Open Collections

UBC Graduate Research

The D.I.L.L. pickle : a quest to qualify drama in language learning within academia, not quantify it Spouler, Aaron J. 2010-08

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


42591-Spouler_A_LLED_Grad_Paper_2010.pdf [ 1.57MB ]
JSON: 42591-1.0078053.json
JSON-LD: 42591-1.0078053-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 42591-1.0078053-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 42591-1.0078053-rdf.json
Turtle: 42591-1.0078053-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 42591-1.0078053-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 42591-1.0078053-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

THE D.I.L.L. PICKLE: A QUEST TO QUALIFY DRAMA IN LANGUAGE LEARNINGWITHIN ACADEMIA, NOT QUANTIFY ITbyAaron J. SpoulerA Graduating Paper Submitted to the DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND LITERACY EDUCATION In Fulfillment for the Requirements for the Degree of MASTERS OF EDUCATIONWe accept this graduating paper as conforming to the required standardSIGNED:Dr. Lee Gunderson (Department of Language and Literacy Education)SIGNED ^Dr. Margot Filipenko (Department of Language and Literacy Education)UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 2010i iAcknowledgmentsI take this time to thank the many who made this grain of an idea into a tangible paper. I especially thank my advisor Dr. Lee Gunderson for believing in me, taking the time to set me straight on the path towards graduation, and for helping me polish the rough cut ideas that fell out of the crevices of my fractured logic. I would like to thank Mark Butcher, the principal of Sino-Canada High School in Jiangsu, China, who supported me as a fledgling teacher, believed in drama as a methodology of language education, and recognized my drama program as a pillar of the school. I also thank Daryll Cooper, the previous vice principal of Sino-Canada High School, for teaching me how to get to the heart of planning for teachable moments. I would like to thank A.J. Crescenzo and Tanya Zambrano from Templeton Secondary School’s Dream Big Productions for showing me that students are capable of creating professional theatre, and giving me insight into the process of making a professional student run theatre program.I would like to thank my parents for their unwavering support over this year at graduate school, my friends for their positive words of encouragement, and Devon for coming back totake this journey with me.I have collected the echoes of all these people that I just mentioned, added my own voice,and packaged it within this paper.11 tThe D.I.L.L. Pickle: A Quest to Qualify Drama in Language Learning within Academia.not Quantify itIntroductionI have a problem with the use of drama in language education. No matter how effective the execution is within the classroom, the use of drama as a methodology has consistently fallen short of being accepted as a serious academic subject. To most educators, the idea of using drama within the classroom is relegated to an occasional role play or warm-up exercise taken from a chapter or a colleague, if it is to be used at all. I recognize that drama has less applicability to subjects which depend heavily on the quantitative pursuit, of knowledge, such as the maths and sciences, but in situations where qualitative evaluation is a major factor, such as in language learning, dramatic performance methodologies have the potential to assist in raising language acquisition to levels that are unachievable by conventional classroom conditions. Now seems to be the right time to implement dramatic and theatrical methodologies into language learning, as there are indicators that the focus of language education is shifting toward a holistic, communicative, and qualitative spectrum. One major marker is the 2005 revision of the Test of English as a Foreign Language, TOEFL, a test that many post-secondary institutions use as a qualifying entrance exam. Post revision testing formats now focus on a communicative use of English and has moved away from a focus on mechanics and grammar. The catalyst for this change originated from test feedback supplied by ETS, the company responsible for TOEFL, showing that North American and European post-secondary institutions wanted first year international students to have a more holistic and communicative grasp of English.21 tSpecifically, these institutions criticise that while students had a grasp of English grammar, they did not know how to apply this to daily academic use (Alderson, 2009). As an international reference point of academic trends in language learning, TOEFL has shown that the time for holistic and communicative learning is now./BackgroundThere is a growing base of literature that supports drama in second language acquisition, mostly as a method of instruction for English as a Second Language (Wood. 2008), otherwise known as Drama In ESL, or DIESL (Culham, 2003). I propose that another level of methodology needs to be added to the DIESL framework to make it complete. Most of the existing literature establishes DIESL as an ideal methodology that operates on the platform of Krashen’s Natural Approach (1983), but since the Natural Approach has been shown to be limited by Prabhu (1987), the methodology of DIESL becomes unfinished. While DIESL succeeds in the realm of Krashen’s affective filter (1983), it is incomplete because of Krashen’s notion of comprehensible input, which has been shown to neglect instruction of grammar and mechanics, an essential part of language acquisition that cannot afford to be ignored (Long & Crookes, 1992). The DIESL model is excellent at creating a safe environment, within which students feel free to step outside of their comfort zones and experiment with language in ways that they might be too inhibited to do outside of the drama classroom (Shand, 2008)(Culham, 2003). However, if Krashen’s notion of comprehensible input (1983) is to be followed through to a logical conclusion, then language learners would be lacking proper motivation to practice and improve their target language.3tOn a pragmatic pedagogical level, comprehensible input does not lend itself well to evaluation, whereas I propose an incorporation of elements from Task Based Language Teaching (Branden et al, 2009), which would provide learners with motivation as well as provide teachers with a basis for evaluation. Task Based Language Teaching provides a platform for Drama In Language Learning, which will be subsequently referred to as DILL, to differentiate between dramatic practices in ESL which rely on Krashen’s framework and theatrical practices in language learning which incorporate the Natural Approach as well as draw upon Task Based Language Teaching (TBLT). Instead of lacking focus on syntax and placing full concentration on the communicative aspect of the target language, as in the Natural Approach, TBLT focuses on a task in which the use of the target language is integral to completion of the task. Therefore, by taking focus off of mastery of the target language itself, a holistic and communicative approach is achieved without having to abandon the mechanics of the language altogether. In addition, a focus on a task outside of the target language lowers affect as well as provides motivation to use the target language effectively to get the task done (Branden et al, 2009).When TBLT is coupled with dramatic and theatrical conventions, the two methodologies align to create a language learning situation that is low in affect, high in motivation, and does not sacrifice the mechanic and grammar aspects of language learning. To this effect DILL can be applied to performative dramatic activities as well as technical backstage activities, unlike other DIESL frameworks that rely mostly on Krashen.4PurposeThis paper aims to outline a curriculum of DILL which will be both theoretically and pragmatically sound. In order to gain understanding of how DILL operates on a methodological level, a number of questions need to be explored, the first being which theoretical foundations it is based upon. In this paper I will attempt to explain how the theoretical seeds of DILL stem from Saussure’s semiotics, as well as Charles Pierce’s unlimitedsemiosis, in that language is separate and arbitrary to meaning, and therefore is available to be played with and open to interpretation (Fortier, 1997). Unlimited semiosis creates an opening with which to explore how the disconnect between language and meaning, otherwise known as the signifier and the signified, can also be interpreted as gesture and meaning, as researched by Karen Emmorey’s Sign Language Studies (2002). In fact, she suggests that sign language gestures are an ‘iconic’ form of language, existing apart from verbal language, thereby reducing the arbitrariness between the signifier and the signified (Emmorey, 2002). Such a system of icons resonates with Bertolt Brecht’s 91964) own notion of icon, which posits that reality is impossible to stage and therefore only icons can be used to represent ‘the real’ within a performance. DILL uses these two notions of icon to create a suspension of disbelief within the classroom, where students are empowered to explore situations and roles that would be otherwise inaccessible in a traditional language classroom setting.Beyond semiotics and semantics, this paper will also address how DILL navigates socio-cultural issues differently from DIESL. Use of gesture in language may lead to a reliance on stereotype to communicate meaning, which is argued by Anne Bogart as a positive reference point when it is recognized as such (2001).5By holding such a view of commonality between cultures, and therefore hopefully languages, DILL can succeed by providing a bridge where commonalities and differences may be safely explored. In this exploration, socio-cultural norms will be expected to be analysed from many opposing angles, since the question being asked of students today is not what the norm is but whose norm is expressed (Said. 1978). DILL is hoped to be shown as an ideal framework for this exploration, as theatre has a history of post-modernistic subversive behaviour owing to figures such as Bertolt Brecht (1964), Augusto Boal (1985), and Mikhail Bakhtin (1968). Most of these theories will be practically illustrated through Lee Salisbury’s 1970 case study of his high school class of native Hawaiian students engaged in role play, where students took on the linguistic level of the role that they portrayed despite that level being much higher than their own.The final and most crucial purpose of this paper is to show how DILL extends past previously held notions. Shand (2008) and Culham (2003) use Krashen and Terrell’s framework of the Natural Approach (1983) to illustrate how drama in ESL is successful at lowering the affective filter and providing comprehensible input. However, Prabhu (1987) denies the sufficiency of comprehensible input, and instead recommends a Task Based Language Teaching model (Long & Crookes, 1992). The practical aspects of Drama in Language Learning will be shown to fit within the framework of Task Based Language Teaching, as outlined by Long and Crookes (1992), Domyei (2005), and Tarvin and Al-Arishi (1991).61Definition of TermsAffective Filter -  Stephen Krashen’s notion that there exists an emotional filter that causeslanguage learners to shy away from taking risks in speaking their target learned language for fear of making mistakes and being socially embarrassed.ASL -  American Sign LanguageBakhtin, Mikhail -  A literary theorist who coined the term Camivalesque, which describes the occurrence within a carnival where traditional norms and roles are set polar opposite, i.e., the king becomes the beggar, and the fool becomes wise.Boal, Augusto -  Creator of the well known Theatre of the Oppressed, Image Theatre, andTheatre of the invisible. Most applicable to this paper is the image theatre, a form of theatre where members pose their bodies in static shapes to create an ‘image’ which signifies the issue of the play. Most of the time the issue will be one of socio-economic oppression.Brecht, Bertolt -  German playwright best known for Three Penny Opera and Mother Courage, he created the ‘estrangement effect’ (aka. the alienation effect) which was used to remind the audience that the play is only a representation of reality. This included the use of unfinished sets, calling out of stage directions, harsh lighting, and the use of ‘icons’ in place of real items onstage.Carnival / Carnivalesque -  Mikhail Bakhtin’s notion of the opposite being true during times of festival and carnival. During this one day all social norms are reversed.Comprehensible input -  Krashen’s notion that humans, as language learners, acquire language that is just out of cognitive reach, i.e. A mother who models language for her child speaks clearly, which is represented by i. When the mother speaks at a level that is just beyond her child’s capability, this is represented by /+/. This equation is Krashen’s comprehensible input.CLT -  Communicative Language TeachingDILL -  Drama In Language LearningDIESL -  Cam Culham’s (2003) term for Drama In English as a Second Language methodology.Emmorey, Karen -  A researcher and advocate of American Sign Language who argues that sign languages fit in semiotics as iconic, in that the visual-gestural modality actually decreases the arbitrariness between the signifier and the signified.Estrangement -  Bertolt Brecht’s notion that the staging of a production should show everything, so that the audience cannot become complacent in the suspension of disbelief. All the scenery was half built, the actors moved in and out of character, and the fourth wall was7tnegotiable. All of this was done to the purpose of making the audience feel uncomfortable so that they questioned what the rules of the performance were supposed to be, therefore the theory was that they would carry this with them out of the theatre and question the rules of society.ESL -  English as a Second LanguageEFL -  English as a Foreign LanguageFocus on form -  A methodology of language learning coined by Michael H. Long, which issimilar to TBLT in that it demands a completion of a task using the target language, but the goal is to draw the participants’ attention to linguistic and communicative shortcomings.Halliday, Michael -  A linguist who is best known for creating systemic functional linguistics, or systemic functional grammar, which is a framework that dictates that language is acquired to satisfy physical, social, emotional, and environmental needs.Icon -  Bertolt Brecht put forth the idea that it is impossible to place any semblance of reality on stage, and therefore it is better to put icons in place of reality to signify people, places, and things.Krashen, Stephen -  A linguist and language teacher who coined the natural approach, which is based on theories of first language acquisition, in that he assumes students will pick up the target language by listening to it being modeled at an appropriate level. He also coined affective filter and comprehensible input.L2 -  Second Language, or target language.Natural Approach -  A method of second language acquisition which is based on theories of first language acquisition, labelled by Stephen Krashen. It assumes students will pick up the target language by listening to it being modeled at an appropriate level, without any focus on grammar or the mechanics of language.Orientalism -  A post-colonialist view that draws attention to the occidental West, which putsitself in the centre of power and perspective, and the oriental East, which is foreign, is not to be trusted, and needs to be monitored.Pierce, Charles -  A linguist who, like Saussure, focuses on semiotics. However, Pierce believes that the interpretation of the receiver of the sign adds another level of arbitrariness to the signifier and the signified! He calls this unlimited semiosis, and endless play of signs and meaning being regenerated.Postmodern Theatre -  A style of theatre that seeks to draw attention to all of the accepted norms that society takes for granted, with an emphasis on collective meaning making that takes place both in rehearsal and in performance with the audience.8Prabhu, N.S. -  Founder of the Bangalore Project, which sought quantitative evidence on behalf of task based language learning. While the success of the Bangalore Project is debated, it laid important foundations for the continued research and practice of Task Based Language Teaching.Said, Edward -  A post-colonist critic who is best known for his work Orientalism, outlining the division between the Occident and the Orient, and the notion of the ‘other’.Saussure, Ferdinand -  Swiss linguist whose name is generally associated with semiotics, noted for studying semiotics as a science which studies the life of signs (Pavis. 1982). He defined all signs as having two parts: first is the signifier, which is the word, image, gesture, or behaviour. Second is the signified, which is the idea or concept illustrated by the signifier. For him the relationship between signifier and signified is arbitrary, but fixed.Semiotics -  The study of signs which humans use to communicate meaning, possibly consisting of words, images, gestures, or behaviour.SLA -  Second Language AcquisitionSubtext -  A theatrical convention referring to the meaning which is embedded within spoken words which can be signified by the tone, volume, speed, emphasis, and stress put on different sounds. Subtext can also be shown through gestures which accompany words.Suspension of Disbelief -  A theatrical convention which occurs when the audience is led to believe what is put on stage is supposed to be ‘real’, i.e. the audience knows that the characters are actors portraying a role, but can be led to believe that these characters actually exists for the duration of the play. Suspension of disbelief can also easily broken by an item or action onstage which goes against the established ‘rules’ of the play.Task Based Language Teaching (TBLT) -  A methodology of language teaching that puts the learners’ focus on a task other than learning the target language. This facilitates linguistic demands on the learner, creates internal motivation within the learner to acquire the target language needed in order to complete the task, and takes the pressure of having perfect output of the target language off the learner.Theatre of the Oppressed -  A form of theatre created by Augusto Boal that focuses ondeconstructing socio-cultural oppression within the performance, most notably involving audience interaction where the audience is encouraged to stop the performance and step into the scene to change the action.TOEFL -  The Test of English as a Foreign Language has been established since 1964 as aninternational standard of English testing, currently existing in two formats: a paper based test and an internet based test.9Unlimited Semiosis -  Charles Pierce’s notion that, beyond Saussure’s disconnect between the signifier and signified, there exists another level of arbitrariness in the interpretation of the sign.Zone of Proximal Development -  Lev Vygotsky’s notion of placing the target task for a learner just beyond their capabilities so that, with instruction, learners will be able to reach a higher level.10\Chapter 2: Literature Review of the Theoretical Aspect of DILL Changing trends in EducationAs mentioned, it seems that educational trends are moving towards communicative, holistic, and qualitative practices. The main indicator of this is the revision of the TOEFL exam, which has been a benchmark for language standards, and if TOEFL has changed to keep up with current practices, then there is definitely an active trend. In Alderson’s (2009) test review of the Test of English as a Foreign Language: Internet-based Test (TOEFL iBT), he notes that the aim of the revised TOEFL was to “more closely resemble communicatively oriented academic English courses’ (Bejar et al., 2000, p. 36)”. After these changes were implemented, a five year study was conducted by Wall & Horak (2006,2008a, 2008b) to measure the impact of the new TOEFL among a few selected European countries, concluding that “TOEFL iBT has indeed had the desired effects on the content of TOEFL preparation classes, in that much more emphasis was now placed on the teaching of speaking abilities, there was an increase in the attention paid to writing and on integrated skills work, and there was much less evidence of the teaching of grammar and vocabulary” (Alderson, 2009, 629). As a standard of English language education practices, the TOEFL shows evidence of the changing trend in language education since it has recently changed to be “better aligned to the/Variety of language use tasks that examinees are expected to encounter in everyday academic life” (Sawaki et al., 2009, p. 5).11ISuch a change in trend is heartening news to educators who use qualitative practices in their language classrooms, especially for educators who use fine arts to assist in teaching languages. I assert that the multi-modal use of fine arts in assisting language acquisition is strengthened by this qualitative educational trend, as the fine arts and dramatic practices in education have typically been marginalized from serious academic consideration due to the qualitative nature of its pedagogy. Phillip Taylor (19981) lamented the fact that “[s]o much of what goes on in arts classrooms today works against imagination. We see a forever increasing' iobsession with instruments of measurement and a great yearning to control experience, to dictate outcomes, to recycle what is already known... [i]n other words, our age and our goal is more important that the process itself, and the outcome should be the same for all people at a specified age”(Taylor, 1998, p.78-79u). As Taylor criticises, as recently as 1998 the trend in education was to attempt to measure learning as much as possible, which is what makes this shift in trends away from quantitative practices in language education so encouraging since many of the most valuable moments that occur within the language learning classroom are immeasurable. The division between qualitative and quantitative measures in language education is wide, neither being able to exist without the other. Language learning requires both intuition and rules, communicative leaps and grammar mechanics. And as Bill Bryson tritely reminds us, "[l]anguage, never forget, is more fashion than science, and matters of usage, spelling, and pronunciation tend to wander around like hemlines”(1990, p.98). With the many changing evolutionary trends in language, let alone language education, would it not be better to roll with the artistic methods of language acquisition instead of trying to shoehorn it into a quantifiable form?12The Semiotics of Theatre and DramaThe intersecting realms of language, drama, and education remain unquantifiable, therefore making literary theory an ideal theoretical backbone for the justification of beneficial qualities to using drama in language learning. Mark Fortier (1997) provides an excellent entry point for where literary theory intersects drama in his introduction Theory/Theatre, which places a heavy emphasis on semiotics. He defines semiotics, or semiology, as “the study of signs -  those objects by which humans communicate meaning: words, images, behaviour, arrangements of many kinds, in which a meaning or idea is relayed by a corresponding manifestation we can perceive” (Fortier, 1997, p.19). Furthermore, he posits in his introduction that “[t]he word ‘drama’ comes from a word related to the Greek verb ‘to do’; ‘theatre’, on the other hand, comes from a word related to the verb ‘to see’... Moreover, the word ‘theory’ comes from the same root as ‘theatre’. Theatre and theory are both contemplative pursuits, although theatre has a practical and sensuous side which contemplation should not be allowed to overwhelm” (Fortier, 1997, p.5). And while theory and theatre may be contemplative pursuits, performance is generally what educators are interested in as something that they can use in the classroom. Thankfully, Fortier defines performance as “any performative human activity -  everything from murder trials and elections to religious and social rituals, to everyday acts, such as a high school English class or shaving in front of the mirror... [ejveryday life is a performance in this sense” (Fortier, 1997, p.l 1). This definition of performance resonates with teachers since they can attest that every day in front of a class is a performance. This also eliminates the long held belief that drama is something left only to professional actors, and that it is inaccessible to the average individual. “All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players” (Shakespeare, 1600, 2.7.139).13ITherefore, if everyday life is a performance, then so is the English classroom, and therefore theatre should be perfectly suited to assist in language learning. But how does one account for the subtleties of each performative act which may or may not be caught? And how do these performative nuances translate across different languages and cultures? This lack of succinctness is evidenced by the multitude of miscommunications that occur in daily life, either via verbal or gestural modes. The fact that miscommunication happens at all between people of the same culture and language is evidence of a disconnect between what is said or performed, what is meant, and what is interpreted. It is fortunate, then, that semiotics exists to navigate such a confounding disconnect.Semiotics, as defined by Ferdinand Saussure, is “[a] science that studies the life of signs’ and demonstrates ‘what signs consist of and what laws govern them” (Pavis, 1982, p.13).Broken down into more concrete terms, everything we say or do as human beings to communicate with one another is considered a ‘sign’. Saussure defines the sign as “having two parts: the signifier, which is the material phenomenon we are able to perceive -  the sound of a word, such as ‘hello’; the wave of a hand -  and the signified, which is the concept invoked by the signifier -  the idea of greeting, for instance” (Saussure, 1974, p.66-67). Ideally the signifier should match with the signified, and we human beings would be able to understand each other much better, however that is obviously not the case since Saussure feels the need to add the disclaimer / ‘language is the most characteristic semiotic system inasmuch as the relation between signifier and signified is most arbitrary (p.68)” (Fortier, 1997, p.20). Language, it seems, is a double edged sword that can communicate limitless amounts and infinitely confuse as well.14Keep in mind that the connection between language and performance is inherent, as Fortier illuminated, and in both of these the interpretation of the receiver determines the arbitrariness of semiotics which Saussure didn’t get around to mentioning. Instead, Charles Pierce (1991) picked up semiotics where Saussure left off and further divided the signifier and the signified:He separates the sign (what Saussure calls the signifier) from the object, which is loosely what Saussure calls the signified, but a signified which can be in different situations a concept, a thing, or even another signifier. He works out a classification of signs which sees them not as monolithic in the arbitrariness of their relationship to the object but as related to the object in different ways and to different degrees”(Fortier, 1997, p.21-22).Pierce maintains, as does Saussure, that the sign represents what is not present, in the same waythat a photograph of a person is not the actual person, or a recording of a song is not the same asthe person singing in front of you. However, unlike Saussure, Pierce insists that a sign is“always a sign for somebody -  in fact, that interpretations is part of the sign itself. In this way,semiotics is made situational, activated only by people in actual situations” (Fortier, 1997, p.22).By including the humanistic act of interpretation into semiology, Pierce posits that people engagein “unlimited semiosis’, the endless play of meaning and regeneration of signs in time” (Fortier,1997, p.22). Pierce’s notion of semiotics allows room for personal interpretation, thereby addinganother layer on top of the signifier and the signified, which is the difference between Saussure’sand Pierce’s semiotics. Fortier explains:Saussure does not seem particularly concerned with how the signifier invokes the signified in the person who encounters it -  his seems a closed system running on its own, like a movie theater that keeps operating automatically after a nuclear holocaust; Pierce, however, stresses that the act of interpretation is inherent in the sign and that signs generate interpretation and ‘unlimited semiosis’ among their interpreters (Makaryk 1993:186)” (Fortier, 1997, p.133).15tIt seems that reader response theory (Rosenblatt,1978.) is from the same ilk as Pierce’s semiotics, in that they are both concerned with “how people other than the author or creator contribute to the meaning and import of a work of art” (Fortier, 1997, p.132). A notion of semiotics that takes interpretation into account is crucial to a theoretical framework for drama in language learning because it dictates how meaning can be made through both spoken word and gesture, since one of the major benefits of DILL is using gesture to aid the meaning making process when a student does not have a firm grasp of the target language. As anyone who has tried to get verbal street directions in a new language can testify, directions can neither be given nor received without plenty of pointing and flapping about like a flightless bird, unless of course one cheats by using a map. The point is that gesture is a pillar of language acquisition, especially within DILL, where gesture and mime can be used to fill in the gaps left by unknown vocabulary or muddled sentence structure. However, gesture again refers back to the realm of the performative, which takes on yet another level of semiotics explored by Bertolt Brecht.The Performative IconFortier regards the work of Brecht as “exemplary’ for a semiological theatre: ‘For what Brechtian dramaturgy postulates is that today at least, the responsibility of a dramatic art is not so much to express reality as to signify it’(Barthes 1972a: 71, 74)” (Fortier, 1997, p.29).Brecht’s idea is that ‘real life’ is impossible to put onstage, that as soon as something is put into the performative realm it becomes a signification of what is real, much like Pierce’s notion of semiotics. As mentioned earlier, Pierce differentiates between the sign and reality, in that a photograph of a person is not the person themselves. Brecht makes a similar differentiation between what is represented onstage and what is real, insisting that as soon as something becomes performed it moves away from being real.16Fortier more clearly explains that “[tjheatre may be... ‘the privileged domain of the icon’ (Carlson 1993:499), of signifiers with a close relationship to what they represent, but people and things on stage are not identical with what they represent: the stage chair is not the chair represented, although it may be a chair; the actor is not the character, although s/he is a human being” (Fortier, 1997, p.31). Therefore all performative acts become ‘icons’ of real life, signifying the notion of reality within the context of the performance. Real life, therefore, becomes an obstacle in the performance because it is jarring when viewed in contrast to the performance as a whole. Examples of this can be seen onstage when the suspension of disbelief is broken, which happens when the actors or director break the rules of the world they have created onstage, either by a break in character or an ill placed prop. When an actor forgets their line, or one of the backstage crew accidently kicks a flashlight onstage, that one blinding sliver of reality overshadows the created world of icons onstage and forces the audience to re-evaluate what is real and what is perceived to be real. Brecht used this within his theatre practice, calling it the estrangement effect (Stanton and Banham, 1996), in hopes that the jarring feeling of instant re-evaluation would also force his audience to re-evaluate the direction of pre-world war 2 Germany.While Brecht was using ‘icon’ to cause his audience to re-evaluate the meaning of all performed signifiers that they were receiving in their daily lives, the performative aspect of the ‘icon’ can also be used conversely to expediate and supplement meaning, which is immensely useful in second language acquisition. Many times students will grasp to find the language needed to communicate their meaning, and adding a performative avenue to their repertoire provides a welcome shortcut to the gridlock of words that sometimes occurs in SLA.17I argue that the use of icons is imperative to learning a second language because it provides reference points when the learner cannot find the words. Such reference points can be a simple gesture or sound, which may refer to things as simple as objects or as complex as people.Miming one hand with a thumb in the ear and a pinky finger to the mouth signifies a phone, or impersonating a gesture can refer to an iconic personality. As Fortier points out, it is possible for people to take on an “allegorical character” that possesses “a freer and wider significance in death than in life” (Fortier,1997, p.32), for instance Elvis Presley or Bruce Lee. These two figures have become ‘larger than life’ after their passing, thereby moving into the realm of the icon since simple performed gestures or visual cues can refer to them. Obviously it would be impossible to signify their complexity as an individual human being with a single gesture, but in their iconic form it is possible to represent them with something as abstract as a wig.The presence of such iconic representations of people or objects illustrates a “strong pattern-making ben[d]” on “much semiologocal analysis” (Fortier, 1997, P.25), which attempts to provide a “coherent system capable of accounting for all significant activity of theatre and drama: smiles, gestures, tones of voice, blocking, music, light, character development and so forth.” (Fortier, 1997, p.25). Such a system provides reference points for meaning making, but it is by no means a standardized system, since interpretation still has to be taken into consideration. Actually it is a good thing that there is no standardized system in place, as Keir Elam (1980) mentions, since “[a] global systemization of theatrical signs is ‘extremely problematic” (Elam, 1981, p.9), especially in the face of avant-garde theatre with a visceral distrust of meaning and signification (1982, p.75-85)” (Fortier, 1997, p.25).18Brecht, who is strongly in the post-modern and avant-garde camp, would balk at having such a standardized system since it would mean that the audience would be taking certain signs and signifiers as established fact, which completely goes against his work of estrangement. It is this room for interpretation that allows so many nuanced meanings to co-exist within any performance, leaving room for an infinite combination of gestures and words to work together to produce an infinite number of meanings, which can be viewed as miraculous and frustrating within the language learning classroom. And there must be allowance for openness and interpretation, without any dictation of how sighs should be interpreted, in both the semiotics of theatre and language acquisition. As Marvin Carlson (1990) stresses, an allowance of interpretation leaves the semiotic theory of theatre undeveloped in three areas: “the semiotic contributions of the audience to the meaning of a theatrical performance -  in Pierce’s terms, how the audience receives and interprets signs; the semiotics of the entire theatre experience -  the ‘appearance of the auditorium, the displays in the lobby, the information in the program, and countless other parts of the event as a whole’; and the iconic relationship of theatre to the life it represents (1990: xi -  xviii)” (Fortier, 1997, p.26).While these undeveloped areas of semiotic theory in theatre are vast and unable to be properly addressed within the scope of this paper, the icon and Pierce’s semiotics continue to resurface. In particular, non-verbal icons are of great importance to DILL, which raises a few sticky questions:[Although in these stage directions we see nonverbal signs at work, do we not, however, call on language when we interpret these nonverbal signs? At least in the kind of theatre practiced by Ibsen and Shaw, doesn’t what appears nonverbally on stage begin as words in the stage directions written in the drama text? Is performance merely a nonverbal translation of the text’s words?” (Fortier, 1997, p.29).19I argue that performance in this context clarifies the text, allowing for more meaning to be derived from the text than would be found from reading aloud. The physical interpretation of nuances have to be consciously processed and performed in Ibsen and Shaw’s scripted works, since it is the subtext of the character’s spoken words that must be followed and not the stage directions. William Ball (1984), in A Sense of Direction, insists that for a theatrical production to succeed all stage directions must first be crossed out from the script because those stage directions are designed by another director for one particular time and one specific stage, and each production must start from the characters and their interactions. To follow another director’s stage directions would be copying actions without knowing the meaning, in other words they would be hollow gestures without signification. The character’s lines must be analyzed for subtext, not what someone says but how they say it, and then interpreted into non­verbal gestures to signify more meaning. This issue is addressed in depth by Karen Emmorey through sign language theory, which focuses precisely at the point where non-verbal signs become signifiers, and the moment when gesture becomes language. Fortier looks at how words become gesture, while Emmorey looks at how gestures become words.Non-Verbal Signs, Icons, and Gesture as LanguageKaren Emmorey, a leading authority in sign language, agrees that “[t]he mapping between the sound of the word and its meaning is quite arbitrary” (Emmorey, 2002, p. 17), further pressing that one of the hallmarks of human language, be it sign language or spoken language, is the separation between gesture and meaning. Emmorey also brings up the notion of the icon, mentioning that “[a]lthough some ASL signs exhibit an arbitrary mapping between their form and meaning, many more signs are iconic ; that is, there is a relation between the form of the sign and its meaning.For example, the sign ERASE resembles the action of erasing a blackboard, and PLAY-PIANOresembles the action of playing a piano (fig. 2.6). Signs can be iconic in a number of differentways (Mandel, 1977)” (Emmorey, 2002, p. 17). She also subscribes to the semiotics ofinterpretation, in that “iconicity is not fixed; historical change and morphological process canobscure or reduce the iconic resemblance between form and meaning (Frishberg, 1975; Klima &bellugi, 1979)” (Emmorey, 2002, p. 18). It seems that Brecht was well ahead of his time with hisnotion of the icon, as Emmorey asks a similar question of sign language: “[d]oes the iconicity ofsign forms give rise to a fundamental distinction between signed and spoken languages?”(Emmorey, 2002, p.17). She navigates the difference in iconicity as being one of degrees, ratherthan of substance (Taub, 2001). However, she argues on behalf of non-verbal language as abetter system for conveying icon, stating that “the auditory-vocal modality is an impoverishedmedium for creating iconic forms” (Emmorey, 2002, p. 17). She insists that the weakness ofspoken language lies in the following points:many referents and actions have no associated auditory imagery, and the vocal tract is limited in the types of sounds it can produce. In contrast, the visual-gestural modality is rich with imagery that can motivate the form of signs because the hands and face are directly observable and many referents can invoke visual images. Thus, arbitrariness of form does not appear to be a basic or necessary characteristic of human language; in fact, iconically motivated word forms may be preferred, but the articulatory and perceptual resources of spoken languages limit the iconicity of spoken words. (Emmorey, 2002, p. 17).Gesture and non-verbal language is, in her opinion, a superior form of communication within thecontext of the icon, which she labels the “sign advantage” (2002). While such a strongviewpoint may overshoot the aim of using sign language theory as a framework for SLAassistance, and seem like too strong of a push to show how sign language is superior to speech,her theories on the sign advantage are a salient support for DILL.21For instance, she outlines that “iconic signs and iconic words are not simply mimes -  they must conform to constraints on form within a language (e.g., a throat clearing sound could not be part of an English onomatopoeic word and movement of the legs could not be part of an ASL iconic sign), and their meanings often cannot be guessed by naive observers or listeners (Klima & Bellugi.1979; Pizzuto & Volterra.2000)” (Emmorey, 2002, p. 17). It is true that a clearing of one’s throat or a swing of the leg would not be considered language, but that is not to say that the gesture is without meaning in a performative context. Emmorey holds iconic gesture up to a standard of being a communicative language unto itself, while DILL seeks to use it as a communicative aid. Still, Emmorey admits that certain simple performed mimes do possess a shared iconicity, as “[sjigned languages contain a certain percentage of similar signs based simply on shared iconicity (e.g., the sign for EAT is similar in many unrelated sign languages), and this percentage must be taken into account when estimating whether sign languages are historically related to each other (e.g., Currie, in press; McKee & Kennedy, 2000)” (Emmorey, 2002, p. 18). Such a hypothesis on the etymology of sign language paves the way for a speculation on the existence of a gestural baseline, or an original common source of gestural meaning that has evolved alongside of spoken language. In response to such speculation “most linguists [assume] ... that a similar cognitive system underlies the expression of both signed andIspoken languages” (Emmorey, 2002, p.23).Sign language is compared to the process of speech rather than that of reading because “unlike written text, which can be characterized as ‘visual language’, sign languages consist of dynamic and constantly changing forms rather than static symbols” (Emmorey, 2002, p.l 17).22This is important to DILL because the use of gesture fills in verbal blanks under the affective stress of time constraints, as is felt when engaged in dialogue in the target language.And regardless of whether dialogue is held in verbal or signed form, both signed language and speech breaks down at a certain speed. “The proposition rate for sign and speech is the same, roughly one proposition every 1 to 2 seconds (Bellugi & Fischer, 1972). In addition, the intelligibility of both sign and speech breaks down when either signal is time compressed to about 2.5 to 3 times the normal rate, suggesting a modality independent upper limit for the ability to accelerate language processing (Fischer, Delhorne, & Reed, 1999)” (Emmorey, 2002, p. 119). This research suggests that signed language and verbal speech is much more similar than perceived, and may in fact engage similar brain functions since the cognitive rates of maximum comprehensibility are so similar. With this in mind, using gestural icons to assist in SLA may be shown to maximize the clarity of input and output of a L2 student.However, there is a necessary distinction drawn between the human brain’s ability in recognizing gestures as either signified linguistic gestures, such as ASL, or affective gestures, such as facial emotions. Studies have been conducted to test whether facial expressions are interpreted as communicative gestures, emotional cues, or both, with results indicating that “categorical perception effects are not limited to emotional facial expressions” (Emmorey, 2002, p.123). Instead, “hearing and Deaf people perceive facial expressions that do not convey basic emotions ... as belonging to distinct categories. It may be that human beings have evolved a perceptual mechanism for classifying facial displays that allows for efficient discrimination and recognition of communicative expressions, even when these expressions are unfamiliar.231Sign languages may capitalize on this mechanism by employing facial expressions to mark grammatical and lexical functions” (Emmorey, 2002, p. 123). The evidence from this hypothesis comes from Supalla’s (1991) research, who postulates that “visual modality affords parallel processing. Vision can easily encode spatially distinct information in parallel (unlike audition).. .the hand configuration, place of articulations, and orientation of signs are all perceived simultaneously” (Emmorey, 2002, p. 134). To make matters even more muddled, Emmorey explains:certain facial expressions play a significant role in the syntax and morphology of ASL, and signers must be able to rapidly discriminate among many different expressions during language comprehension. In addition, as noted earlier in this chapter, signers fixate on the face of their addressee rather than track the hands. The fact that signers focus on the face during sign perception and the fact that facial expressions convey grammatical and lexical distinctions may lead to the enhancement of certain aspects of face processing. (Emmorey, 2002, p.251)This helps prove that the human brain is capable of parallel processing, and that people should beable to differentiate between linguistic and affective facial cues instantaneously as they are beinggiven. The question, however, is whether people who are not trained in sign language have theaptitude to pick up these subtle facial cues. Bettger et al. (1997) conducted exactly such a testwith adult signers and “very late learners of ASL” (Emmorey, 2002, p.252), concluding that“[d]eaf signers who were very late learners of ASL and found that these signers were also moreaccurate on the Benton Faces test than hearing nonsigners, and their performance did not differsignificantly from that of native Deaf and hearing signers. Thus, it appears that life-longexperience with ASL is not required to enhance face processing skills” (Emmorey, 2002, p.252).This evidence supports DILL in that the skills needed to recognize facial cues, and distinguishlinguistic from affective ones, can be learned and do not have to be built up from an early age.24McCullough and Emmorey (1997) also conducted an experiment on face processing, comparing Deaf signers to hearing nonsigners that “investigated whether ASL signers exhibit a superior ability to discriminate subtle differences in local facial features” (Emmorey, 2002, p.255). They found that “[d]eaf signers were significantly more accurate than hearing nonsigners in discriminating between faces that were identical except for a change in a single facial feature”, thereby concluding that “experience with ASL may lead to an enhanced ability to detect differences in eye configuration. Both Deaf and hearing ASL signers were more accurate in detecting a difference in the eyes than hearing nonsigners”. (Emmorey, 2002, p.255). McCullough and Emmorey were not the only ones to come to this conclusion, as N. Goldstein and Feldman (1996) also posited that “ASL signers might exhibit a heightened proficiency in the identification of emotional facial expressions. They reasoned that because signers must attend to linguistic facial expressions, they may also have heightened attention to emotional facial expressions ... Heightened attention to facial expressions (both linguistic and affective) when comprehending ASL discourse might lead to a strengthened ability to identify emotional expressions”. (Emmorey, 2002, p.256-257). This research is crucial to DILL because it shows that an aptitude in sign language improves a learners’ ability to decode facial expressions, therefore the transverse might also be true that training in the ability to decode facial expressions and affective gestures, such as the kind developed in a drama class, would improve SLA students’ language aptitude. This is a large speculative leap, but not out of the question. Further research and experiments would obviously have to be carried out, but Goldstein and Feldman’s study (1996) shows it to be plausible that experience in decoding facial expressions and affective emotional cues, the kind of decoding that drama and theatre training provides, may lead to gains in SLA.25Volterra and Iverson (1995) support this as well, stating that “gestural modality is a powerful medium of communicating during the early stages of communicative development, even for children with no exposure to sign language. In other words, the ‘sign advantage’ may reflect a more general advantage of the gestural over the vocal modality for early communication in all normally developing children” (Emmorey, 2002, p.173). While Volterra and Iverson centre the benefit of gestural modality towards early communication of developing children (1995), Emmorey points out that “several recent studies with adults indicate that experience with sign language can actually enhance certain nonlinguistic cognitive abilities in both hearing and Deaf signers, compared to hearing adults who did not know sign language” (Emmorey, 2002, p.219).Stereotype, Culture, and Identity in relation to the Performative IconAt this point it has been established that the use of performative drama in language learning consists of icons, and therefore possesses all of the semiological benefits that go along with using icons. However, if these staged icons are viewed through a socio-cultural lens, thenthey suddenly appear less successful and perhaps even harmful to the collaborative classroom)atmosphere. Icons are meant to represent the signified, but can never completely signify the complexity that they are meant to represent, so they remain a shadow, a slightly hollow caricature. For objects this is not much of a problem, but an icon meant to represent a person can easily become a stereotype, especially where cultural representation is present. While most educators may shy away from stereotype, labelling it as a relic of an ignorant society, it still exists and should not be shut away and ignored. Stereotype does not have to be negative, and in fact can be used to benefit educators if it is treated as more of an icon and archetype instead of the traditional ‘negative stereotyping’ that we warn students to be aware of in media.261Anne Bogart, an influential theatre practitioner, admits that she herself has “always mistrusted cliches and stereotypes” in the past and was “afraid of settling on any solution that wasn’t completely unique and original” (Bogart, 2001, p.93). This was until she met with Tadashi Suzuki, a director who is renowned for his “iconoclassic productions of Western classics done in a distinctly Japanese fashion” (Bogart, 2001, p.92). In discussion with Bogart, he admitted that the secret to his success was that he worked with his actors by tempering the stereotypes that they brought to the studio. Describing one actor in particular, he talked of having to push her to the point where “[e]ventually, ‘fuelled by the fire he lit under her’, as Suzuki described it, the cliches and stereotypes would transform into authentic, personal, expressive moments and finally, with the proper prodding, she would ignite and eclipse everyone around her with her brilliance and size” (Bogart, 2001, p.93). As each actor brings their own personal views and stereotypes into the studio, each student has their own stance which must be recognized. Bogart succinctly muses, “Suzuki’s dilemma started me wondering about the meaning of the word stereotype and about how we handle the many cultural stereotypes we inherit. Should we assume that our task is to avoid them in the service of creating something brand-new, or do we embrace the stereotypes; push through them, put a fire under them until, in the heat of the interaction, they transform?” (Bogart, 2001, p.93). This is the viewpoint from which stereotypes should be approached, not as skeletons to be locked in the closet because they are unpleasant to deal with. If DILL is to be used within the SLA classroom then icons will be used in a performative manner, and stereotypes will be inseparably portrayed along with these icons, which must be addressed. Quite often in the drama classroom, novice students will act out immature stereotypical archetypes in a scene due to a combination of nervousness, insecurity, and inexperience with gestural signifiers.27It would be wise to take Suzuki’s advice and ‘light a fire’ under the students to help them push past using stereotypical caricatures to signify a character, instead of relying on oppressive cultural signifiers in performance. ‘Lighting a fire under students’ represents an intolerance of immature work that falls back on archetypes. Instead, students should be pursuing to create icons which are packed with meaning. This is especially applicable to a DELL classroom, where students are more than likely to be from any number of different backgrounds, and tensions could potentially run high if negative cultural stereotypes were being acted out. There could be even more potential for miscommunication since gestures would be used where speech was lacking.The use of stereotypical signifiers is a perspective point, to be recognized as coming from the students’ identity. Revisiting Fortier, he is the first to admit that he writes from “a Canadian perspective” (Fortier, 1997, p. 17), encouraging readers to reflect what their own perspectives are. It must be recognized that all students bring multiple identities into the DILL classroom with them, and that these identities will surface in performance, perhaps one at time or simultaneously. As Fortier reminds us, “[t]heatre may be marginal in many activities of contemporary life, but one doesn’t have to expand the idea of performance very much at all to see the classroom as a theatre and teaching and learning as a performative situation. Education may be one area in which the theatrical remains a central aspect of our culture” (Fortier, 1997, p.211). Fortier describes ‘the theatrical’ as possessing its own culture within education, and of possessing its own culture period. Theatre has long been held sacred as an arena where social norms were allowed to be turned upside-down, often leading the way for subversive movements which challenge the norm, and this culture of the subversive is prevalent throughout the history of modem theatre.28Examples range back to medieval festivals, which Bakhtin coined the notion of the carnival (1968), within which all social norms were reversed during peasant feasts and festival, where the ironies played out onstage were accepted for that day only. Augusto Boal (1985), as well as Bertolt Brecht, have staged productions which aimed to jolt the audience out of passivity so that they might question the social norms that they took for granted in their everyday lives. “For Boal, as for Brecht, the oppressive ideology and passivity of theatre are highly complicitous: the manipulative ideology of the status quo means the audience is not allowed to think for itself, and the audience’s passive position as spectators means it is not allowed to act for itself’ (Fortier, 1997, p.208-209). Whereas Brecht was only able to “allow the audience to think and judge for itself, with its continual admonitions” (Fortier, 1997, p.208), Boal (1985) succeeded in finding “ways of allowing the audience not only to think but also to act for itself, thereby turning theatre from an ideological state apparatus into ‘a rehearsal of revolution’ (Boal, 1985, p.141)” (Fortier, 1997, p.209). Edward Said (1978) opened up dialogue on the notion of situatedness with Orientalism, which “divides the world into the white, moral, rational West, deserving and destined ruler of the world, and the non-white, conniving and irrational East, which needs the West to watch over it” (Fortier, 1997, p.193). David Henry Hwang’s M. Butterfly, which is a rewrite of Puccini’s opera Madame Butterfly, is an example of orientalism in practice, but it is also combined with sexual oppression to “deconstruct the racist and sexist ideas in Puccini’s opera Madame Butterfly (Fortier, 1997, p.66). This is achieved at the climax “when a characterstrips to reveal the naked truth of his sexual identity” (Fortier, 1997, p.66). M. Butterfly is an\example of the fire that Bogart urges drama practitioners to light under stereotypes, where a classic opera is deconstructed, stripped of its outdated colonialist morals, and reinvented as a critique upon itself.These dramaturges and theorists provide only a snapshot of the nature of the subversive which permeates theatre practice. It is through such an atmosphere of subversivity where students can be encouraged to step out of their own traditional roles of language learners and adopt a new identity as masters of their own language, which is what DILL will ideally provide.A Case StudyLee Salisbury conducted a case study which proved that DILL, in the form of role play, was successful at getting students to step out of their situated social norm as L2 learners and achieve higher levels of their target language. Salisbury posits that each of us play many roles in our daily lives, and that “[n]o matter what language or dialect we speak-we are not the same in every social situation; we adapt to variations in place, time, and condition-we behave differently- we vary our language style” (Salisbury, 1970, p.332). At the time of the case study Salisbury was an English teacher in Hawaii who found that his students were reluctant to learn English, and rightfully so. Salisbury reminds us that, even today, “[t]hose of us who are concerned with teaching "standard English" are in the business of affecting social change” (Salisbury, 1970, p.331), and that we should be cognizant of those that we marginalize through this action, as “[t]hey are penalized because their life styles and languages differ from the Establishment norm” (Salisbury, 1970, p.331). Many of his students came from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, and felt oppressed when they were expected to learn English on their native soil.30Salisbury explains:“[t]he resistant student's unspoken question, "What's in it for me NOW?", is perhaps the largest problem which the ESL or ESD teacher faces. Other student reasons for resistance to language change are often expressed as follows: "What's wrong with the way I talk? It works just fine in my world." "I don't want to change into someone else-they're trying to whitewash me." "Nobody I know talks that way."... The students can't see the need for the language, are bored with the drills, and have the mistaken idea that the new language or dialect will erase their ethnic identity”(Salisbury, 1970, p.332).He acknowledges his students’ concerns of being ‘white-washed’, however he differentiatesbetween the students’ personal identities and their performed identities within the classroom,explaining that “[w]hen the student and teacher both come to realize that a person's dialects andstyles are determined, not by his race, but by the role he may be playing at a particular time andplace, the fear of "selling out" can be seen to be an unhappy misconception” (Salisbury, 1970,p.333). By acknowledging the pressure that students feel to conform to English, and thereforethe shadow of colonialist expectations that come with learning English, the issue may bemediated as a trying on of identities. No longer are students forced into identities that do notrepresent them, but instead are encouraged to explore different roles through dramatic playwhich can be taken off and left behind at the end of class. The strength of DILL is that it oftentakes the form of games, which mirrors the games we play as children when we first try on roles.As Salisbury points out, “[w]e are mimetic Creatures. We learn how to talk by imitating modelswe see around us. The language styles which we acquire are appropriate to the roles we see beingplayed. Games such as "House," "Doctor," "Cops and Robbers," and "School" are earlyrehearsals of the cluster of behavioral and language expectations for roles the mainstream childmay be called upon to play as an adult” (Salisbury, 1970, p.333). This behaviour can be seenboth within and outside of the classroom.31Betty Jane Wagner (1998a) also observed her elementary students create identities for themselves through drama activities, watching them in their spontaneous play. “They typically take on adult roles. Perhaps because they are little and powerless they want to be the captain of the rocket ship, the most powerful ninja, the bossy mother who knows what everyone needs and should be doing!” (Wagner, 1998, p.67m). While Wagner’s students approach their lessons from a vastly different point of view as Salisbury’s standoffish middle schoolers, the drama process is the same whereby “they are catapulted into a developmental level that is above the actual level determined by what they do on their own in the real world. In a drama, children are in Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development” (Wagner, 1998, p.67). Using dramatic role play to achieve a transcendence of developmental levels is also recognized by Salisbury, who believes that there is “no more natural way, within the context of the schoolroom, to teach these situational responses more effectively than through language-generating activities such as role playing. Perhaps it is because of my theater orientation that I believe that acting, or pretending, or "trying on" new behaviors is a natural part of human development” (Salisbury, 1970, p.334).In this case where his students reach for higher linguistic levels through role play, it seems that they are exemplifying Vygotsky’s (1984) zone of proximal development. Salisbury describes the drama game in which his students had engaged in, where conflicts were played out by two students: one student would play the role of a character who was from a dominating socio­economic class, while the other would play a character from a lower socio-economic class and be at the mercy of the other. Salisbury does not mention what the goal of the exercise was because he became fascinated with another aspect of the role play. “In almost every case, the student who chose to play the authority figure tried to speak using the standard dialect.32In fact, the more successfully the actor avoided Pidgin and used the standard dialect, the more delighted his peers became” (Salisbury, 1970, p.334). This illustrates Wagner’s point perfectly, demonstrating how drama creates a situation where students reach higher above their linguistic level to fill the role that they have taken on. And not only are the actors onstage conscious of the language needed to fill out the role, but students in the audience also connect to the roles being played. “Students rarely let an inappropriate behavioral response go by: "You didn't make me think that you were a doctor-doctors don't talk like that!" (Salisbury, 1970, p.334-335). Dramatic activities have a unique ability to connect both the performers and the audience in a collective creation of language, each spuming the other on to play the game by the mles and roles that are agreed upon at the beginning of the scene. “In the shelter of the game structure, they are able to use their new language spontaneously and unselfconsciously. The delight of the audience who, in turn, become actors themselves is all the payoff the students need” (Salisbury, 1970, p.336). Salisbury’s case study provides a salient example of how DILL can provide a realistic environment in which students are encouraged to reach higher levels of language development with high levels of internal motivation that stems from the energy of gameplay, instead of the external pressure of grades or teacher instruction. Salisbury notes that “(s]peaking is, after all, a spontaneous and improvisatory activity, and it should be rehearsed in as life-like an atmosphere as possible. As natural human behavior, role playing can provide the bridge between classroom drill and real-life utilization of new language patterns” (Salisbury, 1970, p, 336).33SummaryThis last note is as if from my own, in that speaking is a spontaneous activity and should therefore be rehearsed in an atmosphere which closely resembles real-life situations, and it is these situations which allow for the practice of newly acquired language in a safe environment. By showing L2 learners how to effectively use iconic gestures in DILL, they should be able to fortify their communicative exchanges with additional signifiers that can only help them convey meaning. As Emmorey asserts, delineating the difference between linguistic and affective gestures to students is a salient advantage to L2 students because it gives them a tool box of signifiers to draw from when they are in the middle of acquiring their target language, and when words will fail them at times. These iconic gestures stop short of being sign language, which has its own complex system of mechanics and grammar, but are closer to Brecht’s notion of icon. From students’ tool box of gestures they will be able to relax in an atmosphere where the emphasis is on saying less and meaning more, where a physical or verbal gesture can carry powerful meaning when placed in a performance, and where a frozen tableaux can be instilled with as much dialogue as a short story. I predict that the icons that are produced in the DILL classroom by students will be immature and may signify stereotypes, some of which will be misinterpreted across cultures, but Bogart affirms that stereotype is not to be feared. Performance, like any other media, is bound to carry stereotypes that must be deconstructed and addressed, which opens opportunity for teachable moments much like Boal’s Theatre of the Oppressed. And as Salisbury exemplified, performances are students acting a role and their projected image of what that character would do, which is not necessarily their own viewpoint.34The benefits are two-fold; students stretch their linguistic levels to fill the role, and the performance can be deconstructed for stereotypes without students feeling attacked since their role is not themselves. This next chapter will delve into the issue of how DILL follows DIESL in creating a safe environment where students are encouraged to take risks with their target language and try out new forms without fear of being socially ostracised. Such an environment is shown to be created through low affective atmosphere, which is proven to be a strength of drama in language learning activities by Culham (2003) and Shand (2008).35Chapter 3: Literature Review of Practical Aspects of DILLPreviously Established Notions of Affect and Anxiety within Drama in English as a Second LanguageRecently there is mounting evidence of the beneficial uses of drama and theatre in language acquisition, particularly in establishing a non-threatening environment. Recent publications which help establish the salient assets of DILL are Shand (2008) and Culham’s (2003) masters’ dissertations, which characterize the use of drama methodologies in language learning as fulfilling Krashen’s (1980) Natural Approach. Shand upholds that “[djrama has the potential to provide ELLs an opportunity to practice their English in a setting where they feel safe. Research suggests that drama holds the potential to lower anxiety and increase motivation for ELL students. Stem’s (1980) study showed that drama helped ESL students gain self confidence, and they felt less nervous speaking English in front of the group” (Shand, 2008, p. 15). Culham, who coinced the term “Drama in ESL (or^DEISL as it is referred to in thelexicon)” (Culham, 2003, p.3), also establishes the strengths of drama in language learning,. He\goes on to justify how DIESL is “an effective means of drawing our students out and towards one another” (Culham, 2003, p.3). In his thesis he upholds that “drama activities reach students directly at the level of affect. Affect is that area that covers feelings, emotions, mood, and temperament (Chaplin, 1975); [A]ffect learning not only involves learning about feelings and exercising feelings, but also discovering how you feel about learning about feelings” (Culham, 2003, p.3).36As well, Shand’s thesis builds on the affective benefits of drama in language learning, citingWagner’s essay (1998) which notes how “[d]rama is powerful because its unique balance ofthought and feeling makes learning exciting, challenging, relevant to reallife concerns, andenjoyable” (Wagner, 1998, p. 9). Studies have been conducted by Coleman (2005) on hisKorean EFL students, and by Stinston and Freebody (2006) on their EFL students in Singapore,measuring their levels of confidence and motivation after having finished DEESL classes. Thesestudies show that their students felt “much more confident speaking English as a result ofparticipating in an English speaking drama program, and most of them expressed a desire tocontinue to participate in a drama program” (Shand, 2008, p. 15). These two studies have helpedqualify the effectiveness of a drama language program, as they demonstrate students succeedingin a class situation where affect is low and motivation is high. Shand attributes the increasedconfidence and high motivation to the safe environment created through drama activities,previously exemplified by Salisbury’s (1970) case study of role play. Culham also affirms thisview that drama activities create a unique atmosphere conducive to language learning:In any actor-training program the onus is on the creation of a safe and collaborative setting in which all actors can freely express themselves. There the inevitable anxiety of taking on new roles and projects in mediated; there risks may be taken; there feelings can be explored without constraint. In theatre, there is and always has been, a deep understanding of the intrinsic value of the affective domain and of the environment that encourages its development. In performance, if an audience is to be reached, the actor, the director, the designers all need to “speak” the language of “affect” (Culham, 2003, p.3).It is this sensitivity to affect that gives drama, as Burke and O’Sullivan (2002) have affirmed,“the potential to lower English language learners affective filter, helping them lose theirinhibitions and overcome their shyness and anxiety. Drama is an engaging activity that canincrease motivation and cause students to forget that they are actually learning” (Shand, 2008,P-26).37A high affective filter can manifest in students as insecurity, shyness, or apparent lack of effort in learning the target language. Such behaviour is frustrating to both teachers and students, as it creates a wall between the content and the learner that seems insurmountable. Krashen and Terrell (1983) state that “the most important goal of the early stages of the Natural Approach is to lower the affective filter” (Krashen & Terrell, 1983, p.91). Shand reinforces this statement, adding that “the best ESL instruction will not succeed if the students’ affective filter prevents them from acquiring the language” (Shand, 2008, p.21). Since it is agreed that“[l]owering the affective filter is the key to successful second language acquisition” (Shand, 2008, p.21), then the main task of the SLA professor is to determine the most effective method of disarming this filter. Shand favours Krashen’s input hypothesis, outlining that “a second language is best acquired when students receive input that they can understand, but is slightly beyond what they already know (Krashen & Terrell, 1983)” (Shand, 2008, p. 19). Shand continues to extol the benefits of the input hypothesis, asserting that there will be a “silent period” (Shand, 2008, p. 19) in the L2 learner when they reach a linguistic stage that is in between comprehension and output. Such recognition for the need of a silent period is inherent in dramatic practices: students are encouraged to take a moment to collect themselves before stepping onstage in character, therefore the allowance of a few extra seconds of composure is common practice within the drama classroom. Tsui (1996) conducted a study in Hong Kong secondary schools on reluctant speakers within the. classroom, finding that it was not so much the students that were reluctant to speak but the teachers that had an intolerance of silence, giving the students “little or no wait time” (Tsui, 1996, p. 154).38This wait time is crucial for students, allowing them a moment for reflection (Tarvin & Al- Arishi, 1991) before putting ideas into words. Tarvin and Al-Arishi use Communicative Langauge Teaching, or CLT, as an example to illustrate the importance of reflection in the SLA process. They claim that “at present CLT with its emphases on conspicuous action and spontaneous response has unintentionally slighted the need and desire of language learners to abstract, generalize, and synthesize” (Tarvin & Al-Arishi, 1991, p.17). They encourage students to pause and reflect while engaged in a classroom activity, giving themselves a moment before communicating in the target language. Once students are “in the activity they should realize that a communicative alternative is a pausing to reflect in lieu of giving a "first-idea-off-the-top-of- your-head" response” (Tarvin & Al-Arishi, 1991, p. 14). They also remind the educator that “CLT intuitive activities should be complemented by those where comprehension does not spontaneously combust, where "time and space" (Underhill, 1989, p. 253) allow for a slow and gradual development, and where the learner is allowed to do some negotiating with herself/himself without being labeled as a "loner" (Rivers, 1983, p. 49) -in essence, where "learning is typified by silent reflection" (Breen & Candlin, 1979, p. 100)” (Tarvin & Al-Arishi, 1991, p.14). In the boisterous setting of the DILL classroom it would be easy for less extroverted students to get lost in the mix, giving way to a chaos of sound and movement where rewards are given to students with the fastest response times, instead of waiting for quality responses. While improvisational exercises are a valued part of the drama curriculum, they do not constitute the whole dramatic experience. A large slice of drama performance activities constitute of recreating scenes from daily life or imagination.39This may consist of solitary character work without props, or a staging of ‘extra-linguistic’ typesof input, such as realia and pictures” (Tarvin & Al-Arishi, 1991, p.12), which is one of the maintasks of a good CLT instructor according to Krashen and Terrell (1983). This use of sensoryexperiences, whether represented through performative icons or through the use of realia, coaxesstudents to express their experiences. However, Tarvin and Al-Arishi insist that it is thereflection period that allows L2 students to formulate the language to discuss these experiences,depicting that “the value of reflection is personal; it brings an inner satisfaction that one has doneone's best to confront an extraordinary situation. In the language classroom, we believe thatactivities which allow for the use of introspection before interaction will enhance a student's self-image because the student will have achieved a private fruition through intrapersonal testing,thereby eliminating certain first-notion responses. Consequently s/he will approach the valuablepublic negotiation of meaning with greater confidence” (Tarvin & Al-Arishi, 1991, p.17).Giving students extra time to reply is immensely helpful on both an affective and cognitive front,as outlined by Krashen and Terrell’s monitor hypothesis (1983). Shand explains:“the brain has an error-detecting mechanism, called the monitor, which picks up on accuracy and errors when using a second language (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). The monitor contains all our formal knowledge about a language. However, the monitor cannot engage until we have acquired some fluency and attempt to use a second language, and then the monitor lets us know when we have made a mistake. The monitor can hinder communication when we are more concerned with how we say something than with what we are saying. On the other hand, the monitor often does not engage when we are more concerned with the content of our speech then the correctness of it” (Shand, 2008, p. 19).This monitor hypothesis clearly describes the undercurrents that occur in the moments of panicwhen students feel they are overwhelmed with their target language, when they aresimultaneously negotiating the mechanics of the language as well as the need to communicate allat once.40This anxiety of overprocessing is also mentioned by Domyei (2005), who states, “[t]here is nodoubt that anxiety affects L2 performance” (Domyei, 2005, p. 198). Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope(1986) were the first to address Foreign Language Anxiety with the Foreign LanguageClassroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) (Horwitz, 2001). Shand reports:“According to Horwitz (2001), foreign language anxiety is independent,of other causes of anxiety, such as innate personality, test taking, or public speaking. Findings using the FLCAS are consistent, showing a negative correlation between anxiety and achievement in foreign language skills (Horwitz. 2001). While some have argued that perhaps anxiety is the result of poor achievement in L2 learning, Horwitz (2001) maintains that anxiety is a cause of poor L2 progress. Anxiety often stems from a fear of rejection. In the case of a second language learner, it is the fear of what others will think if he makes a mistake speaking the second language” (Shand, 2008, p.21).In light of Horwitz’s notion that anxiety causes poor L2 progress, instead of the reverse, drama\ ;has the potential to become a vehicle for language acquisition, one which may be able to negotiate the thistles of anxiety that bloom alongside SLA.The Affect of Physicality and Gesture in DIESLWhere Shand (2008) has focused on establishing how drama succeeds in SLA within Krashen and Terrell’s (1983) framework, Culham (2003) has focused on the affect of physicality, which is closer to my own view of how sign language icons and gestures can be used to assist DILL. Culham (2003) notes Russian director Meyerhold’s notion that “the essence of human relationships is determined by gestures, poses, glances and silences. Words alone cannot say everything...” (Braun, 1969, p.155). The synchronicity between Culham’s notions on the benefits of non-verbal signifiers in drama language education and my own are quite parallel. Earlier in chapter 2 Keir Elam (1980) asserts the problematic nature of a globalized system of theatrical signs.41Culham reinforces this view, stating:“[t]heatre is made out of signs. Many of these signs are verbal and recorded in scripts to be learnt and spoken and acted. But theatre also uses non-verbal sign- systems in the construction of a performance text.. .to the non-verbal sign-systems of the body, space, image, design, sound, ritual objects and light as meta languages which all have the potential to express more than can be conveyed through verbal signs alone. Understanding the various sign-systems of theatre and how they are used depends upon cultural learning; the signs may be specific to a certain culture, or class, and their cultural practices. (Neeland & Goode, 1995, p.42)”(Culham, 2003, p.44-45).Culham brings up the issue of cultural interpretation, in that people coming from different socio­cultural or socio-economic backgrounds will very likely view a performed gesture or icon differently, which is reminiscent of Pierce’s unlimited semiosis. No matter how well defined the performative action is, how accurate the icon may represent the signified, or what dialect is spoken, there will always been an external interpretation carried by the audience which will internalize different connotations. He also notes Arnold (1999) in Affect in Language Learning, who establishes that “the affective side of learning is not in opposition to the cognitive side” but that “when both are used together, the learning process can be constructed on a firmer foundation” (Arnold, 1999, p.l). Culham goes on to piece together the explanation of how affect displays “are body expressions which indicate the emotional state of the communicator... affect displays tend to be less consciously controllable than (body gestures)...consequently, many people carefully watch affect displays as a way of checking up on the veracity of verbal statements” (Eisenberg, 1971, p.27). Affective learning plays in language learning...It was only in the early 1970’s, as part of the general reaction against audiolingualism, that humanistic language teaching theory.. .placed affect and personality [italics added] at the centre of attention” (p. 85)” (Culham, 2003, p.3).42Where I lean on Brecht (1964) and Boal (1985) for dramaturgical literary theory, Culham (2003)sources Artaud’s (1958) The Theatre and its Double, which offers “the term “affectiveathleticism” to describe the sort of training that actors, to be effective, must undertake” (Culham,2003, p.4). Artaud (1958) asserts,“[o]ne must grant the actor a kind of affective musculature which corresponds to the physical localizations offeelings. The actor is like the physical athlete, but with this surprising difference: his affective organism is analogous to the organism of the athlete, is parallel to it, as if it were its double, although not acting upon the same plane. The actor is the athlete of the heart”(Artaud, 1958, p.133);This illustrates how training in the dramatic arts, much like training in any other discipline, hones ones senses to be both more perceptive at the art as well as more accurate in the execution. Drama is, after all, the craft of eliciting emotions in a performative medium, which situates itself in the heart of affectivity. Any kind of dramatic physical training, whether it be within the realm of the icon or within the realm of ffee-form play, stands to benefit L2 learners. While I tend to focus on the careful movements of the icon, Culham reminds educators of the importance of free-form play as well, stating that “[d]rama educators have always been conscious of the role physicality has on learners. ‘Not only do expression and gesture help to ‘fill out’ the words we are saying but they often express thoughts and feelings of which we may not be aware’ (Morgan & Saxton, 2000, p. 10)” (Culham, 2003, p.5). L2 students can only benefit from training in gestures and non-verbal communication, since “[a] central form of body language is gesture. ‘Gestures are manual symbols, just as words are graphic or auditory symbols’ (Bavelas, 1992, p.204). Bavelas (1994) states that ‘we are all uneducated gesturally; only future research will give us meta linguistic awareness of what we do and how we do it so well” (Culham, 2003,p.210).43This use of movement can only aid SLA educators in eliciting responses from students, as sometimes students are unaware of their own thoughts and feelings until they are externalized, and if a student’s level of language is inadequate to express a thought then non-verbal gesture should be encouraged as a communicative form. Too often a focus on correct grammar forces students to monitor themselves with prejudice, to censor their answers for mechanical errors until the answer is stripped of meaning. The use of gesture and movement within DILL gives learners a communicative advantage which can not only overcome the anxiety associated with SLA, but also puts learners in the act of formulating answers. Culham adds to this argument, stating that “[contemporary research supports the claim that students can learn to develop their kinaesthetic intelligence (Gardner, 1983). The latest brain research, Brown and Pleydell (1999) remind us, presents strong evidence that movement (lots of it) plays an essential role in thinking, learning, and sensory integration. A young child is most likely to recall a new word, concept, or sequence or information when movement has been part of the learning experience. ESL students can, in the same way, maximize their learning through movement (Hannaford, 1995)” (Culham, 2003, p.5). Research seems to suggest that, when it comes to acquiring a second language, sitting still in a desk trying to write out answers in the target language is a less effective method than getting up and acting out the ideas that one wants to communicate. Culham states a similar case, writing “[d]rama is an effective pedagogical tool because it only works when students are in motion” (Culham.2003.p.40-41). Wagner (1976) reinforces the importance of movement in education, affirming that “the great advantage of a nonverbal approach is that it stays at the universal level of understanding. It introduced a class to holistic human experiences that words haven’t yet broken up” (Wagner, 1976, p .l59).44In her later work she more specifically addresses drama in language learning, stating:to participate in a drama one needs to use the body not only to produce appropriate language but also to express emotion and ideas through gesture, posture, and facial expression. Because the scene in a drama is an imaginary one, the participant is free to exaggerate or assume a persona that frees him or her to experiment with a wider range of language than ordinary exchanges might evoke. (Wagner, 1998a, p.68)MotivationIn addition to lowering the anxiety and affective filters, I posit that dramatic methodologies also increase internal motivation in students, as opposed to external motivation provided by teacher feedback and grade pressure (Long & Crookes. 1992). Krashen and Terrell (1983) ascertain that “confident language learners with a positive self-image actually seek out meaningful input, and are better able to acquire a second language”, while “Clement, Domyei, and Noels (2001)... [argue] that self-confidence is the most important factor affecting the motivation of second language learners” (Shand, 2008, p.22). It is important to remember that while confidence is not a personality trait of certain students, it is something that can be built within the classroom. Introductory drama exercises, which may seem foolish and pointless at first glance, are actually designed to make students feel comfortable within the performance space. In fact, the goal of many drama exercises are to make students so comfortable that they feel safe performing the most ridiculous of scenes, without feeling embarrassed or self-conscious. As presented by Domyei (2005), “[i]t is easy to see why motivation is of great importance in SLA. It provides the primary impetus to initiate L2 learning and later the driving force needed to sustain the long and often tedious learning process; indeed, all the other factors involved with SLA presuppose motivation to some extent” (Domyei, 2005, p.65).45If what Domyei claims is true, then DILL should be able to provide a platform where students’ opportunity for SLA is at maximum effect due to the high confidence acquired within the drama classroom.Domyei focuses on learning tasks, and subsequently task motivation, which can be applied to a multitude of activities within the context of language learning. He defines a learning task as “a complex of various goal-oriented mental and behavioural operations that students perform during the period between the teacher’s initial task instructions and the completion of the final task outcome. Accordingly, learning tasks constitute the interface between educational goals, teacher and students” (Domyei, 2003, p.359lv). This definition of learning tasks has recently been folded into Task Based Language Teaching (Branden et al., 2009), which “clearly aligns with holistic types of education (in that students are asked to engage in complex behaviour that calls for the integrated use of different linguistic subskills in order to perform pedagogical tasks), meaning-based approaches (in the sense that the primary focus of the learner while performing calls for intensive learner activity, and creates ample opportunities for learner initiative and interaction with other learners)” (Branden, Bygate, & Norris, 2009, p.6). Within Task Based Language Teaching, or TBLT, “[s]ome of the traditional distinction between syllabus, or what is to be taught, and methodology, how to teach, is blurred in TBLT as the same unit of analysis (namely, task) is used (although just what is an appropriate task for different learners, and how tasks might be exploited remains a methodological issue)” (Branden, Bygate, & Norris, 2009, p.6). Drama in language education falls within the boundaries of TBLT, as it can be defined as a task which students must focus on accomplishing beyond the scope of language education, and therefore creates motivation to communicate in the target language.46As Domyei demarcates, “[t]his emerging new perspective of motivation has often been referred to as the ‘situation-specific’ approach (cf. Domyei, 1996; Julkunen, 1989,2001), and the study of task motivation can be seen in many ways as the culmination of this approach: motivation can hardly be examined in a more situated manner than within a task-based framework” (Domyei, 2003, p.358v). The strength of DILL is that the tasks are generally enjoyable, as is demonstrated by Boal’s notion of play in theatre. He states, “after a certain age we are told to stop playing andi ■take life seriously... ‘playing’ is one of the most powerful languages that you can have. To playis to use part of reality, to create and rehearse forms of transformation” (Boal, 1996, p.34-35). Itis precisely this element of play within drama, and by association within DILL, that makesactivities enjoyable and therefore internally motivating. Dornyei outlines the difference betweentwo different types of motivation when confronted with a task, stating that “a learner will bemotivated both by generalized, task-independent factors (e.g., overall interest in the subjectmatter) and situation-specific, task-dependant factors (e.g., the challenging nature of the task).Task motivation would be the composite of these two motivational sources (cf. Julkunen, 2001)”(Domyei, 2003, p.359vi). To reinforce this point he cites a study conducted by Noels, Clementand Pelletier (1999):“focusing on the motivational impact of the language teacher’s communicative/instructional style, the researchers have found that -  quite logically -  the degree of the teachers’ support of student autonomy and the amount of informative feedback they provided were in a direct positive relationship with the students’ sense of self-determination (autonomy) and enjoyment. However, this directive influence did not reach significance with students who pursued learning primarily for extrinsic (instrumental) reasons, which indicated that those learners who studied a language primarily because they had to were less sensitive to this ' aspect of teacher influence than those who did it of their own free will” (Domyei,2003, p.362vii).47This study illustrates how higher internal motivation is generated by language learners who enjoy the tasks set before them, compared to a lower level of motivation held by language learners who are in the class for extrinsic reasons. DILL is highly prized for the element of play, exemplified by the numerous warm-up games played at the beginning of each drama class. Most classes are levelled: Class begins with a game, secondly moving into a student-centred activity, and finishing with individual reflection. The games and activities are generally active, dynamic, challenging, and fun. Domyei clarifies how external motivational forces, such as instructions from the teacher, parental pressure, or pressure to achieve a high grade in the class, may be a less effective motivational force than enjoyment in the specific task.Another motivational factor that Domyei discusses is time, establishing that “[ujsing time as an organising principle provides a natural way of ordering the relevant motivational influences onto various distinct stages of the motivational sequence along a temporal axis” (Domyei, 2003, p.362vm). Often within the DILL classroom, activities will have a time limit that is set much shorter than what students need to create a finished scene to present. The reason for setting a premature time limit is twofold: affect and motivation. DILL is not meant to train students in preparation for professional theatre, but to create the safe atmosphere within which students feel free to explore communication in both speech and non-verbal modes. A premature time limit acknowledges that students are not expected to create a polished piece of theatre within the classroom, but instead are expected to attempt to communicate an idea as clearly as possible given the time constraints, which removes the pressure of creating a finished scene and therefore lowers affect. The effectiveness of DILL in lowering affect has already been covered earlier in chapter 3.48Secondly, motivation is heightened by a time limit within communicative activities because it puts pressure on students in the same way a timer works in any board game, hastening the process of a task without consequential repercussions outside of the game. Drama activities act in the same psychological sphere as board games, in that the motivation.stems from an adherence to the rules of the game, not from a fear of consequences shown on a report card. This is exemplified by the study conducted by Noels, Clement and Pelletier (1999) which differentiates between internal motivating factors, which in this case is time limit of the drama game, and external motivating factors, which are parental and educational pressures.Towards Drama in Language Learning with a Task Based Language Teaching FrameworkDomyei provides insight on motivation that applies to both DIESL and TBLT, which is where I must differentiate between DIESL and DILL. I believe that the addition of TBLT to the DIESL model will fill in gaps that Krashen’s Natural Approach shows. Long and Crookes cite how Prabhu “denies the sufficiency of comprehensible input (Krashen, 1982), but he supports the idea that students need plenty of opportunity to develop their comprehension abilities before any production is demanded of them” (Long & Crooks, 1992, p.64). They also point out how Prabhu “claims that with Krashen that language form is acquired subconsciously through “the operation of some internal system of abstract rules and principles” (Prabhu, 1987, p.70) when the learner’s attention is focused on meaning, i.e., task-completion, not language” (Long & Crooks, 1992, p.64). Shand and Culham have paved the way for DILL, establishing how drama can succeed in the affective realm and how it fulfills Krashen’s Natural Approach.49However, drama in language learning seems such a vast entity so as to overflow Krashen’s cup, in that his framework is unable to contain all that DILL may have to offer.I believe that TBLT provides a complimentary practical addition to the solid foundations that have been established by Shand and Culham.Task Based Language TeachingThus far it has been established that a teaching task in language acquisition is one which sets the focus of the learner past the language acquisition process so that use of the target language becomes communicative (Domyei, 2003), where students do not get stuck in the midst of the monitor hypothesis (Krashen and Terrell, 1983), and where the emphasis of both the learner and the teacher is on effective communicative use of the target language instead of a perfected language output (Prabhu, 1987). In addition, Prabhu makes a bold claim by denying the sufficiency of Krashen’s comprehensible input, as mentioned by Long and Crookes (1992). In the same article, Long and Crookes outline that “[t]he basic rationale for TBLT derives from SLA research, particularly descriptive and experimental studies comparing tutored and naturalistic learning. Results suggest that formal instruction (a) has no effect on developmental sequences, (b) has a positive effect on the use of some learning strategies, as indicated by the relative frequencies of certain error types in tutored and untutored learners, (c) clearly improves rate of learning, and (d) probably improves the ultimate level of SL attainment (Doughty, 1991; Long, 1988). These advantages for instruction cannot be explained as the result of classroom learners having received more or better comprehensible input, which is necessary, but insufficient (cf. Krashen, 1985), for major aspects of SLA” (Long & Crookes, 1992, p.70lx).50It seems that Long and Crookes also find Krashen’s comprehensible input to be insufficient for SLA, which leads me to believe that the framework of Krashen’s Natural Approach is not the best framework for DILL. Instead, TBLT seems to provide a more comprehensive model which fits DILL. However, Long and Crookes make a distinction between CLT, as mentioned previously by Tarvin and Al-Arishi (1991) as Communicative Language Teaching, and TBLT (Prabhu, 1990). Examples of CLT “include calculating distances and planning itineraries using maps and charts, assessing applicants for a job on the basis of biographical sketches, completing “whodunit” stories, and answering comprehension questions about dialogues. These are not necessarily activities students will ever need to do or do in English outside the classroom (although they may be useful for language learning).” (Long & Crookes, 1992, p.64-65x). The major difference between CLT and TBLT emerged from Prabhu’s Bangalore Project (1980), which focused “not in the tasks themselves, but in the accompanying pedagogic focus on task completion instead of on the language used in the process (for discussion, see Beretta, 1989; Prabhu, 1990). Two of the more salient innovations concerned the kind of input to which pupils were exposed and the absence of overt feedback on error” (Long and Crookes, 1992, p.65xl).The applicability to DELL emerges in the focus on errors, as Long and Crookes note, “[wjhere errors are concerned, ungrammatical learner utterances are accepted for their content, although, they may be reformulated by the teacher (what Prabhu, 1987, p.61, calls “incidental,” as opposed to “systematic,” correction) in the same way that a caretaker reacts to the truth value of a child’s speech and provides off-record corrective feedback in the process. In these and other areas, Prabhu’s pedagogic proposals are strikingly similar to those of the Natural Approach (Krashen & Terrell, 1983)” (Long & Crookes, 1992, p.65xu). The two pedagogic proposals are similar but not the same, which makes a world of difference to the applicability of these concepts to DILL.While both the Natural Approach and TBLT allow L2 learners leeway for error without immediate corrective feedback, TBLT is designed to address errors in an ‘off-record’ manner so that affectivity will remain low, whereas the Natural Approach assumes that continuous modelling of correct forms of the target language will be enough for learners to notice andicorrect errors autonomously. Within DILL, one does not want to impede students’jcommunicative flow because it will not only raise affectivity, but also may be perceived as an act of appropriation from students on their performative work. Still, SLA students do require explicit feedback on errors made in the target language if they are to improve, which is included in Prabhu’s TBLT framework.The contrast between the Natural Approach and TBLT seems to be one of room for error feedback versus zero feedback, while on the other end of the pedagogic spectrum is a comparison between what Long and Crookes call “Type A”, or synthetic syllabuses, and “Type B”, or analytic syllabuses (Long & Crookes, 1992). They define the Type A synthetic syllabus as a “focus on what is to be learned: the L2. They are interventionist. Someone preselects and predigests the language to be taught, dividing it up into small pieces, and determining learning objectives in advance of any consideration of who the learners may be or of how languages are learned. Type A syllabuses, White points out, are thus external to the learner, other-directed, determined by authority, set the teacher as decision maker, treat the subject matter of instruction as important, and assess success and failure in terms of achievement or mastery” (Long & Crookes, 1992, p.59). In vast contrast, they define the Type B analytic syllabus as a “focus on how the language is to be learned. They are noninterventionist.52They involve no artificial preelection or arrangement of items and allow objectives to be determined by a process of negotiation between teacher and learners after they meet, as a course evolves. They are thus internal to the learner, negotiated between learners and teacher as joint decision makers, emphasize the process of learning rather than the subject matter, and assess accomplishment in relationship to learners' criteria for success” (Long & Crookes, 1992, p.59).Type A syllabuses echo the traditional format of creating a language lesson so that it conforms to qualitative measures, so that at the end of the day the instructor has a numerical value that supposedly represents their students’ achievement in the target language. It is the Type B syllabus championed by Long and Crookes which fits DILL perfectly as a task-based approach, whether it be applied to onstage performative features or the backstage technical aspects of theatrical stagecraft. Long and Crookes warn against a misrepresented Type A syllabus which attempts to “disguise the underlying focus on isolated linguistic forms by avoiding overt drills in the teaching materials that embody the syllabus and instead, while ostensibly dealing with a topic, situation, or most recently task, seed dialogues and texts with the linguistic item of the day. This approach is notorious, however, for producing stilted samples of the target language -  artificial because they are written to conform to a set of linguistic specifications (e.g., a 600-word vocabulary and two verb tenses) supposedly defining “levels of proficiency,” and so do not reflect how people speak or write (much less learn) the language concerned (see Long & Crookes, in press)” (Long & Crookes, 1992, p.60™). The Type A syllabuses are “flawed because they assume a model of language acquisition unsupported by research findings on language learning in or out of classrooms” (Long & Crookes, 1992, p.60xiv).53In the case of DILL it is the focus on the task of creating a dramatic scene, or dramatic scenery, which defines it as being a Type B syllabus because drama is a collaborative process, whether it is a beginner’s drama class or a semi-professional theatrical production. The introductory drama class requires a collective interpretation on behalf of the audience, who collectively creates the suspension of disbelief to support the communicative icons being represented in the performance. This collaborative effort also occurs on a grander scale with the theatrical production because each member must work together to create a unified signifying message that is delivered in the form of a packaged show, with the director, actors, and designers all cooperatively contributing their interpretations of the performance. The task is to have a prepared show in time for opening night, which then makes acquisition of the target language a negotiable aspect of the task, not the task itself. Long and Crookes reiterate, “[w]hile it also involves the acquisition of social and cultural knowledge, language learning is a psycholinguistic process, not a linguistic one, yet synthetic syllabuses consistently leave the learner out of the equation” (Long & Crookes, 1992, p.63xv). Within DILL the learner is (pardon the pun) centre stage, and cannot be left out of the equation. Within a theatrical production students must embrace the script, even as backstage technicians and designers, and are therefore are required to negotiate the cultural and social aspects of staging a play that was written from someone else’s point of view and most likely from another culture or time period.54SummaryShand and Culham have undoubtedly established the use of drama in ESL as an effective methodology to overcome the high levels of affect which come with language learning. Shand champions Krashen’s Natural Approach as a framework to emphasise DIESLs ability to increase motivation and lower anxiety in L2 students. One salient method of practice within DIESL that is proven to increase motivation and decrease anxiety is giving students extra time to formulate responses, as researched by Tsui. Tarvin and Al-Arishi also support giving students extra moments of ‘reflection’ to avoid eliciting premature responses from students. By giving students this extra time to compose and reflect in the L2, students are not caught up in the monitor hypothesis of attempting to correct the mechanics of the target language while formulating an answer, therefore they will not be overwhelmed or anxious, and will feel more confident in their responses. This extra response time is crucial after engaging in sensory exercises such as DIESL or DILL, which place high linguistic demands on the L2 learner by asking them to translate physical gestures and non-verbal communicative activities into speech and words.Culham mirrors my own belief in the use of gesture and non-verbal communicative modes for drama in language education, but he draws from different sources. Where I draw from Pierce, Brecht, and Emmorey, he draws on Meyerhold, Neeland and Goode, and Artaud. These differences only prove to supplement each other, as it seems that we both strive to see drama in language education become recognized as a serious academic discipline. While Culham labels his work DIESL, I choose to call my pursuit DILL. The difference between the two is that DILL incorporates Task Based Language Learning to fill the gaps that comprehensible input leaves open, according to Prabhu.55Domyei’s motivational concepts provide the first example of how the TBLT framework suits DILL better than Krashen’s Natural Approach. He cites how ‘enjoyable’ tasks and time restraints are ideal types of encouragement because they create intrinsic motivation, as opposed to extrinsic encouragement such as parental and teacher input. Long and Crookes provide the second example of how TBLT is a fully functioning framework for DILL, illustrating how TBLT creates opportunities for Type B analytic syllabuses instead of Type A synthetic syllabuses. The contrived nature of the Type A synthetic syllabus does not represent the goals of a pragmatic language lesson which aims to prepare L2 learners for the communicative demands of daily target language use, while the Type B analytic syllabus supports the collaborative nature of DILL. A Type B analytic syllabus supports role drama and scenario performances because within DILL, each exercise becomes a phsycholinguistic one.56ConclusionThe next step is to create a working curriculum to put all of the theory mentioned here into practice. There exist an astounding number of drama activities and games that beg to be applied to the language learning classroom, but have yet to be used due to a lack of justification. Surely, with the pressures exerted from parents and administrators, educators feel obligated to translate classroom activities into quantifiable grades that can be written as numerical values on report cards. The thought of spending time playing drama games, something that is far from quantifiable, is hard to justify when the semester comes to a close and marks are due. Therefore, the next logical step in research is to outline a methodology of translating all of the theoretical frameworks and foundations mentioned in this paper into quantifiable activities and values. I look forward to the challenge of designing such a curriculum.Thus far this paper has been an exploration of the theories and frameworks that espouse drama to second language acquisition, thereby giving birth to Drama in Language Learning. There are a nebula of drama games that float around waiting to be used, but without applicability or specific purpose. The problem with drama games is the same problem that William Ball brings up with stage directions: the stage directions that come with a script are written for a specific theatre, specific time, and specific performance (Ball, 1984). In order to engage a script and create a meaningful piece of theatre, one must cross out the stage directions and look only at the spoken text because it is within the language that the heart of drama lies. The subtext, the actions, the culture, and the characters are all derived from the language. This same approach needs to be taken to all those homeless drama activities: they need to be stripped bare of all circumstantial evidence and applied, in this case, to the language learning classroom.57In Bogart’s words, they need a fire lit under them (2001). Because without such a transformation, drama activities will remain shallow and unusable,I hope that the theories presented here will enable language educators to take dramatic and theatrical conventions and use them. There is value in every use of drama in language learning, from the shortest role play to the grandest stage production. Pierce’s unlimited semiosis should have built up a literary base with which Brecht’s icon can be rationalized. The use of the icon in a performative manner is essential to navigating the suspension of disbelief, which is a foundation of any game or performance. From there one has to believe that the icon can exist in multiple modes: as speech, as gesture, as something between the two, or as a combination of both.I find that I focus far too much on speech, since I am a language educator by trade. This is why Emmm’orey provides such a keen perspective on the non-verbal practices of language acquisition that are often ignored in SLA. It is uncanny how Brecht’s notion of the icon is reiterated by Emmorey, although Emmeorey’s aim is the communicative use of the icon while Brecht maintains a performative stance. As a language educator, I am caught in the middle of the two and happily negotiate between either argument, whether it be for the linguistic or affective use of non-verbal communication. Ultimately, both stances are useful within DILL, depending on the tasks of the day. The only sticky part is the socio-cultural representation of the icon, which when placed into immature hands may result in immature stereotypes of people.This is negotiated by Bogart, with the assistance of Said and Boal. Between these three theorists, any negative stereotype can be deconstructed through asking who created the archetypical icon and the reasons why that archetype is oppressive.58Ideally, as in the example of M. butterfly, after the deconstruction the stereotype can be reinvented to make a critique on the same forces that caused it to be oppressive in the first place. The final chapter on Task Based Language Learning provides a theoretical spearhead into the practical applications of DILL. Pragmatic aspects such as motivation, time allowance, reflection, and task syllabus are discussed in abstract but are therefore primed to be put into action soon. It seems that, from a theoretical standpoint, DILL is ready to be implemented.Hopefully at this point the hard work is done, and the rest is all follow through. The theoretical groundwork has been laid to outline the kind of mindset that one has to view DILL through to get any sort of value from it, either linguistically or socially. This theoretical framework acts as a processing station for theatre activities by injecting literary theory, gestural awareness, and socio-cultural elements into drama classroom activities which one might prepare for their language learners. After having gone through the DILL framework, I argue that any drama game or theatre activity will have meaningful content and interaction for language learners in a classroom. The easy, and fun, part now is to now get out and play those games with students.59BibliographyAlderson, C. (2009). Test of English as a foreign language: Internet-based test (TOEFL iBT). Language Testing, 26(4), 621-632.Artaud, A. (1958). The theatre and its double (M.C. Richards, Trans.). New York: Grove Press.Bakhtin, M. (1968) Rabelais and His World, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Ball, W. (1984). A Sense of Direction: Some Observations on the Art o f Directing.Barthes, R. (1972a) Critical Essays, Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Bavelas, J.B. (1992). Interactive gestures. Discourse Processes, 15,469-489.Bavelas, J.B. (1994). Gestures as part of speech: Methodological implications. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 27(3), 201-221.Bejar, I., Douglas, D., Jamieson, J., Nissan, S., & Turner, J. (2000). TOEFL 2000 listening framework: A working paper. TOEFL Monograph Series,MA -  19. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Beretta, A. (1989). Attention to form or meaning? Error treatment in the Bangalore Project. TESOL Quarterly, 23 (2), 283-303.Boal, A. (1985) Theatre of the Oppressed, New York: Theatre Communications Group.Bogart, Anne. (2001) A Director Prepares Seven Essays on Art and Theatre. New York: Routledge.Branden, K.V. et al. (Eds.). (2009). Task-Based Language Teaching A Reader. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.Braun, E. (1969). Meyerhold on theatre. London: Methuen.Brecht, B. (1964) Brecht on Theatre: The Development of an Aesthetic, New York: Hill and Wang.Bruner, J. (1984) Vygotsky's zone of proximal development: The hidden agenda. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development. 23. p.93-97.Bryson, Bill. (1990). The Mother Tongue: English & How It Got That Way. Harper Collins Publisher. NY, NY.60Burke, A. F. & O’Sullivan, J.C. (2002). Stage by stage: A handbook for using drama in the second language classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Carlson, M. (1990) Theatre Semiotics: Signs of Life, Bloomington: Indiana. University Press.Clement, R., Domyei, Z., Noels, K. (1994). Motivation, self-confidence, and group cohesion in the foreign language classroom. Language Learning, 44(3), 417-448.Coleman, L. E. (2005). Drama-based English as a foreign language instruction for Korean adolescents. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66 (UMI number 3184346).Culham, C. (2003). Making the conversations possible: drama as a methodology in thedeveloping the language o f the everyday in ESL classrooms (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.comDomyei, Z. (2005/ The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences insecond language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Eisenberg, A.M., & Smith, R.R. (1971). Nonverbal communication. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company.Emmorey, Karen. (2002.) Language, Cognition, and the Brain. Insights from Sign languageResearch.Fortier. Mark. Theorv/Theatre and introduction. 2nd Ed. Routledge books, NY, NY. 1997.Elam, K. (1980) The Smeiotics of Theatre and Drama, London: Routledge.Greenblatt, S. (Ed.) (1997) The Norton Shakespeare Based on the Oxford Edition. As you Like it. New York: Norton & Company Inc. p. 1592-1657,Horwitz, E. K. (2001). Language, anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21,112-126.Krashen, S. & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the Classroom. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hal!Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. N.Y., N.Y.: Pergamon Press.Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. N.Y., N.Y.: Pergamon Press.Long, M., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three Approaches to Task-based Syllabus Design. TESOL quarterly 26,27-56.61Long, M., & Norris, J. (2000). Task-based teaching and assessment. M. Byram (Ed.),Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning (pp.597-603). London:Routledge.Makaryk, I.R. (ed.) (1993) Encyclopedia of Contemporary Literary Theory: Approaches,Scholars, Terms, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Neelands, J., & Goode, T. (1995). Playing in the margins of meaning: The ritual aesthetic in community performance. Journal of National Association of Drama in Education (Australia), 19(1), 39-56.Pierce, C. (1991) Pierce on Signs, J. Hoopes (ed.), Chapel Hill: University of North CarolinaPress.Prabhu, N. S. (1980). Theoretical background to the Bangalore project. In Regional Institute of English, South India, Bulletin, 4(1), 17-26. Bangalore, India: Author.Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Rosenblatt, L.M. (1978). The Reader, the text, the poem. New York: Southern Illinois University Press.Said, E. (1978) Orientalism, New York: Pantheon.Salisbury, L. (1970). Role Playing: Rehearsal for Language Change. TESOL Quarterly, 4(4), p.331-336.Saussure, F. de (1974) Course in General Linguistics, New York: Fontana/Collins.Sawaki, Y., Strieker, L. J., & Oranje, A. H. (2009). Factor structure of theTOEFL Internet-based test Language Testing, 26(1), 5-30.Saxton, J. Miller, C. (Eds.). (1998). Drama and Theatre in Education, The Research of Practice, The Practice of Research. Brisbane: IDEA Publications.Stanton, S., Banham, M (eds.)(1996). Cambridge Paperback Guide to Theatre. New York:Cambridge University Press.Shand, J.W. (2008). The use of drama to reduce anxiety and increase confidence in motivation towards speaking English with two groups o f English language learners (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.comStern, S. L. (1980). Drama in second language learning from a psycholinguistic perspective. Language Learning, 30(1), 77-100.62Stinson, M., & Freebody, K. (2006). Modulating the mosaic: Drama and oral language. In L.A. McCammon & D. McLauchlan (Eds.), Universal mosaic of drama and theatre: The IDEA 2004 Dialogues (pp. 193-200). St. Catharines, ON: SoleMDEA PublicationsTarvin, W. and Al-Arishi, A.Y. (1991). Rethinking Communicative Language Teaching: Reflection and the EFL Classroom. TESOL Quarterly. 25(1). Pg. 9-27.Tsui, A. (1996). Equations of expression. In K. Bailey & D. Nunan (eds.), Voices from the language classroom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. London: Harvard University Press.Wagner, B.J. (1998a). Drama as a way of knowing. In C. Miller and J. Saxton (Eds.), Theresearch of practice, the practice of research (pp.57-72). Brishbane: IDEA: Publications.Wagner, B.J. (1976). Dorothy Heathcote: Drama as a learning medium. London: Hutchison & Co.Wall, D. & Horak, T. (2008b). The impact of changes in the TOEFL examination on teaching and learning in a sample of countries in Europe:Phase 3, The role of the coursebook. Phase 4, Describing change.Manuscript submitted for publication, Lancaster University.Chapter 21 ii'brama and Theatre in Education. The Research of Practice. The Practice o f Research. Eds. Saxton, J & Miller, C. 1998. Idea Publications. Victoria, BC.Chapter 3'*iiBranden, K. V. et al. (Eds). (2009). Task-Based Language Teaching A Reader. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.63


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items