16.3422, Review: Discourse/2nd Lang Acquisition: Rehner (2004)

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-16-3422. Wed Nov 30 2005. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 16.3422, Review: Discourse/2nd Lang Acquisition: Rehner (2004)

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
 
Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org) 
        Sheila Dooley, U of Arizona  
        Terry Langendoen, U of Arizona  

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Lindsay Butler <lindsay at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our 
Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and 
interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially 
invited to join in. If you are interested in leading a book 
discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available 
for review." Then contact Sheila Dooley at dooley at linguistlist.org. 

===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 27-Nov-2005
From: Elisa Bianchi < elybianchi at gmail.com >
Subject: Developing Aspects of Second Language Discourse Competence 

	
-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:38:31
From: Elisa Bianchi < elybianchi at gmail.com >
Subject: Developing Aspects of Second Language Discourse Competence 
 

AUTHOR: Rehner, Katherine
TITLE: Developing Aspects of Second Language Discourse 
Competence
SERIES: LINCOM Studies in Language Acquisition 13
PUBLISHER: Lincom GmbH
YEAR: 2004
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/15/15-3296.html 

Elisa Bianchi, Science of Language Department, University for 
Foreigners, Perugia

SYNOPSIS

This monograph offers an insight into discourse competence of 
French immersion students from Ontario, Canada. It provides a 
quantitative and qualitative analysis of French expressions with 
discursive and non-discursive functions, and compares the frequency 
and functions in three spoken language corpora, drawing a general 
outline of differences and similarities. The main goal of this study is to 
explain variation in second language speech by relating it to linguistic 
and extralinguistic factors, such as extra-curricular French exposure, 
social class and sex. 

Chapter 1 Overview of the Research. Chapter 1 provides a brief 
sketch about the goal of analysis: to investigate the influence of 
independent factors in relations to the 41 French immersion students' 
mastery of the discursive and non-discursive uses of comme/like, 
donc/alors/(ça) fait que/so, bon and là. The analysis is carried out by 
comparing three corpora: 1. questionnaires and taped interviews with 
41 immersion students engaged in extended French programs in 
three Greater Toronto Area high schools; 2. biographical information 
on and taped interviews with same-aged school students from 
Welland, Ontario; 3. biographical information on and recordings of the 
in-class speech of 7 grade 3 and 6 French immersion teachers from 
the greater Toronto and Ottawa areas. Discursive and non-discursive 
uses of expressions such as comme/like, donc/alors/(ça) fait que/so, 
bon and là were chosen as the subject of the research because they 
provide a faithful insight of discursive competence in French as a 
second language and they allow for the study of the influence of a 
wide range of independent factors, social and linguistics, on second 
language variation. Moreover, this is an as yet under-researched 
area. 

Chapter 2 Contextualizing the Research. In this chapter, the author 
sets out the theoretical background of data analysis, and then outlines 
a review of past sociolinguistic research about factors involved in 
language variation. The author identifies 5 approaches to the study if 
language variation: 'Labovian tradition', 'dynamic paradigm', 
'communicative competence', 'speech accommodation 
theory', 'attitudes and motivation'. Research about 41 French 
immersion students fits in Labovian sociolinguistics and second 
language acquisition, although there are several important 
distinctions. The goal of the research is to investigate the relationship 
between language variation (as for discursive and non-discursive 
uses of some French expressions) and independent factors, such as 
student's social makeup (i.e. sex and social class) the language(s) 
spoken at home, and the linguistic context surrounding the language 
being examined. This type of investigation differs from traditional 
Labovian sociolinguistics in that the concept itself of language 
variation has to be contextualized in second language acquisition. 
There are instead two types of variation in second language 
acquisition: the first type consists of an alternation between forms that 
conform to target language native norms and 'errors'; the second type 
consists of an alternation between forms that are each used by native 
speakers of the target languages. Rehner's research is based on the 
investigation of second type systematic variation in second language 
production. 

The author discusses Ellis' theoretical framework of free and 
systematic variation (Ellis 1989), and draws up a new framework 
worked out exclusively for systematic L2 variation. The new framework 
is very different from the traditional framework of language variation, 
because it acknowledges the role of new factors affecting second 
language variable production. Within the new framework, the nature of 
the learner's L1 is recognized as a primary source of systematic L2 
variable production. Secondly, as concerns the extra-linguistic 
sources, the new framework recognizes the role of personal-affective 
factors, namely the learner's attitude towards the target language and 
culture and the learning's motivations. These factors lay behind 
traditional sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic factors. 

As for sociolinguistic factors, the new framework inserts both the 
social and interactional contexts, and also the discourse context (i.e. 
topic formality, register, etc.); further, it acknowledges factors related 
to both the addressee and the speaker (e.g. sex, education, social 
class etc.). Lastly, the amount and quality of the learner's L2 exposure 
is introduced as a new factor.    
The corpus analysis doesn't investigate the role of all factors listed in 
this new framework, but it focuses on the influence of L1 and L2 
linguistic factors and of the extra-linguistic factors subsumed under 
speaker factors (i.e., the social factors of sex, social class, and value 
of the L2 variants, the exposure factors of amount and nature of L2 
exposure, and the use of the variants in class by immersion teachers 
and pedagogical materials). The weight of these factors was already 
demonstrated in a study concerning the alternation, in French as a 
second language of 41 immersion students, between on and nous, 
reviewed by Rehner et al. (2003). Findings from the study of nous 
vs. on alternation can be summarized as follows: 
1. middle class and/or female speakers show a preference for formal 
variants;
2. those students who have contacts with native speakers of 
Canadian French have internalized patterns of language variation 
based on sex and social stratification. 

By analysing discursive and non-discursive functions of French 
expressions (donc, alors, etc...), the author aims to find further 
evidence of trends in language variation showed by previous 
investigation of this 41 immersion student corpus. 

Chapter 3, Methods. This chapter provides detailed description of 
methods used in data collection and analysis of discursive and non-
discursive uses of comme/like, donc/alors (ça) fait que/so, bon and là 
by 41 immersion students. 

Data from immersion students were collected from the following 
sources:
1. One-hour interviews about everyday life, aimed to engage the 
students in a conversation in French.  
2. Questionnaires filled out by the same 41 students.

Interviews were transcribed and analysed for frequency of comme/like, 
donc/alors (ça) fait que/so, bon and là in students' speech. 
Questionnaires provided information about linguistic and extra-
linguistic factors of interest. 

The second corpus data were collected from 10 high school students 
from Welland, Ontario, who were interviewed by a native Welland 
Francophone. The interview was about everyday life, plans for the 
future etc. A set of additional questions aimed to verify the dominance 
of English or French in these bilingual students. This 10 Francophone 
students' corpus was also investigated as for the frequency of 
comme/like, donc/alors (ça) fait que/so, bon and là. The third corpus 
data were collected from 19 immersion teachers, who were observed 
and recorded during in-class instruction and interaction. These 
corpora provide information about the frequency of use of comme/like, 
donc/alors (ça) fait que/so, bon and là in the teacher's speech, as well 
as the range of discursive and non-discursive functions they fulfill. All 
frequencies were calculated per 1000 words and then statistically 
elaborated.

This chapter also describes main linguistic and non-linguistic features 
of subjects from three corpora, as for instruction grade, sex, social 
class and schooling language. A very interesting finding of this 
sociolinguistic survey is that French immersion students' relative lack 
of vernacular fluency in their L2 reflects and reinforces diglossic 
communication in immersion classrooms: formal French is generally 
used for academic purposes, English being used for the vernacular 
mode of communication.

Chapter 4 Literature Review and Hypothesis. Chapter 4 provides an 
exhaustive review of the literature about discursive competence of 
Canadian French learners and Francophones, and an overview of the 
hypotheses guiding the study. Literature reviewed concerns the use of 
comme by Welland Francophones; discursive uses of comme/like, 
alors/(ça) fait que/so, bon and là in the spoken French of Montreal 
Anglophones; discursive use of comme/like in Montreal Francophones 
and of like in English; the use of assim (like) as a marker of 
exemplification in Brazilian Portuguese; non-discursive use of 
donc/alors/ça fait que/so and discursive use of bon as a marker to 
close a preceding segment; discursive use of là. 
Studies about other aspects of linguistic competence by French 
immersion students are also reviewed: Harley's (1992) study about 
the acquisition of French verbs, Duchesne's (1995) study about the 
frequency of use of some structures in immersion students' spoken 
French with different levels of linguistic competence (from grade 1 to 
6): Spilka's (1996) study about spoken French of 20 children from an 
immersion group. 

This chapter provides a review of research on 41 immersion students' 
sociolinguistic competence (i.e. on the same corpus investigated in the 
present study). The most important study about this corpus is 
Mougeon, Nadasdi and Rehner's (2002): it sets out a comparison 
between 41 immersion students' corpus and teacher corpora as for 
the influence of the same range of independent factors considered in 
the current work. Mougeon et al. (2002) analysed the following 
aspects of sociolinguistic variation: ne use/non-use, restrictive 
expressions, markers of consequence, future verb forms, 1st person 
plural pronouns, 3rd person plural levelling. Mougeon et al.'s (2002) 
findings can be summarized as follows: first of all, immersion students' 
speech shows no or few marked vernacular variants, whereas 
unmarked informal variants are used relatively frequently. Moreover, 
in the immersion students' corpus they found variants not belonging to 
native speech: these variants are typical of immersion students' 
interlanguage. Authors also provide an explanation of their findings: 
the absence of vernacular variants reflects a gap in sociolinguistic 
competence of immersion students; the use of informal variants 
reflects the rates of use in the immersion teachers' in-class speech 
and in the French language arts materials used in immersion 
programs. 

Factors specific to L2 learners influencing linguistic competence are 
the input received from teachers, extra-curricular exposure to French 
and home language. Mougeon et al.'s research reveals the influence 
of extralinguistic factors too, such as social class and/or sex. These 
findings make up the starting point of hypotheses about discursive 
competence grounding the current research. The first hypothesis is 
that, in French immersion students' corpus, there is a basic distinction 
between those expressions whose equivalent in English functions 
both non-discursively and discursively and those expressions either 
without an English equivalent or whose equivalent has different 
functions. Differences between these two types of expressions can be 
detected by investigating frequency of use, correlations with 
independent factors and the range of functions fulfilled in the corpus.  

Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8 are structured in a similar way: they set out 
detailed findings about use of Comme/Like (Ch. 5), Donc, Alors, (ça) 
fait que, So (Ch. 6), Bon (Ch. 7) and Là (Ch. 8) in the three corpora 
under investigation. In each chapter, the author describes the range 
of discursive and non discursive uses of each expression found in the 
three corpora, then analyses frequency of use, functions and 
correlations with independent factors. Discussion of findings is 
complete with detailed tables in which numbers and statistical values 
are provided.

Chapter 9 Comparing the four variables. This chapter sums up main 
findings about frequency of use of expressions under examination, 
correlations, functions fulfilled, and the use of English expressions. As 
for frequency, a dramatic difference came out in frequency of 
use/functions of expressions with English equivalents (comme, donc, 
alors, (ça) fait que) and expressions without English equivalent as for 
discursive uses (bon and là): a general conclusion is the great 
influence of transfer from L1, in that the existence or lack of an 
English equivalent is a highly significant factor in determining the 
students' discursive use of a French expression. Non-discursive 
functions are more natural and unmarked as for discursive functions, 
and therefore they are acquired first. 

As concerns frequency of use of bon and là (which have no English 
equivalents), it is interesting to note that it mirrors that of the teachers. 
This proves the influence of teacher's input in second language 
acquisition. Moreover, in immersion students' corpus there is a high 
frequency of use of English like and so: this suggests that English 
expressions with discursive functions are used without learner's 
awareness and confirms the dramatic influence of L1 in L2 production. 
As for correlations of the expressions, the general conclusion is that 
students can attribute a social value to those expressions which they 
are familiar via their L1.

Moreover, great exposure to extra-curricular French can improve the 
mastery of different uses related to expressions under investigation. 
As for functions fulfilled, it came out that students' discursive 
competence is higher for those expressions with an English 
equivalent, lower for those without English equivalent (e.g. non-
discursive use of bon). As concerns the use of English expressions, 
the students' use of like and so in spoken French is due primarily to 
fulfill discursive functions, and it has no relation with low exposure to 
extra-curricular French. 

Chapter 10 Discussion This chapter closes the book with a general 
discussion about discourse competence of spoken French by 
immersion students. First of all, L1 has a consistent influence both on 
frequency of use of expressions and on range of functions (discursive 
vs. non-discursive) fulfilled. It has a role in favouring inference about 
social value of expressions in L2 (e.g. distinction between formal and 
informal variants). 

Another finding is the important role of extra-curricular French 
exposure in improving discursive uses of expressions under 
investigation. Chapter 10 ends up with a description of the limitations 
of the study: non-homogeneity between data of immersion students 
and of teachers, and the lack of information on explicit teaching of 
discursive and non-discursive uses of the various expressions, and, 
thirdly, the limited range of expressions examined. 

EVALUATION

The book is meant for anyone interested in second language 
acquisition study, especially in production competences. The research 
is praiseworthy for having tackled the thorny matter of language 
variation in second language production. No doubt, it is a subject 
which can be hardly investigated in a systematic way, because it's 
difficult to keep scientific control on variables involved in second 
language production. Nevertheless, the author tries to embue the data 
analysis with a framework concerning the sources of language 
variation, and to ground the discussion in previous literature about 
variation in second language production. The great amount of data 
extracted from corpora analysis is quoted systematically and 
thoroughly. The effort to detect correlations between different 
linguistic and extra-linguistic variables, such as the role of L1 and of 
extra-curricular exposure to L2, and social class in influencing the 
selection of forms and functions is particularly worthwhile. The 
analysis of data is strengthened by performing statistical elaboration, 
i.e. two-samples t-test (even if it came out occasionally that no-
significant correlation between two variables was found). 

However, this study should be considered only a starting point for 
future research about language variation, because it is by no means 
exhaustive, as for both methods and results. The author herself is 
aware of the limitations of the study, as explained in Chapter 10. 

First of all, factors under investigation are too many, and it's difficult 
to keep control on them in corpus investigation and to grasp the 
effective role of each factor in language production. Discussion about 
one of the most important topics of the research, i.e. the correlation 
between sex/social class and language variation, is incomplete. 
Moreover, though data analysis is very detailed, discussion is 
occasionally cursory, e.g. about the role of L1. A thorough explanation 
of data would require a sound theoretical framework. Finally, this type 
of research requires specific methods for gathering data, e.g. 
communicative tasks aimed at eliciting uniformly the same functions for 
expressions under investigation: this could allow for real comparability 
between corpora.

REFERENCES

Duchesne, H. (1995). Évolution de l'interlangue chez les élèves de la 
1re à la 6e année en immersion française. The Canadian Modern 
Language Review 51, (3), 512-533.

Ellis, R. (1989), Sources of intra-learner variability in language use 
and their relationship to second language acquisition. In S. Gass, 
C.Madden, D. Preston, & Selinker, L. (eds.), Variation in second 
language acquisition volume II: Psycholinguistic Issues (pp. 22-45). 
Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters Ltd. 

Harley, B. (1992), Patterns of second language development in 
French immersion. Journal of French language studies, 2, 159-183

Mougeon, R., Laurendeau, P. (1993) On the uses of comme in the 
French of Welland, Ontario. New York/Oxford: Oxford University 
Press. 

Mougeon, R., Nadasdi, T., Rehner, K. (2002) Etat de la recherche sur 
l'appropriation de la variation par les apprenant avancés du FL2 ou 
FLE. In J.-M. Dewaele and R. Mougeon (Eds.). Acquisition et 
Interaction en Langue Etrangère, Special Issue, 17, 7-50. 

Rehner, K., Mougeon, R., Nadasdi, T. (2003) The learning of 
sociostylistic variation by advanced FSL learners: the case of nous 
versus on in immersion French. Studies in Second Language 
Acquisition, 25, 127-156.

Spilka, I. (1976) Assessment of second language performance in 
immersion programs, Canadian Modern Language Review, 32, (5), 
543-561. 

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Elisa Bianchi is Philosophy Doctor in Linguistics. She works with the 
Sciences of Language Department of University for Foreigners of 
Perugia. Her main research interests are second language acquisition 
and teaching, cognitive linguistics and corpora linguistics. She 
collaborates to a multilingual database on metalanguage of linguistics. 
She has a passion for Japanese language and linguistics.





-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-16-3422