Colloquial language used in speaking classes by the English major sudents of Foreign Language Faculty - Thai Nguyen University= Ngôn ngữ thông tục được sử dụng

VIET NAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY-HA NOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
DEPARTMENT OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
****************

NGUYỄN DƢƠNG HÀ




COLLOQUIAL LANGUAGE USED IN SPEAKING CLASSES
BY THE ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS OF FOREIGN
LANGUAGE FACULTY – THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY

(Ngôn ngữ thông tục được sử dụng trong các tiết học nói của sinh viên
chuyên ngành tiếng Anh Khoa Ngoại Ngữ - Đại học Thái Nguyên)


M.A Minor Thesis




Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60 14 10

Hanoi – 2012

VIET NAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY-HA NOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
DEPARTMENT OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
****************


NGUYỄN DƢƠNG HÀ



COLLOQUIAL LANGUAGE USED IN SPEAKING
CLASSES BY THE ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS

OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE FACULTY
– THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY
(Ngôn ngữ thông tục được sử dụng trong các tiết học nói của
sinh viên chuyên ngành tiếng Anh Khoa Ngoại Ngữ
- Đại học Thái Nguyên)

M.A Minor Thesis



Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60 14 10
MA course: 18
Supervisor: Nguyễn Hƣơng Giang, M.A






Hanoi - 2012




TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i
ABSTRACT ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii

LISTS OF ABBREVIATIONS vi
LISTS OF TABLES AND CHARTS vi
PART I – INTRODUCTION 1
1. Rationale of the study 1
2. Aims of the study 2
3. Research questions 2
4. Significance of the study 2
5. Scope of the study 3
6. Method of the study 3
7. Design of the study 3
PART II – DEVELOPMENT 5
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 5
1.1. Stylistic varieties of English language 5
1.2. Colloquial English speech 7
1.2.1. Key terms: Colloquial/ informal/ casual/ conversational English 7
1.2.2. General characteristics of colloquial English speech 8
1.2.3. Main features of colloquial English speech 9
1.2.3.1. Phonetic and phonological features 9
1.2.3.2. Morphological features 10
1.2.3.3. Syntactical features 10
1.2.3.4. Lexical features 11
1.2.4. Significance of colloquial English speech 14
1.3. Colloquial English speech used by the native 15
CHAPTER 2: THE STUDY 16
2.1. Data collection 16
2.1.1. Participants 16
2.1.2. Instrument 17
2.1.3. Data collection procedures 17
2.2. Data analysis and discussion 18

2.2.1. Analysis of the questionnaire for students 18
2.2.1.1. Students‟ language background 19
2.2.1.2. The students‟ perceptions of colloquial English speech 20
2.2.1.3. The attitudes of students to the use of colloquial English in
speaking classes 26
2.2.1.4. Analysis of colloquial English used in FLF English major
students‟ speech 29
2.2.2. Analysis of teachers‟ interview responses 35
2.2.2.1. Teachers‟ definitions of colloquial English speech 35
2.2.2.2. Teacher‟s opinions of the importance of colloquial
English speech teaching 36
2.2.2.3. The teaching of colloquial English speech in Foreign
Language Faculty 36
2.2.2.4. Teachers‟ assessment of their students‟ competence of speaking colloquial
English in the classroom 37
2.2.2.5. Teachers‟ list of possible factors influencing students‟ colloquial English
speech use in the classroom 38
CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS 41
3.1. Findings 41
3.1.1. The frequency of using colloquial English speech in the classroom 41
3.1.2. Students‟ competence of using colloquial English speech 42
3.1.3. Factors influencing the students‟ competence of using colloquial
English speech 42
3.2. Implications 44
PART III – CONCLUSION 47
1. Conclusions 47
2. Limitations and recommendations for further research 47
REFERENCES 48

APPENDIX 1 I
APPENDIX 2 VII






LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A1: American teacher 1
A2: American teacher
EOA: English oral proficiency at the advanced level
ESL/EFL: English as a Foreign Language/ English as a Second Language
FLF: Foreign Language Faculty
G1: Group1
G2: Group 2
G3: Group 3
G4: Group 4
V1: Vietnamese teacher 1
V2: Vietnamese teacher 2
V3: Vietnamese teacher 3

LIST OF CHARTS AND TABLES
Chart 1: The distribution of students‟ high interest in four language skills
Chart 2: Students‟ self-assessment of their competence of speaking colloquial English
Chart 3: Teachers‟ assessment of their students‟ competence of using colloquial English
Table 1: Participants‟ personal information
Table 2: Participants‟ perceptions of the context where colloquial English speech is used
Table 3: Participants‟ perceptions of the role of colloquial English speech
Table 4: Participants‟ perceptions of the specific features of colloquial English speech
Table 5: Students‟ attitudes to the use of classroom colloquial English speech
Table 6: Analysis of phonetics features used in students‟ speaking classes
Table 7: Analysis of morphological features used in students‟ speaking classes
Table 8: Analysis of syntactic features used in students‟ speaking classes
Table 9: Analysis of lexical features used in students‟ speaking classes
Table 10: Teacher‟s opinions of the importance of colloquial English speech teaching

PART I – INTRODUCTION

1. Rationale of the study
English nowadays is not the language of each separate country but has become an
international language. This language is considered as a tool to help people all over the world
communicate and understand one another. However, people who use English as a foreign
language (EFL) often find it difficult to communicate effectively with the native and their
communication, in most cases, is assessed to be unnatural, „bookish‟ and even inappropriate
with the speaking setting. For example, when best friends or classmates talk to each other in
informal settings, they often use such overly formal words and expressions as „Sir‟, „May I‟ or
„Would you like‟, etc. Even though most native speakers accept such errors in the speech of
non-native speakers, they may feel uncomfortable because of the non-native‟s overly formal
language. It is said that, sometimes, register errors can be as serious as social gaffes if the
language is not appropriately used in a specific speaking context.

Moreover, when listening to daily conversations on the tape and in the real life, the
researcher realised that colloquial language is much used by the native speaker. This
realisation has been consolidated by the exploration of the other researchers that in the
native‟s speech, actually, „real people don‟t talk like books‟ but use mostly „the language of
the streets‟ that consists of various colloquial or informal expressions (Engkent, 1986: 225)
and it is the non-standard or colloquial expressions that are the uniqueness of everyday
English used by the native (Suksriroj, 2009: 12). However, when listening to these
conversations, many students including English majors at Foreign Language Faculty (FLF)
find it hard to get the ideas although there are not many new words on the listening script.
Obviously, most of them have quite good command of English grammar, speak English
accurately and are able to understand speech which is deliberately addressed to a foreign
student but have much difficulty in following speech which is primarily addressed to native
speakers as well as in communicating effectively with them.
That fact urged the researcher to explore the use of colloquial language by English major
students at the place where the researcher is working and the study on colloquial English in
the speaking classes has been carried out.
2. Aims of the study



The study aims at assessing FLF English major students‟ frequency and competence of
using colloquial English in their speaking classes. Then, the study focuses on investigating the
factors influencing the use of colloquial English in the classroom setting so that teachers can
find out effective ways to make this style more accessible to students. The further purpose of
this study is to help non-native students minimize the register errors and be as likely to speak
English as the native.
3. Research questions
This study will seek the answers to the above mentioned issue through three research
questions as follows:
1. How frequently do English major students in Foreign Language Faculty (FLF) use

colloquial English in their speaking classes?
2. How does the frequency reflect the students‟ competence of speaking colloquial
English in their classroom?
3. What factors influence the students‟ acquisition of colloquial English in their speaking
classes?
4. Significance of the study
Using colloquial language in the appropriate context will be the key to communication
success. Thus, the study on colloquial English used in the non-native‟s speaking classes can
partly contribute to the improvement of learners‟ communicative competence with the native
in the real social setting. More importantly, this may be useful for students to improve their
comprehension skills such as listening and reading in real contexts because colloquialisms are
frequently used in speeches and texts produced by the native. Thanks to that, students will
gain their self-confidence when communicating with native people.
It is hoped that this study will open a new way to make communicative language teaching
method more accessible to students. If this study is done, teachers and textbook writers may
have a new look at the status of English speaking teaching in classroom, so they may pay
more attention to the register errors in students‟ use of English in the class.
5. Scope of the study
There are many important perspectives of language use, but this study just focuses on the
conversational register with the use of colloquial style. In this study, colloquial speech will be
defined only as informal/ everyday conversational speech. The study will be based on the
main features of colloquial English speech to find out the frequency of informal language
produced by English major students in their speaking classes. The participants are all fourth-
year students majoring on English in Foreign Language Faculty – Thai Nguyen University.



These students are selected because they have gained basic knowledge and sufficient
techniques in speaking. They are considered to be at the advanced level and know a lot of
English. At this level, we need to show students what still has to be done and provide them

clear evidence of progress. We can do this through a concentration not so much on
grammatical accuracy, but on style and perceptions of appropriacy, connotation and inference,
helping students to use language with more subtlety. (Jeremy Harmer, p. 13)
6. Method of the study
With the aim of seeking the answer to the issue raised above, survey research was used
in this study with the instruments such as questionnaires, interview transcripts and field notes.
Aiming at exploring the frequency of students‟ colloquial English use in their speaking
classes to assess students‟ competence of using colloquial language and finding out the factors
influencing the students‟ competence of colloquial English, questionnaires with closed-ended
questions and Likert-type scales were delivered to the fourth-year students.
Besides, the researcher conducted semi-structured interviews with both native and non-
native teachers with the help of the audio recorder and field notes to find out the factors
affecting the use of colloquial English in students‟ conversational classes.
7. Design of the study
The study includes three main parts as following:
The first part – Introduction – provides the motivation for the research, identifies the
aims, research questions, significance, scope, methods and design of the study.
The second part – Development – consists of three chapters.
Chapter 1- Theoretical background - provides an overview of theories for the study.
Chapter 2 – Contents of the study – investigates the issue of using colloquial English
in the classroom with the help of questionnaires and interviews through data analysis, and
discussion.
Chapter 3 – Findings and implications – summarizes the main results and provides
suggestions to the teaching and learning of colloquial English speech in the classroom.
The last part - the Conclusion – focuses on the study summary, limitations and
recommendations for further research.

PART II – DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

1.1. Stylistic varieties of the English language
The authors of handbooks on German, English and Russian stylistics propose analogous
systems of styles based on a broad subdivision of all styles into two classes: literary and
colloquial and their varieties. These generally include from three to five functional styles.
Functional styles (FS) are the subsystems of language, each subsystem having its own
peculiar features in what concern vocabulary means, syntactical constructions, and even
phonetics. Since FS will be further specially discussed in the study, three popular viewpoints
in English language style classifications will be limited.
In 1960, the book „Stylistics of the English Language‟ written by M. D. Kuznetz and Y. M.
Skrebnev appeared. The book introduced a brief outline of stylistic categorization. The styles
and their varieties distinguished by these authors included:
1. Literary/ Bookish Style:
a. publicist style;
b. scientific (technological) style;
c. official documents.
2. Free/ Colloquial Style
a. literary colloquial style;
b. familiar colloquial style.
Kuznetz and Skrebnev in this book stated the definitions of bookish and colloquial styles.
The bookish style is a style of a highly polished nature that reflects the norm of the national
literary language. The bookish style may be used not only in the written speech but in oral,
official talk.
Colloquial style, on the other hand, is the type of speech which is used in situation that
allows certain deviations from the rigid pattern of literary speech used not only in a private

conversation, but also in private correspondence. So the style is applicable both to the written
and oral varieties, and the terms "colloquial" and "bookish" do not exactly correspond to the
oral and written forms of speech. However, Maltsev (1973) suggests two terms "formal" and
"informal" and states that colloquial style is the part of informal variety of English which is
used orally in conversation.



Next comes the well-known work by I. V. Arnold „Stylistics of Modern English‟
(decoding stylistics) published in 1973 and revised in 1981. Speaking of functional styles,
Arnold starts with a kind of abstract notion termed neutral style. It has no distinctive features
and its function is to provide a standard background for the other styles. The other real styles
can be broadly divided into two groups according to the scholar‟s approach: different varieties
of colloquial styles and several types of literary bookish styles. If neutral style serves any
situation of communication, colloquial style serves situations of spontaneous everyday
communication (casual, non-formal). Bookish style corresponds to public speech (non-casual,
formal).
1. Colloquial Style:
a. literary colloquial;
b. familiar colloquial;
c. common colloquial.
2. Literary Bookish Styles:
a. scientific;
b. official documents;
c. publicist (newspaper);
d. oratorical;
e. poetic.
This system presents an accurate description of many social and extra linguistic factors that
influence the choice of specific language for a definite communicative purpose. At the same
time, the inclusion of neutral style in this classification seems rather odd since unlike the

others, it is non-existent in individual use and should probably be associated only with the
structure of the language.
One of the relatively recent books on stylistics is the handbook by A. N. Morokhovsky
and his co-authors O. P. Vorobyova „Stylistics of the English language‟ published in Kiev in
1984. In the final chapter of the book „Stylistic Differentiation of Modern English‟ a concise
but exhaustive review of factors that should be taken ito account in treating the problem of
functional styles is presented. The book suggests the following style classes:
1. Official business style
2. Scientific-professional style
3. Publicist style
4. Literary colloquial style
5. Familiar colloquial style



Each style, according to Morokhovsky has a combination of distinctive features. Among
them we find oppositions like „artistic – non-artistic‟, „presence of personality – absence of
personality‟, „formal – informal situation‟, „equal – unequal social status‟, „written form– oral
form‟. Morokhovsky emphasizes that these five classes of what he calls „speech activity‟ are
abstractions rather than realities, they can seldom be observed in their pure forms: mixing
styles is the common practice.
1.2. Colloquial English speech
1.2.1. Key terms: Colloquial/ informal/ casual/ conversational English
The Concise Oxford Dictionary (Fowler and Fowler, 1995) defines „colloquial‟ as
„belonging to or proper to ordinary or familiar conversations, not formal or literary‟.
Colloquial is a familiar style used in speaking and writing. Similarly, informal speech means
without formality and without strict attention to set forms. Likewise, conversational refers to a
style used in the oral exchange of ideas, opinions, etc. A colloquialism is an informal
expression, that is, an expression not used in formal speech or writing.
(

In another book, The Five Clock (1967) written by Martin Joos, the colloquial in his
definition comprises both the consultative and the casual style. (Joos, 1967: 29). The casual
style is used for friends and acquaintances, and is marked by frequent ellipsis and slang.
Therefore, in regard to the meaning, the term „colloquial‟, „informal‟, „casual‟ and
„conversational‟ are exchangeably used with the same meaning and „colloquial‟ can be
replaced by „informal‟ or „casual‟ or „conversational‟ because all of them refer to the same
speech style or to usages not on a formal level.
In terms of the using context, colloquial language is informal language that is not rude, but
would not be used in formal situations. It is the language of private conversation, of personal
letters, etc. It is the first form of language that a native speaking child becomes familiar with.
Because it is generally easier to understand than formal English, it is often used nowadays in
public communication of a popular kind; for example, advertisements and popular
newspapers mainly employ colloquial or informal style (Leech and Svartvik, 1975).
In works written in the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth centuries, it is possible
to find references to the colloquial form of language, sometimes contrasted on the one hand
with „formal‟ or „literary‟ or „bookish‟ language, and on the other hand with „vulgar‟ or
„illiterate‟.
1.2.2. General characteristics of colloquial English speech



According to Václav Řeřicha (2000), colloquial English speech contains the following
characteristics: informal, familiar, conversational, paralinguistic context, nonverbal
communication, and constantly changing.
Colloquial English speech carries the general feature of a(n) hearer-oriented/
interactional speech. Gillian Brown (1981, p.4) distinguishes between hearer-oriented/
interactional speech and message-oriented/ transactional speech as follows: „ Primarily
hearer-oriented/ interactive speech is found in all cultures, literate and non-literate, and among
all ages of speaking humans. It differs from primarily message-oriented/ transactional speech,
very often, in being less clearly articulated, less clearly expressed, often containing a lot of

vagueness and modality ” , as the tables below show:











Some conversational interchanges, such as small talks, fit this description of hearer-oriented/
interactional speech. In conversation, native speakers may start with a ritualistic speech
pattern and then move into the intended message.

1.2.3. Main features of colloquial English speech
1.2.3.1. Phonetic and phonological features
Václav Řeřicha (2000) points out some phonetic and phonological features of colloquial
English as follows:
- careless pronunciation /„feller‟ for „fellow‟; „dunno‟ for „don‟t know‟, „attaboy‟ for
„that‟s a boy‟/
Primarily interactional speech

- loosely organized syntax and less
specific vocabulary
- short turns
- paratactic phrases
- marking out done by pausing, rhythm,
and intonation

- information packed less densely
- performance

Primarily transactional speech

- complex syntax and precise
vocabulary
- long turns
- subordination
- marking out done by lexical
phrases. (e.g. firstly, moreover, to
sum up)
- information packed densely
- competence




- reduction, elision: „An elision is the omission of a sound for phonological reasons, e.g.
'cause (also spelled 'cos, cos, coz) from because; fo'c'sle from forecastle; or ice
tea from iced tea (in which –ed is pronounced /t/ but omitted because of the
immediately following /t/).‟
- faster speech pace
- various noises (cough, rasp, chuck)
Engkent L.P (1986, p.228) realizes that „informal English is sloppy and a victim of “lazy
tongues”. Spoken English of all registers is characterized by reductions of sounds and ellipses.
„Reduction of sounds is characteristic of informal spoken English. Vowels drop or reduce to
schwa, and other sounds change or blur; for example, „can‟ /kæn/ has the vowel dropped to
/kən/, „how about‟ is reduced to „how‟bout‟, „madam‟ to „ma‟m‟, „and‟ to „‟n‟, „every‟ to
„ev‟ry‟, etc. We do not pronounce words letter by letter with the written form. “Gotta”,

“gonna”, and “wanna” look strange to students when they are printed in a dialogue, yet the
students hear these forms all the time. Referring to Weinstein‟s listings on reduced forms in
her book “Whaddaya say” (2001, p.45), approximately 95 percent of the reduced forms are
function words.

1.2.3.2. Morphological features
In English conversation, many words are spoken in their abbreviated forms. For
example, dorm = dormitory, univ = university, sis = sister, grandma = grandmother, grandpa
= grandfather, etc.
Weinstein (2001, p.15) says, „in speech, people take shortcuts. However, there is not the same
danger of misunderstanding as there is in writing. The context is clear and comprehension can
be easily verified since the audience is present.‟ For example, a university student‟s saying
such as „I‟ve an eight in the univ tomorrow‟ (an eight = the class that starts at eight, univ =
university) will be not in danger of being misunderstood if it is placed in the specific speaking
context.
More notably, contractions are used most of the time except emphatic intention. For example,
we‟ll = we will, I‟ve = I have, you‟d = you had/ you would, etc.

1.2.3.3. Syntactical features
Václav Řeřicha (2000) explores that when native people use colloquial language, they
tend to use active rather than passive structures. For example, „I‟ll do this task‟ is much
preferred rather than „this task will be done by me.‟



When native people talk to each other, ellipsis tends to be used all the time. This language
phenomenon refers to the omission from a clause of one or more words that would otherwise
be required by the remaining elements.
(
 Examples:

- Wanna tea?/ Enjoy? (The pronominal subject is often dropped).
- Jessica had five dollars; Monica, three. (The verb „had‟ is omitted at the comma).
- What if I miss the deadline? (The verb phrase „will happen‟ is omitted, as in „What will
happen if I miss the deadline‟).
- Fire when ready. (In the sentence, „you are‟ is understood as in „Fire when you are
ready.‟).
However, sometimes, ellipsis results in surface ungrammaticality.
 Examples:
- „We go out for a coffee‟ and „they get invited to a wine ‟n cheese‟. These forms can
prove puzzling to students who have been taught that non-count nouns do not take an
indefinite article.
- „Finished your work?‟ This expression is only used in informal setting while in formal
one the full form of an auxiliary must be always used as following „Have you finished
your work?‟
The other most prominent syntactic features of colloquial English are active voice
prevalence in the speech, coordination (parataxis) prevailing over subordination, incomplete
structures, chunks of phrasal and clausal structural units. In other words, loosely organized
structures with conventions of “standard” language often being violated are much used and
preferred by the speaker. (Leech and Svartvik, 1975).

1.2.3.4. Lexical features
Colloquial language uses specific vocabulary, normally short and simple words of
Germanic origin rather than of Latin origin. Words with emotional meaning cannot be absent
from this style, e.g. vulgarisms, evaluating adjectives. Interjections such as „oh‟, „yeah‟, „gee‟
are often much exploited. In everyday language, the native tend to add discourse markers or
fillers while they are speaking, for example „kind of‟, „sort of‟, „like‟, „you know‟, „well‟,
„actually‟ and parenthetical elements „indeed‟, „sure‟, „no doubt‟, „no way‟, „obviously‟,
„perhaps, „maybe‟. In most conversations, conjunction „and‟ is frequently used. Hesitation
markers are often used in colloquial English speech; for example: uhm, err, uh huh, etc. Many

people think that hesitation markers show poor language skills, but they are actually the
normal part of everyday conversation. After all, hesitation markers serve an important
function: they give a person time to think and hold the floor (Engkent L.P, 1986: 229).
Conversational English speech is also marked by certain modifiers that are not found in other
registers. „Pretty‟ and „real‟ used as adverbs are two common examples. Other modifiers, such
as „a lot‟ and „a bit‟ find their way into the speech of native speakers easily (Engkent L.P,
1986: 231).
In accordance with the already-mentioned division of language into literary and non-
literary (colloquial), we may represent the whole of the word-stock of the English language as
being divided into three main layers: literary, neutral and colloquial. The literary and the
colloquial layers contain a number of subgroups.
The aspect of the literary layer is its markedly bookish character. It is this aspect that
makes this layer more or less stable. The aspect of the colloquial layer is its lively spoken
character. It is this aspect that makes it unstable and fleeting. The aspect of the neutral layer
is its universal character. This layer is the most stable of all, because it is unrestricted in use,
it can be employed in all styles of language and in all spheres of human activity. Both literary
and colloquial words have a definite stylistic coloring. The following synonyms illustrate the
relations which exist between the three layers:







Colloquial words are always more emotionally colored than literary ones. The neutral
layer of words has no degree of emotiveness, nor have they any distinctions in the sphere of
usage.

Both literary and colloquial words have their upper and lower ranges. The lower range
of literary words (common literary) approaches the neutral layer and has an obvious tendency
to pass into that layer. The same may be said of the upper range of the colloquial layer
(common colloquial). The blurred lines of demarcation show the process of interpenetration
of the stylistic layers. Still the extremes remain antagonistic and therefore are very often used
to bring about a collision of manners of speech for special stylistic purposes.
Colloquial
Neutral
Literary
daddy
father
parent
get out
go away
retire
go on
continue
proceed
chap
fellow
associate



Example:
-"What the hell made you take on a job like that?"
-"A regrettable necessity for cash. I can assure you it doesn't suit my temperament."
The colloquial vocabulary falls into the following groups:
1) common colloquial words;
2) slang (It is the most extended and vastly developed subgroup of non-standard colloquial

layer of the vocabulary. Besides separate words it includes also highly figurative
phraseology. Slang occurs mainly in dialogue and serves to create speech characteristics of
personages.)
3) professional words and social jargons (They are used in emotive prose to depict the natural
speech of a character within the framework of such device as speech-characterization. They
can show vocation, education, breeding, environment and even the psychology of a
personage. Slang, contrary to jargon, needs no translation, jargon is used to conceal or
disguise something.)
4) dialectal words (They are introduced into the speech of personages to indicate their origin.
The number of dialectal words and their frequency also indicate the educational and cultural
level of the speaker.)
5) vulgarisms (Vulgarisms are divided into expletives and swear-words used as general
exclamations and obscene words. They are emotionally strongly charged and can be used for
speech-characterization.)
In terms of semantics, colloquial English vocabulary mostly carries figurative meaning.
It is divided into some large subtypes as following idioms, multi-word verbs, and slang,
which add to its variety.
Idioms are phrases referring to metaphorical meaning – the meaning is not able to
translate individually. They are phrasal expressions which native speakers use all the time and
are an integral part of conversational English but they are difficult to learn. This means that
communication with native speakers of English can be quite a confusing experience to non-
native speakers (Longman Dictionary of English Idioms, 1979). Some idioms can be grouped
together by theme or similar form. Others can only be taught within context. Teachers can
always mention the idioms appropriate to a situation discussed in class. We can introduce
students to as many idioms as possible, but we should not require them to memorize long
lists. Students will remember idioms they find particularly useful or interesting. For example,
be head over heels = to be in love with someone very much, behind the wheel = driving a
vehicle, etc.

In Longman Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs, phrasal verbs are defined as „idiomatic
combinations of a verb and adverb or a verb and preposition‟. However, these combinations
are considered multi-word verbs only when they behave as a single unit. Multi-word verbs,
including phrasal verbs, are very common, especially in spoken English because they tend to
be colloquial in tone and are a particular feature of informal spoken discourse (Anna Siyanova
and Norbert Schmitt, 2007). Multi-word verbs are such verbs as „pick up‟, „turn on‟ or „get on
with‟. For convenience, many people refer to all multi-word verbs as phrasal verbs. These
verbs consist of a basic verb + another word or words. The other word(s) can be prepositions
and/or adverbs. The two or three words that make up multi-word verbs form a short „phrase‟ -
which is why these verbs are often all called „phrasal verbs‟. (Cambridge International
Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs). However, „the meaning of the combination manifestly can not
be predicted from the meanings of verb and particle in isolation‟ (Quirk, 1985).
As discussed in Microsoft Encarta 97 Encyclopedia, slang can be described as informal,
nonstandard words or phrases (lexical innovations) which tend to originate in subcultures
within a society. Slang often suggests that the person utilizing the words or phrases is
familiar with the hearer's group or subgroup. It can be considered a distinguishing factor of in-
group identity. Microsoft Encarta states: „slang expressions often embody attitudes and
values of group members.‟ In order for an expression to become slang, it must be widely
accepted and adopted by members of the subculture or group. Slang has no societal
boundaries or limitations as it can exist in all cultures and classes of society as well as in all
languages. For example, a blast, awesome, to die for, blockbuster, sellout, hangout, take a dip,
what‟s up, pick up, cool, etc.
According to Oxford Advanced Learner‟s Compass Dictionary (2007, p.10), „slang is
very informal words and expressions that are more common in spoken language, especially
used by a particular group of people. Therefore, slang is impossible to teach systematically in
the classroom. By its very nature, it is transitory and linked to peer groups. Probably the best
way to deal with slang is simply to define and classify any terms that might come up in class
from students‟ questions. (Lucia P.E., 1986:231).
According to the Corpus Of Contemporary American English (COCA), the slang is often

divided into subgroups based on the structure and the frequency of occurring in the native‟s
speech, namely: high frequency lexical items (e.g. cool - frequency: 4499, awesome - 960),
low frequency lexical items (e.g. bookworm - 18, hangout – 51), high frequency phrase (e.g.
what‟s up: 4458, pick up: 3750) and low frequency phrase (e.g. take a dip: 5, get a load: 12).
1.2.4. Significance of colloquial English speech



If we adhere too closely to formal rules of grammar in an informal situation, we may come
across as being stuffy and unnatural. Because colloquial English is more emotionally colored
than the other styles (Dickey, E. & Chahoud, A., 2010), using colloquial language is one way
to help non-native speakers sound natural like the native speaker in informal settings.
Obviously, it is not necessary to learn all colloquial expressions, but learning some of these
expressions and using them in your speech will make you sound more natural. (Bradford B.P,
2010).
Moreover, teachers cannot assume that students will understand everyday speech without
some explanation of its features, so teaching colloquial English is a decoding process, an
explanation of the way the language works and what can be expected of it. This instruction
helps students improve comprehension of media (television, film, etc.) and increase their
self-confidence when they engage in casual conversation with native speakers of the target
language.
Time after time, their use of language will become less formal in conversation and errors in
registers can be minimized gradually (Engkent L.P., 1986: 233).
1.3. Colloquial English speech used by the native
In real everyday conversations, native speakers tend to use a huge variety of expressions
which will not be found in standard grammar books. For example, the expressions such as
„How‟s it going?‟, „How are things?‟, „What‟s up‟ and „How you doing?‟ which are
frequently used in real talks all mean „How are you?‟ in standard grammar books. For this
fact, Chang H.W. (2004, p.5) states that in speech “it is the non-standard or colloquial
expressions that are more likely to be used by native speakers.”

Engkent L.P. (1986, p.225) expresses the same idea in her study that „real people don‟t
talk like books‟ but use mostly „the language of the streets‟ that consists of various colloquial
or informal expressions. In fact, Amarapa Suksriroj (2009) explores that „informal sentence is
the uniqueness of everyday English.‟
Moreover, according to Chang H.W (2004, p.5) in the native‟s speech, they do not follow
the rules of grammar as carefully as they would in a formal address or a business letter.
Furthermore, „in native speakers‟ casual conversations, there are always some simplifications
in the speech, both in words and in sentences.‟
With regard to the context in the native country, colloquialisms are often used between
friends, close colleagues and family members, but not in formal writing or speaking.



Nowadays, colloquialisms appear frequently in native magazines and newspapers such as
magazines with a teen audience or fashion magazines.

CHAPTER 2: THE STUDY
2.1. Data collection
2.1.1. Participants
A random sample of 146 students (107 females and 39 males) majoring in English at
Foreign Language Faculty – Thai Nguyen University participated in the study. The
participants are fourth-year students studying in five different classes of cohort 31 in the
academic year 2010 – 2011. Their English is generally assessed to be at advanced level. This
general assessment is based on the requirements of their language skills in the fourth
academic year when they have to achieve English oral/ written proficiency at advanced level
(EOA/EWA). The assessment is also drawn through students‟ long duration of studying
English. Most of them have been exposed to English as a foreign language for more than 10
years on average. According to the collected questionnaire, 15.8% of the students studied in
Specialized High School and 84.2% studied in General High School.
Table 1: Participants’ personal information

Total
number
Gender
School
Experience of learning English
M
F
G
S
<5 years
5-10 years
>10 years
146
39
107
123
23
4
37
105
100%
26.7%
73.3%
84.2%
15.8%
2.7%
25.4%
71.9%
M: male; F: female;
G: General high school; S: Specialized high school

Another sample consisted of 2 Vietnamese teachers and 3 American teachers. All of the
American teachers used English as their first or native language. The other Vietnamese
teachers used English as their foreign one. They were currently teaching spoken English to the
EOA classes in Foreign Language Faculty – Thai Nguyen University. This sample was
selected to attend some semi-interviews with the researcher. 80% of the teachers held an M.A.
degree. They had the experience of teaching English for 5 years at minimum and for 16 years
at maximum in Vietnam. More importantly, these teachers were both the consultant and the
judge who helped the researcher make sure that all the definitions were recognized by native



English speakers.
2.1.2. Instruments
The first instrument used in this study was questionnaires (see Appendix 1) administered
to students to gather information of the participants‟ language background, their perceptions
of classroom colloquial English speech, their attitudes toward this style and their competence
of speaking colloquial English.
The questionnaire was composed of four parts with 30 questions and statements.
Part I (items 1-8) asked for students‟ personal information (items 1-2) and their language
background (items 3-8).
Part II (items 9-18) raised statements pertaining to students‟ perceptions of colloquial
English speech. In more details, this part aimed to specify students‟ scales of agreement and
disagreement with the given statements that focused on students‟ perceptions of the context
where colloquial English was used (items 9-10), of its significance (items 11-12) and its
features (items 13-18). These statements consisted of both correct and incorrect concepts of
colloquial English speech. All of them were recognized by the chosen consultant group.
Part III (items 19-25) consisted of some statements to explore students‟ attitudes toward
colloquial English usage in their speaking classes. Similarly, this part asked students to
specify their agreement or disagreement on the given statements bounded in their likes and

dislikes of using this style in the classroom as in the previous part.
Part IV (items 26 – 30) was an assessment scale on students‟ frequency of using colloquial
English speech in the classroom. This part consisted of 5 items. Items 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30
respectively assessed the frequency of the phonetic, morphological, syntactic and lexical
features used in students‟ conversations in the light of exploring colloquial English speech
competence of the fourth-year students.
Several semi-interviews with FLF students, FLF teachers (both native and non-native
teachers) were also conducted to find out their opinions towards colloquial English speech,
the students‟ existing competence and some possible factors affecting students‟ competence
of using colloquial speech in the classroom with the help of field notes.
2.1.3 Data collection procedures
At the onset of the term, the survey questionnaire for students was used. Before the
questionnaire was administered to participants, it was piloted with the native consultant
group, who checked and recognized all the concepts related to colloquial English speech in
the questionnaire. With a careful consideration of the researcher, a modified version of the
popular Likert-typed questionnaire was used. Many scholars used a five-point response scale;



however, the version used in this study solicited only four responses: strongly disagree,
disagree, agree and strongly agree. The reason for this was that there was a tendency for many
responses to regress to the central point (#3 – no opinion) in a five-point scale. Moreover, the
four-point scale facilitated a straightforward descriptive analysis of positive and negative
responses. The fourth part is the assessment based on the frequency scale ranging from
„almost always‟ to „never‟. Because there were not any standard criteria for assessing the
competence of using colloquial speech, the researcher asked the teachers for extra help with
this assessment based on their close observation and their experience of teaching spoken
language.
All participants were then given instructions in Vietnamese and a brief explanation about
the questionnaire and the overall research of the study. Participants were advised that they

could ask the researcher if they did not know the meaning of a particular word or understand a
particular concept, etc. After that the questionnaire was completed by every participant. On
average it took them 20 minutes to fill out all of the information in the questionnaire.
Based on the results collected from the assessment, the researcher carried out some semi-
interviews with the native teachers and non-native teachers to know what affected the
students‟ competence of using colloquial English speech in their classroom. The interviews
were conducted either after the speaking lessons or at the break time. The interviews were
then transcribed into texts.

2.2. Data analysis and discussion
Both qualitative and quantitative analyses were exploited to analyze the data.
2.2.1. Analysis of the questionnaire for students
Answers about students‟ personal information and language background collected in the
first part were classified and counted and then converted into percentage, which provided the
researcher with an overview of students‟ personal information and their language background
so that the researcher could assess whether or not the language background was related to the
students‟ attitudes towards colloquial English speech.
In the second and third parts, the students‟ answers about their perceptions and attitudes
were coded into numbers in the scale from strong disagreement (1) to strong agreement (4).
These codes were counted from the collected questionnaires and then converted to
percentages rounded to the nearest tenth of a percentile. The interpretation and discussion
were further made to find out students‟ perceptions and attitudes toward colloquial English.



In the fourth part, the researcher counted the ticks put in each frequency column (Almost
always, often, sometimes, seldom and never) and then converted the number to percentages.
Further discussions were made with both teachers and students to clarify the results.

2.2.1.1. Students’ language background

Interest is closely related to motivation, and motivation is one of the learning
factors that influences and stimulates students to learn (Bloom, 1976). As a result, motivation
leads people to learn effectively and successfully. Chart 1 helps to explore students‟
motivation through their interest admission.
Chart 1: The distribution of students’ high interest in
four language skills
34.20%
28.80%
17.10%
19.90%
Reading
Speaking
Listening
Writing

It shows that reading skill receives the highest interest from 34.2% of the students.
Speaking is ranked second in the distribution of interest with 28.8% of the students‟ choice.
Next, the lower percentage (19.9%) is for writing skill. Finally, just 17.1% of the surveyed
students are interested in listening. That means listening skill receives the lowest interest from
the students. From this table, it can be said that most FLF English major students have
adequate motivation for the learning of speaking. However, listening skill is considered to
have a close relationship with colloquial English speech because it provides authentic input
materials for students. If it does not receive sufficient attention from students, it may cause
difficulty in students‟ colloquial English speaking.
In terms of their speaking capacity, the majority (76.7%) of them were confident to
announce that their English speaking was good enough for the native to understand what they
meant but just a few (2.7%) confirmed that their classroom speaking was as natural as the
native‟s speech. Surprisingly, only 7.5% of the students reported that they had heard of the

term “colloquial English” and no one said that they had been taught colloquial English when
making conversations in the class.
In can be concluded that colloquial English seems to be a new concept for many
students. Although students are rather interested in speaking and confident that they are quite
good speakers, they still grasp their own doubt about the naturalness of their speech. This may
be due to their lack of exposure to this style.

2.2.1.2. The students’ perceptions of colloquial English speech
In the survey, there were two items (items 11-12) designed to find out the students‟
awareness of the context where colloquial English speech was used.
Table 2: Participants’ perceptions of the context where colloquial English speech is used
Statements
Disagree
Agree
11. Colloquial English speech is used only in casual
conversations and small talks.
2.1%
8.9%
32.2%
56.8%
12. Colloquial English speech is not much used by the
native speaker.
41.8%
47.9%
8.2%
2.1%


As can be seen from this table, nearly all of the students (89%) agreed that colloquial

English speech only occurred in everyday conversations. Only 11% of the students did not
agree with that idea. This was a misleading perception of the setting where colloquial English
was used because Leech and Svartvik (1975) pointed out that colloquial language was not
only used in familiar conversations or small talks but also used in personal letters as well as in
public communication of a popular kind; for example, advertisements, magazines and
newspapers. For this reason, colloquial English has proved itself crucially important in
everyday language; therefore it needs to be taught in the ESL/EFL classrooms.
Similarly, the next statement given to check students‟ perceptions of the context where
colloquial English was used did not reflect the truth. Because it is the first form of language
that a native child becomes familiar with, it is generally easier to understand than formal
English (Leech and Svartvik, 1975). For this fact, it is the non-standard or colloquial
expressions that are more likely to be used by native speakers. With the same thought, the
majority with 89.7% of FLF English major students rejected the statement that colloquial
English speech was not much used by the native speaker. Only 2.1% of the students strongly
agreed and 8.2% agreed with the given statement, which was considered against the reality.



In short, most of FLF English major students believed that colloquial English speech was
used only in casual conversations and small talks produced massively by the native. This
perception was half-misleading.

Table 3: Participants’ perceptions of the role of colloquial English speech
Statements
Disagree
Agree
13. Colloquial English speech makes my English less
standard and therefore hardly helps me improve my
language skills.
7.6%

25.3%
60.3%
6.8%
14. Colloquial English speech is likely to help me speak
naturally like the native.
3.4%
64.4%
19.2%
13%

For item 13, the role of the issue was strictly judged by 67.1% of the students who believed
that their academic knowledge may be made less standard and that their language skills may
be reduced if they used colloquial English speech. Only 7.6% - a small number of them
strongly opposed to the testing idea and the rest 25.3% moderately disagreed with the idea
that colloquial English speech may make their English less standard and therefore hardly
helped them improve their language skill. In fact, colloquial language is not necessarily
regarded as non-standard language because it is publicly recognized and widely used.
Additionally, it is an important part that occurs regularly not only in everyday talks but also in
different media such as television, newspapers and magazines. Thus understanding colloquial
English speech can totally help ESL/ EFL learners improve other language skills such as
reading (newspapers, magazines ) or listening (film trailers, English songs ). Based on the
above figures, it can be said that FLF students were taking misconception of the significance
of the issue.
For what they perceived in item 14, 3.4% of the students strongly disagreed and 64.4%
disagreed with the statement that colloquial English speech was likely to help them speak
naturally like the native. Contrastingly, just a small number of the surveyed students agreed
and strongly agreed with that idea. From these statistics, it can be said that English major
students of FLF much doubted the role of speaking colloquial English. Actually, the
conception of “naturalness” was quite unfamiliar with these students because they just learnt
how to gain fluency and accuracy in their speaking. Thus the notion of natural speech with