Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Martnez-Arbelaiz
Asuncin Martnez-Arbelaiz
Michigan State University
ABSTRACT Research on negotiation has thus far focused on oral conversations/interactions. This study expands on this line of research by investigating whether learners engage in negotiation when exchanging ideas in synchronous computer-mediated interaction. Four groups of learners of Spanish discussed a number of content questions about a reading assignment using an Open Transport (OT) Chat. The analyses of the transcripts of the interactions showed that instances of negotiation as operationalized in Varonis and Gass (1985b) do occur in the electronic medium. A limited repertoire of types of primes reoccurred, due in part to the nature of the medium and the academic context of foreign language learning in which the interactions took place. Of special concern was the tendency to use the native language in the response of the majority of the routines since this tendency does not result in target language modified output, which is claimed to be fundamental for second language acquisition (SLA) (Swain, 1985).
KEYWORDS Input, Output, Negotiation of Meaning, Learner-Centered Instruction, Computer-Assisted Classroom Discussion.
INTRODUCTION In the last few decades there has been a shift from a traditional teachercentered instructional setting to one that is mainly learner-centered (Nunan, 1988). Given the emphasis that recent approaches to language teaching
2002 CALICO Journal
Volume 19 Number 2
279
Several studies have called to our attention the advantages of learnercentered instruction. These studies have compared the interaction in teacher-centered lessons with that found in group work. Long, Adams, McLean, and Castaos (1976) found that students working in small groups performed better than students in a teacher-fronted classroom in terms of
280 CALICO Journal
Recent studies suggest that the use of computer-assisted interaction may be beneficial in the language acquisition process. In particular, computerassisted communication seems to allow for a more equal pattern of participation to the point that the instructor may become a mere member of the group (Kelm, 1992). In other words, the electronic medium has the potential to subvert the traditional roles enacted by teachers and students. In addition, it seems to afford more opportunities for learner output than oral discussions and to support a greater range of discoursal moves. In Kerns (1995) study, students produced more turns, words, and sentences in CACD than in face-to-face whole-class discussion, which suggests that CACD affords more opportunities for learner output than oral discussions. Two studies (Sullivan & Pratt, 1996; Warschauer, 1996) compared small group interactions in the oral and the electronic modes and found greater equality of participation in the electronic discussion. Chun (1994) found that electronic discussions prompted discoursal moves such as topic initiation and expansion, interactional moves (e.g., clarification requests, comprehension, and confirmation checks), and repairs in case of misunderstanding. The present study adds to this line of research focusing on the discourse generated through computer-assisted interaction. While previous research on CACD offers a very encouraging picture of the synchronous written interaction, from an interactionist perspective, it should be noted that it is not only the amount of participation and/or production that matters but also the specific structure that the interaction displays. According to a growing body of research (Gass & Varonis, 1985b, 1986; Pica & Doughty, 1985; Pica, 1994; Pica, Kanagy, & Falodun, 1993; Scarcella & Higa, 1981; Varonis & Gass, 1985a; 1985b), the type of interaction that has been identified as negotiation of meaning is the one that provides optimal conditions for language acquisition since it offers opportunities to generate both comprehensible input and modified output. Given the relevance
282 CALICO Journal
THE STUDY We follow the model for the negotiation of meaning proposed by Varonis and Gass (1985b). Table 1 shows an example of one of the routines used by two nonnative speakers to negotiate a nonunderstanding. Table 1 Discourse Model of the Negotiation of Meaning With Example Utterance NNS1: NNS2: NNS1: NNS2: My father now is retire. retire? Yes. Oh yeah. Function Trigger Indicator Response Reaction to Response
Note: adapted from Varonis and Gass, 1985b. In Table 1, the first utterance My father now is retire serves as a trigger in the routine. The NNS2 repeats the word retire with rising intonation, retire? Thus, this utterance functions as an indicator in the sequence. The NNS1s utterance, yes, confirms that retire was the word she had used and constitutes the response. Finally, the example includes the optional unit of the routine, the reaction to the response, exemplified by NNS2s last turn, oh yeah, which ties up the negotiating exchange. The current study examines whether these negotiation routines emerge in the synchronous electronic medium. If found, of special interest would be to analyze the type of primes used in this medium as they can offer insights that explain why misunderstandings occur as well as which kinds of means interlocutors use to resolve them.
Participants
The participants of the study were foreign language university learners of Spanish. All of them were native speakers of English and were enrolled in a third-year course on grammar and composition at the time the study took place.
Volume 19 Number 2
283
The task consisted of discussing several content questions about a reading assignment.4 Both the reading and content questions had been assigned as homework in the previous class. After the chat group discussion, students wrote a paper and pencil summary about the content of the reading. The study focuses on the first part of the task, the Open Transport (OT) Chat group discussion.5 The goal of using a chat session was to provide an opportunity for learners to work in collaboration so that they could clarify or develop ideas that they had not been able to work out on their own.
Procedures
All subjects participated in the chat group discussion in two different sessions approximately 20 days apart from each other. The 28 students enrolled in the class were randomly assigned to one of four groups. Since there were some absences, the class was divided so as to include at least six learners in each group. The instructions were presented in English and in written form on the computer screen followed by a set of content questions about the reading assignment. Students were informed that they would be able to switch back and forth from their chat room to the screen with the instructions by pressing a specific button in an adjacent control panel. The written instructions explained to students they would have 20 minutes for the discussion part and 15 minutes to work on the paper and pencil summary of the reading assignment. Students were also told when to start and stop working on each part of the task.
We found instances of negotiation in all groups in both sessions except for one group in the second session. In what follows, we present and comment on excerpts that illustrate how nonunderstandings were resolved in the context of group interaction through the electronic medium. Example 1 presents one of the negotiation routines in the discourse generated in computer-mediated communication. Example 1
NNS1: NNS2: 16 NNS1: Pienso que David es un mentiroso que es mentiroso A Liar I think that David is a liar what is liar
284
CALICO Journal
>>
>>
In order to understand how this negotiating routine unfolds, let us consider how the turn(s) of each of the five participants contributes to this exchange. The first turn, Que es el significado de los tallarines?7 is not a metalinguistic question; NNS1 is not asking for the meaning of an unknown word. The question refers to the role that the noodles play in the chapter of the novel students had been assigned as homework. Thus, que es el tallarines is the first indicator in this routine. The appearance of Sson tallarines cards?, the second indicator, may seem surprising given that an English equivalent of tallarines has been provided in the previous turn. This particular sequence of turns may be explained by the fact that the OT Chat does not register simultaneous turns as such. While two chatters may write simultaneously, the transcript shows the turns in the order they have been sent, not in the order they have been written. A second possibility is that NNS3 had actually read the response of NNS1. Her question would simply reflect she had in mind another alternative that was viable for her in this context.
Volume 19 Number 2 285
The overwhelming majority of the indicators found in our data (19 out of 21) are what Varonis and Gass call explicit statement of non-understanding. Most of them were expressed in the form of a direct appeal for assistance, for example: qu significa X? what is the meaning of X? as in example 4, es X Y? is X Y? and es X Y o Z? is X Y or Z? as in example 5, and Qu? What? as in example 6. Example 4
NNS1: Pienso que la profesora sabe que es chulo. No te preocupes! Chulo no es una palabrota Que significa chulo? que es chulo en ingles? No se esta palabrea I think that the teacher knows what chulo is. Do not worry! Chulo is not a bad word What does chulo mean What is chulo in English I do not know this word
>> >>
NNS2: 30 NNS2:
286
CALICO Journal
>>
Example 6
>> NNS1: NNS2: O, ella dejviniendo? Que O, she Xcoming? What
Nevertheless, the most frequent way of requesting help was through the use of the formula qu es X? what is X? as in Examples 4 and 7. Example 7
>> NNS1: NNS2: 1 NNS1: Pienso que David es un mentiroso que es mentiroso A Liar I think that David is a liar. what is liar
Students are exposed to formulas of the type what is X? in the instructional setting. They learn these chunks in beginning language courses and continue to use them regularly in subsequent ones. It is possible that the classroom context in which the task took place favored the use of this formula as a way to indicate nonunderstanding. The predominance of explicit ways of expressing nonunderstanding and the infrequency (or absence) of other types of indicators in our data may be due to the use of the written medium as mediated by the OT Chat. It should be noted that there were only two instances of echoes, and no instance of inappropriate response.9 The low incidence of echoes in our data can be explained by comparing how the echo functions in the oral versus the written medium. In face-toface oral interactions, an echo may indicate that the interlocutor is not sure about what s/he has heard or if s/he understands. In this type of interaction, suprasegmental features (e.g., intonation) and paralinguistic features (e.g., gestures, facial expressions, and head and eye movements) are part of the message and can help to clarify the source of the nonunderstanding. In addition, in an oral exchange the immediate pressure to keep the conversation going would favor the use of brief and less elaborated ways (e.g., echoes) to indicate non-understanding. In contrast, in the electronic medium one would expect echoes to be infrequent. On the one hand, they cannot emerge as a result of perceptual difficulties in the decoding of the message; on the other, the unavailability of the suprasegmental and paralinguistic features of oral face-to-face interaction mitigates their effectiveness. The additional time that the electronic meVolume 19 Number 2 287
In this example, it seems that the presence of a certain type of noise accentinterfered with the message itself, and the listener replied to an erroneously perceived utterance. Furthermore, in the oral medium, the pressure to keep the conversation going may prompt the interlocutor to respond in an unsuitable way. This pressure does not exist in written discussions. Thus, participants may choose to remain silent when they do not understand or are not sure whether they understand a previous turn.10 The response is a turn that acknowledges in some way the request for additional information that is implicit or explicit in the indicator. The types of responses found in Varonis and Gass study were: repetition, expansion, rephrasing, acknowledgment, and reduction. Given that the majority of the indicators in the routines of this study are of the type qu es X?, there are restrictions on the types of responses that might logically follow. Interactants might have chosen to rephrase their utterance to try to clarify the meaning of the unknown word. Nevertheless, they overwhelmingly preferred to use the native language equivalent. This type of response was not present in Varonis and Gasss study. We must take into account that the nonnative speakers of their study were second language learners of English who lived and studied in the country where the target language was spoken. In addition, not all of the learners shared a common L1. In contrast, we are examining here a situation of foreign language learning in which students share the L1 among themselves, with the instructor, and with the community at large. Consequently, the tendency to rely on the L1 should be expected. Acknowledgments and reductions are not logical options after the types of indicator present in the routines of this study. Acknowledgment could follow an echo indicating that the interlocutor is unsure about what s/he heard, but this type of echo cannot occur in written interaction. Recall that the echoes in the present study were equivalent to what does X mean? The data contain only one occurrence of a response in the form of a repetition (see Example 9).
288
CALICO Journal
>>
NNS1 typed the definite article la and the following noun mucama together lamucama. Her turn functions as the trigger. The next turn with the indefinite article una preceding the sequence lamucama clearly shows that NNS2 interpreted lamucama as one word. Then, NNS1 self-corrects and separates the article LA from the noun mucama. It is interesting to note that a typing error resulted in a breakdown in communication similar to those that occur in oral interactions because of certain types of missegmentation errors (Peters, 1985). Most of the breakdowns in the conversations were successfully resolved by providing a translation into English of the unknown word in the trigger. Still, in two exchanges the provision of an English equivalent in the response was not effective and brought about a series of embeddings in which the interactants tried to clarify the appropriateness of the use of a given term in the context of the classroom discussion. The excerpt in example 10 illustrates what we have labeled pragmatic negotiation. Example 10
T I I R NNS1: NNS2: NNS2: 3 T Camilo es un chulo! Chulo ? NNS1: Chulo es como pimp 2 NNS3: Camilo es un pimp?! que dice! NNS4: Carmen tu estas extrano! 2 NNS3: saben que la profesora lee lo que escribimos, si? 12 R T NNS1: Pienso que la profesora sabe que es chulo. No te preocupes! Chulo no es una palabrota I NNS2: Que significa chulo? 30 I NNS2: que es chulo en ingles? No se esta palabrea Camilo is a chulo!
Chulo is like pimp Camilo is a pimp?! what are you saying? Carmen you are weird! You know that the teacher reads what we write, right? I think that the teacher knows what chulo is Do not worry! Chulo is not a bad word What does chulo mean? what is chulo in English? I do not know this word
RR I RR I RR I
This exchange starts with a negotiation routine to clarify the meaning of the word chulo. The response Chulo es como pimp triggers a first embedded routine in which the interactant attempts to justify the appropriVolume 19 Number 2 289
CONCLUSION The second language literature has identified negotiation routines in oral interactions by which learners give and receive feedback and help each other to modify output and obtain more comprehensible input. This process is said to contribute to second language development. The present study provides evidence that learners of Spanish as a foreign language engage in negotiation of meaning in computer-mediated discussions. Nevertheless, some of the types of primes used in the electronic medium differed from those documented in the oral medium. In the overwhelming majority of routines, learners indicated a breakdown in communication by means of an explicit statement of nonunderstanding in the form of a classroom learned formula learned. Other types of indicators were either absent or very infrequent. The types of responses documented in previous studies were not present in this study, with the exception of one instance of repetition in the form of self-correction. The learners in this study resorted to their native language to resolve instances of nonunderstanding.12 While recourse to the L1 was an efficient and fast means to return to the horizontal line of the conversation, it did not push learners to modify their output. It remains to be seen whether the use of the L1 is a characteristic of a typical foreign language learning situation in which learners share the native language or whether there are other factors that might account for this use.
290 CALICO Journal
NOTES
1 It does not imply that interaction involving teachers does not have any impact on interlanguage development. Studies such as Tanakas (1991, cited in Ellis, 1994) offered evidence that interactionally modified input (through teacher-learner interaction) resulted in better comprehension and in more words being learned and retained over time than either baseline input or premodified input. 2
A possible objection that might be raised against group work is that learners are exposed to and might incorporate defective forms. Several studies (Gass & Varonis, 1989; Bruton & Samuda, 1980) have shown that learners do not generally incorporate errors of a nonnative speaker peer. On the contrary, there are numerous examples of modifications in the direction of the correct target language forms. While writing the results of this study, it came to our attention that another investigation was addressing this issue though in a slightly different approach (Pellettieri, 2000).
The questions were on the content of an adapted short novel, Rosaura a las diez by Marco Denevi, that students were reading for this class. OT Chat, a networking protocol used by Macintosh computers, allows users to engage in written synchronous discussions. Chatters sit at individual computer terminals linked together electronically. With OT Chat, it is possible to open chat rooms in which participants can work in groups. Each participant can compose and send messages which appear on all participants screens. Participants can respond to whichever messages they choose. Numbers between turns represent other utterances that are not part of the nonunderstanding routine. These utterances usually move the discourse forward in a linear fashion (represented by Varonis and Gasss model by a horizontal line). Note that question marks and other orthographic conventions are sometimes omitted. Due to the online nature of the task, participants may have been more focused on the content of the messages than on the conventions of the written language. A turn that moves forward the discussion of the content question. No (verbal) response, one of the indicators that appears in Varonis and Gasss data, is difficult to trace in transcripts from computer-mediated group interaction due to the flexibility in turn taking that the combination of medium and group size affords. Although there is less pressure in the written medium to respond than in the 291
8 9
10
Volume 19 Number 2
There is no basis in the novel to think that the character Camilo is a pimp. The Spanish word chulo has several meanings, one of them being prepotent, arrogant and another one being pimp. It is not clear in which of the two senses the student is using the word chulo.
12 The L1 emerged, even though participants were specifically told to use Spanish only throughout the activity.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors wish to thank Dennie Hoopingarner and Michael Kramizeh for answering their many questions about technical issues. REFERENCES
Beauvois, M. (1992). Computer-assisted classroom discussion in the foreign language classroom: Conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 455-464. Bruton, A., & Samuda, V. (1980). Learner and teacher roles in the treatment of error in group work. RELC Journal, 11, 49-63. Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22 (1), 17-31. Denevi, M. (1964). Rosaura a las diez (D. A. Yates, Ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Ehrlich, S., Avery, P., & Yorio, C. (1989). Discourse structure and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 397-414. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1985a). Variation in native speaker speech modification to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7 (1), 37-58. Gass, S. M., & Varonis E. M. (1985b). Task variation and nonnative/nonnative negotiation of meaning. In S. M. Gass and C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 149-161). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1986). Sex differences in non-native speaker/nonnative speaker interactions. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 327-351). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House. Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1989). Incorporated repairs in nonnative discourse. In M. Eisenstein (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studies in second language variation (pp. 71-86). New York: Plenum Press. 292 CALICO Journal
AUTHORS BIODATA Marisol Fernndez-Garca is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Modern Languages at Northeastern University. She teaches courses in Spanish language, linguistics, and applied linguistics. Her research focuses on input, interaction, and second language acquisition. Asuncin Martnez-Arbelaiz is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Romance and Classical Languages at Michigan State University where she teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in Spanish linguistics. Her research interests are Spanish syntax and second language acquisition. AUTHORS ADDRESS Marisol Fernndez-Garca Department of Modern Languages 400 Meserve Hall Northeastern University Boston, MA 02115-5000 Phone: 617/373-3659 Fax: 617/373-2298 Email: marisolfernan@aol.com Asuncin Martnez-Arbelaiz Department of Romance and Classical Languages 314 Old Horticulture Building Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824-1112 Phone: 517/353-0769, ext. 130 Fax: 517/432-3844 Email: marti298@msu.edu
294 CALICO Journal