Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:15:57.123Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Specialist Knowledge and Interlanguage Development

A Discourse Domain Approach to Text Construction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Shona Whyte
Shona Whyte
Affiliation:
Universíte Lumìere Lyon 2
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates learner's construction of oral texts on topics of specialization. Using the framework of the discourse domain hypothesis, which holds that second language proficiency is acquired with reference to individual, specialized contexts of production, termed discourse domains, the study tests the prediction that learners will construct more independent and coherent texts on such topics. Data were elicited from advanced ESL learners at a U.S. university: Discourse domain talk on academic major topics by five invested subjects is compared with the performance of the same subjects on a general topic and with a control group who talked on two comparable general topics. Analysis focuses on discourse organization, including turntaking patterns and episode structure. Results suggest that text construction is facilitated by learners' expertise and investment in the topic of conversation. Invested subjects constructed more coherent episodes and, in some cases, more independent turns on their topics of specialization. In the absence of such expertise, however, recent rehearsal of topics by some control subjects appeared to permit similarly enhanced discourse organization. Thus, the study reveals a complex relationship between specialized knowledge and text construction that suggests new avenues for future research into topic-related interlanguage variation.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 1995 , pp. 153 - 183
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bardovi-Harlig, K, & Hartford, B. (1993). Learning the rules of academic talk: A longitudinal study of pragmatic change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 279–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, F. C. (1967). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1932)Google Scholar
Beebe, L, & Giles, H. (1984). Speech-accommodation theories: A discussion in terms of second-language acquisition. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 46, 5–32.Google Scholar
Beebe, L., & Zuengler, J. (1983). Accommodation theory: An explanation for style shifting in second language dialects. In Wolfson, N. & Judd, E. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 195–213). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Briggs, S. (1987). When course success varies from discourse success. English for Specific Purposes, 6, 153–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruner, J. S. (1978). The role of dialogue in language acquisition. In Sinclair, A., Jarvella, R. J., & Levelt, W. J. M. (Eds.), The child's conception of language (pp. 241–256). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Clapham, C. (1993). Is ESP testing justified? In Douglas, D. & Chapelle, C. (Eds.), A new decade of language testing research: Selected papers from the 1990 Language Testing Research Colloquium (pp. 257–271). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.Google Scholar
Cornu, A. M., & Delahaye, M. (1987). Variability in interlanguage reconsidered: LSP vs. non-LSP talk. English for SpeciTic Purposes Journal, 6, 145–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, D., & Selinker, L. (1985). Principles for language tests within the ‘discourse domains’ theory of interlanguage. Language Testing, 2, 205–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, D., & Selinker, L. (1990, 03). Performance on general versus field-specific tests of speaking proficiency. Paper presented at the Language Testing Research Colloquium, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Douglas, D., & Selinker, L. (1992). Analyzing oral proficiency test performance in general and specific purpose contexts. System, 20, 317–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, D., & Selinker, L. (1993). Performance on a general versus a field-specific test of speaking proficiency by international teaching assistants. In Douglas, D. & Chapelle, C. (Eds.), A new decade of language testing research: Selected papers from the 1990 Language Testing Research Colloquium (pp. 235–256). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.Google Scholar
Douglas, D., & Selinker, L. (1994). Research methodology in contextually-based second language research. In Tarone, E., Gass, S., & Cohen, A. (Eds.), Research methodology in second language acquisition (pp. 119–131). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1985). Sources of variability in interlanguage. Applied Linguistics, 6, 118–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franks, M. (1990). Writing as thinking: A guided process approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Crookes, G. (Eds.). (1993). Tasks in a pedagogical context: Integrating theory and practice. Clevedon, UK: Multilinguial matters.Google Scholar
Preston, D. (1989). Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Selinker, L., & Douglas, D. (1985). Wrestling with ‘context’ in interlanguage theory. Applied Linguistics, 6, 190–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selinker, L., & Douglas, D. (1989). Research methodology in contextually-based second language research. Second Language Research, 5, 93–126.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1987). Variability and language testing. In Ellis, R. (Ed.), Second language acquisition in context (pp. 195–206). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Skelton, J., & Pindi, M. (1987). Acquiring a new context: Zairean students struggle with the academic mode. English for Specific Purposes Journal, 6, 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J. (1989). Topic and variation in ITA oral proficiency: SPEAK and field-specific tests. English for Specific Purposes Journal, 8, 155–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J. (1992). Topic and variation in the oral proficiency of international teaching assistants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
St.John, M. J. (1987). Writing processes of Spanish scientists publishing in English. English for Specific Purposes Journal, 6, 113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D. (1979). What's in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In Freedle, R. (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (pp. 137–181). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. (1988). Variation in interlanguage. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Tyler, A. (1992). Discourse structure and the perception of incoherence in international teaching assistants’ spoken discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 713–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A. (1995). The coconstruction of cross-cultural miscommunication: Conflicts in perception, negotiation, and enactment of participant role and status. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 129–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whyte, S. (1992). Discourse domains revisited: Expertise and investment in conversation. In Bouton, L. & Kachru, Y. (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 3, pp. 81–103). Urbana: Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Whyte, S. (1993). The discourse domain hypothesis: Topic-related variation in interlanguage production. Ph.D. qualifying paper, Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Whyte, S. (1994a). Acquisition in context: The discourse domain hypothesis of interlanguage variation. In Bouton, L. & Kachru, Y. (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 5, pp. 289–315). Urbana: Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Whyte, S. (1994b). The role of specialized knowledge in interlanguage variation: The discourse domain hypothesis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (1992). Planning, discourse marking, and the comprehensibility of international teaching assistants. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 693–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woken, M., & Swales, J. (1989). Expertise and authority in native-non-native conversations: The need for a variable account. In Gass, S., Madden, C., Preston, D., & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Variation in second language acquisition: Discourse and pragmatics (pp. 211–227). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Young, R. (1991). Variation in interlanguage morphology. New York: Lang.Google Scholar
Zuengler, J. (1989). Performance variation in NS-NNS interactions: Ethnolinguistic difference or discourse domain? In Gass, S., Madden, C., Preston, D., & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Variation in second language acquisition: Discourse and pragmatics (pp. 228–244). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Zuengler, J. (1993a). Encouraging learners' conversational participation: The effect of content knowledge. Language Learning, 43, 403–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuengler, J. (1993b). Explaining NNS interactional behavior: The effect of conversational topic. In Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 184–195). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuengler, J., & Bent, B. (1991). Relative knowledge of content domain: An influence on native-non-native conversations. Applied Linguistics, 12, 397–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar