Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-08T01:32:32.339Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discourse Structure in Nonnative English Discourse

The Effect of Ordering and Interpretive Cues on Perceptions of Comprehensibility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Andrea Tyler  and
John Bro
Andrea Tyler
Affiliation:
University of Florida
John Bro
Affiliation:
University of Florida
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A frequently discussed hypothesis concerning the source of cross-linguistic communication difficulty in written discourse is conflicting organizational patterns (Kaplan, 1966, 1987). Extending the argument to oral discourse, Young (1982) argued that spoken English discourse produced by Chinese speakers evidenced a discourse-level topic-comment structure that native English speakers find difficult to follow. However, Tyler (1988) argued that the perception of incoherence might better be understood as the cumulative result of interacting miscues at the discourse level, that is, miscues in syntactic incorporation, lexical discourse markers, tense/aspect, and lexical The study reported here aims at testing these competing hypotheses. One hundred fifteen subjects rated four versions of the Chinese-produced English discourse presented in Young's study for comprehensibility. Results indicated that the effect of discourse miscues on comprehensibility was highly significant (F = 70, p <.0001). However, there was no significant effect for order of ideas (F = .47, p <.49).

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , March 1992 , pp. 71 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

Akinnaso, F. (1982). On the differences between spoken and written language. Language and Speech, 25, 97–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bander, R. (1978). American English rhetoric. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Beaman, K. (1984). Coordination and subordination revisited: Syntactic complexity in spoken and written narrative discourse. In Tannen, D. (Ed.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse (pp. 45–80). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Bever, T., Lackner, J., & Krik, R. (1969). The underlying structures of sentences are the primary untis of immediate speech processing. Perception & Psychophysics, 5, 225–234.Google Scholar
Carrell, P. (1984). Effects of a formal schema in second language comprehension. Language Learning, 34, 87–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. (1982). Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In Tannen, D. (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy (pp. 35–53), Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Connor, U. (1984). A study of cohesion and coherence in English as a second language students’ writing. Papers in Linguistics, 17, 301–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connor, U. (1987). Argumentative patterns in student essays: Cross-cultural differences. In Connor, U. & Kaplan, R. (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 57–72) Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Cooper, W., & Cooper, L. (1980). Studies in speech production. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cruttendon, A. (1987). Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Danielowicz, J. (1984). The integration between text and context: A study of how adults and children use spoken and written language in four contexts. In Pelligrini, A. & Yawkey, T. (Eds.), The development of oral and written language in social contexts. (pp. 243–260). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Davison, A., & Kantor, R. (1982). On the failure of readability formulas to define readable texts: A case study from adaptations. Reading Research Quarterly, 2, 187–209.Google Scholar
Davison, A., & Lutz, R. (1981). Measurement of syntactic complexity relative to context (Technical report). Urbana: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.Google Scholar
Durrell, D. (1969). Listening comprehension vs. reading comprehension. Journal of Reading, 12, 455–460.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, S. (1988). Cohesive devices and discourse competence. World Englishes, 7, 111–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, B. (1987). Discourse structure and anaphora: written and conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, M. (1972). Modern English: A practical reference guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Green, T. (1979). The necessity of syntactic markers: Two experiments with artificial Languages. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 481–496.Google Scholar
Grosz, B. (1977). The representation and use of focus in dialogue understanding (Technical notes no. 5). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Research Institute.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J., Jupp, T., & Roberts, C. (1979). Crosstalk: A study of cross-cultural communication. London: National Center for Industrial Language Training, in association with the BBC.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. (1987). Spoken and written modes of meaning. In Horowitz, R. & Samuels, S. (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 55–82). London: Academic.Google Scholar
Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hinds, J. (1983). Contrastive rhetoric: Japanese and English. Text, 3, 183–195.Google Scholar
Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In Connor, U. & Kaplan, R. (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 141–153). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Johns-Lewis, C. (Ed.). (1986). Intonation in discourse. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, R. (1972). The anatomy of rhetoric: Prolegomena to a functional theory of rhetoric. Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. (1987). Cultural thought patterns revisited. In Connor, U. & Kaplan, R. (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 9–22). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W., & Kozinsky, E. (1977). Summarizing stories after reading and listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 491–499.Google Scholar
Ladd, D.R. (1980). The structure of intonational meaning. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1984). The pragmatics of subordination. In Brugman, C. & Macauley, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 472–480). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C, & Goldman, S. (1976). Discourse memory and reading comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 33–42.Google Scholar
Riddle, E. (1986). The meaning and discourse function of the past tense in English. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 267–286.Google Scholar
Samuels, J. (1987). Factors that influence listening and reading comprehension. In Horowitz, R. & Samuels, S. (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 295–325). London: Academic.Google Scholar
Schachter, P. (1973). Focus and relativization. Language, 49, 19–46.Google Scholar
Schriffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (1981). Narrative, literacy and face in interethnic communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Stitch, T. (1972). Learning by listening. In Carroll, J. & Freedle, R. (Eds.), Language comprehension and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 285–314). Washington, DC: Winston.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (Ed.). (1986). Discourse in cross-cultural communication [Special issue]. Text, 6(2).Google Scholar
Townsend, D., & Bever, T. (1982). Natural units of representation interact during sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 688–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, D., Carrithers, C., & Bever, T. (1987). Listening and reading processes in college- and middle school-age readers. In Horowitz, R. & Samuels, S. (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 217–241). London: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A. (1988, 03). Discourse structure and coherence in international teaching assistants' spoken discourse. Paper presented at the annual convention of TESOL, Chicago.Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Davies, C. (1990). Cross-cultural communication missteps. Text, 10, 385–410.Google Scholar
Tyler, A., Jefferies, A., & Davies, C. (1988). The effect of discourse structuring devices on listener perceptions of coherence in nonnative university teachers' spoken discourse. World Englishes, 7, 101–110.Google Scholar
Young, L. (1982). Inscrutability revisited. In Gumperz, J. (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 72–85). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar