Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T17:46:43.181Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Teaching-induced aspects of interlanguage discourse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Gabriele Kasper
Gabriele Kasper
Affiliation:
University of Aarhus
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper examines the influence of the formal classroom as a learning environment on the discourse behaviour of advanced German students of English in conversations with English native speakers. It is proposed that FL teaching as a causal factor in the formation of IL-specific rules can operate either directly, in presenting the learner with FL material which deviates from target norms, or indirectly, by triggering off psycholinguistic processes which in turn lead to IL-specific rule formation. These are referred to as primary and secondary teaching induction, respectively. On a more concrete level, the impact of two constituents of FL teaching on IL discourse is discussed:

(1) the textbook and other teaching materials;

(2) classroom specific discourse norms.

The influence of the first factor type manifests itself primarily in (a) the use of an inappropriately formal register, (b) an inappropriate use of modal verbs. The second factor type is found to result in (a) rising intonation with non-interrogative function, (b) inappropriate propositional explicitness of speech act realizations and discourse functions, (c) “complete sentence” responses, (d) a lack of marking for expressive and relational functions (“speech act modality”).

In conclusion of the data analysis, a classroom specific pidgin will be hypothesized which, when transferred to non-classroom settings, leads to pragmatically inappropriate communicative behaviour.

On a more general level, it will be postulated that second language acquisition hypotheses should be formulated with reference to specific types of acquisition/learning contexts.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , Spring 1982 , pp. 99 - 113
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

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

Bausch, K.R. (ed.). 1979. Beiträge zur Didaktischen Grammatik. Königstein / Ts.: Scriptor.Google Scholar
Börner, W. and Vogel, K.. 1976. Zum Verhältnis von wissenschaftlicher und pädagogischer Grammatik in der Fremdsprachenlehre. Französisch lehren und lernen, ed. by Börner, W., Kielhöfer, B. and Vogel, K., 7–39, Kronberg: Scriptor.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S.. 1978. Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena. Questions and politeness. Strategies in social interaction, ed. by Goody, E.N., 56–289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burt, M.K. and Dulay, H. C.. 1980. On acquisition orders. Second language development, ed. by Felix, S. W., 265–327. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. 1967. The significance of learner's errors. IRAL 5. 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corder, S. P. 1972. Zur Beschreibung der Sprache des Sprachlerners. Fehlerkunde, ed. by Nickel, G., 175–184. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. 1973. Introducing applied linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. 1975. Error analysis, interlanguage and second language acquisition. Language Teaching and Linguistics: Abstracts 8. 201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corder, S. P. and Roulet, E. (eds.). 1977. The notions of simplification, interlanguages and pidgins and their relation to second language pedagogy (Actes du 5ème colloque de linguistique appliquée de Neuchâtel 20–22 Mai 1976). Genève: Droz and Neuchâtel: Faculté des lettres.Google Scholar
Coulmas, F. 1981. Conversational routine. Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Dulay, H. C. and Burt, M. K.. 1974. You can't learn without goofing. An analysis of children's second language ‘errors’. In Richards, 1974b, 95–123.Google Scholar
Edmondson, W. J. 1979. Funktionen von Fragen im Fremdsprachenunterricht. In Heuer, Kleineidam, Obendiek and Sauer, 206–209.Google Scholar
Edmondson, W. J. 1980. Some problems concerning the evaluation of foreign language classroom discourse. Applied Linguistics 1. 271–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmondson, W. J. 1981a. Worlds within worlds—problems in the description of teacher-learner interaction in the foreign language classroom. Actes du 5e congrés de l'association intemationale de linguistique appliquée Montreal 1978, ed. by Savard, J. G. and Laforge, L., 127–138. Québec: Les Presses de I'Université Laval.Google Scholar
Edmondson, W. J. 1981b. On saying you're sorry. In Coulmas, 273–288.Google Scholar
Edmondson, W. J., House, J.; Kasper, G.; and McKeown, J.. 1979. Sprachliche Interaktion in lernziel-relevanten Situationen: Kommunikative Kompetenz als realisierbares lernziel. L.A.U.T. paper No. 51 Series B. Trier: University of Trier.Google Scholar
Edmondson, W. J., House, J.; Kasper, G.; and Stemmer, B.. 1980. Kurzbeschreibung des Projekts “Kommunikative Kompetenz als realisierbares Lernziel”. Linguistische Berichte 67. 50–57.Google Scholar
Edmondson, W. J., House, J.; Kasper, G.; and Stemmer, B.. 1982. Kommunikation lernen und lehren. Berichte und Perspektiven aus einem Forschungsprojekt. (Manuskripte zur Sprachlehrforschung Nr. 20). Heidelberg: Groos.Google Scholar
Engel, U., Krumm, H.-J., Wierlacher, A. et al. , 1981. Mannheimer Gutachten zu ausgewählten Lehrwerken Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Vol. 1 & 2. Heidelberg: Groos.Google Scholar
Essentials of English Grammar. 1976. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
Færch, C. and Kasper, G.. 1980. Processes and strategies in foreign language learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin Utrecht 5. 47–118.Google Scholar
Færch, C. and Kasper, G.. (forthcoming). Plans and strategies in foreign language communication. Strategies in interlanguage communication, ed. by Fæsrch, C. and Kasper, G.. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Fathman, A. 1975. Language background, age and the order of acquisition of English structures. New directions in second language learning, teaching, and bilingual education, ed. by Burt, M. K. and Dulay, H. C., 33–43. Washington D.C.: TESOL.Google Scholar
Fathman, A. 1977. Similarities and simplification in the interlanguage of second language learners. In Corder and Roulet, 30–38.Google Scholar
Felix, S. W. 1981. On the (in-)applicability of Piagetian thought to language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 3. 179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, H. V. 1972. Common errors in language learning. Insights from English. Rowley, Ma.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Glahn, E. 1977. Om elevernes sprog. Fremmedsprogspædagogik, ed. by Glahn, E., Jakobson, L. Kvistgaard, and Larsen, F., 96–117. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction ritual. Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. Syntax and semantics. Vol. III: Speech acts, ed. by Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L., 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Griffin, P. and Mehan, H.. 1981. Sense and ritual in classroom discourse. In Coulmas, 187–213.Google Scholar
Grotjahn, R. and Kasper, G.. 1979. Zur Konzeption und Bewertung didaktischer Grammatiken. In Bausch, 98–116.Google Scholar
Harder, P. 1980. Discourse as self-expression and the reduced identity of the L2 learner. Applied Linguistics 1. 262–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatch, E. 1978. Acquisition of syntax in a second language. In Richards, 34–70.Google Scholar
Heuer, H.; Kleineidam, H.; Obendiek, E.; and Sauer, H. (eds.) 1979. Dortmunder Diskussion zur Fremdsprachendidaktik. Kongressdokumentation der 8. Arbeitstagung der Fremdsprachen-didaktiker Dortmund 1978. Dortmund: Lensing.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. 1978. Sociolinguistic competence in the classroom. In Richards, 134–162.Google Scholar
House, J. and Kasper, G.. 1981. Politeness markers in English and German. In Coulmas, 157–185.Google Scholar
Hüllen, W. 1976. Linguistik und Englischunterricht 2. Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer.Google Scholar
Hymes, D.H. 1972. On communicative competence. Sociolinguistics, ed. by Pride, J. B. and Holmes, J., 269–293. Hardmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Jain, M. P. 1974. Error analysis: source, cause and significance. In Richards 1974b. 189–215.Google Scholar
Jung, L. 1979. Planung und Auswertung textueller Äusserungen von Fremdsprachenlemern der Sekundarstufe I. In Heuer, Kleineidam, Obendiek and Sauer, 200–202.Google Scholar
Kahrmann, B. 1979. Kommunikation durch Frageinduktion ? In Heuer, Kleineidam, Obendiek and Sauer, 209–212.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. 1979. Communication strategies: modality reduction. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin Utrecht 4 (2). 266–283.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. 1981. Pragmatische Aspekte in der Interimsprache. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Kennedy, G. and Holmes, J.. 1976. Discussion of creative construction in second language learning and teaching. Papers in second language acquisition, ed. by H. D. Brown. Language Learning Special Issue No. 4. 81–92.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. 1973. The logic of politeness; or, minding your p's and q's. Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 292–305. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. 1976. An explanation for the morpheme acquisition order of second language learners. Language Learning 26. 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Learning English, Ausgabe, A. 1968 ff. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
Leech, G. N. 1977. Language and tact. L.A.U.T. paper No. 46, Series A, Trier: University of Trier.Google Scholar
Maas, U. 1972. Grammatik und Handlungstheorie. Pragmatik und sprachliches Handeln, ed. by Maas, U. and Wunderlich, D., 189–276. Frankfurt: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Mehan, H. 1979. Learning lessons. Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkins, K. and Larsen-Freeman, D.. 1975. The Effect of formal language instruction on the order of morpheme acquisition. Language Learning 25. 237–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raabe, H. 1979. Der Fehler beim Fremdsprachenerwerb und Fremdsprachengebrauch. Fehlerlinguistik. Beiträge zum Problem der sprachlichen Abweichung, ed. by Cherubim, D., 61–93. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Rauch, R. 1979. Ein Kapitel Lehrergrammatik: Vorschläge zur Didaktisierung des ‘Sub-jonctif’. In Bausch, 220–237.Google Scholar
Rehbein, J. 1978. Reparative Handlungsmuster und ihre Verwendung im Fremdsprachenunterricht. MS, Bochum.Google Scholar
Rehbein, J. 1979. Elizitieren. Fragemodifizierung im Unterricht. MS, Bochum.Google Scholar
Richards, J. C. 1974a. A non-contrastive approach to error analysis. In Richards 1974b, 172–188.Google Scholar
Richards, J. C. (ed.) 1974b. Error analysis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Richards, J. C. (ed.). 1978. Understanding second and foreign language learning. Rowley, Ma.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. and Richards, J. C.. 1980. Speech acts and second language learning. Applied Linguistics 1. 129–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumann, J. 1975. Implications of pidginization and creolization for the study of adult second language acquisition. In Schumann and Stenson, 137–152.Google Scholar
Schumann, J. 1978. The pidginization process: a model for second language acquisition. Rowley, Ma.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schumann, J. and Stenson, N. (eds.). 1975. New frontiers in second language learning. Rowley, Ma.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. 1972. Interlanguage. IRAL 10. 209–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. McH. and Coulthard, M.. 1975. Towards an analysis of discourse. The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Speight, S. 1977. German English and English as Esperanto. Kongressdokumentation der 7. Arbeitstagung der Fremdsprachendidaktiker Giessen 1976, ed. by Christ, H. and Piepho, H. E., 156–158. Limburg: Frankonius.Google Scholar
Stemmer, B. 1981. Kohäsion im gesprochenen Diskurs deutscher Lerner des Englischen. Manuskripte zur Sprachlehrforschung Nr. 18. Heidelberg: Groos.Google Scholar
Stenson, N. 1975. Induced errors. In Schumann and Stenson, 54–70.Google Scholar
Strevens, P. 1976. A theoretical model of the language learning/teaching process. Working Papers on Bilingualism 11. 129–152.Google Scholar
Swain, M. 1977. Future directions in second language research. Proceedings of the Los Angeles Second Language Research Forum, ed. by Henning, C., Los Angeles: Los Angeles Second Language Research Forum.Google Scholar
Wode, H. 1981. Learning a second language. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Valdman, A. 1977. On the relevance of the pidginization-creolization model for second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 1 (2). 55–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yorio, A. 1976. Discussion of “Explaining sequence and variation in second language acquisition”. In Brown, 59–63.Google Scholar
Zydatiss, W. 1976. Tempus und Aspekt im Englischunterricht. Kronberg/ TS.: Scriptor.Google Scholar