Deepening the Debate -
2
(Week 11)
ORAL I V
(HE281)
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez
drronmartinez@gmail.com

Goals for the week
• Work on argumentation in academic debate
• Hold debate
• Introduction to final presentations

Today’s agenda
• Recap articles from last week (Johnson &
Newport; Piller)
• Finish article summaries (Moyer, Munoz)
• Go over homework
• Intro to debate and debate theme
• Homework for next class

Next few weeks...
• 9/11 (Mon.) Introducing the debate
• 11/11 (Wed.) Building arguments
• 16/11 (Mon.) Structuring arguments
• 18/11 (Wed.) Debate Day + look ahead to final
presentation
• 23-25 – Reading and presentation structuring
• 30/11 (Mon.) Presentation preparation
• 2/12 (Wed.) Presentation preparation
• 7/12 (Mon.) Final presentations begin

Article Summary
• Sit next to classmates who read the same article (1: Ana Paula,
Andrey, Carmina, Patrícia; 2: Carla, Franciane, Rafaela; 3: Danielle,
John, Plinio, Yasmin; 4: Tatiana, Gabriela, Anni)
• Discuss your general impressions of the article (5 minutes)
• To prepare your summary, identify the following points:
– What was/were the research question(s)?
– What motivated the research?
– How did the researcher(s) collect data?
– What are the main findings?
– To what extent to you agree with the findings (and the method used)?
– How does the Gisele Bundchen article fit with the research you read?
Does Gisele’s English proficiency support or weaken the research?

Summaries
• Pay close attention and take notes – you will
need this information for next week’s debate!

The Debates (40 minutes each)
• Objective: Warm-up and linguistic preparation for final presentation.
• Teams of 2-3
• Presentation of resolution + preparation (5 minutes)
• The first speaker on the affirmative (“for”) team presents arguments in support of
the resolution. (3 – 5 minutes)
• The first speaker on the opposing team (“against”) presents arguments opposing
the resolution. (3 – 5 minutes)
• The second speaker on the affirmative team presents further arguments in
support of the resolution, identifies areas of conflict, and answers questions that
may have been raised by the opposition speaker. (3 – 5 minutes)
• The second speaker on the opposing team presents further arguments against the
resolution, identifies further areas of conflict, and answers questions that may
have been raised by the previous affirmative speaker. (3 – 5 minutes)
• 5 minutes for rebuttal preparation.
• There cannot be any interruptions. Speakers must wait their turns. The teacher
may need to enforce the rules.
• Winner decided by audience.

Typical debate structure

Argumentation

‘Hedging’
• I think that the Critical Period Hypothesis is correct.
• I agree with Piller’s point of view.
• Adults learners are really different from children.
• Kids always learn faster than adults.
• All children who start learning an L2 when young ultimately
surpass people who start at later ages.

‘Hedging’
• Johnson and Newport would argue that the Critical Period
Hypothesis is correct.
• I tend to agree with Piller’s point of view.
• Adults learners are to some extent different from children.
• Kids generally learn faster than adults.
• Some children who start learning an L2 when young ultimately
surpass people who start at later ages.

Let the ‘evidence’ do the talking!
• There is evidence that…
• (I think) the evidence shows…
• Study after study shows…
• For example, if you look at…
• According to…

Some common ingredients…

‘Hypothetical-Real’ Sequence
• Some would argue that the existence of a Critical Period Hypothesis for L2
learning depends on a number of factors. Piller, for example, presents
evidence that identity can play an important role. And to some extent I
think that is right. However, I think there is also compelling evidence to
suggest that there may be a kind of period, linked to age, during which
certain linguistic elements are harder to acquire than others in the L2. For
example, if you look at Johnson and Newport’s research, while it is true
that they focus purely on language facets, it is hard to deny that there are
key differences between…

Some phrases from ‘Palestras’ book
may help

HOMEWORK FOR TODAY
• Download the reading and worksheet
online and prepare an extended argument in
favor of the paper that you read for Monday's
class. (Please print out the worksheet and
bring it to class.)
• Send your self-evaluation (and use the special
sheet!) so that you can receive your grade

Homework for Wednesday
• Build your arguments!
• Read the new articles posted online, prepare
some notes (both ‘for’ and ‘against’)

DEBATE!
• “The Critical Period Hypothesis has no
practical relevance to second language
acquisition or language teaching.”

DEBATES!
• We don’t need teaching methods anymore.
• We need to question the native speaker as a goal.
• ‘English as Lingua Franca’ is ill-defined.
• Grammar correction does not work.
• Task Based Learning should be questioned.
• Language is not an instinct.
• Non-native scholars suffer from discrimination.
• There is no point in teaching grammar.

TOPIC SAMPLE LITERATURE
We don’t need teaching methods
anymore.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a postmethod
pedagogy. Tesol Quarterly,35(4), 537-560.
Bell, D. M. (2003). Method and postmethod: Are they
really so incompatible?.TESOL quarterly, 325-336.
Context matters more than form in
language aquisition.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse,
communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in
SLA research. Modern language journal, 285-300.
Kasper, G. (1997). " A" Stands for Acquisition: A
Response to Firth and Wagner. Modern Language
Journal, 307-312.
There is no such thing as ‘English as
Lingua Franca’.
Sowden, C. (2012). ELF on a mushroom: the overnight
growth in English as a Lingua Franca. ELT
journal, 66(1), 89-96.
Cogo, A. (2011). English as a Lingua Franca: concepts,
use, and implications.ELT journal, ccr069.
Grammar correction does not work. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar
correction in L2 writing classes.Language
learning, 46(2), 327-369.
Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “The case against
grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response
to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing,8(2),
111-122.

TOPIC (SOME) LITERATURE
Language is not an instinct. Pinker, S. (1995). The language instinct: The new
science of language and mind (Vol. 7529). Penguin UK.
Tomasello, M. (1995). Language is not an
instinct. Cognitive development,10(1), 131-156.
Non-native scholars suffer from
discrimination.
Flowerdew, J. (2008). Scholarly writers who use
English as an Additional Language: What can
Goffman's “Stigma” tell us?. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 7(2), 77-86.
Casanave, C. P. (2008). The stigmatizing effect of
Goffman's stigma label: a response to John
Flowerdew. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 7(4), 264-267.
There is no point in teaching grammar. Krashen, S. (1992). Under what circumstances, if any,
should formal grammar instruction take place. TESOL
Quarterly, 26(2), 409-411.
Lightbown, P. M., & Pienemann, M. (1993). Comments
on Stephen D. Krashen's “Teaching Issues: Formal
Grammar Instruction”: Two Readers React…. TESOL
Quarterly, 27(4), 717-722.
We need to question the native speaker as a goal.