently or heard them spoken
by the experimenter． The recaU of both gr．oups of subjects
12
was cornpared． One report concluded that，
翻叢難：会iliぎ藷撫：轄難（郷y’”
11 lbid． p．51．
12 P．M．．Tell and A．M． Ferguson， ”lnfluenee of Aetive
end tL4ssiye−Vgcal．tz a t i on，． on Shor t T erin R e e all，”一lgtu1pa；Lurnal gLf
＿エ旦幽， 102s． 1974． p．59． 一 ，
14
6．．i’t appears 七hat the requirement of ac七ive voca＝Li鼎
zation at presentation interferes with effeetive coding
operations・ Active vocaユization may demand mOre attenロ
tion．．。 璽he effect may not invoユve just the disrup七ion
of rehea：rsal strategies，’bu七may instead ユessen the 8e鱒
le￠tive attentien capabUities that are necessqry for
of
effective encoding ih rnemory． Thus， the advantages
hearing the word rather than pronouncing it oneself ane
the ：Longer ：re七entiOn intervaユs， when the info：r−
mainly a七
matipV氏@i’n echoic ifiemory has dissipated（ Mell and ］i‘urguson，
1974）．
工n anothier study on associative reaction time in language
13
aequisition ， Ley and ：Locascio（1972） eome to a simiユa：r
conclusion．
．．．our research suggests that one must make associa−
tions to verbal materials during learning in order that
the materiaユ can be ユater recalled and tha七 some procedu：re
su￠h as repeatedly saying the materiai aloud inter￡ers
with the．assoeiative Pro6ess， and therefore has a detri一・
血1en七al
effect on Zearning．
Fhnrther support for the Craik position eomes from
14
another study which presents evidence that， ”the nonvoiced
items in a serial recall task were processed to a deeper
level 七han 七he voiced i七ems．●。（ Kappeユ e七 a：L．，1973）
Craik has further evidence that the test of immediate recall
sueh as oecurs in mimicry−memory drills， is of little value
in ］．onge：r te：rm memo：ry sto：rage and thus in ：【retention of ユan繭
guage competence．
His key experiment began like many
15 R． Ley and D． locaseio， Associative Reaction Mime
ip−Pangugge Aequisition， A Paper Presented at AERA， Chieago，
1972． p・5．
14 S． Kappel， M． Harford， V．D． Burns and N．S．
Andeエ’son， 1IEffects of Voca：】．ization on Short 田e：rm Melno：【・y
f。r Words，”ユ9哩．
of ＿＿乙， つ01， 1973．
p・316．
45
0thers ： subjects did free recall of word listi and the
probability ef reeall for each word was plotted against
its position in the series． As expected， when recaU
began immediately， the last’ ??浴@words in the list were the
most ］．ikeユy to l）e ：reca＝Lユed， 七hat is， there was a s七rong
recency effect． Many experimenters have used this type
of evidence to suggest techniques for studying． Craik，
however， went further． At the end of going through a
number of lists， in this fashion， Craik then required
the subjects to try to recall all of the words from all of
the lists with which the subjeets had dealt one at a time．
Mhis task produced a striking ”negative recency effectt’．
Mhe very words which had occurred at the end of the
individual lists and which had been strongest in immediate
15
free reeall now were least recalled． Craik（1975） ． inter−
p：reted this finding a8 showing that ttwoエ・ds originally
retrieved from primary memory were not well registered in
the long term storage．，e
The eXperiments just reviewed were all done with
native speakers of the language． We may not be able there−
fore to generaユize to fo：reign ユanguage lea：rning di：rectユy．
However， by analogy， there seems to be rnueh food for
thought in these experiments， and it would seem even more
・ユ・sely r・lat・d t・f。r・ignユanguag・teaching than。v。n
with one’s native language．
15 F物rgus 工。M● Craik：， 1973・ op● ci七． p．55．
t6
16
0ne study by Olユer（1971） may give u8 some clues of
how these experiments’・reiated to second−language learning．
He demonstrated that sentenees are easier to learn if the
student rneets them in a meaningfu1 context． One explanation
for this may be that the meaningful context permits，indeed
demands more eompユex proeessing． A short experimen七 by
Ashe：r may howeve：r be more ’七〇 the point， but it add8 another
potentia：L dimension not norma］ユy p：resent with na七ive speakers・
17
Asher（1969） had two groups of students perform certain drill
movernents by command in Russian． He found that the students
who merely performed the eommands did so with a greater de−
gree of reliability than those who first repeated the commands
oraユ：ly be：fo：re pe：rforming the necessary movern ent ． Whiユe the
effects of voicing on retention as indicated by the previ−p
ously reviewed experiments probably had some effects， Asher
18
（1969） int：roduced 七he addi七iona：L facto：r of stress as a
factoエ・in the：retarding of listening fluency．
．．．the st：res8 0f t：rying to pronounce the aユien utter−
ranc．e may．relard lirptening’flu．en’cy．．． The optimal strategy
serial
may be
ユearning in which。ne achievesユistening
fluency just before
七〇
speak．
one attempts
19
J． B．’Biggs（1968） has pointed out that stress has
an effect similar to that of voieing as found in the previ−
ously reviewed experiments．
一in
結i軍ユも望「lg鞭n離1ヨ早 gsgnd Foreign Language
tLi2，31；3Cat，￥ieS，Pgggge，，，．s−i7．
ApPr・a・編a臨応身詮寮aglT麗艦夢蜜a罐呈rP儲．
18 lbid． p．13．
rユーvi・↓1蹟舞S16塁慧吾三蓋nc暑響驚誹●
．1 7
．．．when deeisions are made under emotional or stresse
fuユ． condi’tions， immediate melno：ry s：pan capacity ：1s effec−
tiveユy lowe：red・ A con▽enien七 way of pu七ting 七his is
that the stress signals themselves occupy valuable imme−
diate inemory span spaee． i
20
M・y・r・and加脚（tg71）． hav・aユ・・f。und that high
anxiety appears to inhibit the use of rnemory span in the
solution of eoncept problems． Fh2rther findings indicating
七he de’biユi七a−t；ing effec七8 0f am（ie七y are rel）o：rted wideユy in
七h・ユiteratur・・The effect・・f aμi・ty and・tress・n th・
receptive skiユ1s such a8 1is七ening comprehensio：rl are espe−
ciaユユy pe：rtinen七． Listening comp：rehension is basica］．ユy a
form of disc：ri！ninati on ユearning． A：nxi ety， of七en b：rought on
by task overload can be major deterrent to any form of
discri！nination ユea：rning。 Mhe effect8 0f anxiety on ］．earn．ing
in gene：raユh塾v’e been wideユy studied， and there seems to be
a cユea：r relationship be七ween anxiety and stimulus generaユー
ization， the opP。site． of stimuユus discrimination． Eysenck
21
（1962） has put i t thi s way，
・．．conditioning i8 ：reユated to anxユety fo：zr七he simple
i七
has
been shQwn conclusively that the ease
reason that
轟認’呈豊。aa艦鞭e嘱毒婁蒼。ks。蓋。瑠呈￡εe鵠。臨nt
さ呈職9・碧e畑田＆d“。t里罐u蓋sg灘ム、鑑錨拝呈。鵯deaユ
anxious person．
⊃iscriminati。nユearning i8 much moTe difficuユ七f。r
the anxi。us pers・n・Mstening c。mprehensi・n is a c。mpユex
20 Joel Meyers and Jack Dunham， Effeets of Anxiety
on Ap．一til tude by TreatMent lnteraction， A Paper Presented
at AERA・， New York， t 971．
21H．g． Eysenck，一11gtgaes g！t！gd，！！ltL11iEgsuses o−f．1P：sy！211s2，LggsLs h 1 ．
蹴七im・r・・P・nguin B・。k・，1962． P．203．
18
task all by itself and when speaking is added before this
is ’t；ho：＝’oughユy lea：rned， then task ove：r’load results and this
usua］ユy b：rings on anxiety． Even simP：Le imitation， such as
in the mimic−memory drills， is a complex task and can create
22
七ask overユoad in a begiエming student． E：rvin−TripP（1970）
has pUt it this way．
At a minimum， it can be shown that imitation requires
perception， storage， organization of output， and．paotor
there
ou七put． In．addi七i。n， before the s七〇rage phase，
will be inte’raetion if the materiai is interpretable．
As the requirement to speak exceeds simple imitation
and extends to ”situational dialogues” and en further to
ttfree conversation”， it can ereate task overload even for
the more advanced student． Mhe eonsequence of this is to
push the student baek to the habit formations he knows best，
25
his own language． As Gaier（1952）”exptessed it this way，
．．．it leads to an impairment in the ability to impro−
vi se in an unstructured and／or new situation． T This r’e−
sults in ptereotyped， habitual and familiar ．approach
that may be maladaptive in the situation．
The requirement to speak extensively under stressful
conditions may be a rnajor cause in developing habits of
mixed language usage． 1t can happen even in good speakers
if they are put under too much stress． lt can happeri to
highly trained pilots and astronaughts if they are put
22 Susan Ervin−Mripp， ”Structure and Process in
：Language Acquisition，fl Round Tabユe No．21，
Washigton，D．C．， Georgetown University， 1970． p．316．
25 R．L． Gaier， ”Selected Personality Variables and
：Lea：rning p：rocess，rl」≧§趣L！M！gpRg1giE2！｝o o a h皇， Vol．66， No．17，
1952． p．M． ・一 ” 一一一’ rm
@ 一
19
under enough pressUre and under conditions of task overload．
エna s七udy which reviewed a la：rge numbe：r of experimental
24
teports within the aerospace industry， Greer et al．（1972）
pointed out that when a subject is ・task 6verloaded， errors
increase and there is a tendeney te revert to previously
ユea：rned gene：【●aユizations rathe：r than make the 8pecific dis一
七inetions requi：red a七 tha七 point． If task overユoad can do
that to a t：rained ast：ronaught， what might task ove：rユoad do
to a beginning foreign language ．learner．
25
Paユmer（1925） indica’セed rnany years ago why s七：ress
and anxiety may be a factor in foreign ユanguage teaching
when premature pubユic respon8e is caユユed for． He poin七s
ou七 七hat st：ress may not come jus’b from the actuaユ pu．b＝Lic
statement， but just from expecting that he might be asked
to． produce pubユic＝Ly・
Eailures tend to drop out． Mueller and Leutenegger
26
（1964） have documented the effects of an intensive orai
approaeh on drop out！一 By gontrast， the report by lngram，
27
Nord and Dragt（1975） documents the reduction of drop out
． a4 G．eorgg D．．Gregr， 」．r．L， et al．， ’tTask Loading，” part
lg÷21n：PK1Zgl！9！g91g2S Ch t 12g．！p｛｝ElsLmain’・Waghington；D．c．， GryphonVfiouMs’d；
KaitakulgaV●茅暗晦5．：嚇．迦準Act’・n・T・ky・・
繍6纒欝llii；鱗i灘豊二1聾鷲
Li・t・・ilil 9二m蘭島i藍三罫蝦i謝露9繊．歪鎚f
Vol． 19， No． 1， 1975．
20
when a deユay of oでa1 ：response approach is t：ri ed．
Now it is true that some people have survived the
immediate repeat baclg， mimic−memory approach． Mhere are
successes as well a8’failures using this approach． 工ndeed，
some people have become quite successful learners of the
ユanguage using this app：【・oachの Why have some been successfu：L，
while other have nbt．
28
Bandura’s（1977）’ eoncept of efficacy expectation may
help explain this phenornenon． t’An effieaey expectation is
the conviction that one can successfu1ユy excute the behavior
req・uired。．．lt He goes on to poin七 ◎ut that actuaユly accom働
plishing 七he behavi or：nequired has powerfuユ effects on the
effieacy expectation． ］tut he also points out that failure
to perform can have very detrimental effects．
Performance accomplishments provide the most depend−
able sourse of efficacy expectations beeause they are
based on one’s own personal experiences． Suecesses raise
mastery expectations ； repeated failures lower them，
if．the rnishaps occur early in the course of
especially
ev−ents． （’p．81）
The result of early suceess in repeating phrases in
the foreign language then creates a feeling of more success
to come in speaking the foreign language． But early failure
to speak cor：rectly can c：rea七e a feeling of fu：rthe：r failure
to come． Since 七he an’t；icipation of failu：re tends 七〇 c：rea七e
stress and anxiety， and this in turn， as we have indicated，
makes learning even rnore diffieult， there is created a
28Albe：r’t Bandura， Socia1ユ幽』幽 Englewood
Cliffs， NJ．， Pでen七ice Ha＝Lユ，， 1977．Mpl）．79−81」
21
s．al．f−fuユfi：Lling pro：phesy． 工t曾s a so：r七 〇f devia七ion amp＝Li−
fication where ”the rich get richer and the poor get poorer．tt
Bandura points out why this efficacy expectation is important．
工t helps 七he s七ude：n．ts over 七he：rough spots．
Efficacy expectations determine how much effort
people wi：LI expend ， howユong七hey wi＝LI persis七in the
face of obstaeles and aversive experiences． Mhe stronger
the efficacy or mastery expectations， the rnore active the
efforts． Those who persist in performing aetivi，ties that
are subjectively threatening but relatively safe objective−
iy will gain eorrective experienees that further reinforce
their sense of efficacy thereby eventually elimihating
their．fears and． defensive behavior． Those who give uP
p：＝’e！natureユy wiユ：L ：retain 七heir
seユf−debiユita七ing expec●
tations and fears for a long time．（p．80）
While we may gユory in ou：r successfuユ language learno
ers， an analysis of the failures might prove far more useful
in improving our language teaching． Stress brought on by
task overload which has been created by speaking一一that
beginning students speak befo：re they aエ・e ready一●may 『be one
major cause of failure in foreign language teaching today．
Amajor imp：【・ovement in the teaching of foreignユanguages may
be achieved．by focusing on theエ●educ’t；ion of stress p：roducing
circumstances and the promotion of self−confidence in every
student of his ability to learn the language． This seerns
to be the eentral message in the literature on suggestopedia
29
（Rac］．e，1979）． One a：ppエ・oach whieh may help your students
to build continually successful steps of learning from
beginning加end is to teユ1 the begi㎜ing language learner
29 G． Racle，
t’Can Suggestopedia Revolutionize
Language Teaehing？f’ エgエ鯉L幽Annal s， Vo1。12， No．1，
1979● pp●59−49． 馬 内
22
not to speak， but to listen．
As some of the dangers of foreing students to spgak
before they are ready become apparent， and as some of the
advantages of deユaying o：ra1 ：response ㎜’ti］．七he s七・udent can
speak from an initial strrteture rather an external model，
beeome recognized， another question norrnaily arises．
C． How long Should Speaking Be Delayed？
At present there seems to be no definitive empirical
evidence to reveal the fact of how long the time lag between
ユis七ening and speaking shouユd be・ There aree howe▽e：rg some
case studies whieh， while widely variant， may give some
30
elues． Asher（1972） reports that after some 16 hours of
classroom instructiQn using the Total Physical Response
strategy， the students indicated a desire to speak and he
七hen let the s七udents manipuユate the teacher t㎞ough commands．
31
1n another publication，’ however， he recommends that ”for
at leaSt One Se1neSte：r in eOユユege O：r．8iX mOnthS tO a year in
high school， the goal of foreign language learning should
be listening fluency only．” The listening flueney， he goes
on to explain， should be so keen that the student visits
the cguhtry， he eould understand aimost anything he hears
on the street， on television， or on the radio． He felt
：50 James J。 Asher， 撃，Chiユdでen，s First I）anguage as a
粧㍉等呈ぞ灘n島P碧琴二号筆弓．Lea「n’ng・ll Modem−J・…a・・
31 James J． Asher， 1969． op． cit． pp．5−17．
23
that when this level of comprehension was achi eved， the
student would be ready for a graceful and nonstressful
32
transition to speaking． Winitz and Reeds（1973） also agree
with this general position．
It is a weユユ documented fact 七hat comprehension
precedes speaking in the child．．．We regard this sequence
of development一一comprehension first， production second一一
a functional property of the human brain， which should
not be violated in language inst：皿ction． The：refo：re，
we take the point of view that foreign language instruc一
七ion shouユd di8courage speaking untiユ a high degree of
comprehension is aehieved， that is， until the student
can understand a non−teehnical conversation and decode
it with ease．
33
Palmer（1925） in recommending a period of three to
six months before eneouraging， points out that if the aetive
oral response phases，
．．．are entered upon prematurely（ e．’g・． before the
pupils have received adeqqate ear Pna！ping and art．icula−
if
七hey a：re unduユy
ii’on exercises ）， pronunof ation ；
postponed， there is a possibility of the pupils ehafing
tLt the delay and having their ardour darnped． The skill−
fu：L and syrnpathetic teache：r， howeve：r， wil］． gene：raユ1y be
able to keep his silent class of pupilB alert and inter−
ested for at least six months．
34
Postovsky（1971） in his first major experiment using
the delayed oral response approach， discouraged speaking
for about 120 contact hours．
Mhe sueeess of this experiment
eneouraged him to design another in which oraZ response
32 Harris Winitz and James A， Reeds， ”Rapid Acquisi−
tion of a Foreign langutage（ German ） by thb Avo−i’ dance−of
Speaking，餌遇Vol． II， No．4， 197：5， pp．295−317．
33 H．E． Palmer， 1925． op． eit． pp．70一一71．
54 V．A． Postovsky， Effeets of Delay in Oral Practice
at the Beginning of Second Language Learning． Unpublished
Ph．D． d−issertation， University of California， Berkeley，
1971． 一 ・ 一
24
was discouraged for 180 hou rs， and then speaking was intro−
duced onユy gradual：1y一一no mo：re． than 25 minu七es out of a sヰx
h。u「 day at f’「st・and f’na”Y up310 90血utes out of q
six hour day at the end of course．
工n the intensive Russian I）anguage Cou：rse at Michigan
State University， the students first began to speak sponta−
neously in Russian after about 40 hours of’
奄獅唐狽窒浮?狽奄盾氏@in
ユistening comp：rehension・ ｛Phe ins七：ructors of the course
aユ10wed the students to use Russia：n when 七hey wanted， but
they did not encourage or expeet all of the students to
speak in Russian until after th．e first term or about 90
36
classroom hours of instruetion．
In addition to sueh anecdotal information， there
also seems to be some vaユ．ue in examining the question：f：rom
a theoretical point of view． ln a seminal paper， K． Pike
37
（1960） introduced the foreign language teaching profession
七〇 the eoncept of nucleation． ：Pike used the concept of
nucleation， which he borrowed from physics， and by analogy
applied it to foreign language teaching． lt， drs a concept
which seems cen’七：raユ ’七〇 the （lue8tion of how long． one shou］．d
wait before encovraging productive use of the language．
Pike applies the principle of nucleation to language
w・rkU盃1七！塩14賠雛6c虚威．智’1認m舗号塁写巳ぞt・一DエT
36 F． lngrath．， g．R． Nord and b． 1）ragt， 1975． op． eit．
「．、．Xエぞ▽，Kl雪6。1’ll：2諏；1；gt’on・！Mode 攣鯉・u a1
25
：Lea：rning as foユユOWS ：
As it is difficuユt for the firs七 few mo＝Lecules to
cluster together in physical nucleation， so it is diffi−
cult for a person learning a foreign language to learn
his first few words．．． Some persons memorized long lists
of voeabulary items， and even extensive rules of grammar，
without being able to speak the language． One might say
that their learning is in a supersaturated condition，
of
Mfithout nucleation． That．is， though they have many
the elements necessary for a conversation， they cannot
the struc・一
in faet handle these．’ Spec．ifically， they lack
ture， tbe ”crystallizatibn’！一一which gives a characteristic
黙1韓。1羅1羅lil羅lons’
．
to language would
of
tlnaturalfiesstl
§き。曾圭h蓋欝蟹e
講座呈6蓋s霞δesA装。総量￥きd器㌔とi潔盤ε蓋。
is a：L：ready 七hinkdng in ’七he language the
蓋暑盆。論n麗a器機。、。ati。n． Nu。、。ati。n h。re
is not at aユ1
0f the vocabu］．a：ry which he has
dependent upon the exten．t．
capaci’七y to use a
雪謡呈「器モ9呈「f器鎚「釜y・but upon the
anatUraユWay aUtOmatiCaユユy in a
natural c ontext．
38
Belasco（1965） using Pike’s concept
of nucleation
to language ：Lea：rning t：【’ied to make the eoncept mo：re expユicit．
The student i s never a nucleated language student
pptil hq has completely mastered the sound patterns，
the
sandhi variation patterns and basie syntaetic
patterns．．． When he can reconstitute acceptable utterances
based on these patterns so that they are readily under−
stood by a native speaker， then he has reaehed the
nuclea七ion 8七age for spea1（ing． When he can undeエ・stand
at normal speed any recombination．of these verb forms
arpd vpcabulqry． itetps in the same （or similar） syntaetic
he has ］一earned to cont：ro］． o：ra］ユy， he will
st工・UC七ure8
the nueleation stage for audib“comprehension．
have reached
Be＝Lasco was of cou：rse speaking from the a毛1dio・一1inguaユ
position of the times， putting speaking first， and relatir；g
nucユeation fo：r audio−comp：rehension 七〇 nucleation for speaking・
Because of his experience wi七h the lack of transfer fro皿
speaking to listening， he seemed to feel that each skill
58 Simon Belasco， itNucleation and．
Approaeh， ，t 11st2gg！z！！dern，lkgug！leg！an ・・ggti11gg；u］？Lnal， XLIX，
the Audio−Mngual
1965． pp．482−491．
26
must therefore have its owh nuelegtion point ．or procedure．
Yet he s七iユユ was ope：n minded enough ’t；o raise ’t；he ques七ion
about the potential of nucleation for listening comprehen−
39
sion transferring to speaking． Belasco（1965） put it this
way．
It would seem then that each skiil must be developed
separately． Nucleation for speaking does not gurantee
nucleation for audio−eomprehension． Whether the converse
is true still has to be deterrnined by eontrolled exper−
imentation．
It is with the converse assumptien that nucleation for
listening comprehension can’
狽窒≠獅唐??秩@to the other perform−
ance skills that the research on the t’listening first”
approach is all about．
D． The Effects of Delaying Oral Response
The researeh cited so far all tends to provide
confirming experimental evidence that the development of
listening Muency does transfer to other skills． 1t would
appear that once nucleation has oecurred for listening，
then it also seems available for speaking． Postovsky
40
（1971）， discovered this when he was first involved with a
Russiqn course for stenographers． The eourse was primarily
one of iistening to Russian and wr？iting down what was said．
Whiユe 七he teaching itself：requi：【・ed no speaking， Postovsky
was surprised hear the conclusion ef the course to diseover
59 Simon Belasco， 1965． op． cit． p．487．’
40 V．A． Postovsky， 1971． op．’e’i’t；
27
that the・s七en・9maph・r・。l c。uld n・七・nユy li・tdn七・ahd writ。
Russian， they eould also speak it even though they had
never ”praeticed” it． What startled Postovsky the rnost，
however， was that in eonversations between the ”stenographersi’
and 七he s七udents f：【・om his audi◎eユingual cユa8s， the t響stenogo
raphers” often spoke Russian with better pronunciation and
with fewer grammatical mistakes than the members ．of his
regular audio−lingual class who had been practicing speaking
from the very first day． lt was largely as a result o￡ this
experience that Postovsky began his experiments in delayed
。でaユギesp。nse・
Postovsky set about to test the effect of replacing
oral response with written response during first fou r weeks
of the Defense Language 1nstitute’s Russian eourse．
Students were tested for language aptitude and matehed in
random pairs between an experimental group and a control
group． All told， there were about 100 exp’ ?窒奄高?獅狽≠戟@students
and 100 c ontrol students， none of whom had any previ ous
exposur，e to Russian． The sole differenee in the experi−
mental procedurg was to delay the introduction of oral prae−
tice until after the fourth week． During the first three
days the experimental students were provided some pronun一 ）
ciation praetiee to establish the，association betw’e’en
Russian sounds and symbols， but commencing with the fourth
day a：1］． students ：resp◎n8es were in writing． ’工nstead of
PrOnun−Ciation pTaetice， instead of memorizing daily dialogues
28
fo「o「a1、「ecitation・and C i聯・ad。f・ngaging in。ra・pat七・rn
response d：riユ：Ls， ’七｝1e experimentaユ 8tuden七8 ：responded du：＝ring
the four−week p：re−vocal phase en七i：reユy in wri㌻ing．
rhe development of wri ting skill frem the very beginning ot
the course．was eonsidered important for two reasons． First，
it provided students with a meaningful mode of response
during 七he p：re一・vocal phase of inst：ruction ； and second， it
was believed that there is a high degree of positive transfer
from writing to speaking since both skills are produetive．
Mhe contaet hours were approximately 120． The same audio−
lingual materials and essentially the same cycle of instruC−
tion was followed in both the control group and in the
experimental group．
After four weeks the experimental group commen￠ed
o：ral d：ri］ユ and the methodology for both the experimen七al
group and the control group was identical． At the end of
six weeks and twelve weeks 七ests were adminis七e：red to the
s七uden七s from ’bo七h groups 七〇 measure the four ’basic ski］ユs ：
listening， speaking， reading， and writing． On the basis of
41
these tests， Postovsky（1971） was able to make the following
concユ．U8io】臣S ＝
1． ln iegrnlng Russian， Aqdult stuaents d−evelop，Petter
糠i羅鴛羅ill羅灘1騰藩ll三1誓：1・
from spoken input．
一 41 V．A． Postovsky，’ 1971． op． eit． pp．116−117．
29
2． MheTe is high positive transfer・of learning from
writing to speaking， provided again that written
practice is from spoken input．
5． ln the
initial phase of instruction， when written
practice from spoken input i s compared with oral
practice of the same drill material， written practice
develops better control of grammatieal strueture．
4．
◎f the w：riting system （Cyriユユic aユphabet）
Introduction
prior to intensive pronunciation practice does not
create a greater problem of graphic interference
than the
reverse sequence of presentation normally
creates．
The
eonclusions drawn by Postovsky are similar to
rest of the experimenters（ Asher， Gary， lngram，
those of the
ha▽e focused on the deユay of o：ral ：response a’t；
Winitz ） who
of foreign language teaching． Postovsky，
the beginning
used an entirely different response system ； he
however，
used
the response system in writing instead of oral response．
differentiate the relation between the response
How could we
system in writing and in speaking？ They have a strong
co：rrelation in te：r●ms of p：roductive aspect ofユanguage．
Precisely speaking， the response in writing would not be
necessarily a way appropriate to delaying oral response．
However， there are some profitable aspects of the
language instruetion， as Postovsky proved， in the response
systern in writing． From the neurolinguistic point of view，
the response systern in writing may plaz2a different part of
the productive aspect， as Diiler（1978） states that ”it seems
42K．C． Diller and T．M． Walsh，”Neur・血g・istic
Foundati5n−s r tb Methods’ o f Teaehing a Second Language，t’
一tl， Vol． XVI／1， 1978． p．13．
30
clear that very di￡ferent neural pathways and mechani sms
a：re e皿pコ，oyed 『by students using diffe：rent methods ofユanguage
teaching ． t，
No matter how different the response system is， at
the point that both Postovsky and Asher avoided the oral
response， theY are coincidental． And the reports of Postovsky
eonsistently come to the similar conclusion drawn by Asher．
Listening transfers to speaking， and the spea king whieh
results is generally better than that of those who practice
speaking from the beginning． ln addition， severai studies
doeument the transfer process from listening comprehension
to ：reading（ Asher， 1972， Ashe：【’， Kusudo and DelaMorエ’e， 1974，
Winitz， Reeds and Garcia， 1977）．
Based on the concep七 〇f the deユayed o：raユ respOnse，
what response system should be considered next to validate
the recognition instead of the oral response？
The new methodoユogies wi七h othe：r：response sys’tems instead
of ’t；he oral ：re8ponse wi1＝L be deseribed in the foユ10wing
ehapter．
ノ
CHAPTER 工II
METHODOLOGIES BAS］111） ON THE CONCEPM OF DEI，AYED ORA．L RESPONSE
The concept of delayed oral response is described in
the previous chapter with the research evidence whieh shows
that in the i−nitial stage of foreign language teaching
discouraging oral response is effective not only for lis−
tening but also for the other skills． Based on this concept，
two rerna rkable methods were advocated in the United’ @States；
1
0ne is ”The Motal Physical Response Approach｛i by James J．
Asher of San Jose State University and the other is itThe
2
0ptimized Habit Reinforcement”（its text is E11t1gl｝E ！［dtEg11111Al｝1ilgSRNABIES）
by Harris Winitz of the Univedesity of Missouri， Kansas City．
A． The Motal Physical Response Approach （abbreviated to TPR）
A−1． Historical View of the TPR
エn o：rder to avoid o：【・a1 ：【・esponse， Ashe：r・used physエCaユ
response， while Winitz used pictorial response． From the
methodological point of view， the physical response to the
’audio−stirnulus could be situated in the stream of the
3
audio−motoic approach．
A。ti．n。膿e雌e基るa欝U全丑欝．儲。騨
65ti［lr］i61El i f orniT5；TsilY−6talE−llak pr oduction， 1977．
2 Harris Wini t z，一11tJiLE；［i1E；A1111！IZ）EB1！1｝ERNA BLES． Kqnsas eity，
工nte：rnational I・inguistic．Co：rpo：【ra七ion， 1978．
3 Morio Kohno， ”Audio−Motony A．pproagh l The−nyUsgCul
，．1冒田he Mode：【●n」塑L
Instruction・ of 一．’SpeebhAActivi．ties’
．Jou：rnaコ．， 田okyo，、”一1974． ＿ ＿ ． ．．
32
When we look back， the language−teaching methods
from the viewpoint of the audio−motor approach， the Natural
Method by Gouin， Berlitz， et al．， the Oral Method by Palm’ ?秩C
and the Graded Direct Method by Riehards （there are some
ethers， but not worth touching upon here） would be included
in the sarne category． It is evident that the so called
”Direct Method” implied ￡il］ing up the defieiency in the
ttGrammar．Mranslatien Methodi’， was based on the ”Natural
Method tt advocated mainユy by：litraneois Gouin（1831一・1895） and
Maximiユian Del：phinus’：Be：【・＝Li七z（1852一・1921） in the nineteenth
century． Among the advocators of a similar type of the
language teaching me七hod such as Henry Swee七， 〇七七〇Jespersen，
et a］．．， Gouin and Be：r］．i七z played the mos七 important paでt．
rhe ttNatural Methodt’ advocated by Gouin has a number
of contreversiaユeiements七〇day． One of them is， as Palmer
pointed ou七， 七hat the 曾tNa七u：ral Method書曾is not a method
appropriate to the adult learners． But what both Gouin
and Palmer shared was the contextual texts they used． Mhat
is， it could be observed that there was a strong correlation
4
between the t’Mnguistic Series” asserted by Gouin and Xhe
5
”Action Chain” by Palmer． rn addition to this， the point
which we cannot disregard is that both of them paid
4 ：Fh7a：ncois Gouin， The Art≦匹￡＿幽and灘
ユ盤，．．七：rans：La七ed to ：English by Vエ。’t；or Be七is and Howa：rd
Swan， Philip， London， 1892．
5 H・．E．・ Pa．．1．mer， 1925． op． cit． pp．266−295．
33
attention to the idea of the demonstrations performed not
on：Ly by 七he teache：rs 七hemseユve8 bu七 aユso by the studen七週目
Although Palmer also paid attention to the demonstration，
almost all the teaehing materials chosen by Gouin were
concerned’ @with the demonstrations performed in the classroom．
Deveユ．oping’the idea of 七he demonst：ration， and based
6
0n the itBasic English。。 by C．K． Ogden（1889。1957）， 工．AL
7
Richards cultivated the ”Graded Direct Method” in this
direction with the help of C． Gibson． A large nurnber o￡
audio−visual aids are also used in this method．
Following the ”Graded Direct Method”， a completely
new method whieh primarily focused on listening comprehen−
sion with the physical response， not with the oral response，，
to the audio−stimulus， was advocated not by a linguist but
by a psychoユogist． 工t is the t，Totaユ ：Physical Responsete
approach that is adveeated by James 」． Asher． The pePR is
based on the data derived from the psycholinguistic studies
and enough experiments， while Gouin Method was not． Thus，
the stream of the audio−motor approach is sueeeded by the
TPR with the different response system from others．
6C．K． Ogd e n， Ba s i c．］Uiniag，一sp：l i h一顧工nte：rna七 〇a＝L．Sggs2xLd
エlglg11s｝g皇． Harcourt， ：B：race＆Worユd， New York， 1968．
Pi。tur。1，1急念δkR圭。鴇暑8並？n呈。幽幽回る1騰i繋quare
Prress．
34
A−2． The Method and Mechniques
Traditional teaching methods do work if people stay
in a p：rog：ramユーong enough， but㌻hey are high］一y s七ressfuユfor
all but the most linguistically gifted and highly motivated
because the methods rely so heavily en verbal discourse， an
instructiOnal strategy geared to the left hemisphere of the
brain． For example， in exercises designed to teach sorneone
to speak a language the instructor might use such phrases
as ”listen and repeat after me”， or ’iMemorize this dialoguett，
or t’Pronounce these wordsti． A］ユ are excellen’t procedures
for advanced students but traumatized most beginners so
8
thoroughlY that roughly 98 percent do not go beyond the
first two years of study．
Mhat traurna， he has discovered in his research， is
unneeessary if students learn a seeond language the way
infants learn their native language． As early as 1929，
psychologists observed that infants will not talk before
they are ready and that no amount of coaxing， rewarding，
or teaching by the parents will help． Yet， for many months
before infants．talko一・while 七hey a：re stiユ1 mute except
babbling一一they have constructed an．intricate map for
understanding the noises they hear from people．
9
Jean Piaget suggested that infants internalize a
8 James J． Asher， 1977． op． eit． p．2．
： 9 Hans G． ］turth，．tP：iLggg1ia t Sgtlg−r ！！gtgs；11g；acher，’Pr entice−Hall，
！r．anslaVe．d tg． 」apanese b5i”HJ；一”KiS5tlfiim6：tE6一；一i」i60 Meiji mosho， 一
Tokyo， 4th ed．， 1980． 一 一
． 35
map of how their langutage works by constructing reality
through such motor behavior as touching， reaching， grasping，
and crying． He believes that if adults （and children， too）
want to acquire a seeond language without stress， they
should construet a reality in the new language parallel to
the one they c：【reated a8 infants． Mhis paraユ：Lel reality is
ereated when an instructor speaks the foreign language to
direct physical responses ： ”Stand up． Walk over to Naney，
and dance with her．i’ The physical behavior seems to be
governed by the right hemisphere of the brain．
Ashe：r calls thiβ ：right−brain learning the To七al
Physical Response approach to aequiring another language．
The rPR’s sensorimotor rnethod seems to work for both adults
and children， and for all of the languages．
With most methods of language instruetion， teachers
communicate the meaning of a foreign word or phrase by
explaining it in the native language． That creates a
problem ： if students hear the instructor explain that
i！stand up’t in Etriglish means ”tate” and ”sit ldiown” rneans
it suware’t， do．they internalize the rneaning of the words？
For mbst students， the answer is definitely t’No，t．
There are a number of complex reasons for that， but one of
the strongest・ is that students have already stored thousands
of expentences that eontradict the teaeher’s assertion
that t！si，t it means tt suwareti， tt stand upei means te tatett f and
ttrun’t means ”hashireit． The students know from long personal
experience that ttsuwareii means tisuwareti， tttateii means tttateet”
36
and tthashireti rneans tihashirett． What is more， everyone else
in the room believes that those are right words f6r describ−
ing those actions．
Mhe student will understand what was said for a
moment， especiaユ1y if the teache：r points to objec七s or
translates， but the memory is short term． Mhere will be
no long−term memory for most people because the utterances
are not ’believabユe． Mhe c：【ritical』thinking of the ：Lef七
hemisphere， he believes， evaluates the utterances as noises
七ha七 have no va］．idity． 田herefore， theエre is no エ・eason 七〇
store them in long−term memory．
With the MPR approach， students reenaet the develop−
mental stages that an infant experiences in acquiring a
first language， but at a speeded−up pace． For exampie，
if 七he ta：rget ユanguage is Engユish， the students const：ruct
their reality in ］linglish by being silent but following
directions utte：red by the ins’t：ructo：r in血gl工8h．
Most books written for students learning another
language 「begin at a：rather high leveユ of abst：rae七ion． ：For
example， they may start with such conversational phrases
as， ’iGood morning． It’s a beautiful day today． How are
you feeling？” Although such sentences seem simple and
transparent．．to the native speaker， the learner finds them
quite abs−trac七and difficuユ七to understand・エt i8 aユso
better to delay teaching abstractions such as liberty，
honor， or justice unitl students have achieved a firmer
grasp on the structvtre of the ianguage by−using conerete
37
words ： ”ehairt’， ”table”， ”paper”． With that done， absttace
tions can be taught as vocabulary， using flash eards with
the foreign word on one side and its Japanese equivalent
on the other．
Another method is to delay the abstract concept
un七iユ a more adva：nced stage of t：raining， when it can ’be
understood in a．speeific context． A third method iS to’ 狽?唐
understanding of an abstract concept by making it contingent
upon a physical action． The mistake is to introduce ab−
StraCtiOnS tOO early．工f a WOrd is nOtユearned in a feW
trials， students are not ready to learn it．
A session starts with students seated on eitheT side
of the instructor． The instructor sayg ”Stand up’t and
stands up， as do the students ； then the instructor says
”Sit down”， and everyone sits down． Next， ”Stand up” again，
everyone stands． Mkewise， with the instructor as a model，
the students walk， stop， turn， and run． Afterward， each
student individually has a chance to perform in response
to directions uttered in English． The directions begin
with oneewQrd utterances sueh as f’Stand upft， tSSit downt，，
t，Runt’，， ”Stop，’， and ”Squat”， but within minutes a skUlful
instruetor can achieve near−perfect long−term comprehension
for utterances such as ”Stand． Walk to the chalkboard・and
write”your， name，’t or ttWalk to me． Give me the chalk， return
to you e seat and sit down．tt
Since use of the imperqtive makes Becond−language
acquisitio4 acceSsible and enjoyable for both children
38
and adul七s， Asher ca1：ls i㌻ the 。。goユden tensei曾and uses it
whenever possible． He has found that most of the grammati−
cal features of any language ean be nested in the imperative．
At lateir sessions， students expand their comprehen−
sion of 七he new］，ang疫age as 七he pa七terns ’beco皿e mo：【・e sophis−
ticated． Within 20 hours of such training， most students
are ready to reverse roles and begin to speak the language
o−to μtte：r Engユish commands to manipuユate the behavio：r of
the instructor and other students． Their pronunciation is
fa：r f：rom perfec七． As wi七h an infant lea：rning a fi：rst ＝Lan−
guage， there will be many distortions， but gradually pro−
nunciation improves． ln that respeet， children have the
10
advantage over adults ； studies have shown， for example，
that Cubans who immigrated to Ameriea before puberty were
likeユ．y tO eventually aCqui：re a nea：r−natiVe pronunCiatiOn．
Cubans who entered at a later age rarely did so， no matter
how many years they lived in Ameriea．
A−3． The Results of the Experiments
工）］，．Asher，s expe：riments on his TPR app：r・oach show
us sorne of the effectiveness of learning through so called
’speech ac．tivity’ ：
一 llbcperiment 1 一
The subjeets were 56 volunteer eollege students
whe had no prior training or exposure tb Russian．
10 James J． Asher，」 ・’tFear of Foreign languages，“’
一・」幽， 1981・ P．55● ．一 ・・ 一
39
Mhe experimental group （N＝18） was taught Russian through
伽TPR apPr。ach， whiユe the c・ntr・ユ9r。up（N＝18）， whi・h
was significantly higher a七 七he O．05 1eveユ． on the O七：ts
Mental Ability Test， watched the teacher’s demonstrative
actions while ユistening to Russian p：【・oduced on a 七ape ：re−
Corder． The learning time was the same for both groups．
11
The results are shown in Table 1．
Tab Le 1
Unit 工 玄E 支。 6：E 6C t p
Immediate Recall 18．67 19．37 2．85 2．65 O．77 NS
24−Hour Recall 50．57 29．55 5．79 4．72 O．68 NS
Unit II
工m1nediate Recaユ1 47。44 42．39 4．97 9．31 2．0：5 0．025
48−Hour Recall 49．61 46．00 5．88 6．73 1．67 O．05
Uni七 II工
Irnmediate Recall 64．83 56．53 8．65 M．65 2．38 O．Ol
Mwo−Week Recall 94．89 81’ D47 5．73 a 5．38 5．58 O．005
E3experimentaユ9roup C＝con’trol gr oup．
Unit 1 ＝ short and one−word sentences
Unit 1： ＝ such sentenees as ”Pick up the pencil and
the book．tt
Unit 工工1 ＝ main］．y IOnge：r Sen七enCeS
Ano七he：r expe：【●iment foユユowing the same method in
which． Japanese was used as a target language also shows
the high efficiency of this approaeh．
Judging from the data rnentioned above， we notice
that the more eomplicated the sentences， the more effeetive
this approach is ； and it effeets a longer retention than
the non−physical response methods．
11 James J． Asher， 1972． op． cit． p．136．
40
一一
@EXperirnent 2 一
A comparison of the ’speech activity method t with
the traditional one is repo：rted in t1Children’s Fi：rst 工」ano
guage as a M6deユ fo：r Second ：Language 工ea：rningt’（1972）．
Mhe experirnental group （N＝11） consisted of adults aged 30
through 60 years， who learned German through the TPR for
8 weeks （about 40 hours）． eontrol group 1 （N＝13）’ eonsisted
of university students who learned in regular university
elasses for a year （about 54 hours）， and control group 2
（N＝15） was composed of students who followed a two−year
university course in German （more than 80 hours）． ln spite
of the fact that the experimental group was inferior to the
七wo group8 in 七he ：resu1七s of the Modern 工sanguage Aptitude
Test （ 95：104， 95：126 ）， and besides the disadvantages
mentioned above， it showed a higher effieiency in master−
ing aural comprehension at the O．Ol and the astonishing
O．OOO5 level than’eontrol group 1， and at the O．005 level
than control group 2 （Table 2 and 5）． Ag for reading
abi．lity，． although the experimental group had not been
taught systematically， that group’s aural eomprehension
abiユity was appa：rentユy aユso t：ransfer：red ’to reading ．
（ TheY．used only cards， on whieh German words were written
together with their meaning， in place of using real things
and models during the learning through the TPR approaeh． ）
41
mdbユ・2 C・mpari・。n wi七h C。庸・ユ9r。up l
Tbsts EE 5Eci ’，6E 6回目 t p
Mstening 1’ 48．15 43．46 4‘68 4．68 2．65 O．Ol
Listening 2 8．78 5．08 O．83 1．86 6．27 O．OOOs
Reading 一 31．09， 50．92 3．68 3．15 O．12 NS
1 ＝ Aural ￠omprehensipn test on 58 unknown
Listening
separate’items （true−false type）， but words were known．
Msten4ng 2 ＝ Aural comprehension ・teSt abopt an ’unknown
＝ 一10， true−false type）．
story （testing items
憎欝a歪。§e呈呈講．test。n 57 unkn。wn sepa「ate ’tems
Mable 5 Comparison with Control group 2
mests gE ffc2 6E 6c2 t p
工・istening 57．91 48．77 2．37 8．68 3．63 0．005
Reading 一一一 64．85 一，一一 5．13 一一一一 一一一
Mests were given on 7 unknown stories for botb listening
and Teading； Testing items were 70 for eaeh （true−false
type）．
‘一 Experiment 5 一
Contrary to general opinions， the audio−motor method
has ：pro：． ed 七〇 be effective with adults as we］ユ as with
children， or rnore favorable in the case of former． A・’．，，．study
12
by Asher and Price（1967）’一shows’ 狽?≠煤@adults can aehieve
a significantly higher seore than children at the O．005
1evel．．工n order七〇explain a well。㎞own fact that children
ab：road a：re be七七e：r 七han aduユ七s to ］．earn a foエ’eign ユanguage，
12 James J． Asher， and B．S． ｝？rice， ’e−The Learning
Strategy of the Total PhYsical． RespQnse ： Sorne Age Differ−
ences，” ．gltyl，ILg．i l d ，D！2gygs，pt21！｝sn1vel t， Vol．58， No．4・， 1967．一 一
42
many psychelogists have quoted the theory of ”imprinting”
（Hess， 1958） or neurologiCal di・fi6erences between adults
13 ”
14
and chiユd：ren （Penfie＝Ld and Robe：r七， 1959）， but Asher， as
another po8sibユユity， suggest8 the facts that chi］．dren un−
intentionally use the technique of a total physieal response
while their parents do not．
A−4． Mhe Ef￡iciency of the TPR Approach
In order to reveal the reason why the TPR approaeh
is effeetive， we have to consider the relation between the
listening cornprehension and the physical response tO the
audio−stimuユus．
As fo：r the lis七ening comp：rehension proces8t Pimsユeu：r
15
（i971） postulated a tentative model of sentence perception，
16 17
based on the cont1ibutions by Broadbent， 1958， Denes， 1963，
18
and Fodor ＆ Bever et al．， as follows ：
13 E．H． H e s s， t’lmpr i nting i n Animal s，” 一SgtsL！pUIE2Lgi entific
Agt！s21！Lgg，er l c a， 46， 3 一 7， 1958．
14 Wil−d gr Penfielg qnd P． Roberts， ．ES p1gs！lh sctd．’B−tain−
瑳inceton Universi’七y Press， 1959．
Mechanisms． Princeton ：
15． Pgul Pimsl−eu“r， ”＄ome A． spects of Listening Compre一
面’8魁ag謙繍器。孟t魏ユ？’畿き睾子s・
Editions Aquila， 1971．
．I S D． A． Brp4gPent，JtS！1gg｝21is1gt ．glt1EdL C．ttmunication．
1958．
Pergamon，，
工ondon，
17 P．Q． Denes， ”On the Statistics of Spoken English，”
・JQuma1三七h・A・。u・ti・aユ幽・f． Am・ri・a・55乳1963・ 一
18 」．A． Fodor and T．G．’ Bever， i’The psychological
Real i ty o￡．Linguistic S e gm ents一，” ．．slgt］ixpgEur Lnal．．s？sf！；．Ylgt112g！Lrbal
」幽and Ve：rl）aユ．幽 4， pp．4り4−420．．．
43
1． Sensory lnput
2． Fiユ．ter I）6vice
5． Echoic Memory
4． AnaZysis・一Synthesis
5． Ri”’hearsa1
6． Short．Merm Memory
7． Permanent Memory
The idea of the listening comprehension stages
19
also seems to be included in
advocated by Rivers（1970）
of listening eomprehension process postulated
this model
by Pirnsleur．
Since these experimental studies mentioned
that， contrary to the traditienal idea， the
above suggest
primary uni ts
ef speeeh pereeption are phonemes， listening
process ： we pereeive speech by aetively
is an active
it grammatically
generating a parallel message and matching
with the auditory input．
Recent neurolinguisties is revealing the fact that
there seems to be a eorrelation among listening comprehen−
sion， rhyttmic units of speeeh， and rhythrnie movement of
rnuscle．（ ．AUen， Donovan ＆ Darwin， Lehiste， Studdert−Kennedy，
20，21 22
1979）．’． murvey（1980）；一 for exarnple， states in the
research on signed and spoken language that ”the form of
both movement and language may rest with common physical
a9 ”W．M． Rivers，
』幽■塵Lpユ≧幽≧Skiユls．
of Chieago Press， 1968．
Chicago， The University
1， II． rhe Ninth lnternational
20 ．Proceedings
sciences， Copenhagen， 1979e
Congress of Phonetic
21
㈹Sta七us RepQr七s，19＿螂皇and旦エ≧塑｝， 2：5， 24，1980．
t’Clues from the Organization of
22 凹6．田． Turvey g
叫、量趨鑑監難．際孟d鵠，
Mot’or’ Systems，”
Constraints
Weinheim， ．1980． p．41． 一
et al．， Verlag Chemie，
44
prineiples．” But further studies are required to prove it．
Mhe student’s body movement in the audio一 rnotor apProach
is also an active work． And it will be possible to think
that， being sy nchronized with the language input， the body
movernent accelerates the chunking precess， and promotes the
assimiiation of eognitive map of the linguistic code of the
target language．
Mhe efficieney of the TPR approaeh， as Asher himself
and other researehers state， is that it has the learners
l concentra七e on ユistening comp：rehension l）y the avoidance
of
oral response，
2 eseape frorn the psychological task−overload，
3 reinforce the analogy，
4 inerease the amount of association，
5 deepen the cognition， and
6 expand the span of retention．
Another important reason is that even slow learners posi−
tively participate in an English class， in other words，
the learners can be highly motivated by this approaeh．
B． dihe Optimized Habit Reinforcement （ OHR ）
Mhi s approach i s another one which avoids oral
respo：nse i：rl the initial stage of ユanguage ins七ruction，
and stems frorn the appreciation for ch“d language studies，
and the psychology of acquisition and retention． A set of
23
principles d，eveloped by Winitz， et al． will be summarized
25 H． Wini七zφ．1。Pro’ble！n Soユ，viロg and the De＝Laying o：f
詔§暮騰購鍛㈱齢e＝s4岬」each加9二。髭手an帥age・1！‘・！AS！1e．sh・V・1・15・
45
as foユユows ：
B−1． Comprehension
Mothers do not expeet their children to speak in
sen七ences o：r even single wo：rds as soon as they show the
slightest glimmer of understaadin．，g． Rather， mothers are
happy that their children understand simple instructions
and eommands， often demonstrating comprehension with non−
verbal behavior， and accept the fact that interesting
conversations are a long way off． The research evidence
by many suggests that language comprehension precedes
language production， but not necessarily because these two
processes refユec七 diffe：rent gra！nmatical functions． In
spea1（ing， ：ret：r’ieva］， f：rom s七〇：rage is more compユex than in
comprehension ： speech production appears to be a recall
function， whereas speeeh eomprehension irnplies a recogni一一
24
・ tion． As the research of Asher（1972） indicates that
speaking is not required until a high degree of comprehen−
sion is achieved， this program requires no drill in
speaking or reading．
B−2． Chunking
25
Mhe classic work of Miller（1956） shows the short−
te：rm memo：r’y of humans to ’be 7 土 2 units。 Sho：【・t−te：rm ！nemo：ry
is a critical eomponent for decoding language． Without any
24 James J． Asher， 1972． op． cit． p．155．
25 d．A． Miiler，’”Magical Number Seven Plus or Minus
Mwo，tl］≧旦幽皇ユ幽 6：5， ・1956・ PP・81−97・ ・一．＋．
46
acquaintanceship with a foreign language， the short−term
memory would be restricted to about eight units． With the
basic finding of Miller， this program restricts the length
of the sentences to no rnore than eight words until ali of
26
七he base s七ructure （Ch◎msky， 1965） are unde：rstood weユ1。
Mhe vocabulary items included are perhaps about 3000 con−
tent words and all function words． The only deviation
from base structUreS will be the following ： w−questions，
prepositional phrases， conjunctions， pronoun substitutions，
and ad j． ＋ N．
B−3． Pronunciation
27
Vernon（1970） takes the position that deaf chi．ldren
whose hearing is so poor as not to permit the reception of
audi七〇ry signals， deveユop littユe speech， especiaユ1y if
non−oral training methods are denied． This position holds
that children who hear only an impoveriShed set of language
stimuli．， as may be the ease for ehildren with severe hear−
ing losses， are unable to learn complex grammatical rules，
a：rld tha㌻ 旦：peech wiユユ not deve］．op adequate］一y unti］． af七e：r
langvtage becomes internaiized． Based on Vernon t s position，
pronunciation is avoided until syntax and seman￡ies are
weユユユearned in七his pr。grapa・
26、 N・a・nCh・m・ky，埜」亜th・塾・f堕塾．
1965．
M：口，
Cambridge，
27M・ Ve：rnon， mMyths abou七 七he education’of dea：f
chiユdren，”C。mmunユcati。n一， Maryユand Sch・。ユf。r
七he ⊃eafザ1970． ．． ． ．
47
B・一4． 1）robユem Solving
：Language irnprovement p：rog：rams whi oh may be invoユved
in 七he alte：ring of diaユects and cユinicaユ language programs
which have as their goaユ the upg：rading o：f：8tructuエ・al com−
petence， stress little an ingredient essential to learning
ユang uage． The ing：redient is caユ：1ed problem solving．
Problem solving in this rpograrn refers to the induction of
grammatieal rules． lnduction is accelerated by providing
students with minimal differences in sentenee structure or
grammatical markers． The scheme， therefore， is to provide
the student with a great number of minimal eontrasts， and
he must learn to assoeiate picture with grammatical marker．
As he is doing this， he is not asked to speak， only to
understand the grammatical markers．
B−5． Reinforcement
28
There are many theori sts， McNeU（1970L）： arnong them，
w｝10．．believe reinforcement ha8 1ittユe or no effect on ユan−
guage acquisition． Mhis is because reinforcement has been
vie．w．ed in terms of what mothers say to their children and
not hdw．， they act to their ehildren． Mothers tend not to
correct their child’s speeeh， but they do reaqt im． other
29
more meaning￡ul ways （Winitz and Reeds， 1973）．
28 D．
McNei］， E11h1ge 1AsgJu，Ee，21，gue uisition−gEf；wrL a．
New York，
Harper， 1970．
29 H．
Winitz and 」． Reeds， 1975． op． cit． p．585．
48
Until the ro；e of reinforcement in native language
acquisition is more fulユy understood i七is important to
recognize that second ユanguage ：routines and clinical p：ro−
grams based on／〈’J・the premise that speech is essential to the
：Learning of ：Language usua］．1y resuユt in high er：r・or reates．
However， the experiment with second language teaehing， in
which speaking is avoided， indicates that the error rate
is less than 5 96． Surely such a low error rate， which
results in considerable reinforcement is a vital contrib−
utor to rapid language acquisition．
B−6．田ec㎞iques
｛Phe learne：r is asked on］．y to ユook at pictu：re8 and
lis七en 七〇 8entenees・ Initia：1ユy， single wo：【rds are taught，
then short sentences are introduced through careful
sequencing of sentence patterns． Each sentence eorresponds
to a picture， as i］ユustrated in ’七he textbook entitled
偲HE工」：EARNAB：LES．
By examining these two approaches above mentioned
through experiments eondueted in Japan， it will be discussed
whether they share the same resu］t with those in the United
States or not in the’sueceeding ehapter．
CHAPTER IV
THE EXPERIMENTS
The data described in the previous chapter was
obtained in the United States， and suggested Phat TPR and
OHR were effective． ln order to obtain a clue to eBtablish
a prog：rarn of ユistening comp：rehension ski］．ユ buiユding in ’t；he
eourse of foreign language teaching in Japan， they have to
be examined as to whether or n◎t they are effective aユso
in Japan．
The following experiments described in this chapter
were condueted for the purpose of
1
estab：Lishing a lis七ening comp：rehension prog：ram in
Japan，
2
clue for listening
obtaining a methodological
comprehefision， （EXPERrMENT 1 ＆
2）
5
pauses work on listening
checking how chunks or
＆ 4）
comp：rehenSion， （EXP：ER工MENM 3
4
p：roving that TPR and OHR are effective in reguユa：【・
junior high school elasses in Japan， while alrnost
a］ユ the expe：rimen’七s previously：reviewed were
eonducted in the intensive style of the course in the
United States．
一 EXPERIMENT 1 一 ．．．conducted in Kim？yo Junior High
School
Mhe subjects were 82 junior high school students
who．had exposure ’七〇 English fo：r one year in ：reguユa：r juni or
high・．・h。・1 classes． The exp・rim・ntaユ9r・up（N＝41）wa・
taught Engli・h t㎞。ugh’ 狽?E TPR apPr。a・h， whil・七he c・ntr。ユ
group （N＝41） was taught through the traditional one．
50
No significant difference between the experimental group
and the cont：rol g：roup was seen by the Kyodai NX Me：【1taユ
Ability Test・（E ＝ 108．15？ C ＝ 108．19）． The learning time
wa・七he sam・f・r’ aB七h gr・up・’ i10 h。urs）．’
sh。 t。a・hing
material adopted in this experiment was th6 t’passive voice’t．
The result i s shown in TABIE 1．
TABIE 1
Tests iE fc 6E 6c t p
Total 84．3 79．6 11．85 a 2．75 1．70 NS（O．1）
Unit l 5．06 4．78 O．71 O．77 1．69 NS（O．1）
Unit 11 6．74 6．30 O．95 1．02 2．00 O．05
unit II工 9。16 8．76 1．30 1．40 1．32 Ns（o．2）
Unit IV 9．27 8．97 1．31 1．01 O．89 NS（O．4）
Unit 1 ＝ Comprehension test about the situation in
which the form of the passive voice is available，
lO）
（multiple choi￠e type，Mchoosing 6 items out of
Unit I工 ＝ Aura］． eomprehension tes七 〇n 8 sepa：rate items．
ty）e）
（multipユe ch。ice
Unit III ＝ Reading test on 11 separate item． s．
Unit IV ＝ Writing test on M separate items such as
translation type and writing−about一一picture type．
Judging from the result of the experiment wbich
was earried out ’in Japan， we noticed that the experimental
group showed a higher efficiency ，i’n aural comprehension
at the O．05 level than the control group， whiie reading
and w：riting， and in 七〇七al items it a：lso showed favora『bユe
エleSUユt．S．t
As for the reason why the MPR approach is effeetive，
as previously mentioned， it has the learners reinforce
the analogy， increase the amount of association， deepen
51
the cognition， expand the span of retention and positively
participate in．
一 EXPERIMENT 2 一
The following experiment was carried out aiming at
l revealing the faet that fo：rcing 尤he ユ．ea：【・ners to ：repea’t；
：【’ight afte：r hea：ring， ：resu1七s irl det：rimental effect in
listening comprehension，
2 seeing how llllHl；E！E L−tRNABIES work over the students who
have not been exposed to Engユish， af’t；e：r 七hey have
the regular English class in jupior high sehool．
going 6n）
（a foコ．ユow up survey is
The subjects were 16 six−year一一class boys and girls
in elementary sehools． ”V’ group （N＝8） was given an in一一
struction not to repea七 afte：r ユistening to the sound of
］inglish， but to concentrate on understanding what was said．
ttL＋Rtt group （N＝8） was told to repeat in a loud voice． The
material u s e d i n thi s experirn ent was．Tltl！11｝E IIItSAII1IASI！1IR］Nr SABIES （fr om
Lesson 1 to lesson 10）． The result of the experiment is
shown in TABLE 2．
TABLE 2
Mests i．． I st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
l group 95．8 78．8 78．9 75．8 65．6
L＋R group 90．0 85．7・ 78．7 67．7 56．5
1st test ＝ lesson 1 ＆ 2， 2nd， test ＝ Lesson 3 ＆ 4
：5：rd．test ＝ 工・esson 5 ＆ 6， 4七h 七es七 ＝ ：Lesson 7 ＆ 8
5th test ＝ lesson 9 ＆ 10
All were aural comprehension tests with．multiple
ehoiee一． type． Judging from the data mentioned in TABLE 2，
it is apparent’ 狽?≠煤@the longer sentences．they heati， the
more detrimental is the effect of immediate repetition．
52
0ne of the interesting findings from this data is， if the
sen七ences （o：r wo：rds or p㎞ases） they hea：r are shor七 enough
to cope with， the well−known fact that speaking right after
hearing has a detrimental effect was not proved by this
experiment．
一 EXPERIMENT 3 一
工t is not definitive 『but cohside：rahly wel］．odocumented
that the unit of speech perception is not a phoneme， but a
much longer chunk ； say，．a unit．o￡ phrase structure or the
immediate constituent of a sentence． Taking this evidence
in七〇 consideエ’ation， the fo］ユowing experimeht was attempted
in order to obtain an insight into the grading system in
listening−skill building．
The 120 subjects divided into four groups were ehosen
out of 169 so as to form the same group in quality． Every
group （ Gl， G2， G3， G4， N＝50） was given an aural compre−
hension test about an unknown story （testing items ＝ 5，
answering． in Japanese）． The unknown story was presented to’
ea『h grou：p ’by sepa：rate type of reading as foユユows ：
a
田ype 1＝ 1／2tt pauses at every phrasal boundary， and
every sentence repeated twice eaeh．
Type 2 ＝
1／2’t pauses at every phrasal boundary， and
merely eore word or phrase in each sentence
repeated．
Type 3 ＝
1／2ti pauses at every phrasal boundary， and no
repetition．
Type 4 ＝ no special pauses except natural ones， and no
repetition．
1 F． Goidman−Eisler， ”Hesitation and lnformation in
Speeeh，” ln Proeeedings of the 4th London Symposium on
工nfo：rmation 里heo：ry， 1961．
53
Mhe results are shown in TABLE 5， 4，
and 5・
TABIE 3
Type 1 ｛Dype 2 rpype 3
田ype 4
）
（’ Gi ） （’ a2 ） （’ G3
（’ a4 ）
E ： 2．93 5．17 2．67
2．06
6： 1．06 1．20 1．29
1．21
，．1！！tL1｝1i1一一fLBIE 4 Comparison between Type 1
and Type 2 ”
支2 i乏1 62 61
t p
3．17 2．93 1．20 1．06
O．96 NS（O．3）
Type 4
MABIE 5 Comparison between Type 3 and
f3 ft4 6 s 64
t p
2．67 2・06 1・29 le21
2．21 O．05
obtained
Judging from the data
from this experiment，
repeating the eonception with pauses showed the highest
1 and Mype 2， Type
In cornparison be’tween Mype
efficiency．
2 showed a prefetable result，
though there
is no significant
3
eomparison between Type
difference between them． But in
and Type 4， Type 5 showed a higher efficiency at the O．05
level than Type 4．
‘b axPERIMENT 4 一
The subjects were 90 ，j
junior high schooユ students
chosen out of 128 so as to form
the same group in quality．
Each group （ GI， GII，
They were divided into two groups．
N＝45 ） was gi ven aural
eomprehension ．tests about， four un−
known stories （testing items ＝ 20，
answering in Japanese）．
separately as foユ10ws 3
Mhe four unknown stories were read
（1）unkn・職st。ry A霧1／21璽
pauses at every phrasal
boundary， and
every sentenee repeated twice each．
54
（2） Unknown story B ＝ 1／2” pauses at every phrasal
boundary， and merely eore part repeated，
（3） Unknown story C ＝ 1／2” pauses at every phrasal
boundary with no．repetition．
（4） Unknown story D ＝ no special pauses exeept natural
ones with no repetition．
This se七 〇f au：raユ comprehension tes七s was given to
GI， and another set of sequences shifted from A， B， C， D
to B， A， D， C， with the sarne way of reading mentioned above
was given to GII． The results are shown in the following
tables．
mpABIE 6 （GI）
A B C
D
Tota1
ffGI ： 17．72 18．91 14．79
13．72
65．14
6GI ： 5．47 6．32 6．46
5．18
23．45
1
9
十u ●
O
p
NS（O．4）
11A11：B1tE−Z−BI，E 7 eomparison between A and B
支B Xh 6B 6A
18．91 17・72 6・32 5e47
TA班E 8・． Comparison betweenσ・却d D
ffc s￡D 6 c 6D
14．79 13．72 6．46 5．18
七
〇．83
p
NS（O．4）
TABIE． ．9 （GI I）
B A ］）
c
Tot母ユ
支G工1 ＝ 16㍉34 20．56 14；85
13．44
65．17
6Gu ： 5．gl 4．00 4．65
6．12
20．68
熟 ffB 6A 6B
七
p
20．56 16．Z54 4．00 5．91
3．83
O．OO1
7p Ec 6D 6 c
七
14；85 15‘44 4．65 6．12
1．17
p
NS（O．5）
111t1IBIkeA−9−BLE 10 C omparison between B and A
111t！1｝1［iJILI−1−BLE 11 Comparison b etween D and C
55
田he data ob七ained f：rom EX：PER工MENT 4 showed aユmos七
thg 『3alne resulp with ：EX：PERIMENT 3． 工n these experime：nts
also， it was proved th’iL”tLhd’”ttvidence which indicates that
the longer the processing of the information received takes，
the greater the comprehension is． ln addition to this，
one of the interesting findings is that repeating the core
word or phrase facilitates listening comprehension more
effectively than repeating the whole sentence．
一 Conclusion 一
工n order to find the clues to build the listening
comprehension skill， the two approaches recently advocated
in the United States were examined whether or not their
effieacy shares also in Japan． As the result of the exper−
iments， the pTesent paper could conclude that ：
1． from the methodological point of view， both the Total
Physieal Response Approach and the Optimized Habit
Reinforcement showed their effieacy even under the
condition of the regular junior high school classes
in Japan．
II． as for the audio−presentation， the following four
steps were set up as a．hypothetical grading，
1． repeating the core word or phrase with pauses
at ti ehunktt t
2．’repeating the whole sentence with pauses at
ti ehunk tt ，
3． no repetition with pauses at ”chunktt，
4． natural form．
CHAPTER V
APROGRAM：FOR：LISTENING−SK：II」：L BU工］ID工NG
Based on the data derived frorn the experiments and
evidence advocated by psychoユinguis七工cs or neu：roユinguis七ics，
a tenta七ive p：rogra！n for ユistening−skiユ1 bui＝Lding wi］．ユ be
described in this chapter．
The p：resent prog：ram i8 for building listening−skiユユ
to the initiaユ 9rade students of junior high schoo］． who do
not know English at aユ1． Voca’buユa：ry， 9：rammar， and 8en七ence
stru e tur e were s e l e e t ed a e c ording t o ．！z1t1ee sS211gg1s1ggt d ！1igty1zsgur s e
gf 旦堕二〇f Junio：r High Schooユ by Ministry of Education・
As for 七he teaching me七hod， the ：present p：rogram is mainユy
based on MPR and OHR， and is designed for the use at the
very beginning stage， right after the entrance into junior
high school （foユ10wing the Conclusion I on page 55）． The
audio−stimulus is presented largely based on the findings
of EXPERIMENT 3 ＆ 4 （Conelusion rl）．
1
There are 20 units in this program as tentative
ones 一一 to be expanded to the appropriate units depending
on the teacher’s judgement 一一 each of whieh eonsists of
Step 1， Step 2， and Step，3 （exc．ept for Unit 1． ）． As for
S七ep 4， 七eaching procedures a：re as fo］．lows ：
ri． Say the sentences indicated in the Action， or listen
to the recorded sentences and at the same time act
out the content of them．
1 James J． Asher， 1981． op． cit． p．55．
57
2． After showing some models， let the students do the
same aetions with the teaeher aecording to the same
audio−stimuli．
3． After that， let the students de by themselves and
eheck immediately．
As for Step 2， teaching procedures are as follows ：
1． Say the sentences just as Step 1， and let the
students listen to them without repeating outloud．
2． Show the pieture appropriate to the audio−stimulus．
5． Repeat 1， again．
The intervals bet：leen 1 a．nd 2， and 2 and 3 should be approx−
ima七ely 2 second8．
As foエ・Step 3， games and songs are cont：【・ived to develop
the students t skill or knowledge more in a j oy￡ul manner，
and this step is also provided for the further expansion
such as speaking drill． With the cornbination of Step 1， 2，
and 5， a general procedure is shown on page 58．
Following the general proeedure， t’A Meaching ］？lan”
will be shown on page 59． The eonclusion derived from
EXPER工MENT 3 and 4 is applied to the p：rocess of 七he audio−
presentation．（Unit 17 was taken up as an example．） ln the
teaching plan， as seen， core words or phrases are repeated
by spiral approach． And as for the chunks， the sentences
used here are too short to be effective．
2 H． Winitz， 1978． op． cit．． p．5．
58
General Procedure
Comments
S
o l Revi ewR︶
−eheck what they learned in the
S七e：P
pエ・evi ous period through physical
Ini尤ia1
ｽemons七rξ匙七ion
response to the audio−stimuli．
一Aet out， saying the sentences，
or listening to the recorded
sentences．
Demons七ra七ion
eonsisting of 4 or 5．
（rPR）
翌奄狽?@S七udents
1）emons七工「a七ion
@by S七uden七s
Aura］．
Stepo2 check
一Demonstrations with a group
一一
qepeat the Step 1 until all
participate．
一Choose one student out of each
group for checking． Mhe rest
of them could be judges．
q）
（OHR）
一Using TR and OHP is indispensable．
晃6
Audio−
oresentation 1
一Intervals between the presenta−t
﹁
tions should be approximately
two seconds．
Vi sua：L−
oresen七ation
Audio齢
o：resenta七ion 2
Au：ra］一
S七ep
o3 check
（TPR）
q） 「￡
Audio。
oresentation
Demonstratio
@by S七udents
E
一Prepare the pietures appropriate
to the audio−presentation．
一Audio−Presentation 1 and 2
are the sarne．
一Multiple ehoice type test choos−
ing one picture out of three
appropriate to the audio−stimuius．
一Ba8ica］ユy repea’t；the S七ep 1．
一Avaiユabユe for fur七he：r p：racti ce，
for example， playing games，
singing s ongs， and even expand−
ing to the speaking driil．
59
．IALI1eqpt111｝g−121Lgip．Th Pla
An Example of Contents
S
qeview
（ Target ： Pro，gressive Form ）
Teacher’s demonstrations in”response
to the audio−presentation．
1．
D。m譲識i。n．
2．
3．
4．
Demonstra’七ion
翌猿ｵh Students
Dem。nst士ati。n
@by S七udents
5．
6．
7．
8．
Walk． 1 am walking．
Wa11（SユOWユy．
1 am waZking slowly．
Walk fast． I am walking fast．
Now， Group A， walk with me．
We are walking．
Now， Group B， run with me．
We are runnj
running．
Now， Group C， waユk．
You are walking now．
Now， A−san， walk slowly．
She is walking slowly now．
Now， Group D， aet out as instructed．
鴨 You a：re wa：Lking fas七．鱒
Aural
oresentation 1
● 0
A’udio。
14
モ??メFk
1．
walking．
the park 5． Jane is walking in the
Jane 2． walk 5． Jane is
2
park．
3． 4．
5．
Vi sua］．一
oresenta’tion
1． Jane 2の waユ：k：3σ Ja：【1e i s walking．
Audio一
FPresentation 2
Auエal
モ??モ
Audio−
oresen’七ation
Demonstra七ion
@by Student8
E
4． the park 5． Jane i s walking in the
park．
Student’s demonstrations in response
to the audio−presentati．on， repeating
the Step 1 with further expansion，
1． You are walking in the park．
2． You are walking slowly．
3． You are running now．
4． You are playing tennis．
5． You are listening to the music．
6． You are making a cake．
60
As for the selection and the gradation in eurricurum
developrnent， the follpwing materials are based gn ．一11t1ge
C。urse・f S加dy・Th・20 unit・（m・r・ly St・p l i・descrip・d
as Action for convbnience’ sake） are as fonows ：
Uni七 1． （ aim ＝ orient6tion to the English classes ）
Unit 2． （ aim ＝ one word sentence ）
Action ：
1． Stand up．
2． Walk．
3． Stop．
4． Turn．
5． Walk．
6． Stop．
7． Jump．
8． Walk．
9． Sit down．
Unit 3． （ aim ＝ simple short sentence ）
Ac七ion ：
1． Stand up．
2． Walk to the door．
5． Toueh the door．
4． Walk to the desk．
5． Pick up the peneil．
6． Put down the pencil．
7． Go back to your seat．
8． Sit down．
Unit 4． （ aim ＝ simple short sentence ）
Action ：
1． Stand up．
2． Walk to the window．
3． Touch the window．
61
4． Walk to the ehair．
5． Toueh the chair．
6。 焔1alk 七〇 七he 七able．
7． Pick up the book；
8． ］i》u七 i七 down on the 七able．
9． Go back to your seat．
10． Si七 down．
Unit 5． （ girn ＝ simple short setence ）
Action ：
1． Stand up．
2． Walk to the bla￠kboard．
3． look at the ．map．
4． Point to America on the map．
5． Point to Japan on the rnap．
6． Point to England on the map．
7． Walk to your desk．
8． Pick up your notebook．
9． Put it down． under the desk．
10． Sit down．
Unit 6． （ aim ＝ number ）
Ac七ion ：
1． Stand up．
2． Come to the tabユe。
3． Take up a piece of chalk．
4． Write 1， 2， and 3 on the blaekboard．
5． Make a box out of 1．
6． Make a bird out of 2．
7． Make a guitar out of 3．
8． ］ihease them．
9． Go baek to your seat and sit down．
Unit 7． （ aim 1 number ）
Action ：
1． Stand up
62
2．
Come to 七he 七able．
3．
Piek up the Card 1．
4．
Put it on the blackboard．
5．
Pi ck up the Card 2， 3 and 4．
6．
Pu七 them on the b二Lackboa：rd．
7．
Pi ck up the Card 5， 6 and 7．
8．
Put them on the blackboard．
9．
Pi ck up the Card 8， 9 and 10．
10．
Give 七hem to me．
11．
Thank you ； go back to your seat
and sit down．
（ aim ＝ alphabet ）
Unit 8．
● ●
1O2
7ノ
Action ：
Stand up and come to the table．
it on the blaekboard．
Pick up the Card A， and put
Pick up the Card B， C， D， E and F， and pu七七hem
on the blaekboard．
4． Pick up the Card G， H， 1， J and K， and put them
on 七he l）］ae1ぐboard．
5．
Pi ek up the Card L，
M， N， O and P， and put thern
on the blaekboard．
6．
Pick up the eard Q， R， S｝ T and U， and put them
on the blaekboard．
7．
Pick up the Card V，
W， X， Y and Z， and put them
on the blaekboard．
8．
Msten to the ABC song．
9．
1）et’s sing the ABC
Unit 9．
（ aim ＝ alphabet ）
song together．
Action ：
1． Taro， stand up， and corne to the table．
2． Take up the Card a， and put i t on the wall．
3． Thank you． Ge baek to your seat and sit down．
4． Jiro， eome here． Take up b， c， d， e and f，
and put th，eln on the waユ］一・
5． Thank you， Jiro． Go back and sit down．
6． lchiro， come here． Make up g， h， i， j and k，
and put them on the・wall．
63
7． Thank you， 工chi：ro， and now， Hanako， come he：re．
Take up 1， m， n， o and p， and put them on the
wall．
8． Thank you， Hanako．’Now， Tomoko， come here，
and 七ake up q， ：r， s， t and u， and pu七 them on
the wall．
9． Mhank you， Tomoko． Now， Yumi， come here．
Take up v， w， x， y and z， and put them on the
wall．
10． Let’s sing the abc song all together．
Unit 40． （ aim ＝ this， that ）
Action ： （using two sets of the pictures of a face）
t． Stand up， Taro． Come to the table．
2． Take up the picture of a iiNose，t．
3． Show it ’to the class． T： Mhis is a nose．
4． Carry it to that blackboard in the rear．
5． Put i t on that face．
6． Come back here．
7． Take up another nose．
8． Put it on this face． T： ［rhis is a nose．
9． Point to that nose． T： That is a nose．
10． Good， sit down．
Unit 11． （ aim ＝ 廿1ese， th◎se ）
Action ： （using the sarne pietures in Unit 10）
1． Stand up， Hanako， and come here．
2． Take up the eyes．
3． Show them to the class． T： These are eyes．
4． Put them on that face．
5． Come back here． T puts eyes． on the faee．
6． Mouch the eyes． M： These are．eyes．
7． Point to those eyes． ［P： Those are eyes．
8． Good． Go back to your seat and sit down．
Unit 12． （ aim ＝ general question ）
Ac七ion ：
1． Tomoko， come to the blackboard．
64
2． Draw an anirnal on the blackboard．
5． Draw it step by step．
4． （using pietures） Is this a cat？ （No．）
5． ls this a dog？ ’（No．）
6． 工8 this a cow？ （No．）
7． 1．s this a pig？ （Y，es．）
8． ls that a pig，，Taro？ （Yes．）
9． 工s 七hat a ＝Lion，’Ji：ro？ （No．）
Unit
15． （ aim ＝ What is this／tha’
煤H ）
Action ： （using a TR and a recorded tape）
1． Yumi， come to the taperecorder．
2． Play it and listen to the sound．
：5． Wha七 is this？ （ 工t曾s a dog． ）
4． Now， play it again． Stop．
5． What is that？ （ 工’t ts a ho：rse． ）
Uni七 14． （ aim ＝ have， has ）
Ac七ion ：
1． Stand up， Maro， and come here．
2． Take up a ball． ’
5． Now， you have a ball．
4． Throw it to me．
5． Now， 1 have a ball．
6． Stand up， Hanako． Catch the ball．
7． Now， she has a ball．
8． Hanako， throw it to Ichiro．
g。 Now， 工chiro has a ba＝L：L．
Uni七 15． （ aim ＝ deelarative sentence using general
verbs ）
Ac七ion ：
1． Come．to the table， keiko．
2． Take up the guitar．
3． Play the guitar．
4． Now， stop it． ’ ito Keiko） You play the guitar．
65
5． ［Dhank you， Keiko． Come to the table， HirT6”mi．
6． Take up the一 flute． ’“
7． Play the flute．
8． Listen to it． She plaYs the flute．
Unit・ ’16．’
i aim ＝ interrogative sentence ）
Action ：
1．
Come
to the front， A， B， C， D and E．
2．
Nowf
A， take up two col’ns．
5e
Hand
the coins to B， or ptetend to do so．
4．
Now， B， to C．
5．
Now，
C， to D．
6．
Now，
⊃， 七〇 ：E．
（to A）
7．
Do you have a coin， A？
（No．）
8．
Open your hands．
（七〇Eう・
9．
Do you have coins， E？
（No．）
10．
Open your hands．
（七〇the
rest of the students）
M．
Does B have coins？
B． Oh， here they are．
12． Open your hands，
Uni七
17．（a加 ＝ progressive sentence ）
Action ：
1． Walk． 1 am walking．
2． Walk slowly． 1 am walking slowly．
5． Wa＝Lk fas七． 工 am walking fas七。
4． Now， Group A， walk with me． We are walking．
5． Now， Group B，・walk． You are walking．
6． Now， A， waik slowly． She is walking slowly now．
7． Now， Group D， act out as instructed．
8． You are walking fast．
9． You are running now．，
．
．
．
66
Unit 18． （ aim ＝ can ）
Action ：
1． Can．you sing like a bird？
2． Yes， 1 can． T sings．
3． Can．yOu sing like a bird， A？
4． Say， ”Yes， 1 can．” Mry i t．
5． Can．yOu bark like−a dog， B？
6． Say， ”Yes， 1 can，’t and try i t．
．
．
Unit 19． （ aim ＝ there is／are ）
Ac七ion ：
1． Put a book on the tabl e．
2． Point to it， and listen．
：5． T： Mheエre is a book on the table．
4． Now， put two books on the table．
5． Point to them， and listen，
6． T‘： There are three books on the table．
7． Mhis tirne， put your notebook on your head．
8． Now， touch it， and listen．
9． T： Your book is on your head．
10． ls there a book on the table？ （No．）
11． A：re there th：ree books on the 士abユe？ （Yes．）
12． What is on the table？
王）oint to ’七hem．
Unit 20． （ aim ＝ counting time ）
Action ：
1． Show the time using your hands．
2． ltts three o eelock． Now， act out．
3． Itts six oteユOC｝（．
4． ltt］s nine O’clock．
5． It，s ’t；welve’o，cユock．
．
67
一 For Further Studies 一
Since the program described here is a tentative
one， its output is completely subjected to further studies．
Answers to the following questions will be expected to be
found by further studies．
1． Does this program fully funetion in a one year
curriculum course？
一一this program occupies almost one third of the
estima七ed tota］． amount of hours aユユoted 七〇
En9ユish （about 80）．
2． Is this program effeetive enough to comprehend
aurally the−eontents suggested in t−h一一一e C．turse g1f一
塑エ．for the initiaユ stage？
5． What is enough and what is short from the lexical，
and grammatical point of vi ew？
4． What should be improved from the methodologieal
point of view？
5． How does this program transfer to the other three
skills？
What should be assigned to the author next is，
through continual experiments， to answer these questions
which might help us to define what and how we are
teaching when we teaeh listening comprehension．
：B工B：LIOGRA：PHY
Adams！ J．IX．．． 一！1｝tl！ugn．man ！Mr1glgg1：L．．McGraw−Hill， N ew ￥ork？ 19． 65．
Ashe：r， JaM’es J’．’ 1’The 工」ea：【・ning St：nategy Of 七he 田otal
：Physica＝L Response ’：A Review，『貯 Mode：rnユ盤 Jou：rna：L，
V91・5，0，．）ilo．．2， 1966．
Ashe：r， James J． ”The ：Lea：rning Stra七egy of the Motaユ
Physical ReSponse ： Some Age Differenees，tt ．g1h1！LS1ild
Developrnent， Vol．58i No．4， 1967．
Asher， James J． ”The Total Physical Response Approach to
帥盾рP瑠劉ageエea「n’ng・”Mode「n」壁三〇u「naユ・
一’
Asher， James J． ’tChildren’s First Language as a Model for
Second 工’anguage ：Lea：【rning，lt Moderr1⊆盤Journa＝L，
lLV工， 1972． ’‘．
Asher， James J．， J．A． Kusudo and R． Torre． ”Learning’
Seeond ：Language 七hrough Commands ： The Second ：Field
田est，，， Modern Language Jou：rna＝L， ：LVコ：工工， No．1−2， 1974．
Ashe
ﾐJ灘u鮮・輝・舞◎画面工面・
Asher， James 」． ”Fear of Foreign ］）anguages，” Psychology
Today， 1981．
Ausubel， David P． ”Adults versus Children in Second−
language Learning ： Psychological Consideration，tt
Modern幽Journal， 48， 7， 1964．
Ausubeユ， ⊃avid P． Educa七iona1コー ：＿，4L Co itive
Y！tLg！Lew． New York， Holt Rinehart and Winston， 1968．
Bandura， Aユbe：rt∂ Socia1エ遮・魎1． Erlglewood C＝Liffs，
NJ，． ］？rentiee Hqll？． 1977．
Be1 h翻1号・M。gg：fi’盤n書。濫a全呈d轍獺ら．・
Be＝Lasco， Simon． 冒冒Can Cogni七ion and Verbal Behavior
Coexis’t；？コ三」幽≧and 七he Teache：r 3A−Se：ries in
雛糟iaX藤V天き識盟ぎ藍1・量d曾。駅’養1菩翫’
Lugt。n， Philad・ユph⑱・C・nt・r f・r Curri・ulum、Dev・i。P一’
men七， 工nc．， 1971．
69
Bensoni P’． C．， and C． Hielt． ”listening Competence ： A Pre−
requisi七・t・C・mmuhi・ati・h・”M・dem⊇盤J・urna1，
1978．
B’g9 ?ｳ・1モ？IF轟署去蓋＆n離驚・踏’Glenv｝ew’エII’
B’1ユ
諡
闇・播n機讐塑of三聖鯉摯座O
B「oa ｣離A165騨and Co卑mun’ca七’on●エondon’
CarrolZ， J．B． ”The Contributions of PsycholOgical Theory
and Educational Researc：h ㌻〇 七he Teachihg，㈹ T：rend迦
辮1響ed’ted by A●Va’dman・McG「aw−H”1・
Chas 狽〟f盤a蒼毛＄．eag， ee器．le再々三顧欝C暑釜轟きき紘盤ng
d5．一；NCtJfiir51ih i c a g o， 1976．
Chom
焉G耳ら6轡情事he蟄詰論’Camb「’dge・
Chomsky， N． 鱒：Linguis七ic Theory，1。工n．Northeas’t Confe：rence’
磐．聖d驚．並迦迎攣・R。be「t G・Mead
Craik， Fhargus 1．M． ”A Level of Analysis of Memory，t’ ．ln
Communica七ion and Affect ：ユ鯉≧and ：T1gg！ag！x1ho ht， （eds．）
ユユne：r， Pa ：rユcia， ］⊃． K：rames arld−IP． Alユoway， New York，
1973．
Press，
Aeademie
Denes，．：P．Q． ，謄On the S七a七is七ics of Spoken English，雪l Jou：rnal
of the Acous七ical幽≦≧≦二Ame：rica， 35， 1965．
D’n 堅T轄9ギllll・欝ムsl謙躍量き｝曾躍at’．ns
E「v’
蝸ﾕ！難南面・灘難モ靴ge
Eyse ﾙ轟Jも。。癖磯冷buses of ●Ba’七’mo「e’
Foqo
Old縫帯1謹覇i・講駄面1峯
］ibries・ C’・’
bゐC；’・幽and幽”lt1pgiLLE［tli h’Fas一旦『魎
墜・Ann Aや。r・Mi・h・・mh・・Univ・X・ity of Michigan
lr＞tess， 1945．
70
Fur七h， Hans G． エ主塑foで Teache：r， ：Prentice−Hall，
transユated to Japan6se τ）y H． Kish；Lmo七〇， Meiji 田osho，
．4 t． h g d ， ，’ T o！．g． y． ．g ！ ．3 9 8 0 r＋． ． ． 一
Gaier’i R．：L．1 『，，Seユec七ed Peエ・son’aユi七y’Variab：Lesξmd：Learning
Processt ti
2tEMg13RILgglgg！s cl｝，olo ical 2M：！gngg］1gi2no g hs， Vol，・．66，．N．g・17．，，1，9．52・．1
Goユdma：n…Eiβユer， F。 ttHesj−tation a：rld 工nfo：t血atioh ih S茎）ee6hg曾9
1h 一‘ of’七he 4th ：London迦gn Informa甲
七ion 堕， 191二二
G。uま
謗･ユa畢暮諾t轟鎌i誰継n錨・Swan，
Philip， London， 1892．
G「ee 堰Fる，9iDs。諭nl七二二五inl謝二三n畠ジP器三七．9：ig。ln1欝
Hess S6i）・llg5Sl’ ’mp「’nt’ng’蜘’maユs・“
Sgt2．gpmpgi entific．，！11tggptgieriea，
工ng：ram e ：F．， J．R． No：rd and D． 工事ragt．
NA Program for
Listening C ompr ehension，” ．StLgy！Lgavic
J．．gur！．1一al， Vol．19， N o．1， 1975．
and Eas七 ．髄
Johnson， N．F． ”The Psychologieal Reality of Phrase−
S七：ructu：re Rules，，，」◎u：rnal of Verbaユユ鯉and
Verba：L ：Behavi or，4，齎一
Kaユivoda， T．B∂， Gg
Motor Unit ： A
Works t tt
Morain and R．J． Elkins． ”The Audio−
工Jistening Comprehension Strategy that
エ9聖塑Annaユs
， VoZ．4， No．一一一一4， 1971．
Kappel， S．， M． Harford， V．D． Burns and N．S． Anderson．
t’Effects of Vocalization on Short−Merm Memory for
Wo：rds，1電Journa］． of 至≧幽≧Psychology， 101， 1975．
Kohno， M． ”Audio−IVIotor Approach ： The Useful lns’truetion
tSpeech A g． t i v i t i e s’，” E［ltb，ge l！1gtslg11！！ld ern gtllugELI！l sh tZgtyE1gg！u rrr Lal，
Tokyo， 1974．
Kohn q M．21t．！gEgzgeasure Jkgtas｝nd g1f． It1ng；LIEI｝，l i sh． Osaka Kyoiku T osho，
O’sakapttapan，一it−9’7597．
Lenn eberg， E．H． 2tBELglLgg1LgglLl l jEgtgpS1g111gpundation
JohnVWiley an6rgt5ilg一；一：iilons ri c：， a g 7．
⊇￡工盤・
Ley， R． and D． Locascio．’ ”Associative Reaction Time’in
Language Acquisition，ft−A Paper Presented at AERA，
Chicago， 1972．
McNeilヂD’ポ’So血e 田hou『h七s on圃’First and’幽Second ：Language
，tE！，ggpts！Llzj，E211c uisiti on．v’（’Mi’meo．） ・Harvard University， Center for
Cognitive’ Studies， 1965．
71
McNeiユ， D． 雪he Acqu睾sition皇￡：Langua蔓e． New Yo：rk， Harper，
1970． ・ ’ ・．
Menyuk， G．A． Sentences Child：ren Use． M四丁， 1969．
MeyerS， J一； and J． PUnham． ’”Effects一’of AnXie−tY”’on”Aptitude
by”Treat血ent工n七erac七ioh，1巳APaper Presen七ed at AERA，
New York， 1971．
Miller， G．A． ”Magieal NUmber Seven Plus or Minus Two，t’
：Psychologi caユ Review， 63， 1956．
嬰跳9●91・B塩a雛ぞ七§ξwa懸；H且a贈二二6ha雲毛a器da纒毛器〒
可
Mue＝L］．e：r t ［［1．H． and R．R． Ileutenegge：〔・． teSome工nference8
aboUt an lntensified Oral Approaeh to the Teaching of
lhrench Based’on a S七udy of Cou：rse 恥op−Ou七s，ll Mode：rn
工聾皇Jou：rna＝L， Vo＝L・X：LV工工1， 1964・
Nord， J。R． tt Shu七 up and Msten一一：Fo：r a Change，tt IRA：L， 1979．
Ogden， C。K． Basic 至盤一騨 International Secondユ＿．
Hareourt，’rBiEac−e ＆ World， New York， 1968．
Ohrnann， R． t’Grammar and Meaning，” in E． Morris （ed．） Mhe
齢驚M綿護the総論・
Oller．！．J．Wr ”Panguage Use and Foreign Language
Learning ， t，
1971．
IRAL， 9，
Palmer， H．E．
1925．
塑幽Action・田okyo， Kai㌻akusha，
Penfield， W． anq． L． Roberts． SL2ge ggne eh Ait！gd IBt1e，U｝a i n−ttt ham sms．
Pr i n c e t on， P］r i n c e t on Univer’stt ttPt−eJS s iMt 959；
Pik e， K．L． t’Nu c l e a t．i on，ft l！1gtsl，gll！gd ern，Lkgpg2gggan a ！lgt1uznajurna］， XLIV，
G960．
Pimsユeur， P・ 鴨S◎me Aspects of Ustening Comp：rehension，曾1
’｛錨雛。舗a謙d二．鶏Mi讐6a認a，
Editi6ns Aquila，’197iT． ’S ’
Pos七〇vsky， V．A． ：Effec七s ◎f Deユay in O：ra1・1！」 actice at the
Beginning’of’ Second Lan’ guage Learning．．Ufi”published
Ph．D’． Dissertatibn， University of California， Berkeley，
1971．
72
：postovskyi V．A。 ’曹，工ntrim ：Fieユd ｛Pes七 Repo：r七 ・一一’⊃：L〔1］Wo：rk
Unit ・一一 0141，一Mhe RACC Project，” （lvrimeo．）， ・1976．
，
：Proceeding8．’工，’1エジ田he Nin七h工nternational Congress of
一一一 獅kcr7Sc五蕊ce， Col）enhagen， 1979． ｝
Racユe’ C G』． tt Can SuggeStopedia Revo＝Lu七iOnize：Language’
Meacbing？！I F・r・i繋駕A・maユ・・V。ユρ！2・NP．・1・1979・
R’ch p・、エ1今663鷲δ。￡’至黙66騰h欝S朝講るss．
R’ve
¥淘る躍÷。士繋C藩；灘6暑苓”1s●Ch’cago’
RQmi j n， E． and C． S e e l y． ．121tL］1gve ！！gtSlgnt i on 2t！naUs1！1 h． C alifornia，
The Aユemany Press， 1979．
Sorenson， A． ”Multilingutalism in the」Northwest Amazon，i’
1＞ltgg1iggigerlcan，lt＞plgl｝zgRglLgg：Ls！thr 1 s t， Jun e， 1969．
Spols｝（y， B． 撃IA Psycholinguis七ic Cri七ique of］？］rogrammed
1966．
1v，
IRAL，
Vol．
FOreign Language 工nS七：rUC七iOn，ll
馨IS七a七us Repo：r’七8 ： The Nin七h 工n七e：rnational Congress of
：Phonetic Science，tt：Language and Speech， Vol．23， Voユ・24，
1980．
｛Pe1ユ， ：P．M． and A．M． ：Fu：rguson． 曾薯Influence of Active and
Passive Vocal：iza七ion on Short−Me：rm Recaユ1，It Journal一⊆Lf
］avit n m ental IBstzgUg！Lggyy c hology， 102， 1974．
Murvey， M．T． ”Clues from the Organization of Motor Systems，ii
豊町盤。讐譲i鯉（器野臨。鍔M9。慧諜畿§
Kennedy， Verlag Chemie， Weinheim， 1980．
Ve：rnon， 廻． My七hs about the ：Educa七ion of Deaf Chiユd：ren．
communicTiff6五 sympos「1面，一「す7石＝一一一一
Wini！z， ．H． ang J rA． Beeqs． ”Rapid Acquisition of a Foreign
：Language t）y 七he Avoidance of Speaking，le IRA：L， 三三，1973．
Wimitz， H． ”Problem Solving and Delaying of Speech as
Strategies in Teaching of Language，” Asha，15，10，1973．
Winitz， H．， J．A． Reeds and P． Garcia． ”A Test ．of Reading
：Fo斗ユowing Comp：rehension 田：穿a：lning，雪。王RA．：L，XV／4，， 1977．、
Winitz，’H．’ mptE II］EiAAIRNABLES．一Kansas C i ty， 1nternational
工、inguistics Corpo：【ration，・1978．