No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Perspective and Proficiency in L2 Referential Communication1
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 November 2008
Abstract
In this paper we examine some aspects of second language referential communication in an experimental setting. The research method employed is an adapted version of a dyadic communication task originally devised by Krauss and Weinheimer (1964) and subsequently used in a long series of first language studies with anglophone children and adults. The task requires subjects, who are visually separated but allowed to converse freely, to reach agreement on the ordering of a set of abstract, non-conventional shapes over a number of trials. The learners appear to behave like native speakers in many ways: They can carry out the task successfully, they shorten references on repeated use, they need less time in subsequent trials, and most importantly, they tend to prefer to describe the shapes from an analogical perspective rather than from a literal one. The differences between learners and anglophone native speakers are mainly quantitative in nature. For instance, the learners need more time and more words for the task. Also, their final references tend to be longer and structurally more complex. However, the same was true for a comparable group of Dutch native speakers. Furthermore, one learner group showed behavior that was aberrant and could not be related to proficiency level.
Information
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987
References
REFERENCES
Bialystok, E. & Kellerman, E. (Ms.). Process and parsimony: An analysis of learners' communication strategies. Unpublished manuscript, York University and Nijmegen University.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. (1979). Naming and describing in social communication. Research report. Yorktown Heights, N.Y.: IBM Watson Research Center.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. (1980). Naming and describing in social communication. Language and Speech, 23, 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cook, V. (1986). Do second language learners have a cognitive deficit? In Cook, V. (Ed. ), Experimental approaches to second language learning (pp. 73–79). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Davidson, R., Kline, S., & Snow, C. (Ms.). Definitions and definite noun phrases: Indicators of children's decontextualised skills. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Dickson, W., Miyake, N., & Muto, T. (1977). Referential relativity: Culture-boundedness of analytic and metaphoric communication. Cognition, 5, 215–233.Google Scholar
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1983). Strategies in interlanguage communication. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S., & Krauss, R. (1967). What do people say after they have learned how to talk? Studies of the development of referential communication. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 13, 309–316.Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S., Krauss, R., & Higgins, E. (1975). The development of referential communication skills. In Horowitz, F. (Ed.), Review of Child Development Research, 4, 305–345.Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S., Krauss, R., & Weisberg, R. (1966). Referential communication in nursery school children: Method and some preliminary findings. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 333–342.Google Scholar
Hickmann, M. (1986). Psychosocial aspects of language acquisition. In Fletcher, P. & Garman, M. (Eds.), Language acquisition, (2nd ed.), (pp. 9–29). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaacs, E., & Clark, H. (Ms.). References in conversation between experts and novices. Unpublished manuscript. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Kellerman, E., Ammerlaan, T., Bongaerts, T., & Poulisse, N. (in press). System and hierarchy in L2 compensatory strategies. In Scarcella, R., Andersen, E., & Krashen, S., Developing communicative competence. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Krauss, R., & Glucksberg, S. (1969). The development of communication: Competence as a function of age. Child Development, 40, 255–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krauss, R., & Glucksberg, S. (1977). Social and nonsocial speech. Scientific American, 236, (2), 100–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krauss, R., & Rotter, G. (1968). Communication abilities of children as a function of status and age. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 14, 161–173.Google Scholar
Krauss, R., & Weinheimer, S. (1964). Changes in reference phrases as a function of frequency of usage in social interaction: A preliminary study. Psychonomic Science, 1, 113–114.Google Scholar
Krauss, R., & Weinheimer, S. (1966). Concurrent feedback, confirmation, and the encoding of referents in verbal communication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 343–346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levelt, W. (1982). Linearization in describing spatial networks. In Peters, S. & Saarinen, E. (Eds.), Processes, beliefs and questions (pp. 199–220). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poulisse, N. (Ms.).Problems and solutions in the classification of communication strategies. Unpublished manuscript, Nijmegen University.Google Scholar
Poulisse, N., Bongaerts, T., & Kellerman, E. (1984). On the use of compensatory strategies in second language performance. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 8, 70–105.Google Scholar
Snow, C. (Ms.). Beyond conversation: Second language learners' acquisition of description and explanation. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Yule, G., & Tarone, E. (in press). Eliciting the performance of strategic competence. In Scarcella, R., Andersen, E., & Krashen, S., Developing communicative competence. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
- 11
- Cited by