Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-jwnkl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T11:26:35.471Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Speaking and Self-Order: A Critique of Orthodox L2 Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

William Frawley  and
James P. Lantolf
William Frawley
Affiliation:
University of Delaware
James P. Lantolf
Affiliation:
University of Delaware
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

While the recent explosion of work on L2 discourse has provided researchers with a mass of data on the development of communicative abilities, we find that most of this work is predicated on a single (perhaps even curious) assumption: that all discourse, of which L2 discourse is taken as a subcategory, is intended by its speakers to be informative to some interlocutor (i.e., transmits a message via an acoustic or graphic conduit) and that the production of discourse entails the formulation of strategies on the part of speakers in order to maximize this transmission of data. That discourse is not communicative (i.e., sending and receiving information) by nature has, in fact, been long known, but overlooked, especially in L2 research. Malinowski pointed out as early as 1935 that:

Language is an activity the function of which is not an expression of thought or communication of ideas … the neglect of the obvious has often been fatal to the development of scientific thought. The false conception of language as a means of transferring ideas from the head of the speaker to that of the listener has, in my opinion, largely vitiated the philological approach to language (Malinowski, 1935, 9).

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , Spring 1984 , pp. 143 - 159
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

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

Brown, A. 1975. Recognition, representation, and recall of narrative sequences by preoperational children. Child Development 46.156–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, M. and Dulay, H.. 1980. On acquisition orders. Second language acquisition: trends and issues, ed. by Felix, S.. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Christie, D. and Schumacher, G.. 1975. Developmental trends in the abstraction and recall of relevant versus irrelevant thematic information from connected verbal materials. Child Development 46.598–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Beaugrande, R. and Miller, G.. 1980. Processing models for children's story comprehension. Poetics 9.181–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faerch, C. and Kasper, G.. 1983. Plans and strategies in foreign language communication. Strategies in interlanguage communication, ed. by Faerch, C. and Kasper, G.. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Frawley, W. 1978. Topological linguistics. Papers in Linguistics 11.185–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frawley, W. and Lantolf, J.. 1983. L2 discourse: a Vygotskyan perspective. Paper presented at TESOL Convention, Toronto.Google Scholar
Frawley, W. and Lantolf, J.. (forthcoming) On communication strategies: a functional perspective.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1979. From discourse to syntax: grammar as a processing strategy. Syntax and semantics, vol. 12, ed. by Givón, T.. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Harris, A. 1983. Language and alienation. The sociogenesis of language and human conduct, ed. by Bain, B.. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Hudson, R.A. 1980. Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
John-Steiner, V. and Tatter, P.. 1983. An interactionist model of language development. The sociogenesis of language and human conduct, ed. by Bain, B.. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. and van Dijk, T.. 1978. Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review 85.363–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kvale, S. 1983. The quantification of knowledge in education: on resistance toward qualitative evaluation and research. The sociogenesis of language and human conduct, ed. by Bain, B.. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. and Frawley, W.. (in press). Second language performance and Vygotskyan psycholinguistics: implications for L2 instruction. Proceedings of the Tenth LACUS Forum, 1983, ed. by Makkai, Adam. Columbia, SC: Hornbeam Press.Google Scholar
Le Ny, J-F. and Denhière, G.. 1980. Relative importance of meaningful units in comprehension and recall of narratives in children and adults. Poetics 9.147–161.Google Scholar
J-F., Le Ny and Kintsch, W., eds. 1982. Language and comprehension. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Malinowski, B. 1935. Coral gardens and their magic, vol. 2. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. 1979. Planned and unplanned discourse. Syntax and semantics, vol. 12, ed. by Givón, T.. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Oller, J. 1979. Language tests at school. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Scinto, L.F.M. 1983. The development of text production. Developmental issues in discourse, ed. by Fine, J. and Freedle, R.. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
Sokolov, A.N. 1972. Inner speech and thought. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E. 1981. Some thoughts on the notion of ‘communication strategy’. TESOL Quarterly 15.283–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tul'viste, P. 1982. Is there a form of verbal thought specific to childhood? Soviet Psychology 21 no. 1.317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, T. 1979. Recalling and summarizing complex discourse. Text processing, ed. by Burghardt, W. and Holker, K.. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. 1962. Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wertsch, J.V. 1979. The regulation of human action and the given-new organization of private speech. The development of self-regulation through private speech, ed. by Zivin, G.. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Wertsch, J.V. 1980. Adult-child interaction as a source of self-regulation in children. Paper presented at Conference on the Growth of Insight during Childhood.Google Scholar
Wolfson, N. 1979. The conversational historical present alternation. Language 55.168–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfson, N. 1982. On tense alternation and the need for analysis of native speaker usage in second language acquisition. Language Learning 32.53–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar