Applied Psycholinguistics 2:2
Book Reviews
James,
L.A. A review of ãDiscourse Analysis in Second Language Research.ä
Psycholinguistics,
1981, 2, 185÷191.
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 ãapplied psycholinguisticsä since it stands to reason that
writing a book review is an application of one's ãpsycholinguistic abilities.ä
This self-consciousness is amplified, in this case, given that the book under
review is on ãdiscourse analysis.ä 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 editorâs intent was to introduce ESL-teachers
(ãEnglish as a Second Languageä) to ãWhat is discourse analysis,ä it is
pertinent to examine the answers the contributors provide. This then gets us
into the: "topicä 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 bookâs content by the editor in a
brief introducÐtion. 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, RichÐards,
Sacks, Searle, Schegloff, Stevick.
The terminology. I found nothing in the articles that was
too technical from the point of view of ãpsycholinguistics.ä 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 ãdiscourse analysis theoryä as
presented in this book. These are the technical concepts arid ãbackground
assumptionsä held in common by the contributors, that is, their ãcognitive
map."
The arguments. I will list what
seem to me the most important or noteworÐthy propositions about discourse
analysis which can be found in this book. However, since I am writing this for
a readership specializing in psycholinÐguistics and psychology, rather than
linguistics and ESL, I shall not necesÐsarily 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 ãdiscourse analysisä 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.ÊÊ 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 ãnaturalä social settings
where speech events take place during social interaction and exchange.
(I-latch/Long)
B.ÊÊ 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.ÊÊ 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.ÊÊ Research on
discourse structure reveals two levels of choice behavior in speech: one
utterance form. which involves the active management of the rituals (ãrulesä)
of talk; the other, utterance content, which involves the active management of
feeling reactions (ãaffectä) as these occur in social relationships.
(Hatch/Long)
E.ÊÊ 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., ãwritten or spoken, planned or unplanned. spontaneous or elicitedä). ESL
teachers would find this profitable. (e.g., examining ãthe function and
frequency of the passive voice in formal scientific writing in order to improve
the English technical writing skills of nonnative-speaking engineersä). (Celce-
Murcia)
F.ÊÊ Particular social
contexts govern appropriate and normative speech role
behaviors
(e.g., ãHe doesnât have much money.ä vs. ãlie doesnât have a
lot of
money.ä Again: ãI did the job.ä vs. ãI myself did the job.ä)
(Celce-Murcia)
Table
1.Ê The discourse Îcontentâ of
ãdiscourse analysisä talk and the pages on which they appear
|
Linguistics
pragmatics I
Speech act 3, 77
Speech event 4 ff
Conversation
4, 139
Implicature
5
Context 7
Narrative
descriptions 8
Discourse
units 9
Communication
routines 10
Sociolinguists
10
Text
analysis 10
Paragraph
writing 11
Back-channeling
12, 31
Skill in
monologue development
12
Oral
discourse 13
Talk
data 13
Planned
speech 13
Written
discourse 13
Unplanned
oral discourse 13
Deictics
13
Real
conversations 14
Text
types 16
Pedagogic
function 18
Transaction
19
Situation
19
Tactics
19
Back-shadowing
21
Real-time coding 25
|
Videotapes 25
Classroom discourse analysis 25
Communication
game 25
Conversational
analysis 28, 138
Directives
28
Commissives
28
Warrants
29
Transcripts
30
Communication
model 30
Conversational
signals 30
Ritual
constraints 31
Territoriality
31
Management
of conversations
32
Semiotics
35
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
answers
59ff.
Social
setting 75
Sociolinguistic
competence 75
Pragmatic
75
Role-playing
75
Research paradigms 75
|
Competence/Performance
distinction
76
Acceptability
76
Grammaticality
76
Pragmatic
competence 77
Social
context 77, 112
Communicative
competence 78
Conversational
interaction 78
Ethnomethodological
studies 78
Utterance
level 78
Semantic
formulas/strategies
79
Language-culture
pairing 79
Contextual
factors 81
Formulaic
strategies 85
Sociolinguistics
variation 87
Naturalistic
request 88
Error
rates 92
Self-corrections
10
Topic-related
continuities 109
Topic
continuity maintenance
109
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
Modulation
127
Pause
127
Transcription
symbols 137, 153, 164, 168÷9
Discourse environment 138
Negotiation 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
166
Management
of learning 166
Macro-analysis
166
Turn-taking
analysis 168ff.
Topic
analysis 174ff.
Task analysis 178ff
|
Applied Psycholinguistics 2:2 book Reviews
G .Ê 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 ãShakespeare wrote with Smithä or ãSmith wrote with Shakespeare?ä)
(Celce-Murcia)
H.Ê Variations in linguistic form (e.g., ãDo you like artichokes?ä vs.
"You like artichokes?ä) 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 ÷ e.g., linguistic,
semantic, situational, etc., and 23 sub-levels ÷ e.g., tinder ãsemanticä, planned
vs. unplanned action). (Celce-Murcia) (Vander Brook/Schlue/ Campbell)Ê 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)
(Vander Brook/Schlue/Campbell)
J .ÊÊ 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.ÊÊ 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 (ãPragmatic Competenceä).
(Fraser/Rintell/ Walters)
L.ÊÊ 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.ÊÊ 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.ÊÊ Social
talk has an interactive discourse structure (e.g., what a speaker says can routinely
be modified or ãcorrectedä: This is called, moduÐlation). 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.ÊÊ 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)
|
|
Discourse analysis
Linguistic phenomena
Social setting
Public encounters
Utterance form
Management rituals
Utterance content
Feeling reactions
Contextual analysis
Discourse
types
Social
contexts
Acceptability
judgments
Presuppositions
Strategies
of speech acts
Role-playing
Turn-taking analysis
Topic continuity
Episode boundaries
Extralinguistic details
Register shifting
Speech dyads
Modulation
Self-correction (repair)
Other-correction (repair)
Restatements
Negotiation
Discourse environment
Child-child discourse
Language play
Case-study approach
Topic management
Cognitive operations
|
Natural speech events
Communicative function
Social interaction
Mapping
Linguistic speech data
Social circumstances
Role phenomena
Discourse structure
Choice behavior
Distributional frequency
*Speech role behaviors
Analysis of variance
Cognitive organization
*Psycholinguistic Atlas
Empirically identifiable
*Ethnosemantic matrix
Contrastive discourse analysis
Cross-cultural differences
Normative speech role modeling
Native
Patterns
*Sociopsycholinguistic Developmental psycholinguistic
phenomena
Audience
factors
Sociopsychological
dimensions
Topicalization
work
Cognitive dynamics
*lnteractive discourse
Distributional features
Uncertainty loci
Speech repertoire
|
usual sentence, utterance, or talking turn (e.g., how
interactants negotiate Îrepairä in topicalization work. Second language
learners appear to do this similarly to native speakers. (Schwartz.)
P.ÊÊ Young
children use language play to practice and expand their speech repertoire.
Social play in child ÷ child discourse is ãintrinsically motivatingä in
cooperative and competitive exchanges, and is accomÐpanied by intense positive
or negative affect (e.g., joy vs. frustration). (Peck)
Q.ÊÊ 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 bookâs content meaningful, I
had to paraphrase and translate their discourse into my own cognitive
framework. My impression was that my discourse about ãdiscourse analysisä ÷ or
my "meta-discourse,ä was quite different from the bookâs 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
gladâ 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 psycholinÐguistics.
A birdâs eye view of the "argument outlineä presented by this book may be
schematized as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
SOCIAL SETTING FACTORS
-social interactions
-determines communicative function
|
|
|
|
|
Mapping
Task for
DISCOURSE
ANALYSIS
|
|
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ
This shows that discourse analysis as a proposed methodology
for investiÐgating 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. Whatâs most notable about this orientation is the extent to which it
is relevant not only to psycholinguistic theory, and not only to applied psychoÐlinguistics,
but to social psychological theory as well. The latter, in my estimation,
sorely needs an alternative to laboratory experimentation with ãdeception
designs,ä and so itâs 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 ãheldä context. The editor, D. Larsen-Freeman,
is to be congratulated for presenting a new and successÐful 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 theirÊÊÊÊÊ
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ
utterances, choices which are shown to depend on standard ãmodels"
(ideal behaviors).
2.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ The
existence of two levels of choice behavior in speech: utterance form and
utterance content. Variation inÊ
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ
utterance form is shown to depend on the behavioral task of managing the
rituals of social talk, whileÊÊÊÊÊÊ
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ
variation in utterance content is dependent on the management of affect
or feeling.
3.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊThe following
social psychological factors (independent variable) are shown to affect the
choice of
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ utterance
form (dependent variable): relationship distance; valence of affect; nature of
attitude; interpersonal
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ availability; speaker presuppositions
or cognitive inferences; speaker intentions; and behavioral role.
4.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ 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.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ Talkers
are shown to use management strategies in the way they handle ãtopicalization
workä such as maintaining the continuity of topic, restating, or switching.
Leon A.
James
University
of Hawaii at Manoa
BACK TO
INDEX
