nm1088: thank you very much for all of you and CELTE members er for inviting as 
a visiting fellow er actually this is this is this is one of the er i mean the 
major event in my life actually [0.8] [laughter] i have been learning i have 
been a learner of English for myself for more than twenty years agos-, er [0.2] 
years or so but the i mean [sigh] you just [0.5] don't learn anything until you 
just just [0.4] see something [0.6] yourself er [0.3] i mean [0.2] to the 
actually [0.4] er the some of our some of our students er say [0.2] at the 
graduation ceremony [0.4] in my university [0.3] says [0.3] er to the dean 
actually [0.7] er she [0.2] actually er said to the dean that one of the 
happiest moment one of the most exciting one of the happiest moment of [0.2] of 
my college life [0.3] is [0.3] in [0.2] the CELTE [0.2] [laughter] [0.2] this 
is this is a a sort of the well i mean [laugh] to some er for for some point of 
view i mean this is a embarrassment to the dean because i mean [laughter] after 
all i mean she's just said something like very complimentary to 
the dean but i mean [laugh] [0.2] this is a truth so [0.3] er ever since i came 
here i began to see more [0.2] and more far more point in [0.2] er Professor er 
[0.5] er namex namex or the professor namex is doing and i really thank you for 
inviting me and giving opportunity to [0.2] stay here [0.7] so er i k-, [0.2] 
kept saying to myself that i sh-, [0.2] maybe er no i mean [0.2] i must do 
something for you i must do something for you because i just can't have the 
privilege [0.3] of staying here [0.5] and maybe i can do [0.2] from the future 
but this is the one small thing that i can do is this is that the [0.3] er [0.
3] to talk about [0.4] the methodological er point er methodological point of 
view [0.8] er for the [0.3] er teacher er development 
nm1088: okay er i was er [0.2] just a normal [laugh] [laughter] [0.3] 
undergraduate student in Japan [0.6] i was just quite happy with er [1.0] er [0.
2] the coursework [0.2] er but [0.5] well er the privilege of [0.3] er being a 
young man and a stupid person [0.2] is [laugh] [laughter] [0.6] to be ambitious 
and i began to [0.2] look for something more deeper or 
scientific [0.6] and then i became at the M-A course in M-A er areas sort of a 
semi-psycholinguist [laugh] [0.3] and i just read [0.3] er books on er 
psychology of reading et cetera [0.5] but at some point some [0.2] er moment [0.
3] i was so disillusioned [0.2] actually [0.4] er with the well maybe this is 
[0.2] not a fair er remark for psychologists [laugh] [0.2] but you see [0.2] 
the more technical you get in psychology [0.3] er the [0.2] less point i mean 
less point i began to see in my work [0.6] so i mean [1.6] i began to think 
[laugh] [0.4] and then if you think too much [0.2] one [0.2] pitfall is that 
you begin philosophy [0.5] [laughter] and i became sort of this student oh i 
mean i'm not [0.2] i haven't been a formal student i mean [0.2] in a formal 
sense but i sort of the independent learner [0.3] of [0.2] er philosophy [0.4] 
and then [0.4] gradually over the years i what [0.4] i began to summarize what 
[0.2] i am doing as philosophical investigations in [0.6] E-L-T [laugh] [0.2] 
that's a very [0.4] [laugh] [0.2] ambitious topic [0.2] but and the to be s-, 
[0.4] more specific what i've been doing is that the [0.5] er [0.3] in one work 
[0.2] i [1.0] er took [0.2] er Krashen's Monitor hypothis [0.5] 
i in [0.6] i s-, [0.4] think i saw much point [0.2] intuitively [0.2] when 
Krashen says that consciousness er conscious [0.2] lear-, conscious learning 
doesn't lead to acquisition or language use [0.6] i saw much point [0.3] and 
what i wanted to do was that [0.2] to just see [0.2] i mean to to rationalize 
[0.2] his argument [0.9] i mean [0.3] just saying that well look i mean this 
this must be the truth b-, because we intuitively knows [0.7] this is a truth 
is doesn't convince other people [0.4] so [0.4] er by [0.3] er introducing 
Wittgenstein's philosophy of rule forming i tried to reconstruct er Krashen's 
Monitor Hypothesis [0.5] but the paper is was written in Japanese and i mean 
the most papers if i mean [0.2] in these days i used to write in English but i 
mean [0.3] as i began philosophy i began to write in Japanese which is my 
native language [0.5] or [0.3] i did [0.2] er [2.4] i thought about er grammar 
teaching [0.2] because after all [0.2] i mean [0.2] if you think simply [0.2] 
if you [0.2] teach rules [0.4] and teach vocabulary [0.2] students should 
produce a language i mean s-, [0.2] students should be able to use the language 
[0.4] but [0.2] as we all a-, as we know this is 
not the case [0.3] usually [0.3] and i began to see [0.2] why and i began to 
reconstruct again [0.6] er why this that is so [1.6] or [0.5] i mean the more i 
hear [0.4] about the [0.3] er [1.1] learner's experience in Japan or on the 
outside Japan [0.6] well almost [0.3] all [0.3] er [0.4] almost all [0.4] 
learners say that imitation [0.2] played a major role in their [0.2] learning 
experience [0.5] but [0.2] what we often see in the [0.8] textbook for er 
language er acquisition is that no [0.2] i mean [0.2] w-, [0.2] imitation 
doesn't work [0.9] er one famous example is that nobody doesn't like me [0.4] 
and the correction comes nobody likes me ten times and then [0.6] er you 
produce i mean [0.2] er a learner produce the same result [0.4] and obviously y-
, we have Chomsky which is [0.8] critical so critical about the imitation [0.6] 
and but i mean it is like the throwing a baby with the hot [0.2] i mean with 
the water [0.2] so i began to [0.3] er see some point [0.5] in the imitation [0.
2] by Heidegger's epistemology [1.6] or recently [0.3] er i am involved in the 
[0.2] er sort of the informal seminar called passagen seminar in Japan [0.3] 
this is [0.3] an informal er informal er association in Japan [0.9] er teachers 
just gather [0.5] 
because the mo-, their motivation is that they are not particularly happy [0.9] 
with the academic preten-, presentations in their academic [0.2] conferences [0.
4] nor [0.3] they are particularly happy with the say er the the seminars [0.5] 
are sponsored by the Ministry of Education [0.2] because everything is [0.4] 
can be very formal in there so i mean they just want er [0.3] informal exchange 
of views [0.9] and every time i attend there [0.2] i see [0.2] i mean [0.2] i 
see [0.4] a lot of wisdom [0.7] produced by the experienced teachers [0.2] they 
are not they may not be theoretical [0.4] particularly [0.3] but they [0.2] i 
see much point when they someth-, they say something [0.3] and er [0.6] i began 
to see [0.3] i [0.2] i began to think that [0.2] the my role [0.2] as a [0.2] 
sort of researcher [0.3] is that to try to [0.2] see [0.6] er try to give 
theoretical framework [0.2] to them [0.5] and then we can cooperate [0.5] as [0.
