Search

A study of textual cohesion in the oral discourse of learners of English as a second language had as subjects 19 Asians from 4 language backgrounds, who were living and, in most cases, studying English in the United States. Analysis of taped conversations focused on the use of conjunctive adjuncts of three kinds: (1) simple adverbs (e.g., and, but, so, next) used to provide cohesion between sentences, (2) compound adverbs (e.g., furthermore, nevertheless), and (3) prepositional expressions (e.g., as a result of that). The conversations were coded for omission, insertion or substitution, and contextual error of conjunctive elements. The frequency of causal, adversative, additive, and temporal conjunctions was calculated for language background group and English proficiency level. It was found that, contrary to expectation, most conjunctive relations were correct but that most were external and not mandated by the speaker's desire to impose cohesion on his or her communication. The expectation of a high rate of omission errors was also contradicted, with substitution errors the most common and omission errors the least common. It was also found that the subjects who were studying English never omitted a required conjunctive adjunct and that neither the proportion of conjunctive adjuncts used nor the proportion of errors was related to proficiency level or language background, except for the Thais. (MSE)

Three questions in the application of native-language sociolinguistic theories to second language contexts are addressed: (1) Is transfer always a psycholinguistic process of interlingual overgeneralization? (2) Does attention to speech underlie all style shifting? (3) Is H. Giles' Speech Accommodation Theory adequate to explain all purposeful style shifting? From examination and comparison of the psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic aspects of interlanguage and interference, of Labov's definition of style shifting, and of the limitations of the Speech Accommodation Theory, it is concluded that neither Labov's nor Giles' model adequately describes or explains the variation in interlanguage. The findings indicate that, while the insights of native-language theories have increased the understanding of second language learning, they have not provided all the answers. (MSE)

An examination of the social psychological basis of style shifting suggests that, contrary to Labovian theory, many style shifts are not a function of shifts in attention to speech and that there are other more explanatory ways of analyzing style shifts. Some reasons for this view are: (1) attention to speech is sometimes negatively correlated with standardness or correctness; (2) style can be manifested in speech shifts that do not fall along the standardness or correctness dimensions; and (3) attention to speech is inadequate as an explanation for style shifting in most situations and can be causally unrelated to style shifting in either experimental or naturalistic situations. Four major categories of stylistic variation that do not fit the accommodation paradigm but complement it are grouped and referred to as "extravergence": interlanguage variation used as learning, communication, or performance strategies by second language speakers; systematic variation according to attention to speech; systematic variation according to linguistic environment; and systematic variation for other social psychological purposes, such as conforming to norms, negotiation, and self-expression. Six pages of references conclude the document. (MSE)

A discussion of the role of transfer of native-language knowledge to second language learning proposes that language transfer is as much a sociolinguistic process as a psycholinguistic one. The term "sociolinguistics" is used in a broad sense to incorporate all social factors that affect language, both the relatively static characteristics of an individual or of a group and the dynamics of human interaction. The argument put forward is that while transfer may sometimes be a psycholinguistic overgeneralization from native to target language, it is often a sociolinguistic process and frequently an assertion of cultural identity. Three types of sociolinguistic transfer are distinguished: sociolinguistic rule transfer, pragmatic transfer, and socially-motivated transfer. Four major psychological purposes of transfer are also identified: accommodation to the speech of the listener, conformity to norms, negotiation of identity via linguistic choices, and self-expression. In addition to sociolinguistic transfer, sociolinguistic avoidance affects second-language performance. Both can be viewed as powerfully motivated by social psychological factors. Five pages of references conclude the document. (MSE)