《The analysis of the EFL speakers’ spoken output in BP debating》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《The analysis of the EFL speakers’ spoken output in BP debating（7页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、The analysis of the EFL speakers spoken output in BP debating【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
2、as the gap between what they said and what they should say. According to Swains 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； Defi
3、nition； X-Mind software； comprehensible output （CO） I. Introduction Listening， speaking， reading and writing are the four basic skills of a students language ability. According to the IELTS official data， Chinese students （EFL， English as foreign language） only get 5.7 scores on average in IELTS tes
4、ting， 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
5、 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
6、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 Swains comprehensible output （CO） hypothesis （1985， 1995） ， learning takes place when encountering a gap in the linguistic knowledge of the L2. By noti
7、cing 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 Universitie
8、s 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
9、 it again to make sure the accuracy of the transcription. Then， according to the WUDCs 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. （
10、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
11、） 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
12、 according to the WUDCs Debating and Judging Manual. And in figure 2， it is the concept map of the student As 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 f
13、orgets 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 doesnt mention the state quo and their policy. And the figure 4， student C also doesnt state the state quo， and makes
14、no effort on defining the key terms， which are “affirmative action” and “in legislation”. Thus， through the concept map we drawn according to the WUDCs Debating and Judging Manual， and students spoken output， we can find the gap between the relative standard model and the output of students； spoken
15、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 w
16、hat 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 Swains CO hypo
