DnAfinalresearchppr (1)

Oral Discourse vs. Written Discourse 1
Oral Discourse vs. Written Discourse:
The Rhetorical Working Relationship
amongst L2 learners
Meghan Rudley
Discourse Analysis
Dr. Kim
December 6, 2011

Abstract
This study reports on the finding of research conducted about the relationship between oral and
written discourse in second language (L2) speakers of English. Previous studies have shown the
dichotomy between the oral and written discourse amongst L2 learners of English by analyzing
their errors, interlanguage transfer, and subject verb agreement. However, in this study I
hypothesize there will be a positive working relationship between the oral and written discourse
amongst one L2 speaker of English. I will be using Lado’s contrastive analysis hypothesis and
Bloomfield’s Behavorist theory to support my claim. The subject selected for this study was a
French male doctoral candidate. The data collected and analyzed in the study was a writing
sample and an audio recorded speech sample. The research results concluded a weak working
relationship; however, an unexpected discovery of the subject’s oral speech in the target
language (TL) appeared to show native like speech patterns when the fillers were removed from
the oral discourse.

Literature Review
Garrod and Pickering (2003) define oral discourse also referred to as “conversational utterances”
easy “because of an interactive processing mechanism that leads to the alignment of linguistic
representations between partners” (p. 1). Oral discourse seems to come more natural or even
easier to all human beings who are not cognitively impaired, perhaps because our society
functions off of direct communication. Word of mouth has always been the fastest way to deliver
information but how does that explain the alignment of linguistic representation?
According to Garrod and Pickering (2003), the alignment also referred to as “interactive
alignment is automatic and reflects the fact that humans are designed for dialogue rather than
monologue” (p. 1). Garrod and Pickering show that human beings have the natural propensity to
communicate through oral discourse first before learning other styles of communication.
Perhaps this can be an explanation as to why all oral speakers, regardless of linguistic
background acquire the speaking system prior to the writing system. Another reason that could
qualify these assumptions is the human natural order of language acquisition. Other studies
suggest that thought comes before language, which eventually affects the writing process.
Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1986) claimed that it was “in the internal aspect, in word
meaning, that thought and speech unite into verbal thought” (p. 5-6).
Studies show a clear concise development of how oral discourse is the primary mode of
communication in early stages of human development but what is most interesting in the
development is the introduction of written discourse and how it affects oral discourse. The
learning stages are not independent of the each other, according to Berninger (2000) the four
learning systems (speaking, listening, reading, writing) develop in overlapping and parallel
waves rather than in discrete, sequential states”(as cited in MacArthur, Graham, & Fitzgerald,

2006, p. 171), they continue this claim by quoting Vygotsky (1978) stating that, “though writing
comes late in the language learning arc or takes longer to accomplish [complete] development
than the other language systems, it has the potential to be affected by oral language..” (as cited in
MacArthur, Graham, & Fitzgerald, 2006, p. 171). While oral discourse is noted as the precursor
to writing, it cannot embody the complete form of language.
Written discourse is a technical skill; it takes time to learn how to manipulate text and follow the
rhetorical rules. An overview of how people learn to speak and write and the need to
communicate provides a lucid image on how essential it is to being successful in the postmodern
age. For L2 learners the whole process becomes more difficult and more complex. The focus of
this paper narrows the scope on L2 speakers of French and how their oral discourse is
interrelated to their written discourse. For many L2 learners, English can be quite challenging
and overwhelming. I hypothesize L2 learners have a hard time with separating their L1 from
their academic discourse while writing in the Target Language (TL) I also believe the inner
speech of L2 learners L1 has an influence over their academic discourse, perhaps this will
demonstrate the working relationship between the oral and written as pointed out by psychologist
Vygotsky.
Some of the draw backs L2 learners will encounter during the language acquisition process is L1
interference. This is caused by the native speakers (NS) L1 influence over the L2. For French
speakers their common errors may consist of improper verb tense and improper use in word
order, and the misuse of subject verb agreement. It is important to note the disparity in L2
learners speaking and writing ability within the TL and how they can advance or disrupt their
success in the TL.

Although research has highlighted on the errors produced by L2 learners some studies suggest
that errors are actually windows into the L2 learners processing system. According to Corder he
states that (1967) “errors can be taken as red flags; they provide windows onto a system that is
evidence of the state of a leaner’s knowledge L2” (as cited in Gass, & Selnker, 2008, p. 102)
Corder influenced a lot of researchers to take a deeper look into error analysis however it was
Lado who fathered the kind of research that supports the type of research conducted in my study.
Lado believed that “individuals tend to transfer the forms and meanings, and the distribution of
forms and meanings of their native language and culture to the foreign language and culture” (as
cited in Gass, & Selinker, 2008, p. 89). He attributes this process to contrastive analysis. It was
his contrastive analysis hypothesis that “compared languages in order to determined potential
errors for the ultimate purpose of isolating what needed to be learned and what does not need to
be learned in second-language- learning situations” (Gass, & Slinker, 2008, p. 96). Lado’s theory
worked as a stepping stone to understanding how or why L2 learners make certain errors but it
was American linguist Bloomfield who dissected the sentences of L2 learners. He looked at the
smallest part of sentence that could be analyzed. His approach was centered more on speech
rather than writing. According to Gass and Selinker (2008)
“the typical behaviorist position is that language is speech rather than writing.
Furthermore, speech is a precondition for writing. The justification for this
position came from the facts that children without cognitive impairment learn to
speak before they learn to write… ” (p. 90).
Gass and Selinker demonstrate the behaviorist theory through the example of Bloomfie ld’s Jack
and Jill walking down a hill. While it provides an explanation to speech production and the
errors produced by L2 speakers, it does not provide solid examples or information on how the

written discourse is affected, this is a weakness in the behaviorist theory. For L2 their writing is
affected by their native tongue. Basic writers or L2 learners “show language transfer when they
attempt to translate from the spoken form with which they are familiar (it might be called their
native language) to the special target language of formal writing. This transfer leads to errors of
many types” (Horning, 1987, p. 34). One example of how the L1 influences the L2 is shown in
French speakers of English. The examples below were taken from the esl.fis.edu website.
 I have played tennis yesterday.
 I can't play now. I do my homework.
 I live in London since last year.
 I will tell you as soon as I will know
As stated by Flower and Hayes (1981) they explain the cognitive process theory and how it
affects individuals ability to produce well written sentences. They also state based on their their
theory there are 4 key points that help to develop written discourse:
“The process of writing is best understood as a set of distinctive thing processes
which writers orchestrate or organize during the act of composing. These
processes have a hierarchical, highly embedded organization in which any given
process can be embedded within any other. The act of composing itself is a goal-directed
thinking process, guided by the writer’s own growing network of goals.
Writers create their own goals in two keys ways: by generating both high-level
goals and supporting sub-goals which embody the writer’s developing sense of
purpose, and then, at times, by changing major goals or even establishing entirely
new ones based on what has been learned in the act of writing” (p. 254).

Understanding the cognitive process can also determine if the writer is going through a healthy
recursive writing process. This study is concerned with the discourse of French speech patterns
so I use examples form French speakers because the research conducted in this paper were based
on a French speaker.
Methods
In order to conduct the study I needed a subject who fit the description of a native French
speaker who did not have a strong command of the English language. The study was conducted
at two different times. The location was a private location at Andrews University. The subject
selected was a 31 year old French male doctoral student. He has only 5 years experience with
the English language. The subject was required to perform two tasks displaying his ability to
speak and write in the TL. He was asked to recount his first Thanksgiving experience in the
United States. The first narrative was recorded using an ipod. The second narrative was on the
same topic but hand written (typed) by the subject in the TL. The subjects oral discourse
recording was 6mins and 15seconds long. He emailed in his typed written sample three days
later.
Data Analysis
I transcribed the recordings before looking over the written sample and then compared the data.
After the transcription I counted the number of words used in the oral discourse and the number
of words used in the written discourse. The second piece of data analyzed were the total number
of sentences used in both the oral and written discourse. After looking over his oral speech there
were some similarities found, however, there were a greater number of differences found in the
data. By looking at Lado’s CAH I tried to isolate errors that would provide a better explanation

to his Below are a few sample sentences that will show the difference in his speech sample vs.
his written sample.
Written Sample 1.
I was invited by a family in my class of Sabbath school to my first thanksgiving in USA.
I have met this family in the first time when my roommate asked me to come with him in that
class.
I have a good relationship with that family because when they have some programs they ask me
come with them.
Oral Sample 1.
So uhh, I met the family the first time innn our Sabbath school
At uhhh in the seminary, and uhhh it was uhhh with my uhh roommate
He asked me to come with him and eh the class and uhh when we were there uhhh yes we,
they introduce to me that introduce me that I come from umm Madagascar and France
and uhh they are like family there in the Sabbath school.
And that’s why they we started to I started to know uhh this this family uhh
this family I mean this family just to uhh the mother and they her daughter and he she has a son
but the son at this time was not here
she he was in laos uhh for uhh mission and uhh and then they ask us sometimes when they have
some to something to do like to like to go to the beach or uhh like just to to go out to hang out
somewhere they ask us to come with them or to go they ask us to come in their uhh house and
just to or eat or to play so that’s why we know the I know those uhh this family
and they are like a family that’s I don’t have here but they are like a friend too so I don’t

consider the the eh this this eh lady like my mom but like my friend and Even her daughter is
like my friend too so they are eh they are kind they are nice that’s why I eh umm I like to go
with them and to do something with them.
My findings report that the subject’s oral discourse produced an excessive amount of fillers. The
totally number of errors reported in the 2nd paragraph were 14. How I was able to determine
what constituted as errors were any features in his oral or written discourse that deviated from
the grammatical rules of English. So I looked at his word order, subject verb agreement, use of
tenses. I also looked at unnecessary fillers. What I concluded in just the first example above was
he used more words during oral discourse. He used 275 words to describe the beginning of his
narrative; however, in the written sample it used less than 60 words. The written sample does
show a command using fewer sentences to explain and express thought but there are similarities
that show up in both forms of discourse. The subject still made mistakes in his word order and
improper use of articles.
Ex:
I was invited by a family in my class of Sabbath school – French speaker
I was invited by a family in my Sabbath school Class – English speaker
The subject uses a French structure to show the possessive adjective in relation to noun the noun
is Sabbath school class and he breaks up the noun applying a French understanding on how to
explain the Sabbath school class he attends. The French speaker uses “my” the possessive
adjective also known as the possessive pronoun incorrectly.

The chart below explains the number of words the subject used, the amount of errors produced
and the number of sentences formed to communicate both pieces of information. After
analyzing the data I concluded he over produced in speech, used an excessive amount of fillers
which is another indication of L1 interference. These various types of speech sounds and
patterns in are common in French oral discourse.
Data Chart
Oral Discourse Written Discourse
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
TNW 682 262
TNS 45 15
TNE 72 26
Note: TNW = total number of words
TNS= total number of sentences
TNE= total number of errors
Axis Title
Data Anaylsis

After review the data several times I noticed something very interesting. I looked at a few
samples of the oral and the written discourse and noticed that if the fillers in the oral speech had
been eliminated from the transcript the sentences resembled more Native like patterns. With the
exception of one awkwardly written sentence, the flow of this oral sample resembled a more
native like pattern. When I compared it to the written sample they both seemed to have a similar
speech pattern in the fluidity of its production.
Ex:
Oral Sample 2
[So …, I met the family the first time in.. our Sabbath school]
[At … in the seminary, and .. it was … with my … roommate]
[He asked me to come with him and .. the class and … when we were there … yes we, they
introduce to me that introduce me that I come from … Madagascar and France]
[and … they are like family there in the Sabbath school]
… uhhh
.. eh
Written Sample 2
I was invited by a family in my class of Sabbath school to my first thanksgiving in USA.
I have met this family in the first time when my roommate asked me to come with him in that
class.
I have a good relationship with that family because when they have some programs they ask me
come with them.
Conclusion
In summation, what I have gathered based on the study is, if I can find hidden patterns that can
help L2 learners recognize their ability to produce well articulated sentences that are lucid in
understanding than perhaps maybe it will help L2 learners become more cognizant of their own

mistakes and learn to self correct. Of course this will take time, like fossilized errors, they will
not correct over night but perhaps a new method of metalinguistic awareness will may be
discovered by and used by the L2 learner. The findings turned out to be interesting. I did not
expect to see a similarity between the oral discourse and written discourse in the way that the
results demonstrated but I am satisfied in knowing that there is a working relationship even if the
findings are rather weak. Further research needs to be explored on this topic..

Written Sample
My first thanksgiving in USA
I was invited by a family in my class of Sabbath school to my first thanksgiving in USA. I have met this
family in the first time when my roommate asked me to come with him in that class. I have a good
relationship with that family because when they have some programs they ask me come with them.
7
Sometimes we hang out to the beach, or going to play game in their home and something else. So for
the thanksgiving they ask us (my roommate and I) to come with them to celebrate the thanksgiving. It
was the family and other members of the Sabbath school were there. There are a lot of food but before
eating we gather together and praying to give thanks to God for his blessing to us. After that we came
on the table and before eating each person has to thanks someone special that he wants to give thanks.
13
In the afternoon we were playing games as card, dominoes and it was my first to play American domino.
It was very fun. When the evening came we ate the rest of the lunch for dinner and then watched a
French movie but English. That day was a very blessing day because even though I am far from my
family, I could enjoy the thanksgiving without them. 5
We do not celebrate thanksgiving in my country, but I think that it is important to celebrate it.
Sometimes we do not have enough time to thank people who help us. Fortunately, during the
thanksgiving is the opportunity to remember all the blessing that we received and thank people who
help us for something. 1

Transcribed Text (oral sample)
Interviewer:
This is a recording of Lolla’s first experience here at Andrews during thanksgiving holiday and
how he me the family he spent it with
Participant:
[So uhh, I met the family the first time innn our Sabbath school] e=2
[At uhhh in the seminary, and uhhh it was uhhh with my uhh roommate] e=2
[He asked me to come with him and eh the class and uhh when we were there uhhh yes we, they
introduce to me that introduce me that I come from umm Madagascar and France] e=6 rp=1
[and uhh they are like family there in the Sabbath school] e=3
[And that’s why they we started to I started to know uhh this this family uhh this family I mean
this family just to uhh the mother and they her daughter and he she has a son] e=5 rp=2
[but the son at this time was not here she he was in laos uhh for uhh mission] e=3 rp=2
[and uhh and then they ask us sometimes when they have some to something to do like to like to
go to the beach] e=2
[or uhh like just to to go out to hang out somewhere they ask us to come with them or to go they
ask us to come in their uhh house and just to or eat or to play so that’s why we know the I know
those uhh this family] e=3
[and they are like a family that’s I don’t have here but they are like a friend too] e=1
[so I don’t consider the the eh this this eh lady like my mom but like my friend] e=1
[and Even her daughter is like my friend too so they are eh they are kind they are nice that’s
why I eh umm I like to go with them and to do something with them] e=4 rp=1
[and then for the, my first uhh Thanksgiving was with them thanksgiving here in US ehh was a
with them and ehh but at this time it was not only the family but uhh almost all the eh the
member in the eh Sabbath school was there] e=4
[and the eh we were like together uhh for the lun.. thanksgiving the lunch the thanksgiving]
e=3 rp=2
[and uhh I was like surprise to to see the turkey ehh turkey and ehh and ehh wow and and the
foods eh and there] e=2

[and there are a lot of foods too because umm especially the turkey eh you can eat what you
want to eat that you want to eat and eh and then something else like (I don’t remember) I don’t
remember] e=2 rp= 1
[but then uhh and then when we were on at the table when we started to when we started to eat
we were there uhh just gether together and eh pray to thank lord for for his blessing uhh to us]
e=4
[and then when we started to eat on the table uhh each each other have to to thanks about
something eh that God uh has done to uhh for him] e=3
[uhh I think its this special because in my country we don’t do that, we don’t have time to to
thank I think so its its important] e=2
[you don’t have a special day just a special day to thank and uhh I think that a its its important to
do that especially for the Christian to remember that uhh there is God to take care of us and to
bless us] e=2
[so its important to remember him even weh yes with we remember every day but this day so
special because we uhh its its good to to take people that you know uhh and eh eh the family
thank to give thanks to each other its it’s eh its important day I think] e=5
[and then after that in the afternoon we played uhh dominos it’s the its my first time that I saw
the dominos number kind its its seems so weird for me] e=2
[and they play it but it was fun and we played cards and then and then the the night I mean the
evening we still eating the the rest of the food and then uhh we watched together a movie in Fren
uh the the movie is not uhhh in French but it’s a French movie Ratatouie so it was it was nice]
e=4
E = Errors RP = Repeated phrases

Bibliography
Bloomfield, L. (1914). The Study of Language. New York: Henry Holt and
Company
Chafe, W., Tannen, D. (1987). The Relationship Between Written and Spoken Language. Annual
Review of Anthropology, 16, 383-407
Flower, L., Hayes, R. J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbarum Associates
Garrod, S., Pickering, M. J. (2003). Why is Conversation so Easy. Trends in Cognitive Science,
8(1), 8-11
Gass, S. M., Selinker, L. (Eds.). (2008) Second Langauge Acquisition: An Introductory Course.
(3rd ed.). New York: Routledge
Horning, S. A. (1987). Teaching Writing as a Second Language. Carbondale, IL: Southern
Illinois University Press
MacArthur, C., Graham, S., Fitzgerald, F. (Eds.). (2006) Handbook of writing Research. New
York, NY: Gilford Press
Shoebottom, P. (2011). The differences between English and French. Frankfurt International
School. http://esl.fis.edu/grammar/langdiff/french.htm
Vygotsky, S. L. (1986). Thought and Language. Boston, Massachusetts: MIT Press

DnAfinalresearchppr (1)

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to DnAfinalresearchppr (1)

DnAfinalresearchppr (1)