论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】This paper reports the visualization of EFL speakers’ （Chinese student） definition spoken output in English BP debate. This study aims to find the gap between what exactly EFL speakers said and what they thought they say， as well as the gap between what they said and what they should say. According to Swain’s comprehensible output hypothesis， the gap can tell EFL speakers what they do not know or only know partially in this language. Thus they can improve their spoken language intentionally.
【Key words】English BP debate； Definition； X-Mind software； comprehensible output （CO）
I. Introduction
Listening， speaking， reading and writing are the four basic skills of a student’s language ability. According to the IELTS official data， Chinese students （EFL， English as foreign language） only get 5.7 scores on average in IELTS testing， ranking at 33 in the world. And the spoken part average score is just 5.4， which is far less than the 7.2 of France. The scores of IELTS testing is just a reflection that the speaking skill of Chinese students （EFL） is poor. Thus it is urgent to find the problem of EFL’ speaking. English debate is an activity that need a comprehensive ability， but the explicit output is the spoken language， which is what we are going to study. In an English BP debate， the Prime Minister defines the debate. This means they tell the rest of the people in the room exactly what will be debated （WUDC Debating and Judging Manual）. Thus the definition part is the basis of the whole debate. In this paper， the definition part is what we focus on. According to Swain’s comprehensible output （CO） hypothesis （1985， 1995）， learning takes place when encountering a gap in the linguistic knowledge of the L2. By noticing this gap the learner becomes aware of it and might be able to modify his output so that he learns something new about the language. Through analyzing the debaters’ output， it can help them to enhance their spoken output.
II. Methodology
The material in this research is from the World Universities Debating Championships （WUDC）， we choose 4 primes’ speech， analyzing the definition part of it. The first hand material is saved as recordings， then we transcribe it into text form. In this process， at least two of us do the transcription， checking for each other， at the same time， our tutor check it again to make sure the accuracy of the transcription. Then， according to the WUDC’s Debating and Judging Manual， using the X-Mind software， we draw the concept map of the debate definition， which is a standard model of the definition output. Figure 1 is the standard output of debate definition.
（figure 1）
Student A （The motion is THW criminalize those who refuse to help fellow citizens in imminent danger）
The concept map of this speech showed in figure 2
（figure 2）
Student B （The motion is THW only use prison for violent offenders）
The concept map of this speech showed in figure 3
（figure 3）
Student C （The motion is THW support affirmative action for women in legislation.）
The concept map of this speech showed in figure 4
（figure 4）
III. Results and findings
The figure 1 is a standard model of how should a definition organize， and what components consist of definition， which is mapped according to the WUDC’s Debating and Judging Manual. And in figure 2， it is the concept map of the student A’s definition. From it， and compared to the figure 1， we can see clearly that A claims the state quo of the motion， and the policy the OG （opening government） put forward. And also， we find A forgets to define the meaning terms that need interpretation. In this debate， the terms that should be defined are “criminalize” and “imminent danger”. As for the figure 3， student B doesn’t mention the state quo and their policy. And the figure 4， student C also doesn’t state the state quo， and makes no effort on defining the key terms， which are “affirmative action” and “in legislation”. Thus， through the concept map we drawn according to the WUDC’s Debating and Judging Manual， and students’ spoken output， we can find the gap between the relative standard model and the output of students； spoken language. Swain mentioned in his CO hypothesis that learners encounter gaps between what they want to say and what they are able to say and so they notice what they do not know or only know partially in this language. When the students’ spoken outputs are drawn as concept maps， they can clearly see what they said. In this way， they can compare to what they think that they say， which can tell them what the gap is. In this research， we not only give the concept map of the students’ spoken output， but the relative standard model， whereby this， they can find the gap between what they say and what they should say.
IV. Discussion
In this research， we have solved the problem that the visible of students’ spoken output. And in virtue of Swain’s CO hypothesis， helping students to find their gap between what exactly they said and what they thought they say， as well as the gap between what they said and what they should say. But in this research， we just consider the structure and content problem of students spoken output， it doesn’t further study the language aspect of the spoken output， such as grammar， cohesion and so forth.
V. Conclusion
Using concept map to visualize the spoken output is a special and effective way to study the spoken output. In English debate， the spoken output is what a debater show to the judges and the other debaters， which is an important part to achieve the aim of communication. Thus， this research use X-Mind software to draw concept map， and providing a visible product of debater’s spoken output， which can help them to find the gap and get improved.
References：
[1]WUDC Constitution，The World Universities Debating Championships Debating and Judging Manual，2010.
[2]https：//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php？title=Special：Book
【Key words】English BP debate； Definition； X-Mind software； comprehensible output （CO）
I. Introduction
Listening， speaking， reading and writing are the four basic skills of a student’s language ability. According to the IELTS official data， Chinese students （EFL， English as foreign language） only get 5.7 scores on average in IELTS testing， ranking at 33 in the world. And the spoken part average score is just 5.4， which is far less than the 7.2 of France. The scores of IELTS testing is just a reflection that the speaking skill of Chinese students （EFL） is poor. Thus it is urgent to find the problem of EFL’ speaking. English debate is an activity that need a comprehensive ability， but the explicit output is the spoken language， which is what we are going to study. In an English BP debate， the Prime Minister defines the debate. This means they tell the rest of the people in the room exactly what will be debated （WUDC Debating and Judging Manual）. Thus the definition part is the basis of the whole debate. In this paper， the definition part is what we focus on. According to Swain’s comprehensible output （CO） hypothesis （1985， 1995）， learning takes place when encountering a gap in the linguistic knowledge of the L2. By noticing this gap the learner becomes aware of it and might be able to modify his output so that he learns something new about the language. Through analyzing the debaters’ output， it can help them to enhance their spoken output.
II. Methodology
The material in this research is from the World Universities Debating Championships （WUDC）， we choose 4 primes’ speech， analyzing the definition part of it. The first hand material is saved as recordings， then we transcribe it into text form. In this process， at least two of us do the transcription， checking for each other， at the same time， our tutor check it again to make sure the accuracy of the transcription. Then， according to the WUDC’s Debating and Judging Manual， using the X-Mind software， we draw the concept map of the debate definition， which is a standard model of the definition output. Figure 1 is the standard output of debate definition.
（figure 1）
Student A （The motion is THW criminalize those who refuse to help fellow citizens in imminent danger）
The concept map of this speech showed in figure 2
（figure 2）
Student B （The motion is THW only use prison for violent offenders）
The concept map of this speech showed in figure 3
（figure 3）
Student C （The motion is THW support affirmative action for women in legislation.）
The concept map of this speech showed in figure 4
（figure 4）
III. Results and findings
The figure 1 is a standard model of how should a definition organize， and what components consist of definition， which is mapped according to the WUDC’s Debating and Judging Manual. And in figure 2， it is the concept map of the student A’s definition. From it， and compared to the figure 1， we can see clearly that A claims the state quo of the motion， and the policy the OG （opening government） put forward. And also， we find A forgets to define the meaning terms that need interpretation. In this debate， the terms that should be defined are “criminalize” and “imminent danger”. As for the figure 3， student B doesn’t mention the state quo and their policy. And the figure 4， student C also doesn’t state the state quo， and makes no effort on defining the key terms， which are “affirmative action” and “in legislation”. Thus， through the concept map we drawn according to the WUDC’s Debating and Judging Manual， and students’ spoken output， we can find the gap between the relative standard model and the output of students； spoken language. Swain mentioned in his CO hypothesis that learners encounter gaps between what they want to say and what they are able to say and so they notice what they do not know or only know partially in this language. When the students’ spoken outputs are drawn as concept maps， they can clearly see what they said. In this way， they can compare to what they think that they say， which can tell them what the gap is. In this research， we not only give the concept map of the students’ spoken output， but the relative standard model， whereby this， they can find the gap between what they say and what they should say.
IV. Discussion
In this research， we have solved the problem that the visible of students’ spoken output. And in virtue of Swain’s CO hypothesis， helping students to find their gap between what exactly they said and what they thought they say， as well as the gap between what they said and what they should say. But in this research， we just consider the structure and content problem of students spoken output， it doesn’t further study the language aspect of the spoken output， such as grammar， cohesion and so forth.
V. Conclusion
Using concept map to visualize the spoken output is a special and effective way to study the spoken output. In English debate， the spoken output is what a debater show to the judges and the other debaters， which is an important part to achieve the aim of communication. Thus， this research use X-Mind software to draw concept map， and providing a visible product of debater’s spoken output， which can help them to find the gap and get improved.
References：
[1]WUDC Constitution，The World Universities Debating Championships Debating and Judging Manual，2010.
[2]https：//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php？title=Special：Book