6] i mean together [0.2] to for i mean [0.7] to improve our [0.2] our English 
education [0.8] and also i am recently involved with a joint work called re-
engineering and this is the [0.3] another work i mean if you read comics of 
Dilbert or something like 
that i mean [0.2] you should know [laughter] these sort of thing this is er 
sort of the [0.3] well new [0.2] i mean [0.2] catchy word but [0.2] i mean what 
i mean is that the [0.9] er [0.3] my point here is that if you try to be too 
scientific [0.5] then [0.8] you will get lost [0.7] and for some people [0.2] 
it is i mean [0.3] i mean it is sometimes so hard to convince [0.3] scientific 
oriented people [laugh] [0.4] to sort of to convert their beliefs about that so 
i see my role as a sort of the [1.1] er say [1.1] er directing ourselves [0.6] 
this is again too ambitious but again [laugh] [0.4] since i am young and stupid 
[0.2] so [laugh] [0.2] maybe i have that er privilege [0.5] so er [0.8] er so 
what i am doing er my argument is [0.4] mainly er normative by which i mean [0.
3] philosophical or theoretical [0.3] and methodological [0.7] so [0.2] er here 
i have er this is the er home page that i have but unfortunately [0.2] well [0.
7] er [0.2] everything is done in i mean it's written in Japanese [0.6] and er 
[0.2] one thing er [1.0] one [0.2] er thing that i [0.6] say to myself these 
days is that i mean now that i have [0.2] yes this privilege of staying in a 
for-, [0.2] in a in an English country [0.5] i must have another er e-, er 
English home page and er maybe hopefully [laugh] [0.2] i will have some [0.4] 
er [1.2] er English home page [0.5] 
nm1088: today [3.1] i will talk about studies in teacher under the title of er 
studies in teacher development a methodological viewpoint [0.4] and the whole 
point is actually sum-, can be summarized as such [0.6] and now this point i 
can say that's all but [laugh] no [0.3] this is not [laugh] [0.3] fair [0.2] so 
maybe er perhaps you er you don't er [0.5] you can let me read [0.2] er here [1.
1] okay [0.2] perhaps it is sensible to start er with my motivati-, er [0.3] 
with my motivation to write this paper for i think papers should be read in the 
larger [0.2] er context of our intellectual and social backgrounds [0.7] what i 
perceive to be the case is that [0.2] i-, at least in Japan we are in short of 
practically [0.2] relevant academic studies [0.3] in our fields or applied 
linguistics as sometimes [0.4] possibly [0.2] misleadingly called [0.6] large 
numbers of s-, er teachers are quite eager for self-development [0.2] yet [0.2] 
when they 
turn to academic researchers for some help [0.3] they often find that some 
researchers only produce experimental studies with little relevance to teaching 
practice [0.4] as far as i can see in Japan [0.8] the findings of [0.2] er the 
researchers are often only comprehensible from a very limited technical [0.2] 
perspective which is too remote or detached [0.3] or even completely different 
from teaching perspective [0.5] or the findings are sometimes too patchy [0.2] 
and interpretable only in the [0.3] er controlled situation of that 
experimental study [0.6] it seems that it is usually supposed that teachers not 
researchers [0.4] are to [0.3] are expected to integrated these different and 
[0.3] and fragmented findings to turn them into practical knowledge [0.4] but i 
believe this is a [0.2] unfair burden of labour for teachers [0.8] if 
researchers like my like me [0.2] only produce er replication of linguistics or 
psychology [0.2] under the name of applied linguistics applied psychology i 
believe they should be advised to learn the construction of their 
own theoretical framework [0.2] for teaching practice [1.7] however er this [0.
2] er discrepancy between the researchers and practitioners seemed to be [0.2] 
only widening [0.3] at least in Japan [0.5] for example in some academic 
journals in Japan major er academic journals [0.2] the standard format for a 
paper or a presentation is just like that of a psychological a psychology 
journal [0.3] and takes the form of [0.2] introduction [0.2] method [0.3] 
result discussion [0.6] it is as if only experimental works are encouraged [0.
8] unfortunately enough [0.2] it is as if [0.2] you have to stop caring about 
teaching practice at all [0.4] [laugh] in order to be a competitive researcher 
[0.5] or [0.2] you have to give up being academic [0.4] in order to er h-, be 
helpful for teachers in practice [0.8] apparently we must [0.2] er find our own 
methodology [0.2] to produce practically relevant [0.2] and academic [0.5] or 
rigid er studies [1.8] and i suspect Japan [0.2] isn't the only country to see 
the chasm [0.3] between research and practice [0.6] to take [0.3] only one [0.
2] other example [0.2] rather thoughtlessly [0.8] i wonder [0.4] the U-K here 
this country [0.7] isn't the same i i just don't know i mean if you say 
resoundingly no in chorus then i shall stop but [laughter] perhaps er i i can 
continue [0.9] er [0.9] for example the Times Higher Educational Supplement 
recently [0.3] er quoted er Professor Hargreaves at Cambridge University a 
member of the government's standard task [0.2] er force when he says in a 
nineteen- [0.6] er -sixty-nine teaching teacher training agency lecture [0.3] 
that [0.4] quote [0.3] much educational research is of little relevance to 
improving cla-, [0.2] classroom practice [0.5] Times Higher Education cla-, [0.
2] er Supplement also carries an even more critical view by Professor Hillage 
[0.2] at Sussex University's er Institute of [0.4] Employment Studies [0.2] the 
author of a report on the state of the educational research and quote [0.5] 
there are three-thousand id-, [0.3] er education researchers educational 
researchers in university education departments [0.3] and teacher training 
colleges [0.3] too much of what they do is small scale [0.2] lack rigour and 
does not advance 
knowledge [0.8] the burgeoning of er the burgeoning forest of academic research 
papers appears to be increasingly impenetrable [0.2] to academic audience [0.2] 
let alone to the wider education community [1.1] if academic research er [0.2] 
er research papers sit in the library to be read by a few scholars whose 
research and personal interest touch [0.2] on the same issues [0.3] as the 
Guardian higher education section [0.3] er put it [0.6] teachers do not benefit 
from the outcome of the tax money in the form of academic works [1.1] so er 
methodological consideration for educational research [0.4] er seemed to be an 
international task as it were [0.6] the current paper is an [0.3] attempt to of 
what little academic contribution i can make for the community of researchers 
and teachers [0.5] this paper deals with the methodological norms for studies 
in teacher development and seek a way for a better [0.2] er cooperation between 
researchers and teachers [0.6] and here i'd like to say that well er [0.3] my 
[0.2] i mean this paper is also [0.2] er based on these experience or sorry 
these experiences [0.5] particularly [0.3] in the [0.3] informal [0.2] 
discussion medium [0.7] called passagen seminar in Japan [0.2] this is an 
informal but [0.2] so [0.2] i mean i learned quite a lot 
nm1088: first er comes the [1.1] teacher action [1.7] and well [0.4] 
philosophers are rather notorious for saying something [0.3] obvious [0.9] er 
[0.2] philosophers just say [0.2] if [0.2] P then Q [0.6] P [0.4] therefore Q 
ah [0.3] God [laughter] i mean how [0.4] how how can we make this sort of 
inference you see [0.4] [laughter] so [0.2] i mean [laugh] [0.3] what i'm 
stating maybe er [0.3] just the [0.3] ob-, er obvious but by stating the [0.2] 
rather obvious [0.2] maybe i hope that we begin to see something [0.3] better 
[0.5] so [0.4] er this is the first point [1.4] as a definition [0.2] we make 
ac-, er we take actions of an ex-, [0.4] experienced er competent teacher to be 
rational by and large [0.4] the teacher is not merely a-, er adopting ad hoc 
measures for it's hard to explain the fact that she has [0.3] had a successful 
career [0.2] for a long time simply in terms of hapza-, [0.2] haphazard luck [0.
5] nor [0.4] teachers' actions are m-, [0.2] are mere simple er simple 
automatic skills for they are often [0.3] 
apparently done [0.2] in conflicting situations which doesn't allow [0.2] do 
not allow easy er fixed responses [0.8] the purpose of studies in teacher 
development should be to explore that rationality of teacher actions [0.6] the 
studies should er clarify the rationality which ha-, [0.2] has not always been 
described in a coherent way so far [1.3] this definition implies that we have 
to take [0.4] er assumptions in the following sections which are mutually 
related [0.3] these assumptions should be explicitly adopt-, [0.2] adopted [0.
2] for [0.2] confusion or in methodology can lead [0.2] can easily lead us 
nowhere [0.9] indeed [0.3] although i am of the opinion that Chomsky [0.2] 
linguist [0.2] Chomsky's project has little or practically no relevance to 
studies in teacher development [0.3] but i must i [0.2] i must admire his er 
methodological [0.2] excellence in explicating [0.2] his normative nature of 
research programme [0.5] it is i believe the combination of the normative [0.2] 
or philosophical [0.3] argument [0.4] and the descriptive [0.3] arguments 
specific arguments [0.2] that turn Chomsky's 
revolution into orthodoxy [0.3] which has been lasting for more than thirty 
years [1.0] what studies in teacher development need is normative awareness of 
their own methodology [0.5] after all [0.5] er we are not in short of practical 
tips for tomorrow or small ideas for Monday morning [0.8] it is lack of 
methodological foundation which makes them look like [0.2] collection of ad hoc 
advice which are not coherent to each other [0.5] without proper [0.2] 
methodology [0.3] we might fail to see the rationality of an [0.2] experienced 
competent teachers and continue to treat it [0.6] er [0.3] as something anybody 
would quickly acquire after experience without much effort [0.2] but that is 
not the case [1.0] we need to [0.3] explore er the rationality of an e-, [0.2] 
experienced [0.2] competent teacher so that we can share and develop our 
understanding of the profession [1.1] yet [0.6] this does not suggest that we 
should pick up one teacher [0.2] and treat her as an example of perfect 
rationality in language teaching [0.6] as human beings all teacher are under 
obvious constraints and thus 
prevented from being an [0.3] exemplar of perfect rationality [0.2] so we don't 
take actions of [0.2] one particular teachers as [0.3] to [0.2] as sort of 
sacred facts [0.3] er to be explained unquestionably [0.7] they er their 
actions could have been more rational [1.6] this statement mine s-, might sound 
like truism for some people but it is important to acknowledge once and for all 
[0.3] that no teacher should be [0.2] treated as a sort of [0.2] an icon [0.3] 
for it is sometimes the case that some teachers are so admired that they be-, 
they begin to accept [0.2] less and less critical v-, [0.2] reviews [0.2] and 
establish [0.2] an exclusive group [0.3] of their own [0.4] actually this is 
the case in Japan [0.2] i mean some [0.3] er educational journals are so hard 
to read [0.4] but it is not because they are intellectually hard i mean they 
just use [0.8] words which is not [0.3] exactly technical jargon but just just 
i mean they just communicated [0.4] communicate [0.4] within a limited group [0.
3] and i just [0.3] er [0.4] think that it is a sad thing for us i mean [0.3] 
so [0.2] we need to er be [0.2] er [1.7] right er [0.2] we just er [0.5] we 
just n-, shouldn't have an 
icon [1.4] er this i-, would be more plausible in an authoritarian culture when 
[0.2] where a democratic exchange of views are not e-, is not encouraged [1.0] 
maybe jap-, in Japan i mean [0.3] it is sometimes hard to exchange i mean frank 
views i mean because i mean some teachers are just in authoritian sits [0.6] 
[laugh] [0.7] and and they just say they can [0.4] just say something but they 
rarely listen [0.4] well i mean maybe i [laugh] [laughter] i am [0.4] 
exaggerating a little bit but [0.2] [laughter] this is what i i s-, i sometimes 
thinks [0.4] so [0.2] studies in er teacher development is not [0.2] to impart 
our teachers' knowledge [0.2] to [0.3] other in-, inexperienced teachers with 
no enquiring mind if that is all meant is meant by sharing experience we would 
only see [0.2] deteriorate-, [0.2] deteriorating [0.3] practical wisdom of 
teachers [0.2] for by definition a copy cannot be better than the original [1.
2] so our knowledge of teachers er one teacher can be only diminished or 
distorted when imparted [0.6] therefore when we share 
experience we must try to understand rationality in that experience not just 
the experience in it-, [0.2] in in itself but the rationality in it [0.6] and 
explore some other cases some potential [0.2] cases [0.4] that could be or 
could have been possible [1.2] if we agree to treat er [0.6] regard [0.2] 
teacher actions as instantiation of rationality [0.3] we can discuss the issue 
objectively incorporating discussion apply the finding properly not blindly to 
each unique situation [1.1] in other words we should cease to see teacher 
development in a craft model [0.8] as some [0.2] er some people call it [0.4] 
er we have to er distance [0.2] thoughtfully distance ourselves away from non-
critical ethos or blind following of mentor's behaviour [1.1] some might argue 
then [0.3] if teacher development is a matter of rationality [0.5] er we only 
have to adopt scientific method [1.1] my reaction is yes and no because the 
word scientific or science can be ambiguous [0.4] unlike the German word 
wissenschaft or the Japanese word gakumon [0.4] the English word science is 
sometimes taken 
to mean only natural or physical scientists [0.3] science [0.2] to the 
exclusion of social science or human science [0.7] if we take science in this 
narrow sense the answer is no [0.3] because [0.4] er it seems that we can only 
be scientific [0.3] in this sense by being for example semi-psychologists who 
replicates experiments in L-two settings [0.3] or applied linguists [0.4] er 
who works for research questions set by theoretical linguists not by language 
teachers in practice [0.9] the consequence of such scientific approach is much 
widening [0.2] er gap [0.2] between theory and practice [0.2] er or researchers 
and teachers [0.6] criticism for this kind of applied science model [0.3] is 
much discussed and i won't repeat it here [0.6] here suffice it to say [0.2] 
that neither side benefit from this gap [0.4] scientific researchers in our 
field [0.3] cannot avoid being uncritical er followers [0.7] of other 
presumably advanced scientists [0.3] because the former lack their own original 
research questions for education [0.7] and practical teachers will stay further 
away from 
methodological rigour [1.2] so we will [0.2] pursue studies in [0.2] er [0.6] 
te-, [0.2] for er teacher development [0.3] in a wide sense [0.4] but what is a 
scientific approach in the wide sense or the critical approach to avoid the 
ambiguity of the term [0.8] if there are any other way than f-, [0.3] 
psychology or linguistics for example to explore the issue of [0.2] er teacher 
development [0.6] some researchers have already referred to ethnomethodology [0.
2] and proposed reflective model [0.8] this paper is in line with this movement 
[0.2] and argues that [0.2] if critical enquiry which is different from natural 
or physical science [0.6] is er is done in a methodologically proper way [0.3] 
it will be it will reveal what natural or f-, [0.2] physical scien-, [0.2] 
science cannot reveal [1.0] in what follows i will make clear methodological 
assumptions that we have to adopt in studies in teacher development [0.2] and 
these are the assumptions i think [0.2] that we have to follow [0.2] if the 
purpose of study [0.2] er studies for teacher development is to explore the 
rationality of an [0.2] 
experienced [0.2] competent teacher's actions [0.2] we need to adopt the 
intentional stance [1.0] not the design stance or the physical stance [0.5] 
because er the only s-, er the f-, the intentional stance is [0.2] er the only 
[0.2] er stance of the three that can deal with human rationality [0.7] these 
three stances are [0.2] er philosophical concepts advocated by Dennett [0.6] a 
part of his motivation seems to be [0.3] t-, er to make us critically aware 
that stance adopted by natural scientists [0.4] the nat-, er physical stance [0.
2] is not the only possible way to view the world [0.9] from the intentional 
stance [1.6] here [0.2] the word intentional is a rather [0.2] er used in a 
technical sense of philosophy [0.3] and does not exclusively mean [0.3] purpose-
, purposeful or purposive [0.5] okay [0.3] but [0.3] er from this [0.3] 
intentional stance we see and try to understand an intelligent being [0.5] in 
our case [0.3] teacher [0.8] [laughter] [0.3] by ascribing rationality to it [0.
2] that is we treat the intelligent as [0.4] we [0.6] treat the intelligent 
being as the [0.2] one that has beliefs and desires and other 
mental states like hopes fears et cetera [0.3] and try to explain and predict 
[0.3] its [0.2] er actions by assuming [0.2] that it will act [0.3] with these 
mental s-, [0.2] er states [0.2] on the basis of rationality [0.8] with some 
possible obvious excep-, exceptions like the fatigue or something [0.3] we take 
it for granted that [0.2] it or the teacher will act rationally [0.4] even when 
[0.3] er it appears to be acting not rationally we do not [0.2] ascribe we 
shouldn't ascribe [0.3] you irrationality immediately [0.5] but still [0.2] 
ascribe the [0.2] er maximum amount of rationality to it [0.4] and try to 
account for the action [0.8] by examining what beliefs and desi-, or desires [0.
3] er have led to their action [0.9] on the other hand [0.5] even in the case 
of reasonably [0.6] er rational action [0.5] we attribute again the maximum 
rationality to the intelligent being [0.2] and try to explore [0.2] what [0.2] 
other potential actions [0.3] could be or could have been taken [0.4] which are 
more rational [0.8] applied to the studies in [0.2] er teachers' development [1.
1] er from [0.4] er from this er intentional stance we view teacher actions as 
an actual 
instantiation of rationality [0.6] for seemingly unusual or unexpected actions 
by [0.3] maybe inexperienced teachers or young teachers or [0.5] experienced 
teachers [0.3] we won't just condemn the teacher herself but instead [0.3] try 
to uncover what led her [0.3] to that action by examining her beliefs and 
desires et cetera [1.0] by mutually finding out her unrealized er beliefs or 
desires et cetera [0.4] er we give her a chance for reflection [0.3] for 
theoretical [0.9] on the other hand for theoretically trained [0.2] but 
inexperienced teacher [0.3] we might be able to reveal [0.2] what she could 
have done [0.3] given the strength of her theoretical beliefs [0.8] from this 
[0.2] intens-, intentional stance we construct [0.2] er reconstruct the 
rationality of our teacher [0.3] so that we can share her [0.2] actual and 
potential actions [0.2] in an explicit [0.3] and understanding way [0.9] thus 
[0.2] studies in teacher development should [0.3] be construed [0.2] as a 
rational reconstruction of existing practice [0.4] but extending that er beyond 
that practice [0.4] by exploring its internal structure and suggesting [0.2] 
other [0.3] 
potential practice [1.0] in short [0.3] this stance is [0.2] the one that we 
just [0.2] usually take [laugh] in er the reflective model [0.2] of teacher 
development [2.1] this intentional stance should not be confused with the 
design stance [2.1] er for if we we take the design stance ex-, exclusively [0.
2] er in teacher development [0.3] what result may [0.2] well be coercion not 
reflection [0.9] from the design stance we see [0.2] a being [0.5] as what [0.
2] is designed to serve a certain purpose [0.2] to perform [0.2] a certain 
predetermined functions [0.9] this view is of limited help [0.2] er [0.4] only 
when teachers [0.4] are expected to do fixed activities [0.6] these routine 
behaviours are certainly one element of teacher actions but [0.3] yet [0.2] not 
the major element [0.5] after all it is possible or arguably even desirable to 
replace these fixed teacher actions [0.3] with some [0.3] teaching machines [0.
8] [laugh] [0.2] for [0.3] er er as far as fixed and er non-creative functions 
are concerned [0.2] machines are much faster [0.2] more accurate [0.2] and even 
perhaps more humane because it [0.2] er is more patient [0.4] [laughter] and [1.
3] actually but [0.2] i 
think major major issue for [0.2] our profession is the i-, information 
technology i think [0.4] i mean [0.2] this can change a lot i mean [0.2] 
industrial revolution [0.3] can change the life of [0.7] workers [0.5] i mean 
the [0.4] manual workers [0.5] then i mean [0.6] if this is the information 
revolution [0.3] that we are witnessing [0.6] we our change [0.2] i mean our 
work will [0.6] change a lot [0.2] that's what i think i suspect [0.8] okay [0.
9] and er in other words teacher development exclusively from the design stance 
[0.2] would discourage teachers from developing [0.5] er to be more flexible 
and compatible with conflicting situations in real classrooms [0.6] the design 
stance [0.2] er alone cannot deal with this sort of open-minded [0.2] open-
ended questions 
nm1088: from the physical stance we [0.2] only [0.3] er we see a being solely 
on the basis of the actual physical state as the natural or physical scientist 
usually do [0.4] this stance does not deal with human rationality [0.2] or 
purpose [0.5] for [0.3] they do not enter into the realm of the physical world 
[0.2] of the natural scientist [0.9] this physical stance is what 
some s-, [0.2] school [0.2] of psychology and linguistics [0.5] are trying to 
take [0.4] although i would say er [0.2] er there are other [0.8] types of 
psychology and linguistics [0.2] that is seen from the design stance not the 
physical stance [1.2] for example what some [0.2] er experimental psychological 
researchers are changing [0.2] into [0.3] er neuroscience or brain science [0.
3] that's neuropsychology [0.4] for the er these types of [0.2] researchers has 
simply a more precise instruments of measurements and this is capable of 
producing finer theories [0.7] in linguistics Chomsky often says that 
linguistics is and should be ultimately biology [1.2] this stance can produce 
argualy [0.3] arguably [0.3] the finest picture of reality [0.4] however we 
have to remember that this stance by definition excludes [0.2] the rationality 
of [0.2] a teacher [0.2] and [0.5] the design er design of teaching [0.4] you 
need more than [0.2] er terms of physics to deal with these sort of human 
concepts [1.1] therefore i mean [0.2] er [0.4] by just trying to look [0.2] er 
like science scientific [0.2] we are turning ourselves further away from the 
teaching 
practice [1.0] here we have to be careful about scientism [0.9] if we naively 
believe in scientific method and assume that if if scientific application [0.2] 
is the ultimate panacea [0.3] and justify [0.3] ourselves [0.2] er mimicking [0.
2] experiments by psychologists or lin-, [0.2] er linguistics [0.8] in the hope 
of finding the ultimate answer [0.3] to practical human questions by these 
small scientifics er steps [0.3] we are i believe [0.2] doomed [laugh] [1.2] er 
[0.2] well to [0.5] i think i would say that it is like a hopeless situation [0.
3] where a tortoise [0.6] starts [0.4] not [0.2] even before [0.3] but alas 
after Achilles [0.4] [laughter] and finds an infinite number of passing points 
[0.2] leading to ever running er Achilles [0.7] the more s-, er natural science 
advances the more educational researchers have to replicate [0.5] and natural 
scientists [0.2] run much faster than educational researchers [0.3] [laughter] 
because they are [0.3] much in larger in number [0.2] er much larger in number 
and have far fewer burden of er [0.2] explanation than educational researchers 
[0.6] educational researchers i believe have to learn to benefit 
from the result of [0.2] natural science [0.2] not to [0.7] mimic [0.2] as it 
were [0.2] natural scientists [1.6] so we should [0.2] er not take f-, [0.2] er 
for granted the priority of the s-, er three stances that scientism implies [0.
5] scientism holds that physical stance [1.1] so [0.2] er physical stance as 
paramount [0.2] the design stance being a mere application of the finding from 
the physical stance [0.3] nothing more than a secondary interest [0.5] for the 
follower of scientism the intentional stance [1.0] may only have a derogatory 
connotation [0.2] for it is far from the precise desrip-, description that 
physical stance can produce [0.8] however [0.2] this priority order of physical 
stance first and then f-, design stance and the intentional stance [0.2] is not 
only possible one nor the only sensible one as i have implied [0.6] suppose we 
take only the physical stance for teacher development [0.2] X years later with 
the advance of er neuroscience educational researchers too [0.3] might have a 
far more detailed pictures of [0.4] er teacher actions [0.5] yes [0.3] yet this 
picture [0.9] whose reading requires a lot of 
study [0.2] in neuroscience [0.2] would [0.4] er be far less of help for 
teachers [0.2] because this picture is f-, f-, [0.2] far too detailed and yet 
too vast in the information [0.3] to be understood in real terms [0.5] it might 
perhaps start from the excitement [0.2] of some neurons [laugh] in some er some 
domains of the brain to the transmission of chemical substance in the muscle 
and then finally to the picking up one piece of chalk [0.7] [laughter] and 
[laugh] [0.8] obviously it's not good picture [0.2] if this sort of precise 
scientific findings are to be of some help for practitioners [0.2] scientific 
[0.3] enquiry must be properly directed [0.2] by [0.2] some [0.2] other 
principles [0.2] with educational orientation [0.8] so [0.2] my [0.2] er what i 
[0.3] er [0.3] in other words i think [0.2] i mean we shouldn't start from here 
or even start from here we should start from here [0.4] er this is my point [1.
1] er by [0.2] so [0.6] er it [0.3] er enq-, our enquiry must be directed by a 
less precise yet more economical stance that is far more relevant to practice 
of education [0.6] thus [0.4] for us [0.2] i mean we must reverse er [0.2] 
priority order [0.2] thus [0.9] er 
intentional stance comes first followed by the design stance [0.3] and then 
finally by the physical stance [0.8] we must limit our enquiry to the realm of 
the intentional stance unless it becomes undeniably necessary [0.5] that 
without local findings from a more precise [0.2] er stance we cannot go on [1.
4] only then do we began er begin to take the design stance [0.2] the physical 
stance [0.3] should come even later when efforts er from the design stance are 
exhausted [0.7] this order might seem [0.6] er unscientific or even 
antiscientific [0.4] to some people [0.2] however i argue that this is not [0.
4] in the broad sense of that term science [0.2] and that this is [0.2] a very 
reasonable order by which we can increase our practical knowledge [0.7] if we 
start er from the physical stance or even the design stance [0.3] critical 
enquiry for teacher development [0.2] is far too vast [0.6] it would be too 
arbitral to pick [0.2] just one or two aspects of the whole scientific enquiry 
[0.4] and claim [0.2] these studies studies in er teacher development [0.7] by 
definition [0.2] pure s-, er 
natural [0.4] er or physical scientists [0.2] must be blind to design [0.2] and 
human intentionality human [1.0] concepts [0.3] but we cannot be blind to them 
also by definition [1.6] i would say in order to be reasonable in teacher 
development we cannot afford to be physical er scientists [2.0] and [0.9] we 
will go to the next point 
nm1088: adoption of intentional stance entails commitment to holism [0.3] bec-, 
[0.2] er for our intentionality [0.3] meaning our human concepts our human [0.
7] understanding [0.6] beliefs hopes desires [0.3] anxieties et cetera [0.3] is 
so inter-, internally connected that we are [0.4] that one change in one part 
of our intentionality [0.5] may [0.2] cause some [0.2] other change in some 
parts [0.2] for example [0.2] we may want our s-, [0.2] want our students to 
make [0.2] an immediate response to a question in the target language in 
classroom [0.4] but it may only be so as long as she does not [0.2] the student 
[0.3] does not develop too much reliance on strategic competence too much 
frequent [0.4] er too frequent [0.2] er circumlocution which discourage [0.5] 
er syntactic development [0.4] or [0.7] er [0.4] unless she er [0.8] 
she does not er develop too much reliance on easy set phrase which whose 
semantic content [0.3] is not necessarily an expression of her feelings [0.8] 
nor would teacher want an [0.3] im-, immediate response if it threatens the 
teach-, student's des-, er affective sense of security [0.6] our beliefs and 
desires are so interconnected that it is practically impossible to pick up [0.
2] one proposition er [0.2] from our intentionality [0.3] and treat the 
proposition as a kind of decontextualized e-, [0.2] ex-, eternal truth [0.5] of 
course we sometimes take the proposition [0.6] and [0.3] perhaps we see we find 
[0.3] no practical problem in saying that [0.3] an immediate response from a 
student is desirable [0.7] but [0.2] we have to be reminded that when we make 
this sort of type [0.3] er [0.2] this type of statement [0.3] we omit for the 
economy of speech [0.3] a restrictive phrase like [0.2] other things being 
normal [0.9] indeed [0.3] or we have to be careful about the balance of 
significance between the proposition part and the restrictive [0.3] er phrase 
part [0.2] other things being normal [0.7] in natural or 
physical science where the target of the study is highly focused or controlled 
[0.3] restrictive er phrase [0.4] may sound a platitude [0.7] yet [0.2] in the 
case where a proposition is actually in the web of other propositions and 
contextual factors play a major role [0.3] it is indeed [0.2] the proposition 
part [0.4] that may [0.7] er become a platitude [0.7] indeed [0.2] restrictive 
phrase other thing being e-, [0.7] er normal may be the focus of our enquiry [0.
4] a holistic question like [0.2] what other factors are significantly related 
to this proposition [0.4] may carry more relevance to teachers who already know 
the content of the platitudinous [0.3] proposition [1.3] in this sense i i'm 
rather sceptical of of experimental studies in teacher development [0.3] of 
course you can [0.2] er compare for example two types of teaching technique in 
a semi-experimental manner and have a conclusion that one technique work better 
than the other [0.6] but [0.2] if the study neglects exploring what constitutes 
the de-, [0.3] er context including the teacher herself [0.4] the conclusion [0.
2] is of little significance to 
other teachers or even the teacher herself [0.2] when she is put in a different 
situation [1.1] i believe proliferi-, [0.2] er proliferating [0.2] this type of 
experimental studies leads us nowhere unless we take the holistic nature of 
reality [0.3] as the foundation of our studies [0.6] hence action research [0.
2] should be [0.2] encouraged for it [0.2] er supposedly encourages our 
reflection over [0.2] holistic situation [0.3] rather than jumping to a hasty 
conclusion [0.3] but without [0.4] proper understanding of the holism [0.3] 
action research [0.3] er could perhaps degenerate into a rather arbitrary 
comparison study [0.3] which is far from scientific er experimental design [0.
2] and sensible [0.3] er reflection 
nm1088: okay next point [0.7] adoption of re-, intentional stance and holism 
commands a more flexible type of rationality [0.2] than we normally think 
because [0.2] if [0.2] when we say [0.3] we are rational and [0.2] we [0.5] 
often [1.2] er think of [0.5] er rationality in formal [0.2] terms [1.1] for [0.
2] it would be inconceivable that we often come up with sensible solutions in 
this complex world satisfying our 
holistic intentionality [0.3] with only simple formal deductive type of 
rationality [1.4] in this section [0.3] therefore i introduce Habermas' theory 
of rationality for a more flexible account of rationality [1.3] Habermas [0.2] 
er distinguishes two types of rationality [0.6] cognitive instrumental 
rationality and er communicative rationality [0.2] stating that although the [0.
3] er [0.4] cognitive instrumental rationality is the self-understanding of the 
modern era [0.4] contemporary [0.3] world [0.3] it should be subsumed [0.4] by 
the latter [0.4] er communicative rationality which is connected with the 
ancient [0.2] er [0.2] conception of logos [0.7] exertion of cognitive 
instrumental rationality is measured [0.3] by successful intervention [0.7] if 
one is able to fulfil her purpose by making informed and intelligent change [0.
3] in the environment [1.2] she is regarded as possessing cognitive 
instrumental rationality [0.8] this is [0.3] er [0.2] teleological and non-
cognitive [0.3] and does not require at least theoretically [0.4] agreement 
with other persons [0.8] as long as she makes her purpose clear and change 
the environment [0.2] so that [0.6] er it more satisfies [0.5] her purpose [0.
3] she has shown instrumental mastery [0.3] and that is enough for cognitive er 
instrumental rationality [1.1] to make internal reference [0.4] we typically 
exert this rationality from the design stance [0.8] some er we somehow receive 
purpose from the intentional stance [1.1] and tactfully gain knowledge from the 
physical stance and then relate them to fill fulfil the purpose [1.3] yet [0.4] 
this is not a good picture for teacher [0.2] er development as you would assume 
[0.8] er [0.7] as we have confirmed the purpose or the end of a teacher action 
[0.2] is not always independent [0.4] and unchangeable [0.5] because of the 
holistic nature of our teaching experience [0.6] only some portion of er 
teacher actions can be properly explained by this cognitive instrumental 
rationality [0.2] from the design stance [0.7] so we need a more flexible and 
comprehensible notion of rationality [0.3] and that according to Habermas [0.2] 
is communicative rationality [0.5] we hold that rationality of teacher [0.3] 
actions [0.5] 
comes its-, er manifests itself through [0.3] the use of this communicative 
rationality [1.5] okay communicative rationality is exerted for unifying 
consensus bridging force of argumentative [0.2] er speech [1.0] er [0.2] what i 
mean is that in this er sort of communication different participants overcome 
[0.3] their merely subjective views and by the use of communicative rationality 
[0.3] they try to [0.3] er achieve [2.6] and they integrate different aspects 
of the same world in a coherent way [0.4] so [0.7] for example when we talk [0.
2] and when we reach an ar-, [0.2] agreement [0.2] we just [0.2] don't simply 
follow one type of argument [0.4] some [0.4] people says when in terms of this 
[0.3] rule i mean [0.2] your action is wro-, i mean wrong or something like 
that [0.5] whereas [0.2] the other person might say but you see [0.2] just just 
think [0.2] of how she must be feeling right now [0.5] which is quite different 
logic [0.4] er [0.4] somehow we reach [0.2] an understanding [0.7] and [0.2] 
Habermas [0.2] er says that [0.5] we should [0.3] er [0.6] acknowledge this 
that sort of er more [0.3] flexible rationality [0.8] that's what he means by 
er communicative 
rationality [0.9] and inherent in this er communicative rationality [0.2] is 
communicative understanding [0.8] this rationality is exercised particularly 
when it becomes obvious that there is apparent disagreement [0.2] in 
understanding among ourselves [0.3] with different orientations [0.6] in our 
case [0.3] teacher often encounters students or student er and situations [0.5] 
which are quite different from what she expected [0.8] and do not allow an easy 
solution [0.6] she then has to talk as it were with herself [0.3] or [0.5] 
actually with other persons [0.2] other colleagues [0.2] or friends when she 
has time to find a better solution [0.6] she must take into account different 
aspects of teaching that's different students [0.3] and different s-, er 
situations bring [0.6] and find that unified [0.2] understanding of the whole 
picture of teaching [2.1] er [0.2] she m-, c-, she must come up with the 
solution by way of [0.2] communicative rationality [1.0] communicative 
rationality is therefore motivated by such ordinary questions [0.2] like [0.3] 
how come she sees it [0.3] and you don't [0.5] i mean [0.8] this type of 
mindset is 
quite incompatible [0.3] in fact [0.3] and in fact in [0.3] unimaginable from 
the physical stance or the design stance [0.4] which only presupposes the the 
one [0.2] and only one [0.2] unquestionable realistic world [0.2] or purpose [0.
4] and see disagreement among us [0.3] as a mishap [0.3] not as a starting 
motivation for further enquiry [1.0] the communicative rationality takes [0.2] 
phenomenological style [0.6] which allows different looks of the world [0.5] er 
from different interpretive backgrounds [0.6] therefore communicative 
rationality [0.4] is er compatible with holism [0.8] rather than the 
instrumental [0.2] er cognitive instrumental rationality [1.8] and also er 
compatible with the intentional stance [0.6] in addition since communicative 
rationality is a more comprehensible concept [0.6] er this subsumes cognitive 
instrumental rationality [0.5] it is an undeniable fact that our daily life is 
occasionally supplemented by instrumental mastery [0.6] a life with no 
instrumental mastery is not a human life [0.2] but [0.2] a life which is only 
made up of instrumental mastery [0.3] is not a human life either [0.6] we 
need to make clear the as-, sort of the asymmetrical [0.3] w-, [0.2] relation 
[0.2] of our communicative rationality and cogniti-, [0.3] cognitive 
instrumental rationality [0.4] and try not to misrepresent a human life or 
teacher actions in theoretically biased way 
nm1088: okay [0.2] then [0.3] argumentation [1.1] suppose that [0.2] so suppose 
a teacher comes to us [0.4] and we try to see [0.4] er [1.2] rationality [0.2] 
by the use of communicative rationality [0.4] then what are the specific 
requirements in the argumentation [1.3] Habermas says that [0.7] our 
argumentation should be seen [0.4] as a process [0.2] that is [0.2] unfinished 
work [0.2] unfinished continuation [0.6] so [0.2] in natural science [0.2] you 
should have an answer [1.2] if you don't have an answer that's a failure [0.7] 
but [0.2] in our [0.2] discussion [0.6] i mean in our setting [0.2] maybe we 
don't have a complete answer and we shouldn't have a complete answer [0.2] if 
you think you should you have a the ultimate [1.9] i mean [0.3] complete er 
right answer then [0.3] you must be taking [0.6] er design stance or physical 
stance or this er [0.3] rationality [0.9] cognitive instrumental rationality [0.
5] so [0.5] we we 
shouldn't be ashamed of the fact that [0.3] sort of as it were we are endlessly 
talking [laugh] [0.9] i mean from different er [0.2] perspectives [0.9] also [0.
2] er [0.3] Habermas says that [0.5] we must follow certain procedure i mean 
argumentation should be seen er procedure [0.4] and we must follow s-, [0.2] er 
certain types of rules [0.5] for example [0.7] er Habermas says [0.3] er [0.6] 
we should [0.2] thematize [0.2] no we just [0.4] i mean [1.3] in the process we 
just [1.2] don't chat [0.5] we just thematize [0.3] the claim [0.6] and we try 
to see [1.0] we try to clarify the reasons behind it [0.5] not the er claim 
itself [0.4] for example when she says when er one teacher says something like 
the [0.7] i think the introductio-, i mean the use of music enhances the 
student's motivation et cetera [0.4] rather than focusing on that content 
itself [0.3] oh no in my experience it didn't work w-, et cetera or music is 
not related to the cognitive development something like that [0.3] we should 
try to see the reasons [0.4] reasons [0.2] and argumentations [0.3] these are 
the core of the [0.4] er [0.7] argumentation [0.3] and er [1.0] we shouldn't [0.
2] take the attitu-, er we should take the 
sort of the hypothetical wor-, er attitude [0.3] and stop saying [0.5] well [0.
4] if you have the experience if you have experience like mine [0.2] you will 
see [0.4] or you cannot say anything [0.3] you cannot say [0.2] real-, er say 
anything really [0.6] if you are not experienced er if you are not experienced 
[0.4] i mean [0.7] we should [0.7] as i said [0.2] er [0.2] we just [0.3] i 
mean [0.6] we should [0.4] begin [0.3] we should see [0.2] the teacher actions 
in terms of rationality [0.3] so we we should try to see the rationality behind 
it [0.4] so [0.2] reasons [0.6] not the context [0.7] or the [0.2] i mean 
experience is obviously important [0.3] but [0.4] experience is not absolutely 
necessary [0.3] to understand [0.6] our profession [1.7] and but [0.2] we 
should have [0.2] er at some point [0.7] i mean we should turn these discussion 
[0.3] or argumentation [0.3] into a product [0.4] otherwise i mean we'll get 
nowhere [0.5] i mean this sounds rather contradictory to each other but [0.3] 
in in actual case i mean we should have the sort of the intent [0.2] er report 
or a summary [0.8] otherwise er [0.8] and [0.8] that is [0.5] okay and that [0.
2] er sort of the product [0.2] is enough [0.6] er [0.6] i don't have time so i 
have no time to 
introduce er Wittgenstein's er concept of certainty [0.5] oh in short 
Wittgenstein says [0.2] i mean scientists [0.2] are concerned with truth [0.7] 
but [0.2] we [0.3] don't [0.3] er spend our lives [0.6] based on the truth [0.
2] we [0.2] act on certainty [0.3] and certainty is enough [0.4] that's what 
Wittgenstein says in the f-, [0.4] rather thick book but [laugh] [0.3] 
[laughter] just let's [0.4] i mean [laugh] i don't know [laugh] [1.3] and we [0.
4] so sort of produce argumentation or discussion [0.2] then we have to make it 
[0.2] a study [1.3] and er [1.3] in the s-, er in order to have a study or a 
research programme [0.3] we should have normative and [0.2] we should 
distinguish normative descriptive prescriptive [0.2] er [0.5] argumentations or 
types [0.2] er aspect [0.3] of the research [0.7] er i would like to say unless 
we clearly distinguishes these three aspects [1.3] er [1.6] we cannot develop 
our s-, [0.2] er discussion into a study [2.7] okay [0.2] prescriptions [0.4] i 
mean prescriptions is just advice from the senior teacher [0.8] and usually we 
[0.2] just take it [0.2] or and some people [0.2] says that no no you shouldn't 
prescribe you shouldn't you shouldn't er [0.2] er [0.4] 
have you should have no prescriptions et cetera [0.6] but [0.4] er actually [0.
2] er [0.2] proper prescriptions is [0.3] quite possible [0.3] if we have 
normative theories and descriptions [1.2] okay [0.3] by normative theories [0.
8] er [0.2] as i said [0.2] er [0.2] s-, [1.3] since we see the teacher actions 
as an instantiation of rationalities [1.4] er we have to we sort of the [0.2] 
we should come up with the [0.4] theories [0.6] that is philosophically [0.9] 
sound and [0.4] solid [1.0] er [1.4] what i mean is that [1.4] if we [1.0] er 
[0.8] yeah [0.9] we should rather than starting from here [0.3] my point is 
rather than s-, starting from here [0.2] just to quote [0.2] er Chomsky or some 
other psychological studies [0.4] we should start from the er here our sense of 
practice we do have a good sense of practice [0.9] and then [0.6] er [0.8] we 
should sort of be [0.5] by some [0.3] happy accident [0.4] we should come up 
with the er possible normative theories [0.7] and then [0.3] if we have these 
normative theories [0.5] we can describe [0.4] according [0.3] er according to 
that normative theories [0.8] otherwise if we just try to describe [0.9] it is 
like a diary [0.3] i mean you describe something but i mean you see [0.3] i 
mean other people can see [1.1] er little point in them so [0.4] normative 
theories and descriptions must er [0.4] come together [0.7] if [0.3] i mean [1.
7] one cannot exist without [0.2] the other [0.2] i would say [0.6] er [0.2] 
particularly descriptions [0.6] and if we compare normative theories and 
descriptions then there should be a gap i mean [0.3] should it be the case [0.
6] that [0.2] this is the normative theories [0.7] and [0.3] should it be the 
case that there are some paths [0.2] er which are [0.4] not [0.3] really the 
case in the descriptions [0.4] we can have the [0.2] prescription I-E i mean we 
have to concentrate our effort in this [0.3] er [0.4] er [0.6] stance [0.3] i 
mean [0.2] in this area [0.3] of research [0.7] so [0.4] er [1.9] if i can 
summarize quickly [0.4] i think [0.8] er [0.7] we have been [0.3] er [0.5] we 
have [0.2] an applied science model [0.4] as i said [0.8] in applied science 
model normative theories comes first [0.5] but i i think it it should not be 
the case [0.3] on the other hand [0.3] we sometimes just er [0.4] just try to 
describe [1.2] without er [0.2] having the n-, normative theories [0.2] but 
this is not the case [0.5] and [0.3] in order to [0.2] have the normative 
theories [0.4] i [0.8] i'd like to say that we shouldn't be natural 
science or we shouldn't be the [0.4] normative theories [0.2] er themselves we 
should [0.3] just like [0.3] just like an engineer is quite happy [0.5] to 
learn some of the results [0.6] of the scientific findings [0.2] and apply it 
[0.6] we should be happy [0.3] to be [0.2] not [0.2] original scientists or 
pure scientists we cannot be scien-, i mean real scientists in practical terms 
[0.4] and [0.2] that's not a shame [0.2] this is my er contention [0.8] and [0.
4] pres-, prescriptions [0.2] it's still possible and [0.6] i mean if a 
prescriptions comes with the normative theories and descriptives er [0.2] 
descrips-, [0.2] descriptions [0.4] er prescriptions are not [0.4] just blind 
thing [1.3] so [0.3] well i sort of hasten [0.3] to conclude but i think this 
is er [0.2] all i want to say right now [0.2] thank you very much 
nm1089: 
well thank you very much indeed Professor namex 
nm1089: i think you may have got some sense of the experience i was describing 
in er [0.3] Professor's namex's office sparks flying in all directions i was 
[laughter] so we certainly got our money's worth this afternoon [laughter] 
thank you very much indeed [0.4] er i heard the clatter of teacups a little 
while ago [0.2] and i don't want our tea to get cold so i'm going to suggest if 
anybody has immediate responses they'd like to make now for perhaps about five 
minutes or so [0.4] and there are many many areas we could follow through 
trying to catch those sparks [0.3] and and then if we can all go into room 
three-five-seven where i believe the tea is we can continue informally [0.2] 
over a cup of tea [0.9] so any any immediate responses [2.1] or comments or 
questions or [4.1] namex yes of course 
nf1090: 
can i just make one observation [0.4] do you see it as a hopeful sign that 
Chomsky is now saying that [0.5] everything has become much too complicated and 
he wants to go back to [0.4] a much simpler model [0.6] er [0.2] of er [0.2] 
language learning in order to [0.2] understand [0.5] really [0.2] what's going 
on 
nm1088: do you mean that Chomsky is saying that he he's sort of the er [0.5] 
trying to give up the [0.2] account of the language development 
nf1090: that's right [0.3] that's right 
nm1088: yes i think that's why he he he can survive [0.3] i mean [0.3] that's 
the way he survives [0.4] 
nf1090: yes 
nm1088: 
right i mean [0.3] he [0.2] i mean his [0.3] i mean [0.6] his normative theory 
is nativism [0.4] innate theory [0.3] 
nf1090: yes 
nm1088: and that's the most important part [0.6] right [0.5] and the some [0.3] 
people say oh it's not fair because you have to [0.3] account for various 
things like the language development 
nf1090: mm [0.2] 
nm1088: but if he tries to do that [0.4] i think his er project might have 
collapsed [0.5] 
nf1090: mm 
nm1088: and [0.7] by [0.2] er concentrating his efforts to the [0.3] to his 
normative theory [1.0] he can make it methodologically clear [0.2] and that's 
why people [0.3] er er linguists all over the world can cooperate [0.5] so i 
mean [0.8] er i think we have to sort of not in the Chomskian sense but we have 
to certainly er narrow [0.2] our [0.2] focus actually [0.8] er in the form of 
normative theories otherwise i think [0.2] er we keep [0.2] talking [0.2] and 
that's fine [0.4] that's fine because w-, [0.6] each time [0.3] hopefully we [0.
2] understand better [0.4] but [0.3] if we are to cooperate [0.5] then we 
should have normative theories [0.8] according to which we can cooperate