Applied Psycholinguistics 2:2
James, L.A. A review of „Discourse Analysis in Second Language Research.š
Psycholinguistics, 1981, 2, 185ų191.
Discourse analysis in second language research. D. Larsen-Freeman, (Ed.). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House, 1980. Paperback. Pp. 187.
There is a good degree of self-consciousness involved in the task of doing a book review for a journal in „applied psycholinguisticsš since it stands to reason that writing a book review is an application of one's „psycholinguistic abilities.š This self-consciousness is amplified, in this case, given that the book under review is on „discourse analysis.š In view of this double interest, I thought it well to give here not only a review of this book but, as well, a comment on the topic. Since the book editor‚s intent was to introduce ESL-teachers („English as a Second Languageš) to „What is discourse analysis,š it is pertinent to examine the answers the contributors provide. This then gets us into the: "topicš of discourse analysis, which is of course broader than the book, especially for readers of Applied Psycholinguistics.
The format. Short enough to be a special issue of AP, the book offers ten articles on research, method, and theory by ESL specialists who are united through tile joint focus of the editor D. Larsen- Freeman. The 19 contributors are, in order of appearance, E. I-latch, M. H. Long, M. Celce-Murcia, S. Vander Brook, K. Schlue, C. Campbell, B. Fraser, E. Rintell, J. Walters, D. Godfrey, 13. Arthur, R. Weiner, M. Culver, Y. Ja Lee, D. Thomas, W. H. Gaskill, J. Schwarts, S. Peck, R. L. Allwright.
There is a review of the book‚s content by the editor in a brief introduc–tion. There is no index, but tile use of large bold face types throughout the book makes it easy to identify topics and subtopics as one thumbs through the pages. There are about 200 references cited in total. My impression is that the ideas of the following writers are most central to the work on discourse analysis by ESL-specialists: Austin, Bellack, Bolinger, Chafe, Chomsky, Coulthard, Ervin-Tripp, Ferguson, Flanders, Goffman, G rice, Gumperz, Halliday, Hatch, Henzel, Hymes, Labov, Mehan, Politzer, Rich–ards, Sacks, Searle, Schegloff, Stevick.
The terminology. I found nothing in the articles that was too technical from the point of view of „psycholinguistics.š Methodologically, the articles were varied and include literature reviews, grammatical analyses of errors by ESL-learners under various conditions, conversational and textual analyses, an (l ease-history. The most recurrent background orientation theoretically, is that of sociolinguistics and Ethnomethodology. Table 1 lists those terms which I had underlined in the course of my reading of the book They represent the presuppositional elements of „discourse analysis theoryš as presented in this book. These are the technical concepts arid „background assumptionsš held in common by the contributors, that is, their „cognitive map."
The arguments. I will list what seem to me the most important or notewor–thy propositions about discourse analysis which can be found in this book. However, since I am writing this for a readership specializing in psycholin–guistics and psychology, rather than linguistics and ESL, I shall not neces–sarily use the same terminology as the authors use in the articles being reviewed. Later in this review, I shall have occasion to comment on this overlap in terminology, and its significance for the acceptance of „discourse analysisš as a topic in psycholinguistics.
I shall now present 17 propositions as found in my. annotations in the margins of the book. These represent how I tried to make sense and integrate the information on discourse analysis to be found in this book.
A. Discourse analysis is a method for generating data about the characteristics or natural speech events. This orientation attempts to connect linguistic phenomena to their communicative function. This last concept implies „naturalš social settings where speech events take place during social interaction and exchange. (I-latch/Long)
B. Research and theory in discourse analysis involves the mapping or the connections that can be found between linguistic speech data and the communicative function they serve in particular social circumstances. (Hatch/ Long)
C. This mapping process has been successful thus far in research on public or formal encounters, perhaps because the social and linguistic connection can be made explicit as role phenomena. ( Hatch/ Long)
D. Research on discourse structure reveals two levels of choice behavior in speech: one utterance form. which involves the active management of the rituals („rulesš) of talk; the other, utterance content, which involves the active management of feeling reactions („affectš) as these occur in social relationships. (Hatch/Long)
E. contextual analysis of English (a type of discourse analysis) is task of discovering and learning the distribution frequency of linguistic forms for discourse types (e.g., „written or spoken, planned or unplanned. spontaneous or elicitedš). ESL teachers would find this profitable. (e.g., examining „the function and frequency of the passive voice in formal scientific writing in order to improve the English technical writing skills of nonnative-speaking engineersš). (Celce- Murcia)
F. Particular social contexts govern appropriate and normative speech role
behaviors (e.g., „He doesn‚t have much money.š vs. „lie doesn‚t have a
lot of money.š Again: „I did the job.š vs. „I myself did the job.š)
Table 1. The discourse őcontent‚ of „discourse analysisš talk and the pages on which they appear
Linguistics pragmatics I
Speech act 3, 77
Speech event 4 ff
Conversation 4, 139
Narrative descriptions 8
Discourse units 9
Communication routines 10
Text analysis 10
Paragraph writing 11
Back-channeling 12, 31
Skill in monologue development
Oral discourse 13
Talk data 13
Planned speech 13
Written discourse 13
Unplanned oral discourse 13
Real conversations 14
Text types 16
Pedagogic function 18
Real-time coding 25
Classroom discourse analysis 25
Communication game 25
Conversational analysis 28, 138
Communication model 30
Conversational signals 30
Ritual constraints 31
Management of conversations
Contextual analysis 41
Conversational discourse 41
Pragmatic analysis 44
Acceptability of judgments 51
Modified close procedure 51
Yes/No Questions 57
Shared knowledge 59
Presupposition of Yes/No
Social setting 75
Sociolinguistic competence 75
Research paradigms 75
Pragmatic competence 77
Social context 77, 112
Communicative competence 78
Conversational interaction 78
Ethnomethodological studies 78
Utterance level 78
Language-culture pairing 79
Contextual factors 81
Formulaic strategies 85
Sociolinguistics variation 87
Naturalistic request 88
Error rates 92
Topic-related continuities 109
Topic continuity maintenance
Subtopic continuities 109
Episode boundaries 109
Extralinguistic details 109
Foreigner talk 111
Foreigner register 112
Language switching 112
Register shifting 112
Classroom language 113
Speech dyads 113
Content analysis 120
Correction phenomenon 125 if
Transcription symbols 137, 153, 164, 168ų9
Discourse environment 138
Repairs 138 ff
Self-repairs 141 if
Language play 154ff
Modeling 155, 167, 175
Intrinsic motivation 157
Practice opportunities 160
Affective climate 160
Case studies 165 if
Learning situations 166
Management of participation
Management of learning 166
Turn-taking analysis 168ff.
Topic analysis 174ff.
Task analysis 178ff
Applied Psycholinguistics 2:2 book Reviews
G . Observed variations in linguistic form are places that mark salient social psychological features. Therefore, contextual analysis is a form of analysis of variance for discovering the cognitive organization of social attitudes, rules, and expectations in a community. This may be conceptualized as a Psycholinguistic Atlas, leading one to make empirically testable hypotheses regarding acceptability judgments, as a dependent measure (e.g., Suppose it was discovered that Shakespeare had a secret co-author; would you then say „Shakespeare wrote with Smithš or „Smith wrote with Shakespeare?š) (Celce-Murcia)
H. Variations in linguistic form (e.g., „Do you like artichokes?š vs. "You like artichokes?š) have empirically identifiable casual factors in their social context. Such an empirical ethnosemantic matrix or taxonomy has already been attempted (included arc 7 main levels ų e.g., linguistic, semantic, situational, etc., and 23 sub-levels ų e.g., tinder „semanticš, planned vs. unplanned action). (Celce-Murcia) (Vander Brook/Schlue/ Campbell) Second language acquisition involves learning discourse analysis since natives use utterance form (syntax and intonation) to signal presuppositions (e.g., perspective, shared knowledge, degree of certainty)
J . Second language learners use a type of contrastive discourse analysis which helps them become aware of cross-cultural differences and similarities in the ritual strategies of speech acts (e.g.. when learners doing role-playing vary the form of requests in hypothetical social circumstances). (Fraser/Rintell/ Walters)
K. Role-playing can be used to discover the repertoire of semantic strategies speakers use under specified (experimental) conditions. By contrasting native patterns or normative models with patterns emitted by a particular group (child vs. adult; native vs. foreigner; popular vs. loner: etc.). the researcher has available a convenient methodology for investigating social psycholinguistic and developmental psycholinguistic phenomena („Pragmatic Competenceš). (Fraser/Rintell/ Walters)
L. Linguistic errors made by second language learners (e.g., tense) can sometimes be traced to the inability of maintaining topic-related continuity. Episode boundaries and extralinguistic detail are often sources of distraction. (Godfrey)
M. Certain variations in linguistic form are controlled by audience factors (e.g., is the listener a child? a foreigner?). This is called register shifting (e.g., regular vs. simplified and, elaborate vs. simple). By varying speech dyads on sociological and sociopsychological dimensions (e.g., selected foreigners calling up airline ticket agents and asking unexpected questions), the investigator can then use the linguistic, semantic, and topicalization strategies observed in the dyadic exchange to discover the cognitive dynamics of speech behavior. (Arthur/ Weiner/Culver/ Lee/ Thomas)
N. Social talk has an interactive discourse structure (e.g., what a speaker says can routinely be modified or „correctedš: This is called, modu–lation). By examining the places in discourse where such interactive discourse occurs, the investigator can map the distributional features of self-correction and other-correction in conversation (e.g., uncertainty loci. disagreements, restatements, etc.). (Gaskill)
0. By structuring the context of a group conversation through instructions or role-playing (i.e., the discourse environment), the researcher can analyze the ensuing interactive discourse in larger discourse segments than the
Table 2. The terminology used in the 17 propositions about discourse analysis
Overlapping terminology (with book contributors)
Non-overlapping terminology (contributed by author of this review)
Strategies of speech acts
Natural speech events
Linguistic speech data
*Speech role behaviors
Analysis of variance
Contrastive discourse analysis
Normative speech role modeling
*Sociopsycholinguistic Developmental psycholinguistic
usual sentence, utterance, or talking turn (e.g., how interactants negotiate őrepairš in topicalization work. Second language learners appear to do this similarly to native speakers. (Schwartz.)
P. Young children use language play to practice and expand their speech repertoire. Social play in child ų child discourse is „intrinsically motivatingš in cooperative and competitive exchanges, and is accom–panied by intense positive or negative affect (e.g., joy vs. frustration). (Peck)
Q. Sociological and social psychological facts can be uncovered through the
case-study approach in which the speech behavior of a single speaker in a
conversation is analyzed with regards to turn taking topic management.
and cognitive operations. (Allwright)
These are then the 17 propositions I was able to extract from the book. I found that in order to make the book‚s content meaningful, I had to paraphrase and translate their discourse into my own cognitive framework. My impression was that my discourse about „discourse analysisš ų or my "meta-discourse,š was quite different from the book‚s meta-discourse. However I changed my mind when I actually ran a contrastive check, as shown in Table 2.
As can be seen, the overall terminology I needed for my meta-discourse overlaps about 50 percent with that of the book, and most of the nonoverlap is closely related in meaning and theoretical compatibility. I was glad‚ about that because it indicates that discourse analysis may yet be adopted as an additional methodology in psycholinguistics and in social psychology.
The implications. In conclusion, I wish to point out some of the implications of adopting discourse analysis as an additional methodology for psycholin–guistics. A bird‚s eye view of the "argument outlineš presented by this book may be schematized as follows:
SOCIAL SETTING FACTORS -social interactions -determines communicative function INDEPENDENT CONDITION
SOCIAL SETTING FACTORS
-determines communicative function
Mapping Task for DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
This shows that discourse analysis as a proposed methodology for investi–gating psycholinguistic phenomena consists of mapping operations. The predictions on researchable issues will involve linguistic form as a dependent variable, and will employ social setting factors as the independent manipulation. The findings reported in this book on discourse analysis correspond to previous treatments of the topic (e.g., by Clark & Clark, Psychology and Language, Harcourt Brace. 1977, Chapter 6). What this book provides in addition, I believe, is the information that lies in the nitty-gritty of actual research-oriented attempts to map the interface between linguistic choice behavior and social psychological theory.
The value of the book is enhanced in this respect in that the contributors arc doing applied research on social theory, that is, language teaching. What‚s most notable about this orientation is the extent to which it is relevant not only to psycholinguistic theory, and not only to applied psycho–linguistics, but to social psychological theory as well. The latter, in my estimation, sorely needs an alternative to laboratory experimentation with „deception designs,š and so it‚s good to have discourse analysis as an additional method of investigation. As developed thus far in the language teaching specialty, discourse analysis turns out to be a new powerful tool for investigating social theory in its everyday natural „heldš context. The editor, D. Larsen-Freeman, is to be congratulated for presenting a new and success–ful integration in a familiar context.
The contributors ought also to be congratulated for advancing applied social theory and psycholinguistics by establishing through evidence the following facts:
I. The existence of speech roles, which is to say that speakers manage to stick to constricted choices in their
utterances, choices which are shown to depend on standard „models" (ideal behaviors).
2. The existence of two levels of choice behavior in speech: utterance form and utterance content. Variation in
utterance form is shown to depend on the behavioral task of managing the rituals of social talk, while
variation in utterance content is dependent on the management of affect or feeling.
3. The following social psychological factors (independent variable) are shown to affect the choice of
utterance form (dependent variable): relationship distance; valence of affect; nature of attitude; interpersonal
availability; speaker presuppositions or cognitive inferences; speaker intentions; and behavioral role.
4. The psycholinguistic ability involved in using linguistic choices to signal social psychological information is shown to be teachable in an instructional context and is measurable.
5. Talkers are shown to use management strategies in the way they handle „topicalization workš such as maintaining the continuity of topic, restating, or switching.
Leon A. James
University of Hawaii at Manoa