An Analysis of the Discourse Domain Hypothesis and Its Adequacy in Explaining Topic-Based Interlanguage Variation

Authors

  • Jia-Lun Wu

    Faculty of Humanities, Srinakharinwirot University, Bangkok 10110, Thailand
  • Justin J. Bartlett

    Faculty of Humanities, Srinakharinwirot University, Bangkok 10110, Thailand

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i3.7899
Received: 26 November 2024 | Revised: 20 January 2025 | Accepted: 27 January 2025 | Published Online: 26 February 2025

Abstract

This type of discourse is informed by the Discourse Domain Hypothesis (DDH) which arose from topic-based interlanguage (IL) variation focused by the learners of L2. This work appraises critically how DDH is formulated in a theoretically adequate manner by applying the applicable rules of theory construction in science and guidelines for the SLA. It is established that the DDH has been studied and written about extensively; however, our firm critique of these investigations reveals the serious challenges posed in the absence of definitional clarity of core concepts like ‘discourse domain’, the methodological barriers of operationalization, and the lack of the detailed specification of causal mechanisms. The journey of DDH can be traced across three significant concepts: it began with Selinker and Douglas, the integration of schema-theory proposed by Whyte to Douglas’s further sociocultural-based modification, which demonstrates both theoretical advancements and constant challenges. Even though all revisions made in this study were able to cover some of the previous caveats, the central concerns of construct validity, empirical test validity, and the ability of the model to explain a phenomenon still persist. The discussion points to the clear, postulated gaps in the current research which comes down to the need for further refinements on topic-based IL variation between SLA learners, better focused research directions, and no less potential inclusion of existing SLA models that are aimed at the same phenomena.

Keywords:

Discourse Domain Hypothesis; Interlanguage Variation; Second Language Acquisition; Theoretical Adequacy; Sociolinguistics

References

[1] Selinker, L., 1972. Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. 10(3), 209–232.

[2] Gass, S., Selinker, L. (eds.), 1992. Language Transfer in Language Learning. John Benjamins Publishing: Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Philadelphia, PA, USA. pp. 1–246.

[3] Selinker, L., 1992. Rediscovering Interlanguage. Routledge: London, UK. pp. 379–383.

[4] Han, Z.H., Tarone, E. (eds.)., 2014. Interlanguage: Forty years later. John Benjamins Publishing: Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Philadelphia, PA, USA.

[5] Firth, A., Wagner, J., 1997. On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal. 81(3), 285–300.

[6] Tarone, E., 1988. Variation in Interlanguage. Edward Arnold: London, UK. Volume 11(4), pp. 392–400.

[7] Tarone, E., 2000. Still wrestling with 'context' in interlanguage theory. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 20, 182–198.

[8] Tarone, E., 2007. Sociolinguistic approaches to second language acquisition research -- 1997–2007. The Modern Language Journal. 91(s1), 837–848.

[9] Saito, K., Kachlicka, M., Suzukida, Y., et al., 2022. Auditory precision hypothesis-L2: Dimension-specific relationships between auditory processing and second language segmental learning. Cognition. 229, 105236.

[10] Chantal, V.A.N., Van Wonderen, E., Koutamanis, E., et al., 2022. Cross-linguistic influence in simultaneous and early sequential bilingual children: a meta-analysis. Journal of Child Language. 49(5), 897–929.

[11] Montrul, S., 2022. Heritage language speakers inform the Critical Period Hypothesis for first and second language acquisition. In: Leal, T., Shimanskaya, E., Isabelli, C.A. (eds.). Generative SLA in the Age of Minimalism. John Benjamins Publishing Company: Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Philadelphia, PA, USA. pp. 265–286.

[12] Donaldson, B., 2022. Connecting language change with second language acquisition. In: Geeslin, K. (ed.). The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Sociolinguistics. Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA. pp. 174–185.

[13] Selinker, L., Douglas, D., 1985. Wrestling with 'context' in interlanguage theory. Applied Linguistics. 6(2), 190–204.

[14] Selinker, L., Douglas, D., 1986. The problem of comparing episodes in discourse domains in interlanguage studies. The Annual Eastern States Conference on Linguistics; Columbus, OH, USA, 10–11 October 1986.

[15] Cornu, S.P., Delahaye, M., 1987. Variability in interlanguage reconsidered: LSP vs. non-LSP talk. English for Specific Purposes. 6(2), 145–151.

[16] Whyte, S., 1992. Discourse domains revisited: Expertise and investment in conversation. Pragmatics and Language Learning. 3, 81–103.

[17] Whyte, S., 1994. Acquisition in context: The discourse domain hypothesis of interlanguage variation. In: Bouton L.F., Kachru, Y. (eds.). Pragmatics and Language Learning, vol. 5. University of Illinois: Urbana-Champaign, IL, USA. pp. 289–315.

[18] Whyte, S., 1994. The Role of Specialized Knowledge in Interlanguage Variation: The Discourse Domain Hypothesis [Doctoral dissertation]. Indiana University: Bloomington, IN, USA.

[19] Douglas, D., 2004. Discourse domains: The cognitive context of speaking. In: Boxer, D., Cohen, A.D. (eds.). Studying Speaking to Inform Second Language Learning. Multilingual Matters: Bristol, UK. pp. 25–47.

[20] Chiu, H.P., 2011. Discourse Domains and Interlanguage Development: Mandarin-Speaking English Learners' Oral Production in Alternative Contexts [Doctoral dissertation]. New York University: New York, NY, USA.

[21] Ellis, R., 1985. Sources of variability in interlanguage. Applied Linguistics. 6(2), 118–131.

[22] Preston, D., 1989. Sociolinguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Blackwell: Oxford, UK.

[23] Skehan, P., 1987. Variability and language testing. In: Ellis R. (ed.). Second Language Acquisition in Context. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. pp. 195–206.

[24] Reynolds, P.D., 2016. A Primer in Theory Construction. Routledge: New York, NY, USA.

[25] Jordan, G., 2004. Theory Construction in Second Language Acquisition. John Benjamins Publishing Company: Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Philadelphia, PA, USA. pp. 1–313.

[26] Bartlett, F.C., 1932. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

[27] Brown, G., Yule, G., 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. Volume 1, pp. 172–190.

[28] Ebsworth, M., Starbuck, R., 1989. The effect of emotional investment on L2 production. In: Gass, S., Madden, C., Preston, D., et al. (eds.). Variation in Second Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Issues. Multilingual Matters: Clevedon, UK. pp. 125–140.

[29] Long, M.H., 2003. Stabilization and fossilization in interlanguage development. In: Doughty, C., Long, M. (eds.). The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Blackwell: Oxford, UK. pp. 487–535.

[30] Widdowson, H.G., 2001. Communicative language testing: The art of the possible. In: Elder, C., Brown, A., Grove, E., et al. (eds.). Experimenting with Uncertainty: Essays in Honour of Alan Davies. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. pp. 12–21.

[31] Douglas, D., 2000. Assessing Languages for Specific Purposes. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

[32] Young, R., 1999. Sociolinguistic approaches to SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 19, 105–132.

[33] Nguyen, M.N., 2023. Interlanguage (IL) Variability from a Psycholinguistic Perspective: A Case Study of Vietnamese ESL Learners [Doctoral dissertation]. Macquarie University: Sydney, Australia.

[34] Zheng, Q., 2022. Variation in Interlanguage: Evidence from Internal and External Patterning of Morphosyntactic Variability in the Speech of Second Language Learners [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Maryland: College Park, MD, USA.

[35] Haristiani, N., Christinawati, D., 2024. Interlanguage pragmatic competence of university students: An error analysis of apology speech act strategies in Japanese learners. International Journal of Language Education. 8(1), 1–19.

[36] Makoni, S.B., 1992. Some comments on discourse domain as used in studies of interlanguage variability. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. 2(1), 87–94.

[37] Zuengler, J., Bent, B., 1991. Relative knowledge of content domain: An influence on native-nonnative conversations. Applied Linguistics. 12(4), 397–451.

[38] Zuengler, J., 1993. Encouraging learners' conversational participants: The effect of content knowledge. Language Learning. 43(3), 403–432.

[39] Miller, D., DeLuca, V., Swanson, K., et al., 2023. Neurolinguistic methods and generative approaches to second language acquisition. In: Morgan-Short, K., van Hell, J.G. (eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Neurolinguistics. Routledge: New York, NY, USA. pp. 177–190.

[40] Gray, B., Nuttall, C., 2024. Disciplinary discourses and second language research. In: Paltridge, B., Prior, M.T. (eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Discourse. Routledge: New York, NY, USA. pp. 242–254.

Downloads

How to Cite

Wu, J.-L., & Bartlett, J. J. (2025). An Analysis of the Discourse Domain Hypothesis and Its Adequacy in Explaining Topic-Based Interlanguage Variation. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 7(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i3.7899

Issue

Vol. 7 , Iss. 3 (March 2025): In Progress

Article Type

Article

License

Copyright © 2025 Jia-Lun Wu, Justin J. Bartlett

Creative Commons License

This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License.