5 A diagnostic approach to L2 listening
6.4 Some reservations about ‘sub-skills’
It seems, then, that there is growing evidence that small-scale training makes a positive contribution to listening performance. However, we must also take account of other concerns that have been raised about the sub-skills approach. One line of argument questions whether we should be trying to develop skills in this way at all; another draws attention to the very miscellaneous nature of what are called ‘sub-skills’; a third challenges the validity of dividing up a language skill along the lines suggested.
6.4.1 Teaching listening or teaching language?
The first position is neatly summed up in the title of a 1984 article on L2 reading by Charles Alderson: ‘Reading in a Foreign Language: a Reading Problem or a Language Problem?’ In it, Alderson tentatively raises the question of whether it is the responsibility of second language teachers to train learners in language skills such as reading. He cites commen-tators who argue that many aspects of L1 reading competence should readily transfer to second language reading. In their view, the single most important factor impeding the transfer of L1 skills is the learner’s lack of vocabulary and grammar in the target language. They therefore conclude that a language teacher’s time is better spent in teaching new language than in attempting to practise reading as a skill. Alderson’s article generated much discussion about whether there is a Threshold Level for vocabulary, beyond which the transfer of L1 skills becomes possible because a sufficient proportion of a reading text (or for that matter a listening text) is understood. A number of writers have sug-gested a vocabulary level of 3,000 words as a basic requirement for L2 reading or alternatively a level of vocabulary knowledge which enables the reader to recognise a high proportion of the text (estimates range around the 95% to 97% level). These figures are rather speculative, but a body of opinion has emerged which holds that a language-based pro-gramme might be more effective in improving L2 reading (at least in the early stages) than a sub-skills one.
Let us bring the discussion back to listening. The question we must consider here is whether the ‘language not skills’ argument might suggest
that a sub-skills approach to listening is not the best use of class time.
Some commentators (e.g. Kelly, 1991) have suggested, along ‘Threshold’
lines, that building up a learner’s oral vocabulary is the most reliable way of ensuring better listening. But they tend to overlook the fact that many gaps of understanding in L2 listening relate not to unknown words but to known words that have not been recognised.
It is clearly important to build up the learner’s oral vocabulary by teaching words in their standard citation forms – but that by no means ensures that the learner will identify them successfully when they occur in connected speech. As we shall see when we look at the input that a listener receives, words often deviate greatly from their standard forms when they are combined with others. In this respect, there is no substitute for exposing the learner to samples of natural speech – and it is especially useful if they are short samples of the kind that feature in micro-listening tasks.
It is also dangerous to assume that the listening we engage in when exposed to a second language is closely similar to listening in a native language apart from some gaps in vocabulary and grammar. The pro-cesses employed by less experienced L2 listeners are heavily marked by uncertainty. Much of what they elicit from the input is based upon approximation or upon a principle of finding the best match. There are inevitable moments where they understand nothing. Unlike a native lis-tener, they need to pay much greater attention to the simple business of decoding, since they do not have an expert’s ability to make automatic word matches. If, in these unfamiliar conditions, they fail to apply well-established listening behaviour from L1, it should not be surprising. The root of the problem lies not in their limited knowledge of L2 but in the strangeness of a listening event where they have to handle information that is not easily accessed and is sometimes unreliable. The solution is not just to improve their vocabulary but also to improve the efficiency and accuracy of the listening processes they employ in relation to the target language.
If one accepts this version of events, then something like a sub-skills methodology would seem to be what is needed. We need some kind of approach that compares the performance of a novice L2 listener with that of an expert L1 listener, and tries to bridge the gap between them.
6.4.2 The fuzzy term ‘sub-skill’
A more serious concern is the vagueness of the term ‘sub-skill’. It can be traced back to an early piece of brainstorming by Munby (1978),
who attempted to provide a comprehensive list of sub-skills for all four language skills. Influenced by Munby’s suggestions, second language reading materials have come to target areas which are very miscella-neous in terms of the processes involved. Typically, ‘sub-skills’ prac-tice might include skimming (a technique for handling a text), word recognition (an automatic decoding operation), using linkers (a way of tracing a writer’s arguments) and inferring vocabulary from context (a compensatory strategy). Of course, all of them require practice if a learner is to become a competent reader, but throwing them together obscures the fact that they contribute to the reading skill in very differ-ent ways and fulfil very differdiffer-ent types of purpose so far as the reader is concerned.
A similar comment applies to listening. At the very least, we need a system that classes together what we hope will become automatic processes relating to sound and word recognition (here, we have called them ‘decoding’) – and that distinguishes them sharply from processes where a learner brings in outside knowledge to enrich her understanding of the bare words of the message (here called ‘meaning building’).
Clearly, the first set of processes has to be acquired anew for the target language, while at least some of the second set can be carried over from the first language.
We need to relate the notion of ‘sub-skills’ more closely to the type of listening that the situation demands. More attentive listening (Chapter 4) clearly demands a different set of processes from monitoring what a speaker says to see if any of it is relevant. Similarly, a great deal will depend upon the content of what is being listened to. If we are concerned with academic listening, then we might indeed train learners to listen out for the kinds of signpost that a lecturer provides in order to mark a new topic or the relationship between two points (Lynch, 2004). But many of these markers are absent from informal conversational speech, where they are often replaced by and or but, used very loosely. It is thus incorrect to suggest that identifying markers is a generalised ‘sub-skill’ of the listening construct as a whole, regardless of the type of listening and the type of listening event. For precisely this reason, Richards provided not one but two lists in his 1983 proposal and stressed that the lists were only broadly indicative.
Does it make sense to bring together so many different types of operation without distinguishing more carefully between them? Either we need to divide the concept of a ‘sub-skill’ into more precise cate-gories, or we need to fit the different types of ‘sub-skill’ that we teach into a wider framework that clearly defines the relationships between them.
6.4.3 How psychologically real are sub-skills?
A third set of concerns is more abstract, but still needs to be addressed.
They relate to what part a sub-skill plays in the larger skill and to how commentators manage to identify sub-skills for practice. Here are some of the issues that writers such as Gary Buck (2001: 59) and Michael Rost (1992: 150–1) have raised:
Sub-skills like those listed in Table 6.1 carry the ring of truth; however, they are based upon the intuition and experience of expert commenta-tors rather than on hard evidence.
The notion of a ‘sub-skill’ is a very hypothetical one. Strictly speaking, it does not refer to what a listener or reader actually does, but to the abilities that they need to possess in order to carry out that activity.
We can only guess what those abilities might be. Sub-skills might offer areas for practice, but we cannot necessarily assume that they correspond to actual processes that take place in the mind of the skilled listener.
It may be that sub-skills do not really exist independently but are always employed in combinations where each is dependent upon the others. If that is the case, what is the point of practising them on their own? We already have considerable evidence from brain imaging that a language skill such as listening is supported by a large number of interconnected processes, and that the areas responsible for them are very widely distributed across the brain.
These concerns, and those in the preceding section, are quite difficult to respond to. However, it is important to note that the questions they raise are specifically directed at the viability of sub-skills as a concept:
whether the category is too loose, whether there are such phenomena and whether we can confidently identify them. They do not invalidate the wider argument – which was for a developmental approach to second language listening based on the skill-training model. If we persist with the idea that it is useful to break listening into its component parts for localised practice, then it may just be that we need to find a more convincing way of identifying what those sub-components are. The next chapter proposes one possible solution.
Further reading
Buck, G. (2001) Assessing Listening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chap. 2.
Field, J. (1998) ‘Skills and strategies: towards a new methodology for listening’.
ELT Journal, 54/2: 110–18.
Nuttall, C. (1996) Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Language. Oxford:
Heinemann, 2nd edn.
Richards, J. C. (1983) ‘Listening comprehension: approach, design, procedure’.
TESOL Quarterly, 17: 219–39.
Rost, M. (1992) Listening in Language Learning. Harlow: Longman, Chap. 6.
I have often lamented that we cannot close our ears with as much ease as we can our eyes.
Sir Richard Steele (1672–1729), Irish politician, writer and editor