TY - JOUR
AU - McDonough, Jo
AB -  even if it entails very indirect measures. Surely what our teaching requires is an `assessment' approach, which taps into the process of listening rather than its linguistic content, and thus provides insights into the learner's weaknesses and strengths? Here, the listening types and sub-skills identified by Buck might perhaps a¤ord a better point of departure. My second point of disagreement relates to the way in which Buck downplays the role of the compensatory strategies which enable L2 listeners to achieve understanding despite limitations of grammar and vocabulary. His comment (p. 105) that `Di¤erences in performance capability between di¤erent listeners . . . will generally be due to di¤erences in linguistic competence rather than di¤erences in strategic competence' is sweeping, to say the least. Buck compounds it with the assertion (p. 48) that the process of L2 listening closely resembles that of L1. It is not entirely clear what he understands here by `process'--but one wonders in what sense an individual with a reduced set of bottom-up information from the signal can be said to perform in the same way as one who understands everything. On this point, too, Buck seems to contradict himself: elsewhere (p. 27), he accepts 
TI - Critical English for Academic Purposes: Theory, Politics, and Practice
JF - ELT Journal
DO - 10.1093/elt/57.2.202
DA - 2003-04-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/critical-english-for-academic-purposes-theory-politics-and-practice-tMoZUB2Rxf
SP - 202
EP - 204
VL - 57
IS - 2
DP - DeepDyve
ER -