Components of language knowledge
Linguists have traditionally divided language into the following six com ponents for purposes of description and analysis (as listed in Chapter 3):
• Vocabulary (lexicon)
• Morphology (word structure)
• Phonology (sound system)
• Syntax (grammar)
• Nonverbal structures
• Discourse (ways to connect sentences and organize information)
Even the most highly educated adult native speakers can never expect to have mastery of all the potential resources of a community’s language, and such an expectation for the vast majority of any L2 learners would be completely unrealistic. Especially in contexts where a second language is going to be needed for only a limited range of functions, deciding on priorities for what needs to be learned is an important step for teachers and learners to take.
Determining the specific L2 needs of any group of learners involves identifying what subset of linguistic elements is associated with the varieties (or registers) of a language that are used in particular situations. In recent years, much of this task has been carried out using computerized analyses of “corpora,” or large collections of written and spoken texts (e.g. Biber, Conrad, and Reppen 1998). Such corpus linguistic analysis can be especially useful in determining the relative frequency of different vocabulary items and grammatical patterns as a basis for deciding what needs to be taught for specific purposes.
Vocabulary
As we have already noted, vocabulary (or lexicon) is the most important level of L2 knowledge for all learners to develop – whether they are aiming primarily for academic or interpersonal competence, or for a broader scope of communicative competence that spans the two. There is a core of high-frequency words in a language that everyone needs to learn, but beyond that, which specific vocabulary elements learners are most likely to need depends on whether the L2 is going to be used primarily for aca demic or interpersonal functions.
The core vocabulary in every language includes function words, a limited set of terms that carry primarily grammatical information. For example, in English the most frequently used words include: determiners the, that, this; prepositions to, of, for; conjunctions and, but; pronouns I, it, he, she, you; and auxiliary verbs is / was / be, have / has / had. The most frequently used words in spoken (but not written) English also include interjections yeah, oh; contractions it’s, that’s, don’t; and verbs expressing personal opinion or feeling know, like, think. Compilations of the fifty most common words in written versus spoken English are listed in Table 6.3.
English words that occur with high frequency in a wide range of academic (but not interpersonal) contexts include modifiers such as analytical, explanatory, and implicit, as well as names for scientific concepts such as data, hypotheses, and correlation. Other general academic vocabulary items from written texts have been compiled in the University Word List (Xue and Nation 1984). A subset of these words is reproduced in Table 6.4. Many technical terms must be learned for any specialized field, such as lexicon, morphology, phonology, and discourse for linguistics. Beginning students in a field (whether L1 or L2 speakers) typically encounter such subject-specific terms during introductory coursework along with the concepts they represent. Part of the vocabulary challenge for advanced L2 students and scholars in a field is learning L2 labels for concepts they may have already acquired in their L1. Some of these will be recognized even without learning, since common scientific and technological terms increasingly tend to be borrowed from one language to another. However, this is not always the case, and differences can create additional difficulties for learners from different L1s. For example, English linguistics is la linguistique in French, and la linguística in Spanish, but Sprachwissenschaft in German and yuyanxue in Chinese. Obviously going between English and French or Spanish is easier in the field of linguistics than between any of these languages and German or Chinese.
On the other hand, “everyday” vocabulary and expressions are most likely to be very different in unrelated languages, since they are rarely borrowed. Thus, while English good is gut in German, it is bon in French, bueno in Spanish, and hao in Chinese. However, similarities in borrowed or commonly inherited words can sometimes contain unexpected traps for the learner, as German gross means simply ‘large,’ and Spanish largo means ‘long,’ while embarazada in Spanish means ‘pregnant.’ Thus, ironically, learning the L2 vocabulary for ordinary informal interpersonal interaction sometimes poses more difficulties than learning the technical vocabulary for an academic or scientific field.
Interpersonal situations can be subdivided into those which have primarily affective (interactional) purposes, and those which are task- oriented (transactional). Each specific context determines priorities for vocabulary learning beyond the most frequent core. Beyond common greetings, leave-takings, invitations, refusals, and warnings, the necessary vocabulary and phraseology is likely to differ drastically between, say, going on a swimming party at the beach and following instructions on how to repair an automobile engine. And social context may dictate register differences as great as How are you today? vs. How’re ya doin’? or I’m fine, thank you vs. Just great or some current slang-determined response. Regional differences are likely to be greatest at the informal interactional level, and least at more formal and more academic levels. Differences between national varieties of a widespread language may affect even relatively technical transactions, as the names for car parts famously differ between British and American English, and the meanings of food terms may differ between Spain and Latin American countries.
Besides individual vocabulary items (single words and compounds), other lexical elements which vary in frequency by domain include idioms, metaphors, and other multiple-word combinations that commonly occur together (collocations). These “chunks” of language are typically memorized as holistic units, and often without recognition of individual words or analysis of how they are combined. Some of those reported in English academic speech (e.g. occurring in class lectures and discussion) are bottom line, the big picture, take at face value, and a ballpark guess. Others serve organizational functions, signaling logical connections between segments of classroom discourse or a change of focus: e.g. go off on a tangent, on that note, and train of thought (Simpson and Mendis 2003). Though such expressions are seldom taught in language lessons, their appropriate interpretation may be significant for establishing coherence in L2-medium subject area instruction. The most frequent multiple-word combinations in English interpersonal speech include greetings and other formulaic routines, and such discourse fillers, hedges, or smoothers as you know, kind of, and never mind.
Vocabulary knowledge is acquired to different degrees, with learners first recognizing words they see or hear, then producing them in limited contexts, and ultimately (perhaps) fully controlling their accurate and appropriate use. L2 speakers may never acquire complete knowledge of some words that nevertheless become part of their productive repertoire. Among the last types of word knowledge to be mastered are collocational behavior (what words go together), metaphorical uses, con notations associated with synonyms, and stylistic register constraints (see Nation 1990).
The number of words that L2 speakers learn, as well as the degree of their vocabulary knowledge, depends on their ability to “pick up” this information from contexts (both oral and written) in which the words are used as well as from explicit instruction. The following types of knowledge contribute to effective use of context for vocabulary learning (Nagy 1997):
• Linguistic knowledge: syntactic information; constraints on possible word meanings; patterns in word structure; meanings of surrounding words.
• World knowledge: understanding of the concepts which the words represent; familiarity with related conceptual frameworks; awareness of social associations.
• Strategic knowledge: control over cognitive resources. Beyond knowledge of words, fluent use of language requires a level of automaticity that allows processing their structures and meanings in real time. This is an incremental achievement upon which effective engagement in all language activities ultimately depends.
Morphology
L2 learning at the level of morphology (or word structure) can be very important for vocabulary development as well as for achieving grammatical accuracy. This level is highly significant for learning English, for instance, where thousands of words are formed by compounding smaller words (e.g. wind + shield = windshield [British windscreen]) or by adding pre fixes and suffixes (called derivational morphology) that can create new meanings (e.g. un - + kind = unkind) or change part of speech (e.g. friend [noun] + - ly = friendly [adjective]). Again, using English as an example, words used for academic communication (especially in writing) are characteristically longer than words used for interpersonal communication (especially in speech), and using them requires knowledge of such word-forming elements and processes. Commonly encountered affixes in scientific terms are the suffix -ology ‘study of’ (sociology, psychology, biology), and the prefix bio- ‘life’ (biology, biodiversity, biochemical) or geo- ‘earth’ (geography, geology, geomorphism). Suffixes may convert adjectives to verbs or nouns, verbs to nouns, nouns to adjectives or verbs, and adjectives to adverbs, as in divers-ifi-cation-al-ly or operat-ion-al-ize-abil-ity. (In fact, learning to compute the meaning of such complex forms automatically is part of the L2-like experience of getting a college education even for native speakers.)
Grammatical accuracy in many languages requires knowledge of the word parts that carry meanings such as tense, aspect, and number (called inflectional morphology , or inflections ), as in English kicked, coming, and books. Researchers from both linguistic and cognitive perspectives have focused considerable attention on how these are acquired (discussed in Chapters 3 and 4). The process is an especially interesting target of study in SLA because errors at the level of morphology often persist even many years after individuals have learned substantial vocabulary and mastered most elements of L2 syntax.
Inflectional morphology, and related phenomena like gender and number agreement (in Romance languages, German, or Russian) may long remain problematic for L2 learners in part because the information these carry is often redundant in actual contexts of language use, and thus not essential for the interpretation of meaning (especially in face-to-face inter action). The logical unnecessariness of most inflectional morphology is shown by the fact that languages like Chinese and Thai dispense with it almost entirely. However, in those languages which have it – and this includes all European languages – accuracy in production of morphology is usually expected as part of advanced academic language competence, and in the interpersonal competence of L2 speakers who want or need to project an image of being well educated, or who want to be fully accepted as an in-group member.
Phonology
Mastery of the L2 sound system was considered the first priority for teaching and learning during the middle of the twentieth century (as expressed in the writing of Fries 1945; quoted in Chapter 3). This level of language received much less attention during the second half of the century as major interests in linguistic theory shifted from phonology to syntax, and with general acceptance of the Critical Period Hypothesis, which claims that learners past the age of puberty are in all probability unable to achieve native-like pronunciation in any case – no matter how much effort is spent on the learning task. In recent years, however, there has been renewed interest in phonological perception and production from linguistic, cognitive, and social perspectives, and (for at least some con texts of use) renewed emphasis is now being placed on pronunciation in teaching second languages.
As a component of academic competence, proficiency in phonological perception is required for listening if learners are studying other subjects through the medium of L2, and at least intelligible pronunciation is needed for speaking in most educational settings. A much higher level of proficiency in production is required if researchers or students are using the second language to teach others or for participating orally in professional conferences, but the relative priority of pronunciation otherwise remains low compared to vocabulary and syntax.
As a component of interpersonal competence, proficiency in phonological perception and intelligible production are essential for successful spoken communication, but a significant degree of “foreign accent” is accept able in most situations as long as it is within the bounds of intelligibility. Native or near-native pronunciation is usually needed only when learners want to identify socially with the L2 language community for affective purposes, or when their communicative goals require such identification by hearers. With many US and British business firms establishing telephone-based service centers in other parts of the world, for instance, employees in those countries may need to master even specific regional features of American or British English as part of their job training in order to create the illusion for customers that calls are being answered domestically. The following aspects of the sound systems are likely to differ for L1 and L2 (see Chapter 3):
• Which speech sounds are meaningful components of the phonological system (phonemes)
• Possible sequences of consonants and vowels (phonotactics)
• Which speech sounds can and cannot occur in combination with one another, in which syllable and word positions
• Intonation patterns (stress, pitch, and duration)
• Rhythmic patterns (pauses and stops)
Transfer from L1 to L2 phonology occurs in both perception and production and is thus a factor in both listening and speaking. Trubetzkoy ([1939]1958) characterized perception of L2 speech sounds as being “filtered” through the phonological system of L1, which acts like a “sieve.” Particularly at early stages of acquisition, L2 learners are likely to perceive L2 pronunciation in terms of the L1 phonemic categories which have already been established.
The types of potential mismatch between L1 and L2 systems have been characterized as contrasts in phonemic correspondences (Haugen 1956), as shown in Table 6.5 on p. 152.
This contrastive model predicts that English L1 speakers will have difficulty perceiving and producing Spanish L2 distinctions between pero ‘but’ (with a flapped /rˇ/) and perro ‘dog’ (with a trilled / r˜/) because English does not distinguish between flapped and trilled variants of /r/; learning Spanish requires acquiring a divergent distinction for English speakers. Italian L1 speakers will have difficulty with the English L2 distinction between meet /mit/ and mitt /mIt/, because Italian does not have a meaningful distinction between those two vowels. In the other direction, Spanish L1 speakers who are learning English L2 and English L1 speakers who are learning Italian L2 might initially over differentiate target phonemes /r/ and /i/, respectively, but convergence – essentially ignoring the differences – is called for as part of the SLA process. As is evident, convergence is always far easier than divergence in L2 learning.
New phonemes are likely to be perceived as having features of the L1 speech sound which is the closest correspondent: German ich /ix/ ‘I’ is heard as /ik/ by the English learner, and Navajo hogan /hoan/ ‘house’ is heard as /hogan/, because the English phonemic system does not include sounds that are represented by the symbols /x/ and / /, and /k/ and /g/ are their nearest equivalent. The similar type of correspondence, as English /t/ and Spanish /t/, is not likely to be problematic for listening but contributes to a “foreign accent” in speaking; English /t/ is pronounced with the tongue making contact further back on the gum ridge than Spanish /t/, which is produced with the tongue against the back of the teeth.
Transfer can also be found for other aspects of phonological systems, including syllable structure. An initial consonant cluster such as the /sk/ in English school is not permitted in Spanish syllable structure, as mentioned earlier, so a Spanish L1 speaker may pronounce the word as two syllables, /es-kul/, to fit the Spanish pattern. Conversely, English speakers may find it difficult to pronounce /ts/, which is a common sequence at the end of words in English, as in cats, when it occurs at the beginning of words as in German zehn ‘10.’ Intonation often conveys important elements of meaning such as speaker intent which can be lost or misidentified across languages, and pat terns of stress in words and phrases, which provide information for segmenting speech into grammatical units, may not be perceived or produced accurately. English speakers, who are accustomed to reducing vowels in unstressed syllables to an indistinct schwa, may create confusion in Spanish by failing to distinguish between the final unstressed vowels of hermano ‘brother’ and hermana ‘sister.’ L1 speakers of European languages, who use differences in voice pitch primarily for sentence or phrase intonation, find it challenging to perceive and produce distinctive tones necessary for distinguishing individual words in Chinese.
As we saw in Chapter 3, Contrastive Analysis of L1 and L2 does not account for all learner errors, and many problems which are predicted do not emerge. The approach has been most reliable for predicting L1 influence on L2 acquisition of phonology, however, and remains useful for explaining nonnative perceptual patterns (e.g. there are contrastive out lines of over twenty languages published as a guide for English teachers in Swan and Smith 2001).
The concept of phonemes as “bundles” of distinctive features (e.g. Chomsky and Halle 1968) is also still relevant in accounts of why L2 speech sounds are perceived in terms of L1 categories. On this account, each phoneme in a language consists of a unique “bundle” of distinctive features which make it perceptibly different from other phonemes to speakers of that language. The possible set of features is a universal; those features which distinguish phonemes in any L1 or L2 are a subset. Some analysts argue that it is these features, rather than the phonemes per se, which influence perception (see Brown 2000).
Another aspect of perception and production of speech segments which has received considerable attention is voice onset time (VOT), which is related to the location of a phoneme boundary and to identification of initial stop consonants. The location of boundaries for multilinguals often involves compromise, with a VOT value between L1 and L2. This process is often found to be not so much simple transfer from L1 to L2 as restructuring of acoustic-phonetic space to encompass both systems (Leather and James 1996).
In contrast, yet another effect that is found is one of exaggeration, where learners sometimes maximize a difference between L1 and L2. For example, Flege ( 1980 ) found that an Arabic L1 speaker produced a greater duration contrast between /p/ and /b/ in English L2 than do English L1 speakers (although Arabic does not have a similar /p/–/b/ distinction), and Gass ( 1984 ) reported an Italian L1 speaker maximizing the phonetic contrast between Italian /b/ and English /p/ when producing English L2: “learners first identify that there is something to learn and then work out the details, which in many cases involves the maximization of the features of the new element and contrast” (Gass 1996 :328). Individual, socio linguistic, and sociocultural factors can also have a major impact on L2 phonology; these were discussed in Chapters 4 and 5.
Syntax
Depending on the theoretical linguistic perspective one takes (Chapter 3), acquiring the syntax of another language may be seen as an issue of internalizing new construction patterns, generative rules, different parameters for innate principles, or collocational probabilities and constraints. Whatever the analysis, the process begins with recognizing that sentences are more than just combinations of words, and that every language has specific limits and requirements on the possible orders and arrangements of elements. Contrastive analysis helps us anticipate some of the problems and difficulties – or lack thereof – that we may face in trying to acquire another language.
A first step is realizing that certain aspects of language are universal, but how they are expressed may vary greatly. All languages have structures for making statements, asking questions, and denying assertions. Sentences in all languages consist of a subject and a predicate, and predicates consist of a verb, or a verb and one or two objects, plus other possible phrases expressing such things as time, place, frequency, manner, goal, source, or purpose. But the order of elements, and degree of flexibility in their order, may differ radically. Using S for subject, V for verb, and O for object, linguists classify languages according to the typical order in which these components occur, e.g.
(German is unusual in having a mixed system, since the word order is SVO in main clauses and SOV in subordinate clauses.)
While these orders are statistically most common, most languages have ways to vary the basic order to some extent for various reasons, including focus, information structure, and style. Some languages, like English or Japanese, are fairly rigid insofar as allowing variation in order; others such as Russian or Latin are extremely flexible. In English, for example, the SVO order is often essential in distinguishing subjects and objects: in William hit Peter, we know from the order that William initiated the action and that Peter was the one injured; if the order is reversed to Peter hit William, we make the opposite inference. In a language like Russian or German, however, case markers on the noun or article indicate subject or object function, so any order is possible since the information will still be evident (in this way morphology and syntax interact).
English as it was spoken a thousand years ago (Old English) was more like Russian or Latin, as this sentence shows:
Since the form of the definite article (se vs ð one) identified whether the noun was subject (nominative case) or object (accusative case), the order could be switched without changing the basic meaning:
Modern English has lost this flexibility, since the invariant form of the no longer reflects the function of the noun in the sentence.
Note, however, that word order in Old English was not completely free, since the position of the article could not be switched with the noun. Just as we cannot say
the order of these words could not be switched either. Just so, even in very flexible languages, the order of elements within constituent phrases may be quite rigid:
English speakers are familiar with the concepts of grammatical gender and number, which determine the choice of pronouns, and whether the noun is marked for singular or plural:
In German, as was formerly the case in English, the form of the article must agree both in gender and number with the noun, and additionally may indicate whether the noun phrase is used as subject, object, or modifier (genitive):
English speakers will predictably have difficulty with this (something our linguistic ancestors took for granted!), whereas German speakers learning English face a much easier task, since they can simply ignore the need for article agreement. Speakers of Russian, Chinese, and Japanese, on the other hand, will find even this simplified the very difficult to master, since these languages lack an exact equivalent.
English speakers acquiring a Romance language such as Spanish must learn to categorize all nouns into two genders, rather misleadingly labeled “masculine” and “feminine,” and to select articles to agree in gender and number with the noun, as well as to show this agreement in adjectives (and to place most adjectives after rather than before the noun):
While speakers of these languages face a simpler task in acquiring this aspect of English:
For Chinese speakers, and speakers of most Asian languages, having to mark plurals on nouns in English will be a challenge, since this is not done in these languages, which also do not distinguish gender (except artificially in writing) or subject /object function in pronouns:
English speakers, on the other hand, while finding Chinese pronouns simple to acquire (though they must, conversely, learn not to use them much of the time), will have to internalize a completely different system of gender, one based primarily on the shape of things, e.g.:
Other differences between English and some other languages include whether any movement of words in the sentence is required to form yes/ no and Wh-questions, how passives are formed, where and how negation is marked (and whether “double negatives” are required, as in Romance languages), and how time and perspective are marked in the verb system.
These are only a few examples of the kinds of grammatical issues that face speakers of different L1s acquiring an L2, just within simple sentences. However, academic competence requires processing much longer and more complicated sentences than does interpersonal competence. Academic sentences are often grammatically complex, involving various types of subordination. In addition, passive constructions are much more likely to be used in order to foreground objects and results and to background agents of actions (or omit them entirely, as in the present passive sentence). The general need to provide specific content information in academic discourse results in different forms of linguistic expansion and elaboration, including (in many European languages, for example) the use of more prepositional phrases and relative clauses to modify nouns. The impersonal nature of much academic writing and speaking, especially in European languages, leads to the use of more abstract expressions, emphasizing states rather than expressing actions.
One way this is achieved in English is through the use of nominalizations, by which whole sentences are transformed into fillers for noun phrase positions. For example:
This process allows several simple sentences to be combined into one, and increases the density of information transmitted. For example:
Here six sentences are condensed into one, reducing the number of words from thirty to twenty one, but at the expense of increasing the syntactic complexity of the resulting sentence, and introducing the abstract nouns, discovery and existence , which may be less familiar to some readers, who may not know how to process the relations of other words to these, and who may not realize that the complex construction can be deconstructed back to simpler sentences.
In contrast, grammatical structures used for interpersonal functions are much more likely to be short, simple sentences. Often, they are not complete sentences at all, but fragments like OK, Right , and Me too. Contracted forms such as I’m, it’s, and don’t are common, and questions and directives are more frequent sentence types. Language used for affective purposes often serves to express a speaker’s point of view rather than to transmit referential information; this functional difference accounts for a high frequency of such verb constructions as is going to, is supposed to, needs to, and wants to (Scheibman 2002), and verbs like know, think, and say (see Table 6.3 on p. 147).
Because many of the grammatical structures common to interpersonal communication are different from those found in written academic texts, even the development of considerable fluency for everyday interactive purposes does not guarantee that a learner will acquire the syntactic knowledge that is necessary for the advanced literacy that full academic competence requires. Nor does proficiency in processing the formal, com plex structures of academic writing guarantee a learner’s ability to participate appropriately in informal conversations which are characterized by sentence fragments and contractions, rapid give-and-take, and “every day” vocabulary. Beyond very basic common structures, the syntactic knowledge required for either domain requires extensive input that is specific to the intended context of use.
Nonverbal structures
Nonverbal structures as well as linguistic ones contribute to the meaning of language when speakers and/or listeners are visible, whether in face-to-face reciprocal interaction or as electronic images. These include facial expressions, eye gaze, gestures, body position, and spatial orientation or proxemics (e.g. physical distance from others). Some have universal interpretations and thus are essentially the same in L1 and L2, but many are conventional symbols with different meanings in different languages and cultures. While their functions in communication have been studied for many decades by philosophers, psychologists, and anthropologists, they have just recently begun to receive serious attention within SLA. Most of the research so far is about the occurrence and role of gestures (e.g. Gullberg 2006; McCafferty 2008; McCafferty and Stam 2008).
Gestures occur more frequently in L2 contexts than in L1 communication among adults. I have already illustrated their role in conveying meaning even when speakers have no language at all in common, and a similar compensatory function continues for learners when they don’t know how to express a concept verbally. They are used for the same purpose by teachers and other fluent L2 speakers to provide more clues to meaning when addressing less fluent learners. In addition, teachers often use gestures to help organize and focus student attention on important aspects of a message or lesson. Recent research also suggests that use of gestures by learners may have a positive effect on memory for new vocabulary (Macedonia, Müller, and Friederici 2011).
Much of our use of nonverbal behaviors in communication is unconcious, and thus outside of our control, but bringing them to awareness is one potential outcome of research and instruction. Doing so is especially important when they have language and culture-specific meanings that are likely to contribute to misunderstanding of verbal content and intent. (A classic, and very readable, discussion of cultural misunderstandings due to different types of nonverbal behaviors can be found in Hall 1959.)
So far, attention to these structures by researchers in SLA has focused primarily on what must be learned about a second language in this direction. How nonverbal structures are learned probably depends on interaction with and feedback from L2 native speakers in second language settings, and may be inaccessible – and perhaps unneeded – in foreign language contexts. Why some learners are more successful than others in producing L2 nonverbal structures appears to depend on personality and attitudinal factors as much as on learning contexts and aptitude, but evidence for this claim is still largely anecdotal.
Discourse Linguistic elements at the level of discourse function beyond the scope of a single sentence. At a microstructural discourse level, these include sequential indicators, logical connectors, and other devices to create cohesion. At a macrostructural discourse level, we go beyond linguistic elements to knowledge of organizational features that are characteristic of particular genres, and of interactional strategies. Both microstructural and macrostructural levels are sensitive to the relationship between language forms and the communicative situations within which they are used, requiring an essential interface of linguistic knowledge with con tent, culture, and context.
Sequential indicators are linguistic elements that connect phrases, clauses, or longer units of written or spoken text to signal the order in which events take place. In English they may be set off with a comma or pause, as in the following example (which is a paraphrase of the preview to this chapter):
Other common indicators of temporal sequence in English include before after, and yesterday–today–tomorrow. An overlapping set of elements indicates spatial sequence and may also be used to delineate items in a list (often in order of priority or relative importance).
Logical connectors occur between clauses or other grammatical constituents to indicate such relations between them as cause – effect (e.g. because; as a result; consequently), contrast (e.g. however; on the other hand), and addition of information (e.g. furthermore; moveover). Academic written English typically prefers overt verbal expression of the connections, but many other languages (e.g. Chinese and Korean) often prefer to express such relationships by juxtaposition of clauses rather than with added linguistic elements. Use of overt logical connectors is an aspect of English L2 which is problematic for many learners.
Cohesion devices link one element of discourse to another, integrating them into a unified text. They include many of the sequential indicators and logical connectors that are listed above, but also such ties as pro nominal and lexical reference, substitution, and ellipsis. The most frequently cited typology of English devices is by Halliday and Hasan (1976). These are listed in Table 6.6.
Some of these devices are illustrated in the following paragraph:
Both academic and interpersonal domains involve conventionalized categories and types of discourse, called genres. Different genres are typically characterized by having different functions within a language community, involving different classes of participants (speakers/writers and audience), addressing different topics, and requiring different language styles and organization. Academic genres include research papers, lectures, and book reviews; interpersonal genres include conversations, ser vice encounters (e.g. ordering food in a restaurant), and letters. Genres are “conventionalized” categories of discourse in the sense that knowledge of their nature and regularities is shared by members of a language community as part of the cultural component of communicative competence.
L2 learners of a language often have to learn new organizational features for a relevant genre as well as new linguistic elements when they wish to join the community that uses it. For example, academic research reports that are written in English commonly follow the following sequence (see Swales 1990):
(1) Statement of the problem under investigation and its potential significance
(2) Specific research questions or hypotheses
(3) Review of related research
(4) Description of data collection and analytic procedures
(5) Presentation of findings
(6) Discussion of results
(7) Conclusion (often including mention of limitations and suggestions for future research)
There is variability in the pattern by discipline (e.g. academic reports differ somewhat depending on whether they are situated in the physical sciences, social sciences, or humanities), but an English-speaking researcher in any subject area would consider it “odd” if a report presented findings before describing data-collection procedures, and a report which deviated significantly from disciplinary conventions of organization would probably not be accepted in fulfillment of an academic thesis requirement or be published by a professional journal. An example of cultural differences in the organizational pattern of this academic genre is that a Chinese scholar is likely to omit the review of related research, whether writing in Chinese L1 or English L2 (Taylor and Chen 1991). Contrastive Rhetoric is an area of research that compares genre-specific conventions in different languages and cultures, with particular focus on predicting and explaining problems in L2 academic and professional writing (see Connor 1996 for a survey of research topics and findings).
Examples of conventional features that L2 learners must acquire for inter actional genres include politeness and turn-taking strategies for conversations. Some general (and perhaps universal) rules for politeness have been suggested, such as “Do not impose” and “Help the other person save face” (Traugott and Pratt 1980), but similar communicative behaviors may be interpreted differently in different cultures. Essentially the same act may be perceived as “friendly” in one setting but “rude” in another (e.g. asking a casual acquaintance about their religious or political views, or whether they have children). Appropriate conversational turn-taking in some cultures involves interruptions, overlaps, or simultaneous speaking; some cultures require several seconds of silence before another speaker may begin, with a shorter interval again considered “rude” or overly aggressive.
Transfer of politeness and turn- taking conventions from L1 to L2 in cases where such contrasts exist may not interfere with expression and interpretation of the referential content of messages but can contribute to instances of serious misunderstanding of speaker intent and message tone. Comparative research on interactional genre with particular focus on such factors can be found in the domain of Intercultural Communication (see e.g. Scollon and Scollon 2001).
Development of the ability to use elements of L2 discourse appropriately is not unlike the development of other elements of interlanguage. It takes place gradually and systematically, and many errors in production can be attributed to either transfer of L1 knowledge in using the L2 or to developmental patterns within the L2 (e.g. Ellis 1997). And as with the other elements, the nature and amount of input to learners largely deter mines the degree of proficiency that they will attain. The development of academic discourse competence requires reading and hearing an ample number of academic texts within meaningful contexts, and it benefits from feedback on the appropriateness of written production. Development of interpersonal discourse competence requires opportunity for social interaction and the input and feedback that it produces.
الاكثر قراءة في Linguistics fields
اخر الاخبار
اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة
