Contents

1 Introduction...........................................................................................................2
2 Analysis.................................................................................................................2
2.1 Listening processes..............................................................................................................2
2.2 Decoding processes..............................................................................................................2
2.3 Bottom-up skills...................................................................................................................3
2.3.1 Relying on stress and content words................................................................3
2.3.2 Listening “between the words”........................................................................3
2.3.3 Using linguistic knowledge..............................................................................3
2.3.4 Decoding spontaneous speech..........................................................................3
2.3.5 Awareness of flexiforms..................................................................................4
2.3.6 Decoding word clusters....................................................................................4
2.3.7 Decoding connected speech.............................................................................4
2.4 Strategies..............................................................................................................................5
3 Issues.....................................................................................................................6
3.1 Learning issue: difficulty decoding at chunk level..............................................................6
3.2 Learning issue: difficulty decoding vague language............................................................6
3.3 Teaching issue: gap-fills can be ineffective.........................................................................6
3.4 Teaching issue: different decoding strengths and weaknesses............................................6
4 Suggestions............................................................................................................7
4.1 Decoding at chunk level.......................................................................................................7
4.1.1 Combination of paused play (Field, 2010) and active listening (Anderson and Lynch,
1998)..........................................................................................................................7
4.1.2 The botanic walk (Cauldwell, 2018)................................................................7
4.2 Bingo card............................................................................................................................8
4.3 Dictogloss.............................................................................................................................9
Bibliography................................................................................................................10
Appendices..................................................................................................................12
Appendix 1: Transcript............................................................................................................12
Appendix 2: Bingo...................................................................................................................13
Appendix 3: listen and tick......................................................................................................14
Appendix 4: Learning log........................................................................................................14
1 Introduction
Since my initial teacher-training, I have adopted a product approach to listening (Field,
2010), i.e. measuring learners’ listening ability through comprehension tasks. Even when my
intermediate learners managed to answer comprehension questions, they were not satisfied by
the “don’t worry about understanding everything” response; they expected zero uncertainty
(Thornbury, 2011).
I realized I was training them to rely on context and background knowledge to understand
recordings (Field, 2003); I did not include any phonological decoding activities. That was not
a matter of preference as Cauldwell (2018) suggests; it was merely the only approach I was
trained to use.
Wilson’s (2008) words that this approach tests rather than teaches listening made me doubt
its usefulness. We cannot expect that students will automatically develop better decoding
skills through time and exposure to listening input.
Therefore, this essay will focus on helping intermediate learners develop bottom-up
processes, i.e. train them how to decode the stream of speech. Additionally, I will deepen my
understanding of this teaching-listening approach.

2 Analysis

2.1 Listening processes

Cauldwell (2018) explains that listening involves decoding and understanding, i.e.
deciphering the signal and interpreting meaning. Expert listeners combine these two
processes to maximise comprehension:
top-down, or meaning building bottom-up or decoding
(Field, 2010)
using “inside the head knowledge” (Nunan, using the language input (Richards, 2008)
1991:18)

For instance, when experienced cooks watch cooking videos, they use bottom-up processes,
e.g. start from decoding phonemes, then words, then phrases to decode instructions. They
also use top-down processes to predict what needs to be done, e.g. letting the dough rise, or
tempering eggs before adding them to a mix.
Wilson (2008:15) calls this combination the “interactive model”.

2.2 Decoding processes

Expert listeners decode the acoustic signal rapidly, accurately and effortlessly as Field (2003)
states, by matching sounds to information. Field’s information-processing model (2010:114),
illustrates how a listener may decode the question “do you live here?”, moving from the
smallest units towards meaning.

2 Rachil Tsateri Helping intermediate learners develop bottom-up processes when listening.
Table 1

1 Phoneme level /dʊjuːˈlɪvhɪə/

2 Syllable level /dʊ + juː + lɪv + hɪə/
3 Word level   do you live here?
4 Chunk level do you live + here?
5 Syntax level auxiliary + subject + verb + adverb of place
6 Intonation Rising
level
Do you live here?
7 Meaning level Are you local? Are you a resident of this area/ building?

2.3 Bottom-up skills

Cauldwell (2018) states that bottom-up processing requires multiple skills that expert
listeners possess. The following are the most vital in my opinion:

2.3.1 Relying on stress and content words

Vandergrift and Goh (2012) suggest that when proficient listeners hear a sentence,
e.g. “I’d like to go to Paris”, they are likely to rely on content words, which carry
stress and meaning; e.g. like, go and Paris, instead of prepositions or the infinitive
particle. Nevertheless, not all content words are equally stressed; prominence is
determined by the speaker and the intended meaning (see 2.3.2).

2.3.2 Listening “between the words” (Wilson, 2008:41).

Speakers use stress and intonation to emphasize what they consider important instead
of simply applying rules (Cauldwell, 2002). When I say my husband is on a business
trip, my can be prominent to emphasize mine (not someone else’s), or business trip
to imply he is not on holiday. Additionally, intonation can convey attitudinal
meaning, e.g surprise or irony.

2.3.3 Using linguistic knowledge

Hedge (2010) mentions expert listeners employ their linguistic knowledge, to decode
utterances; e.g. using co-text to predict collocations. By hearing opening a bank…
expert listeners expect to hear account.

2.3.4 Decoding spontaneous speech

Unplanned speech is imperfect and includes disfluencies (Cauldwell, 2018) that
expert listeners interpret, e.g.:
o Repetition: that’s sad, so sad
o self-repair: last night..no last week
o fillers: I mean….

3 Rachil Tsateri Helping intermediate learners develop bottom-up processes when listening.
 Vague language is another element of spontaneity; Willis (2004) lists these types:
o suffixes -ish or -y: nineish, greeny
o completers: that sort of thing
o placeholders: whatsitcalled
o generalisers: sort of

2.3.5 Awareness of flexiforms

Cauldwell (2018) indicates that proficient listeners effortlessly decode words despite
their flexible sound shapes, such as:

Weak/strong forms “I had eggs for breakfast”:/ fə/,

of function words what I’m looking for : /ˈfɔː/.

speaker’s accent privacy in British English: /ˈprɪvəsi/

in American English: /ˈpraɪvəsi/

2.3.6 Decoding word clusters

Cauldwell (2018) adds that expert listeners decode multi-word clusters, although
sounds are reduced, changed or dropped and words are mushed together.
e.g. what do you mean /wɒʤəˈmiːn/.

2.3.7 Decoding connected speech.

Competent listeners decode rapid speech, despite sandhi variations (Swift, 2013) that
occur between words, e.g.:

 Catenation: consonant to vowel linking.

Beautiful /ˈbjuːtɪfəlaɪz/
eyes

 Assimilation: a sound changes quality and becomes more like another sound
which precedes or follows it. 

Ten boys /ˈtembɔɪz/

 Elision: omission of a sound, e.g. /t/ before a word that begins with a
consonant.

I can’t do /aɪˈkændʊɪt/
it

 Gemination: two identical sounds that occur adjacent to each other, merge and
articulation lasts for slightly longer than normal.

dull life /ˈdʌlaɪf/

4 Rachil Tsateri Helping intermediate learners develop bottom-up processes when listening.
  Intrusion: vowel to vowel linking with the insertion of an approximant, e.g.
/j/ /w/ or /r/

The idea is /ðɪaɪˈdɪərɪz/

 Yod coalescence: /tj/ clusters become /ʧ/

last year  /ˈlæsʧɪər/

2.4 Strategies
In interactive, or reciprocal listening, e.g. a conversation, listeners also become speakers. In
non-reciprocal listening, e.g. recorded messages, listeners have no control over input (Wilson,
2008).
When expert listeners fail to decode the signal, or to reinforce memory, they apply strategies,
i.e. conscious behaviours (Wilson, 2008), such as the ones listed below (Vandergrift and Goh,
2012; Wilson, 2008):

Table 2

Reciprocal listening Non-reciprocal listening

a. seeking repetition: e. Taking notes, e.g. phone numbers

Pardon?

b. echoing when unsure of what was f. Noting approximations of what was

heard: heard, e.g. Mr Giakoumi instead of
Scenery? Mr. Yakoummi.

c. Seeking clarification:
Did you say kit or kid?
d. Faking understanding by nodding or
using non-verbal signals:
uh-huh

5 Rachil Tsateri Helping intermediate learners develop bottom-up processes when listening.
3 Issues

3.1 Learning issue: difficulty decoding at chunk level

When teaching exam classes in Greece, my intermediate learners struggled with decoding at
chunk level (table 1,4). When they heard a couple of days, they were only able to decode the
word days. Failure to decode such chunks lead to inability to answer certain comprehension
questions in exam tasks.
When native English speakers speak, they chunk words together; not all words are equally
stressed. Additionally, features of connected speech occur, thus causing sound changes. For
instance, a couple of days, could be realised as /əkʌpləˈdeɪz/ because:
 Of is weak when followed by the noun days, so /ɒ/ is reduced to /ə/ (2.3.5)
 final /f/ in of is elided and catenation occurs between words /əkʌpləˈdeɪz/
(2.3.7) /
As Swan (2001) indicates, Greek is syllable-timed, i.e. all syllables are equally stressed with
no weak forms or sound changes; hence the difficulty with these chunks.

3.2 Learning issue: difficulty decoding vague language

When teaching ESL in the UK, I incorporated authentic materials in my multilingual classes.
Videos or recordings often included examples of vague language (2.3.4).
Intermediate students from Poland, where TV programmes are dubbed into Polish, were not
exposed to authentic English input and could not decode the spoken form of completers
(2.3.4), e.g. that sort of thing. They asked me “what did he say about the thing?”, thus
wasting time trying to decode something that could be ignored.

3.3 Teaching issue: gap-fills can be ineffective

I agree with Vandergrift (2004) and Wilson (2008) that decoding tasks can be simplistic and
mechanistic. I have observed that my B1 teenage students find gap-fills dull or stressful, as
they remind them of exam tasks. More specifically, when classes are over 90 minutes long, or
take place in the evening, teenagers complete gap-fills passively; they may identify stressed
words (2.3.1), but do not develop other skills, e.g. decoding clusters (2.3.6), or features of
connected speech (2.3.7).

3.4 Teaching issue: different decoding strengths and weaknesses

When I taught B1 courses to adult Spanish students, I noticed that learners did not have the
same decoding difficulties.
 Students who had been to the UK, were able to decode intrusion (2.3.7)
e.g. Linda asked me /lɪndərˈɑːsktmiː/
 Those who watched Netflix programmes in English, easily processed at
chunk level (table 1,4), e.g. decoded /əðɪˌenəðəˈdeɪ/ at the end of the day.
 Some students were aware of flexiforms (2.3.5), e.g. envelop is
pronounced both /ˈenvələʊp/ and /ˈɑːnvələʊp/.
6 Rachil Tsateri Helping intermediate learners develop bottom-up processes when listening.
Therefore, when post-listening tasks focused on one phonological feature, some students
complained that the activity underchallenged them.

4 Suggestions

4.1 Decoding at chunk level

To address issue 3.1, I propose the two techniques listed below and dictogloss (4.3).
4.1.1 Combination of paused play (Field, 2010) and active listening (Anderson and
Lynch, 1998).
Procedure:
Play the recording (appendix 1) at normal speed. When students hear an unclear chunk, they
ask the teacher to stop and rewind. The teacher encourages students to:
 focus on words that carry stress (2.3.1)
 echo an approximation of the chunk (table 2,b)
 listen to what comes before or after the chunk to help them decode it (2.3.3)
Students call out answers and the teacher confirms or provides right answers if chunks are too
challenging. Finally, the teacher dictates the chunks and learners repeat them in “ideal form”
(Ur 1984:42); e.g., the teacher says /wɒʧəˈwɒn/ and learners repeat what do you want?
4.1.2 The botanic walk (Cauldwell, 2018)
Procedure:
 Draw three columns on the whiteboard: Greenhouse, Garden and Jungle. Explain the
analogy of words to plants: separate and neat in the greenhouse, closer together in the
garden, chaotic in the jungle.
 Write the chunk which occurred in the recording, e.g. a couple of days.
 Point to greenhouse and model the words in isolation /eɪ/ /kʌpl/ ɒf/ deɪz/
 Point to garden and model the gentle contact between the words: /əkʌplɒvˈdeɪz/
 Point to jungle and model rapid and messy speech: /əkʌpləˈdeɪz/
 Provide more chunks from the recording and ask students to repeat after you. Stronger
learners can try to predict how other chunks may vary across the three domains.

Evaluation:
Intermediate learners have already stored several chunks in their lexicons, e.g. no problem or
just a moment. Both techniques provide receptive exposure to chunks and train Greek
learners to decode them more rapidly when they hear them.
The technique in 4.1.1:
 allows control over input, thus providing more opportunities to hear and process
chunks which still cause uncertainties at intermediate level (Dellar and Walkley,
2017).

7 Rachil Tsateri Helping intermediate learners develop bottom-up processes when listening.
  trains learners to use strategies, e.g. using co-text (2.3.3) and focusing on stressed
words (2.3.1), which is vital for B1 exams. Field adds that instructors should always
teach strategies in the listening classroom (2010).
 checks learners can associate the spoken to the written form with Ur’s (1984)
dictation.

However, stronger Greek learners in B1 classes may feel under-challenged. Assigning them
roles, e.g. correcting or modelling chunks, increases their confidence while consolidating
existing knowledge.
Cauldwell’s (2018) technique (4.1.2) is appreciated by Greek learners, who prefer creative
and fun activities to lecture-type teaching in my experience. Moreover, intermediate Greek
learners are more comfortable with dictionary pronunciation; practicing and repeating the
“messy” form heightens awareness of rapid speech that may occur in exam tasks. As
Cauldwell (2018) suggests, if they can say it, they can decode it.
Nevertheless, some Greek learners felt embarrassed and refused to repeat the messy form.
Mumbling or internal drilling (Underhill, 2008) can be encouraged instead; they still
manipulate the oral form without feeling exposed.

4.2 Bingo card

To help learners with vague language (3.2), I use bingo:
Procedure:
 Play recording once to process for meaning.
 Distribute bingo sheet (appendix 2).
 Ask learners to read it, listen again and tick the four phrases they hear.
 When they have ticked all four, they shout Bingo!
 They check answers with the transcript.
 Ask learners if this language is specific or approximate.
 Explicitly clarify form (adding -ish after adjectives or numbers, use kind of and sort
of with adjectives, and so on, and that kind of stuff to complete a sentence.
 Model and drill phrases.

Evaluation:
I believe that intermediate level is the right time to teach vague language; it would also
improve intermediate Polish learners’ understanding of Netflix programmes and interaction
with native speakers.
I find that bingo, as Wilson (2008) and White (2010) agree, is ideal for selective listening and
draws attention to the target items. As Benati (2017) suggests, this input flood, i.e. multiple
encounters of vague language in the bingo card, can help Polish learners notice it and retain
both form and meaning. Moreover, modelling and drilling:
 is expected by Polish learners in my experience.
 provide exposure and manipulation of the oral form and enable Polish learners to
decode vague language faster when they hear it, without wasting time, like before.

8 Rachil Tsateri Helping intermediate learners develop bottom-up processes when listening.
Polish learners appreciate explicit clarification from the teacher in my experience, hence the
direct focus on form.
Nevertheless, I have noticed that some Polish learners, being used to more traditional
techniques, consider bingo a non-educational activity. An alternative task is a neutral listen-
and-tick-what-you-hear activity (appendix 3).

4.3 Dictogloss
I use dictogloss as a more effective decoding task (3.3) to focus on chunks (3.1) and learners’
individual weaknesses (3.4).
Procedure: Learners listen to the recording (appendix 1) three times:
1. the first time without taking notes.
2. the second, they write down key words.
3. the third, they expand on their notes.
Then, they reconstruct the text in groups and compare theirs with the transcript, what Wilson
(2003) calls the discovery stage. Students underline their uncertainties and discuss errors with
each other and the teacher. They can keep a listening log (Kemp, 2009), where they record
errors (appendix 4) or classify them by type.
Evaluation:
Dictogloss is a collaborative output-based technique (Benati, 2017) which engages teenagers
(3.3) as:
 group work makes tasks less stressful
 teenagers respond well to learner-centred tasks and appreciate a degree of
independence in my experience.
 it is an active and motivating task with a reasonable challenge at intermediate level.

Dictogloss benefits Greek exam students (3.1), as language in the recordings mostly occurs in
chunks (Woolard, n.d.). Thus, during the discovery stage, intermediate Greek learners
compare their notes to the transcript, measure their ability to decode chunks and learn from
their mistakes.

I concur with Thornbury (1999) that dictogloss can cater for different needs. It allows
Spanish B1 learners (3.4) to trace individual weaknesses at the discovery stage. Some will
notice uncertainties caused by connected speech (2.3.7), others will become aware of flexible
sound shapes of words (2.3.5). Hence, they make new sound to form connections (Ellis,
1995) and prioritize the problems they need to overcome. Adult learners (3.1, 3.4) in my view
have high expectations from courses, as Harmer (2015) also notes; techniques that allow
them to focus on their own weaknesses are highly appreciated.
Some teachers, according to Wilson (2008), fear that providing transcripts, cushions
teenagers or exam students against making real effort to listen and does not mirror real-life
situations. I agree with Cauldwell (2018) that training students to cope is valuable but they
also need to receive training and develop confidence; overusing deep-end approaches is likely
to cause teenagers anxiety and demotivate adults to the point of quitting classes in my
experience.

9 Rachil Tsateri Helping intermediate learners develop bottom-up processes when listening.
Bibliography

Anderson, A. and Lynch, T. (1998). Listening. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Benati, A. (2017). The role of input and output tasks in grammar instruction: Theoretical,
empirical and pedagogical considerations. 
Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 7(3), pp.377-396.

Cauldwell, R. (2018). A syllabus for listening. Birmingham: speechinaction.

Caudlwell, R. (2009) The functional irrhythmicality of spontaneous speech: A discourse

view of speech rhythms. Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies, 2(1), pp. 1-24.

Dellar, H. and Walkley, A. (2017). Teaching lexically. Stuttgart: DELTA publishing.

Field, J. (2003). Promoting perception: lexical segmentation in L2 listening. ELT Journal,

57(4), pp.325-334.

Field, J. (2010). Listening in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Harmer, J. (2015). The practice of English language teaching. Harlow: Pearson/Longman.

Hedge, T. (2000) Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford. Oxford
University Press.

Kemp, J. (2009). The Listening Log: motivating autonomous learning. ELT Journal, 64(4),
pp.385-395.

Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology. New York: Prentice Hall.

Richards, J. (2008). Teaching listening and speaking. Singapore: Cambridge University

Press.

Swan, M. and Smith, B. (2001). Learner English. Cambridge, England: Cambridge

University Press.
10 Rachil Tsateri Helping intermediate learners develop bottom-up processes when listening.
Thornbury, S. (1999). How to Teach Grammar. Harlow: Longman.

Underhill, A. (2008). Sound foundations. Oxford: Macmillan.

Ur, P. (1984). Teaching listening comprehension. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vandergrift, L. and Goh, C. (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening. New
York: Routledge.

Vandergrift, L. 2004. ‘Listening to learn or learning to listen?’. Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 24: 3–25

White, G. (2010) Listening. Oxford University Press, 2010.

Wilson, J. (2008). How to teach listening. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.

Wilson, M. (2003). Discovery listening--improving perceptual processing. ELT Journal,

57(4), pp.335-343.

Online sources

Cauldwell, R. (2002). Phonology for Listening: Relishing the messy. [online]

Speechinaction.org. Available at: https://www.speechinaction.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/05/Relishing-the-messy_03.pdf [Accessed 9 Jul. 2019].

Learnenglishteens.britishcouncil.org. (2019). Important people. [online] Available at:

http://learnenglishteens.britishcouncil.org/skills/listening-skills-practice/important-people
[Accessed 20 July 2019].

Swift, S. (2013). An ELT Glossary: Connected Speech - Sandhi Variations. [online]

Eltnotebook.blogspot.com. Available at: https://eltnotebook.blogspot.com/2012/01/an-elt-
glossary-connected-speech-sandhi.html [Accessed 17 Jul. 2019].

11 Rachil Tsateri Helping intermediate learners develop bottom-up processes when listening.
Thornbury, S. (2011). zero uncertainty | An A-Z of ELT. [online]
Scottthornbury.wordpress.com. Available at: https://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/tag/zero-
uncertainty / [Accessed 20 May 2019].

Willis, J. (2014). Lesson 3 Vague Language. [online] Willis-elt.co.uk. Available at:

http://willis-elt.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/3VagueLanguage.pdf [Accessed 20 July
2019].

Woolard, G. (n.d.). [PDF] Collocations,Chunks,and the Corpus - A (more) Lexical Approach

- Free Download PDF. [online] Tuxdoc.com. Available at:
https://tuxdoc.com/download/collocationschunksand-the-corpus-a-more-lexical-
approach_pdf [Accessed 8 Aug. 2019].

Appendices

Appendix 1: Transcript
Source: Learnenglishteens.britishcouncil.org. (2019).
His family moved in just a few houses down from us when I was about ten, and I still
remember how excited I felt when I found out there was another boy on the street. I’d been
the only boy, you see. The others were all girls. We were good friends from the beginning
because we were into the same things: computers and football, mostly. But we had quite a
few of the same hobbies for a while. I remember making lots of models of aeroplanes one
year. Another year we took up fishing. We had all the equipment and everything and we’d
spend ages down by the river. His family moved away a couple of days ago. We’re still
friends on Facebook but I know I’m going to miss him a lot.

12 Rachil Tsateri Helping intermediate learners develop bottom-up processes when listening.
 Appendix 2: Bingo

Bingo time!
Cross the words/phrases you hear!

Sevenish Kind of late Sort of old

Oldish A museum or thirtyish

something
Youngish Sixish Museums and that kind
of stuff

transcript
-Who is Mr. Jacobs?
-He’s Jane’s new husband.
-Jane’s husband? But how old is he?
-Well, I guess he’s oldish.. He’s twelve years older than us.
-What does he do? Is he a teacher too?
-No..I’m not sure.. I think he works at a museum or something.
-Museum? He sounds boring!
-Not at all! He’s really funny. If you come over for dinner tonight, you’ll meet him.
-Fine, I’ll be there round sevenish.
-That’s kind of late.. Be here at six! I need help in the kitchen!

13 Rachil Tsateri Helping intermediate learners develop bottom-up processes when listening.
 Appendix 3: listen and tick
Listen and tick what you hear:
Sevenish

Oldish

Youngish

Sixish

Thirtyish

Sort of old

Kind of late

Museums and that kind of stuff

A museum or something

Appendix 4: Learning log

14 Rachil Tsateri Helping intermediate learners develop bottom-up processes when listening.