Communicative needs in

foreign language learning 1

Jack C. Richards

This paper discusses several components of communicative

competence in foreign language learning. Language is seen to be
influenced by communicative goals and processes. Strategies learners
resort to in expressing meanings influence the structure of their
discourse. The need for learners to adopt conventional solutions to
coding meanings is discussed, and the need for variant forms for
performing speech acts. The effects of the interaction between the
speaker, the listener, and the message are all seen to influence the
communication process. Finally, implications for teaching are
discussed.

The theme of language and the learner’s communicative needs is a familiar

one in language teaching. In recent years, applied linguistics has been
revitalized by attempts to describe how language reflects its com-
municative uses, and by demonstrations of how syllabus design and
methodology can respond to the need for communicative uses of language
in classrooms and teaching materials. By considering some central aspects
of communication, this paper attempts to contribute to our general under-
standing of how language use reflects underlying communicative needs.
Five assumptions about the nature of verbal communication will be
discussed, namely, that communication is meaning-based, conventional,
appropriate, interactional, and structured. These will be discussed in
relation to the communicative needs of second or foreign language
learners.

Communication is Let us begin by examining basic ‘survival’ language needs, those for
meaning-based example of a learner who has an active vocabulary of perhaps two hundred
words, a minimal knowledge of the syntax of English, but who is in a situa-
tion where English is required for simple and basic communicative pur-
poses. The most immediate need is to be able to refer to a core of basic
‘referents’ or things in the real world, that is, to be able to name things,
states, events, and attributes, using the words he or she knows. In addition,
the learner must be able to link words together to make predications, i.e. to
express propositions.2
Propositions are the building blocks of communication, and the first
task in learning to communicate in a language is to learn how to create
propositions. Language is comprehensible to the degree that hearers are
able to reconstruct propositions from the speaker’s utterances (Wells 1981:
73-115). When the child says ‘hungry’ to its mother, the mother under-
stands ‘I am hungry’; from ‘no hungry’ the mother understands the child’s
message as being ‘I don’t want to eat’. From these examples we see that
sentences do not have to be complete or grammatical for their pro-
positional meaning to be understood. We often make good sense of a
speaker who uses very broken syntax, just as we can understand a message

ELT Journal Volume37/2 April 1983 111

articles welcome
 written in telegraphese, e.g. no money send draft.
Sentences may contain more than one proposition. The girl picked the red
flower contains the propositions the girl picked the flower, and the flower is red.
Sentences may refer to the same proposition but differ in what they say
about it. The following sentences all refer to the proposition John married
Mary, but differ in what they say about it:
When did John marry Mary?
Why did John and Mary get married?
Mary and John have been married for ages.

‘Survival level’ communication in a foreign language, however, implies

more than the construction of propositions. Speakers use propositions in
utterances in a variety of ways. They may wish to ask a question about a
proposition, affirm a proposition, deny or negate a proposition, or express
an attitude towards a proposition. They may use propositions to com-
municate meanings indirectly, as when the speaker says I’m thirsty but
means I’d like a glass of water, the latter being the ‘illocutionary effect’ the
speaker intends (see Austin 1962). Now, while the adult native speaker of
English can use the resources of adult syntax to encode propositions in the
appropriate grammatical form and to communicate a wide range of illocu-
tionary meanings, the beginning foreign language learner finds that the
demands of communication often exceed his or her knowledge of the
grammar of English. The learner’s immediate priority is to work out a way
of performing such operations as stating, affirming, denying, or question-
ing propositions, as economically as possible, using only a partial knowl-
edge of the vocabulary and syntax of the target language. Here the learner
has similar needs to the child who is learning its mother tongue. Child
language can be used to express complex meanings within the limits of a
restricted grammatical system. ‘Mother talk’ -that variety of speech which
mothers use when talking to young children -is simplified to make propo-
sitions and illocutionary intentions more readily identifiable (Goody
1978:24). Mothers’ questions to children, for example, contain far more
‘Yes-No’ questions than ‘Wh’ questions, because propositions are more
readily identifiable in ‘Yes-No’ questions.
How do foreign language learners communicate meaning when they
lack the fully elaborated grammatical and discourse system of the target
language? To answer this question, let us consider how a learner might try
to express the meanings contained in the following sentences:
John ought to have come on time.
I regret I wasn’t able to get to your class on time.
I can’t afford to buy that dress.

One strategy learners adopt in communicating complex meanings like this

is to ‘bring propositions to the surface’ by expressing meanings and inten-
tions directly rather than indirectly, and by expressing lexically aspects of
meaning that in the target language are coded in the auxiliary system, in
complex clauses, or by grammatical devices (Richards 1981; Dittmar 1981).
The first sentence, for example, implies the proposition John came late, and
communicates the speaker’s attitude towards this proposition. The
meaning is roughly Speaker disapprove that John came late. This could be com-
municated by saying:

‘Why John late?’ (said with non-approving intonation), or,

‘John late. That bad.’

112 Jack C. Richards

articles welcome
(The distinction between propositions which are expressed, and those
which are presupposed, is an important one, but will not be pursued
further here.) The second sentence contains the proposition I am late,
together with the speaker’s expression of regret. It might be com-
municated by saying:

‘I late. So sorry.’

I can’t afford to buy that dress contains the propositions:

The dress is expensive. I don’t have enough money to buy the dress.

It could be restated :

‘The dress expensive. Cannot buy.’ or

‘Can’t buy the dress. No money.’

This type of ‘restructuring’ is seen in the following examples, in which

utterances in simplified learner syntax are compared with standard adult
grammar.

Simplified utterances Equivalent in standard adult syntax

Mary lazy. No work hard. Mary can work hard if she wants to.
Tomorrow I give money. You will have your money tomorrow, I promise.
You no money. I lend you. I will lend you some money if you need any.
This way. See the map. According to the map, this ought to be the way.
One day I go England. I would like to go to England some day.
(De Silva: 1981)

Teachers too often resort to the type of language on the left in com-
municating with speakers of limited language proficiency. The following
examples were produced by teachers who are native speakers of English:

I A teacher is explaining the meaning of wash: ‘In your house, you ... a
tub... you (gestures) wash.’
2 Here a teacher is explaining how to take telephone messages: ‘I want to
speak other person. He not here. What good thing for say now?’
3 A teacher explaining an interview procedure produced: ‘Not other
student listen. I no want. Necessary you speak. Maybe I say what is your
name. The writing not important.’
4 And here is a teacher reminding her students to bring their books to
class: ‘The book .... we have ... (hold up book) .... book is necessary for
class. Right .... necessary for school. You have book.’

(Examples from Evelyn Hatch, personal communication.) The examples

above illustrate a linguistic system which can be used for communicating
basic propositional meanings. Such a system is known as ‘child language’
when it is produced by infants learning their mother tongue, ‘inter-
language’ when it is produced by foreign-language learners, ‘teacher talk’
when it is used by teachers, and ‘foreigner talk’ when it is produced by
native speakers communicating with foreigners. The linguistic system
behind this type of communication is one which uses a basic ‘notional-
functional’ core of vocabulary items, a syntax which depends on simple
word order rules (such as negating by placing the negative word in front of
the proposition), and in which the communication of meaning is not
dependent on grammatical systems of tense or aspect, auxiliaries, function
words, or plural morphemes, etc.

Communicative needs in language teaching 113

articles welcome
 The ability to use such a communicative system is crucial in the first
stages of foreign language learning. We should consequently be tolerant of
grammatical ‘errors’ from learners who are at this stage. They should not
attempt active communication too soon, however. Before the learner is
ready to begin speaking a foreign language, he or she should have a
vocabulary of at least two hundred words and a feel for the basic word
order rules of the target language. The learner needs to develop a feel for
the system- of basic word order (in English: subject predicate sentence
order, adverb and adjectival positions, negation, question formation, etc.).
When speaking is taught, the initial goal should be the production of
comprehensible utterances through expressing basic propositional
meanings and illocutionary intentions.

Communication is While much of the learner’s efforts in speaking a foreign language centre
conventional on developing the vocabulary and syntax needed to express propositional
meanings, it is native-speaker syntax and usage that is ultimately the
learner’s goal. As language acquisition proceeds, the learner revises his or
her ideas about how propositions are expressed in English. The learner’s
syntax becomes more complex as his or her knowledge of negation, the
auxiliary system, questions, word order, embedding, conjoining, etc.,
expand. In short, the learner begins to develop grammatical competence.
Both linguists and applied linguists in recent years have emphasized the
creative properties of grammatical systems. Language users were said to
possess, as part of their grammatical competence, the ability to produce an
infinite number of sentences, most of which are novel utterances. The
learner’s task was thought to be to ‘internalize’ the rules needed to generate
‘any and all’ of the possible grammatical sentences of English. The primary
aim of language teaching was to create opportunities for these gram-
matical abilities to develop in language learners.
The fact is, however, that only a fraction of the sentences which could be
generated by our grammatical competence are actually ever used in
communication. Communication largely consists of the use of language in
conventional ways. There are strict constraints imposed on the
creative-constructive capacities of speakers, and these limit how speakers
encode propositional meanings. In telling the time, for example, we can
say, It’s two forty, or It’s twenty to three, but not It’s three minus twenty, It’s ten
after two thirty, or It’s eight fives after twenty. If I want you to post a letter for
me I may say, Please post this letter for me, or Would you mind posting this letter
for me, but I am unlikely to say, I request you to post this letter, or It is my desire
that this letter be posted by you. Although these sentences have been con-
structed according to the rules of English grammar, they are not conven-
tional ways of using English. While they are grammatically correct ‘sen-
tences’, they have no status as potential ‘utterances’ within discourse, since
they would never be used by native speakers of English.
This considerably complicates the task of foreign language learning.
Once learners have progressed to the stage where they are beginning to
generate novel utterances, they find that many of their utterances fail to
conform to patterns of conventional usage, although they are undoubtedly
English sentences. Constraints which require speakers to use only utter-
ances which are conventional affect both the lexical and grammatical
structure of discourse. The constraints on lexical usage manifest them-
selves in idiosyncracies and irregularities which particularly affect verb,
noun, preposition, and article usage, and are usually rationalized as

114 Jack C. Richards

articles welcome
 ‘exceptions’ or ‘collocational restrictions’ in teachers’ explanations.
Thus teachers must explain that a pair of trousers refers to one item, but a
pair of shirts to two; that we can speak of a toothache or a headache, but not a
fingerache; that someone may be in church, but not in library. Convention-
alized language is seen in many other features of discourse. For example:

a. Conversational openers: How are you? may be used to open a conversation

in English, but not Are you well? or Are you in good health?

b. Routine formulae: Some conventional forms are expressions whose use is

limited to particular settings, such as Check, please, said when a bill is
requested in a restaurant.

c. Ceremonial formulae: These are conventional phrases used in ritualized

interactions, such as After you, said as a way of asking someone to go ahead
of you when entering a room, and How nice to see you, said on encountering
a friend after an absence of some time (Yorio 1980:43 ).

d. Memorized clauses (Pawley and Syder, in press): The concept of conven-

tionalized language usage may be applied to a broader class of utterances.
These are clauses which do not appear to be ‘uniquely generated’ or
created anew each time they are required in discourse, but which are pro-
duced and stored as complete units. Pawley and Syder cite the following
examples :

Did you have a good trip ? Please sit down.

Is everything O.K. ? Call me later.
Pardon me? I see what you mean.

They argue that speakers of a language regularly use thousands of utter-

ances like these. Unlike ‘novel’ utterances (those which speakers put
together from individual lexical items), these are ‘pre-programmed’ and
run off almost automatically in speech production. Researchers in second
!anguage acquisition have observed that language learners also often use
conventional formulae and memorized clauses as crutches in order to make
communication easier. There is often a high frequency of them in their
speech in the early stages of conversational competence (Schmidt 1981).

The fact that language is conventional has important implications for

language teaching. Firstly, it suggests that there is reason to be sceptical of
the suggestion that language cannot be taught, but only ‘acquired’. Many
of the conventionalized aspects of language usage are amenable to
teaching. Secondly, applied linguistic effort is needed to gather fuller data
on such forms (through discourse analysis and frequency counts, for
example) with a view to obtaining useful information for teachers, text-
book writers, and syllabus designers.

Communication is Mastery of a foreign language requires more than the use of utterances
appropriate which express propositional meanings and are conventional. The form of
utterances must also take into account the relationship between speaker
and hearer, and the constraints imposed by the setting and circumstances
in which the act of communication is taking place. What’s your name? is a
conventional utterance, for example, but it is not an appropriate way of
asking the identity of a telephone caller; in this case, May I know who is
calling? is considered more appropriate.
Communicative competence (Hymes 1972) includes knowledge of

Communicative needs in language teaching 115

articles welcome
 different communicative strategies or communicative styles according to
the situation, the task, and the roles of the participants. For example, if a
speaker wanted to get a match from another person in order to light a
cigarette, he or she might take one of the following courses of action,
according to his or her judgement of its appropriateness:

1 Make a statement about his or her need : ‘I need a match.’

2 Use an imperative: ‘Give me a match.’
3 Use an embedded imperative: ‘Could you give me a match?’
4 Use a permission directive: ‘May I have a match?’
5 Use a question directive: ‘Do you have a match?’
6 Give a hint: ‘The matches are all gone, I see.’ (Ervin-Tripp 1976:29)

Young children learning their mother tongue soon become skilled at

using communicative strategies appropriately. Thus a child who wants
something done may bargain, beg, name-call, or threaten violence in
talking to other children; reason, beg, or make promises in talking to
parents; or repeat the request several times, or beg, in talking to grand-
parents.
The choice of an appropriate strategy for performing a communicative
task or speech act is dependent on such factors as the ages, sex, familiarity,
and roles of speaker and hearer, which will determine whether a speaker
adopts conversational strategies implying either affiliation or dominance. In
the former case, ‘Got a match?’ may be considered an appropriate way of
requesting a match, and in the latter, ‘I wonder if I could bother you for a
match?’ (Brown and Levinson 1978). Foreign language learners typically
have fewer alternatives available to them for performing speech acts appro-
priately. They may use what they consider a polite or formal style for all
situations, in which case people may find them over-formal; or they may
create novel ways of encoding particular speech acts, such as using please +
imperative to make requests, regardless of whom they are talking to.3
Canadian researchers have investigated the problems which non-native
speakers have when they are put in a situation where they feel they lack the
means of speaking appropriately (such as when a person who has been
taught to use a formal type of French needs a style of speaking suitable for
communication in informal situations). It was predicted that speakers
would show considerable discomfort in using a casual style, and that this
discomfort would cause them to ‘downgrade’ the personality of the inter-
locutor and to judge that the interlocutor had formed a bad impression of
them. It was argued that such speakers would have some awareness that
they were not speaking in a suitably friendly and casual manner, and would
conclude that they really did not like the person they were speaking to
anyway. The results of the study supported this prediction. ‘These findings
have certain implications for second language learners who have only
mastered basic vocabulary and syntax in their new language but have not
developed skills in the domain of linguistic variability. Such people may
find social interaction with native-speakers in their new language to be a
relatively negative experience and may become discouraged from pursuing
language practice with native speakers’ (Segalowitz and Gatbonton
1977 :86). Language learning texts have only recently begun to focus on the
strategies learners need to perform various types of speech acts appro-
priately. In their texts the emphasis is not simply on teaching functions and
their exponents, but on selecting appropriate exponents in different types
of communicative situations. Textbooks thus need to give practice in per-

116 Jack C. Richards

articles welcome
 forming particular speech acts with interlocutors of different ages, rank
and social status, and practice in selecting language according to these
variables.

Communication is The use of utterances which take appropriate account of the speaker’s and
interactional the hearer’s roles implies that conversation is often just as much a form of
social encounter as it is a way of communicating meanings or ideas. This
may be described as the ‘interactional function’ of conversation. It is the
use of language to keep open the channels of communication between
people and to establish a suitable rapport. Goffman has argued that ‘in any
action, each actor provides a field of action for the other actors, and the
reciprocity thus established allows the participants to exercise their inter-
personal skills in formulating the situation, presenting and enacting a self
or identity, and using strategies to accomplish other interactional ends’
(cited in Watson 1974:58). We see evidence of this at many levels within
conversation. In the initial stages of conversation with a stranger, for
example, speakers introduce uncontroversial topics into the conversation,
such as the weather, the transport system, etc. These topics are carefully
chosen so that there is a strong likelihood of mutual agreement. ‘The
raising of safe topics allows the speaker the right to stress his agreement
with the hearer, and therefore to satisfy the hearer’s desire to be right or to
be corroborated in his opinions . . . The weather is a safe topic for virtu-
ally everyone, as is the beauty of gardens, the incompetence of bureau-
cracies, etc’ (Brown and Levinson 1978:117). These are examples of what
has been called ‘phatic communion’. ‘Much of what passes for com-
munication is rather the equivalent of a handclasp, or an embrace; its
purpose is sociability’ (Bolinger 1975:524).
The mechanisms of phatic communion include (a) the speaker’s reper-
toire of verbal and visual gestures, which signal interest in what his or her
conversational partner is saying (such as the use of mmm, uh uh, yeah, really,
etc.); (b) the speaker’s stock of ‘canned topics’ and formulaic utterances,
which are produced at relevant points in discourse, such as the small talk
which is required to make brief encounters with acquaintances comfort-
able and positive; and (c) awareness of when to talk and when not to talk,
that is, appropriate use of turn-taking conventions.
Adequate management of these conversational resources is essential if we
are to create a sense of naturalness in conversational encounters. Non-
native speakers who lack the ability to use small talk and to exploit the
interactional aspects of communication may find many encounters
awkward and may avoid talk where talk would be appropriate.4
Communication as interaction is thus aimed largely at the need of
speaker and hearer to feel valued and approved of. If our conversation-
teaching materials primarily emphasize transactional skills, such as how to
ask directions, how to order a meal, etc., learners may not have the chance
to acquire the interactional skills which are also an important component
of communicative competence.

Communication is The last aspect of communication I wish to consider is its ongoing

structured organization. This can be looked at from two perspectives: a ‘macro’ per-
spective which reveals the differences in rhetorical organization that reflect
different discourse ‘genres’ or tasks; and a ‘micro’ perspective showing how
some of the processes by which discourse is constructed out of individual
utterances are reflected in speech.

Communicative needs in language teaching 117

articles welcome
 Task
structure Communication consists of different genres of discourse, such as con-
versations, discussions, debates, descriptions, narratives, and instructions.
These different rhetorical tasks require the speaker to organize utterances
in ways which are appropriate to that task. When we tell a story, for
example, we follow certain conventions. Stories consist of a setting,
followed by episodes. The setting consists of statements in which time,
place, and characters are identified. Episodes consist of chains of events
and conclude with reactions to events. Most stories can be described as
having a structure of this type, and it is this structure which gives them
coherence. Just as a sentence is grammatical to the extent that it follows the
norms of English word order and structure, so a story is coherent to the
extent that it follows the norms of semantic organization which are used in
English.
Other types of rhetorical acts derive coherence from norms of structural
organization. When we describe something, for example, coherence in our
description is determined by how appropriately we deal with such elements
as the level of the description, the content, the order in which items are
described, and the relations between items mentioned in the description
(Clark and Clark 1977:232). In describing a landscape, for example, the
writer must decide on the appropriate level of the description, and decide
whether to focus on the general impressions of the scene or on every detail
(as for example in a police report). The writer must also make decisions
concerning content, which will determine which elements of the scene to
include or exclude. Then the elements must be arranged in an appropriate
order and the relations between the things mentioned must be decided.
Some objects may be highlighted in the description, for example, and
other items related to them. The result will be a coherent description, one
which ‘is organized according to appropriate norms for this type of
discourse. Similar decisions must be made when we describe people,
rooms, states, or events. If we adopt solutions that are conventional, we
create rhetorical acts which are coherent.
Other types of rhetorical acts also develop in ways which are organized
and structured. Conversations, for example, begin with greetings and
progress through various ordered moves: the speaker’s and hearer’s roles
are ascertained, topics are introduced, rights to talk are assumed, new
topics are raised, and, at an appropriate time, the conversation is
terminated in a suitable manner. The development of communicative com-
petence in a foreign language is crucially dependent on the speaker’s ability
to create discourse that is coherent. Schmidt (1981), in his study of the
development of communicative competence in a Japanese adult, studied
how the subject’s ability to perform coherent narratives and descriptions
developed. At an early stage in his language development, the subject’s
attempts to narrate events suffered through the inclusion of excessive
details presented in a random order, which made comprehension difficult.

Process structure When we talk, much of our discourse is made up of words and phrases
which indicate how what we are going to say relates to what has already
been said. For example, our reaction to an idea or opinion may be to
expand it, to add something to it, to disagree with it, to substantiate it, to
give a reason for it, or to explain it. The following are examples of phrases
or lexical items which may serve these or related functions :
When it comes to that yes but
and another thing well maybe

118 Jack C. Richards

articles welcome
 all the same actually
consequently anyway
in my case as a matter of fact
all the same to begin with
to give you an idea

These have been termed ‘conversational gambits’ (Keller 1981), and they
signal directions and relations within discourse. Evidence suggests that
these contribute significantly to an impression of fluency in conversation.
Course materials are now available which focus on these aspects of con-
versational competence. They are inappropriate, however, if they are used
too often or in the wrong places, as in the following example:

To my mind I’ll have another cup of coffee.

Conclusions Theories about how we teach a foreign language reflect our view of the
nature of language. While it is no innovation to define language as a system
of communication, the way the dynamics of the communicative process
influence the form of verbal communication is seldom fully appreciated.
ESL/EFL materials too often focus only on the finished products of com-
munication, rather than on the processes by which people communicate. A
deeper understanding of the effects of communicative needs on non-native
speaker discourse should make us more understanding of our students’
difficulties in using English, and happier with their partial successes. •
Received January 1982

Notes References
1 A plenary address given at the Japan Association of Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words.
Language Teachers’ Convention, Tokyo, November Oxford: Clarendon Press.
21, 1981. Bolinger, Dwight. 1975. Aspects of Language (second
2 A proposition is the linking together of words to edition). New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
form predications about things, people, and events. Brown, Penelope and Stephen Levinson. 1978.
For example, the words book and red constitute a ‘Universals in language usage : politeness
proposition when we understand the meaning of phenomena’ in Esther N. Goody (ed.). Questions and
The book is red. Politeness: Strategies and Social Interaction. Cambridge:
3 For example, ‘Please, you carry this suitcase’, said Cambridge University Press (pp. 56-289).
by a non-native speaker to a friend, where ‘How Clark, Herbert H. and Eve V. Clark. 1977. Psychology
about carrying this suitcase for me?’ would be a and Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace,
more appropriate form; or ‘Please. Bring more Jovanovich.
coffee’, said to a waitress, where a more appro- De Silva, E. 1981. ‘Form and Function in Malaysian
priate form would be ‘Could I have another cup of English’. M.A. thesis, University of Malaya, Kuala
coffee, please?’ (Schmidt 1981). Lumpur.
4 For example, a foreign couple with a good Dittmar, N. 1981. ‘On the verbal organization of L2
command of English but lacking the ability to par- tense marking in an elicited translation task by
ticipate in ongoing small talk were judged as cold, Spanish immigrants in Germany’. Studies in Second
stand-offish, and reserved by their American Language Acquisition 3/2: 136-64.
relatives (personal observation). Ervin-Tripp, S. 1976. ‘Is Sybil there? The structure of
American English directives’. Language in Society
5/1:25-66.
Goody, Esther N. 1978. ‘Towards a theory of
questions’ in Esther N. Goody (ed.). Questions and
Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press (pp. 17-43).
Hymes, D. 1972. ‘On communicative competence’ in
J. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.). Sociolinguistics.
London: Penguin (pp. 269-93).

Communicative needs in language teaching 119

articles welcome
Keller, Eric. 1981, ‘Gambits: conversational strategy Wells, Gordon. 198 1. ‘Becoming a communicator’ in
signals’ in Florian Coulmas (ed.). Conversational Gordon Wells (ed.). Learning Through Interaction: The
Routine. The Hague: Mouton (pp. 93-114). Study of Language Development. Cambridge :
Pawley, Andrew and Frances Syder. In press. ‘Two Cambridge University Press (pp. 73-115).
puzzles in linguistic theory: nativelike selection and Yorio, Carlos A. 1980. ‘Conventionalized language
nativelike fluency’ in Jack C. Richards and Richard forms and the development of communicative com-
Schmidt (eds.). Language and Communication. petence’. TESOL Quarterly XIV/4: 433-42.
London: Longman.
Richards, Jack C. 1981. ‘Form and function in second
language learning: an example from Singapore’ in The author
Roger Anderson (ed.). New Dimensions in Second Jack Richards is a New Zealander who obtained his
Language Acquisition Research. Rowley, Mass : Ph.D. from Université Laval, Quebec, in 1972, and has
Newbury House (pp. 153-64). since worked in Indonesia, Singapore, Hong Kong,
Schmidt, Richard. 1981. ‘Interaction, acculturation and the United States. He is currently full professor in
and the acquisition of communicative competence: the Department of English as a Second Language at
a case study of an adult learner’. Manuscript. the University of Hawaii.
Segalowitz, Norman and Elizabeth Gatbonton. 1977. He has written numerous articles on different
‘Studies of the non-fluent bilingual’ in Peter A. aspects of applied linguistics, edited several
Hornby (ed.). Bilingualism: Psychological, Social and anthologies, including Error Analysis (Longman 1974),
Educational Implications. New York: Academic Press Language and Communication (forthcoming, Longman-
(77-90). with Richard Schmidt), and has written eight EFL texts
Watson, Karen Ann. 1974. ‘Understanding human for Oxford University Press. He has just completed the
interaction: the study of everyday life and everyday Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics (with J. Platt
talk’. Topics in Culture Learning 2:57-66. and H. Weber), to be published shortly by Longman.

120 Jack C. Richards

articles welcome