Assessing an Interaction-Based Paradigm

How Accommodative Should We Be?
  • Jane Zuengler
Part of the Topics in Language and Linguistics book series (TLLI)

Abstract

In the last several years, Giles’ Speech Accommodation Theory (SAT) (Bourhis & Giles, 1977; Giles, 1973; Giles and Smith, 1979) has received attention in the second-language acquisition (SLA) literature as a paradigm for explaining second-language (L2) performance variation. A number of data-based studies (e.g., Beebe & Zuengler, 1983; Zuengler, 1982) have illustrated the need to draw on SAT for an understanding of speech shifts observed in L2 speakers, and Beebe and Giles (1984) agree, arguing that SAT subsumes both first language (L1) and L2 variation.

Keywords

Native Speaker Speech Rate Correlate Group Dominance Behavior Linguistic Status 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beebe, L. M. (1980). Sociolinguistic variation and style shifting in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 30, 433–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beebe, L. M., and Giles, H. (1984). Speech-accommodation theories: a discussion in terms of second-language acquisition. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 46, 5–32.Google Scholar
  3. Beebe, L. M., and Zuengler, J. (1983). Accommodation Theory: an explanation for style shifting in second language dialects. In N. Wolfson and E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 195–213 ). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  4. Bourhis, R. Y., and Giles, H. (1977). The language of intergroup distinctiveness. In H. Giles (Ed.), Language, ethnicity and intergroup relations (pp. 119–135 ). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Carranza, M. Z. (1982). Attitudinal research on Hispanic language varieties. In E. B. Ryan and H. Giles (Eds.), Attitudes towards language variation (pp. 63–83 ). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  6. Dickerson, L. J. (1974). Internal and external patterning of phonological variability in the speech of Japanese learners of English: toward a theory of second-language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
  7. Ferguson, N. (1977). Simultaneous speech, interruptions and dominance. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 16, 295–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gass, S. M., and Varonis, E. M. (1986). Sex differences in nonnative speaker—nonnative speaker interactions. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 327–351 ). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  9. Giles, H. (1973). Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics, 15, 87105.Google Scholar
  10. Giles, H., and Smith, P. (1979). Accommodation theory: Optimal levels of convergence. In H. Giles and R. N. St. Clair (Eds.), Language and social psychology (pp. 45–65 ). Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
  11. Kennedy, C. W., and Camden, C. T. (1983). A new look at interruptions. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 47, 45–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
  13. Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  14. Leet-Pellegrini, H. M. (1980). Conversational dominance as a function of gender and expertise. In H. Giles, W. P. Robinson, and P. Smith (Eds.), Language: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 97–104 ). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  15. The Meier Art Tests. II. Aesthetic perception. (1963). Based on research of N. C. Meier, Ph.D., University of Iowa. Chicago: Stoelting Co. (Preliminary Manual, 1967 ).Google Scholar
  16. Oppenheim, A. N. (1966). Questionnaire design and attitude measurement. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  17. Owsley, H. H., and Scotton, C. M. (1984). The conversational expression of power by television interviewers. The Journal of Social Psychology,123(2), 261–271.Google Scholar
  18. Scarcella, R. C. (1983). Discourse accent in second language performance. In S. M. Gass and L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 306–326 ). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  19. Scherer, K. R. (1979). Personality markers in speech. In K. R. Scherer and H. Giles (Eds.), Social markers in speech (pp. 147–209 ). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Scollon, R., and Scollon, S. B. K. (1981). Narrative, literacy and face in interethnic communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  21. Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  22. Tarone, E. (1979). Interlanguage as chameleon. Language Learning, 29, 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tarone, E. (1984). On the variability of interlanguage systems. In F. R. Eckman, L. H. Bell, and D. Nelson (Eds.), Universals of second language acquisition (pp. 3–23 ). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  24. Thakerar, J. N., Giles, H., and Cheshire, J. (1982). Psychological and linguistic parameters of speech accommodation theory. In C. Fraser and K. R. Scherer (Eds.), Advances in the social psychology of language (pp. 205–255 ). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Thorne, B., and Henley, N. (Eds.) (1975). Language and sex: Difference and dominance. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  26. Wenzl, P. A. (1982). An investigation of the interrelationships of four measures of human dominance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tulane University, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  27. West. C., and Zimmerman, D. H. (1977). Woman’s place in everyday talk: Reflections on parent—child interactions. Social Problems, 24, 521–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wiemann, J. M. (1985). Power, status and dominance: interpersonal control and regulation in conversation. In R. L. Street and J. N. Cappella (Eds.), Sequence and pattern in communicative behaviour (pp. 85–102 ). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  29. Young, R. ( 1987, April). Variation and the interlanguage hypothesis. Paper presented at the Annual TESOL Conference, Miami, Florida.Google Scholar
  30. Zimmerman, D. H., and West, C. (1975). Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. In B. Thorne and N. Henley (Eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance (pp. 105–129 ). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  31. Zuengler, J. (1982). Applying Accommodation Theory to variable performance data in L2. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4, 181–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zuengler, J. (1985). The effect of induced and perceived expertise on the language performance of native and nonnative speakers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  33. Zuengler, J. (1987). Effects of “expertise” in interactions between native and non-native speakers. Language and Communication, 7 (2), 123–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jane Zuengler
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EnglishUniversity of Wisconsin—MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations