cmc and interactionist model negotiation)

8/3/2019 CMC and Interactionist Model Negotiation)

1/16

Volume 19 Number 2 279

M. Fernndez-Garca and A. Martnez-Arbelaiz

2002 CALICO Journal

Negotiation of Meaning inNonnative Speaker-Nonnative Speaker

Synchronous Discussions

Marisol Fernndez-GarcaNortheastern University

Asuncin Martnez-ArbelaizMichigan State University

ABSTRACT

Research on negotiation has thus far focused on oral conversations/inter-actions. This study expands on this line of research by investigating whetherlearners engage in negotiation when exchanging ideas in synchronous com-puter-mediated interaction. Four groups of learners of Spanish discusseda number of content questions about a reading assignment using an OpenTransport (OT) Chat. The analyses of the transcripts of the interactionsshowed that instances of negotiation as operationalized in Varonis andGass (1985b) do occur in the electronic medium. A limited repertoire oftypes of primes reoccurred, due in part to the nature of the medium andthe academic context of foreign language learning in which the interac-

tions took place. Of special concern was the tendency to use the nativelanguage in the response of the majority of the routines since this ten-dency does not result in target language modified output, which is claimedto 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 teacher-centered instructional setting to one that is mainly learner-centered (Nunan,1988). Given the emphasis that recent approaches to language teaching


2/16

280 CALICO Journal

Negotiation of Meaning in NNS-NNS Discussions

place on small group work, it seems essential to expand on the line ofresearch that investigates the characteristics of the discourse generatedduring learner-learner interaction. As several researchers have noted (Ellis,1994; Long, Adams, McLean, & Castaos, 1976; Long & Porter, 1985;Porter, 1986), the literature on small-group work and interaction suggeststhat interaction between learners is more effective than teacher-led inter-action1 in providing the conditions which have been hypothesized to fa-cilitate second language acquisition (SLA).

According to research on interaction, the conditions for SLA are en-hanced by the presence of discourse moves that allow interlocutors toensure message comprehensibility. Specifically, several studies have fo-cused on the interactional modifications that take place when a communi-cation problem arises in a conversation. These studies propose that inter-

actional modifications can help to make input more comprehensible which,in turn, assists in language learning (Gass & Varonis, 1985b, 1986; Pica,1994; Pica & Doughty, 1985; Pica, Kanagy, & Falodun, 1993; Scarcella &Higa, 1981; Varonis & Gass, 1985a; 1985b).

Certain applications of computer technology appear to go hand in handwith learner-centered instruction. In particular, local networks, which linkcomputers in a laboratory to each other, have made possible one-to-oneand many-to-many synchronous interchanges, thus affording languagelearners new opportunities for communicative practice. A few studies thathave examined computer-assisted-classroom discussions (CACDs) suggestthat the electronic environment provides optimal opportunities for lan-guage development (Beauvois, 1992; Chun, 1994; Kelm, 1992; Kern, 1995;

Warschauer, 1996; Sullivan & Pratt, 1996). Nevertheless, as Warschauer

(1997) notes, the growing interest in computer-mediated collaborativelanguage learning has not been matched by sufficient research and theory.Thus, if CACDs are to become a common practice in the foreign/secondlanguage classroom, it is crucial to describe the nature of the discoursegenerated through the electronic medium. In particular, research needs toascertain whether the features relevant to the processes involved in SLAare present in CACDs discourse. In this study we examined whether in-teractive discourse features of oral discussions that are said to foster inter-language development are also present in electronic interactions.

The Study of Learner-Learner Interactions

Several studies have called to our attention the advantages of learner-centered instruction. These studies have compared the interaction inteacher-centered lessons with that found in group work. Long, Adams,McLean, and Castaos (1976) found that students working in small groupsperformed better than students in a teacher-fronted classroom in terms of


3/16



quantity and quality of language used. More precisely, small group worknot only provided more opportunities for language production,2 but also agreater variety of discourse moves in initiating discussion, asking for clari-fication, interrupting, competing for the floor, and joking. Similarly, Rulonand McCrearys study (1986) revealed that a small group discussion gen-erated significantly more negotiation of content than a teacher-led discus-sion.

Other studies (Varonis & Gass, 1985b; Porter, 1986) have pointed tothe value of learner-learner conversations, specifically the interlanguagetalk generated in such discussions, as a source of opportunities for mean-ing negotiation. For example, participants in a conversation may experi-ence problems in understanding or breakdowns in communication. Toremedy this situation, they often engage in negotiation of meaning, inter-

actional modifications that aim at ensuring shared understanding.Interactional modifications can be analyzed in terms of discourse func-

tions (e.g., requests for clarification or confirmation) and in terms of aspecific discourse structure. A number of studies have provided taxono-mies of discrete discourse functions (Long, 1983) as well as models offoreign talk discourse structure (Varonis & Gass, 1985b; Ehrlich, Avery,& Yorio, 1989). Ellis (1994) has pointed out that the use of models thataccount for discourse structure constitutes a definite advance, as it en-ables researchers to examine the pouring back and forth consider[ed]essential for investigating how learners acquire language.

Varonis and Gass (1985b) proposed a model that shows how the dis-course structure unfolds during the negotiation of meaning. According tothis model, the discourse of conversation advances in a linear fashion,

represented by a horizontal line in their model. When an instance ofnonunderstanding occurs, speakers may engage in a series of exchangeswith the purpose of resolving that particular breakdown in the conversa-tion. These instances are viewed as vertical sequences along the horizon-tal line.

In Varonis and Gasss model, a negotiation routine consists of two parts:a trigger and a resolution. The trigger (T) is an utterance or portion of anutterance on the part of the speaker which results in some indication ofnon-understanding on the part of the hearer. The second part of the rou-tine, the resolution, consists of two primes: an indicator (I), by which oneof the conversational partners lets the other know that something was notclear, and a response (R), which acknowledges the request for informa-tion. An optional prime, the reaction to the response (RR), may tie up theroutine. In addition, Varonis and Gass offered a useful analysis of thetypes of primes used within a negotiation routine. This analysis revealshow interlocutors employ their linguistic resources in order: (a) to leteach other know that something has not been successfully understoodand (b) to solve the communication problem.


4/16

282 CALICO Journal


Varonis and Gasss model proves to be a useful tool to characterize andunderstand a particular type of interaction that is said to promote SLA.Although the synchronous electronic medium has been suggested to pro-vide an environment that affords ample opportunities for learners to in-teract with each other, the actual advantages of this environment in termsof the opportunities it affords to negotiate meaning has not been addressedto date.3 Within this context, the study presented here explores whetherthis environment affords opportunities for meaning negotiation. The fol-lowing section summarizes the findings of studies that suggest that com-puter-assisted classroom interaction facilitates interlanguage development.

Computer-Assisted Classroom Interaction

Recent studies suggest that the use of computer-assisted interaction maybe beneficial in the language acquisition process. In particular, computer-assisted communication seems to allow for a more equal pattern of par-ticipation to the point that the instructor may become a mere member ofthe group (Kelm, 1992). In other words, the electronic medium has thepotential to subvert the traditional roles enacted by teachers and students.In addition, it seems to afford more opportunities for learner output thanoral discussions and to support a greater range of discoursal moves.In Kerns (1995) study, students produced more turns, words, and sen-tences in CACD than in face-to-face whole-class discussion, which sug-gests that CACD affords more opportunities for learner output than oraldiscussions. Two studies (Sullivan & Pratt, 1996; Warschauer, 1996) com-

pared small group interactions in the oral and the electronic modes andfound greater equality of participation in the electronic discussion. Chun(1994) found that electronic discussions prompted discoursal moves suchas topic initiation and expansion, interactional moves (e.g., clarificationrequests, comprehension, and confirmation checks), and repairs in caseof misunderstanding.

The present study adds to this line of research focusing on the discoursegenerated through computer-assisted interaction. While previous researchon CACD offers a very encouraging picture of the synchronous writteninteraction, from an interactionist perspective, it should be noted that it isnot only the amount of participation and/or production that matters butalso the specific structure that the interaction displays. According to agrowing 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 beenidentified as negotiation of meaning is the one that provides optimalconditions for language acquisition since it offers opportunities to gener-ate both comprehensible input and modified output. Given the relevance


5/16



of this interaction, the main goal that the present study pursues is to in-vestigate whether negotiation of meaning occurs in the electronic syn-chronous written medium. A second aim of the study is to characterizethe linguistic means conversational partners used to achieve message com-prehensibility.

THE STUDY

We follow the model for the negotiation of meaning proposed by Varonisand Gass (1985b). Table 1 shows an example of one of the routines usedby two nonnative speakers to negotiate a nonunderstanding.

Table 1Discourse Model of the Negotiation of Meaning With Example

Utterance Function

NNS1: My father now is retire. TriggerNNS2: retire? IndicatorNNS1: Yes. ResponseNNS2: Oh yeah. Reaction to Response

Note: adapted from Varonis and Gass, 1985b.

In Table 1, the first utterance My father now is retire serves as a trig-ger in the routine. The NNS2 repeats the word retire with rising intona-tion, retire? Thus, this utterance functions as an indicator in the se-quence. The NNS1s utterance, yes, confirms that retire was the wordshe had used and constitutes the response. Finally, the example includesthe optional unit of the routine, the reaction to the response, exemplifiedby NNS2s last turn, oh yeah, which ties up the negotiating exchange.

The current study examines whether these negotiation routines emergein the synchronous electronic medium. If found, of special interest wouldbe to analyze the type of primes used in this medium as they can offerinsights that explain why misunderstandings occur as well as which kindsof means interlocutors use to resolve them.

Participants

The participants of the study were foreign language university learnersof Spanish. All of them were native speakers of English and were enrolledin a third-year course on grammar and composition at the time the studytook place.


6/16

284 CALICO Journal


Task

The task consisted of discussing several content questions about a read-ing assignment.4 Both the reading and content questions had been assignedas homework in the previous class. After the chat group discussion, stu-dents 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 anopportunity for learners to work in collaboration so that they could clarifyor 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 differentsessions approximately 20 days apart from each other. The 28 studentsenrolled in the class were randomly assigned to one of four groups. Sincethere were some absences, the class was divided so as to include at leastsix learners in each group.

The instructions were presented in English and in written form on thecomputer screen followed by a set of content questions about the readingassignment. Students were informed that they would be able to switchback and forth from their chat room to the screen with the instructions bypressing a specific button in an adjacent control panel.

The written instructions explained to students they would have 20 min-utes for the discussion part and 15 minutes to work on the paper and

pencil summary of the reading assignment. Students were also told whento start and stop working on each part of the task.

Results and Discussion

We found instances of negotiation in all groups in both sessions exceptfor one group in the second session. In what follows, we present and com-ment on excerpts that illustrate how nonunderstandings were resolved inthe context of group interaction through the electronic medium. Example1 presents one of the negotiation routines in the discourse generated incomputer-mediated communication.

Example 1

:1SNN:2SNN

16

:1SNN

osoritnemnusedivaDeuqosneiPosoritnemseeuq

raiLA

railasidivaDtahtknihtIrailsitahw


7/16



NNS1 gives his/her opinion about one of the characters in the novel. Thisturn activates a nonunderstanding and, therefore, acts as the trigger. Thisutterances function as a trigger is established in retrospect by consideringthe turn of NNS2 that explicitly asks for the meaning of the word mentiroso.Thus, NNS2s question functions as the indicator and points to the spe-cific source of the nonunderstanding. In the last turn, NNS1 responds bygiving the English translation of the Spanish word.

In the majority of the negotiating routines of this study there was asingle indicator coming from one conversational participant, as in example1 above. However, a few routines included several indicators which camefrom either one or from more than one member of the chat group. Ex-ample 2 contains three indicators (the turns preceded by an arrow) thatclearly show that the meaning of the word tallarines is unknown by two of

the participants.

Example 2

In order to understand how this negotiating routine unfolds, let us con-sider how the turn(s) of each of the five participants contributes to thisexchange. The first turn, Que es el significado de los tallarines?7is not ametalinguistic question; NNS1 is not asking for the meaning of an un-known word. The question refers to the role that the noodles play in thechapter of the novel students had been assigned as homework. Thus, quees el tallarines is the first indicator in this routine. The appearance ofSsontallarines cards?, the second indicator, may seem surprising given thatan English equivalent oftallarines has been provided in the previous turn.This particular sequence of turns may be explained by the fact that the OTChat does not register simultaneous turns as such. While two chattersmay write simultaneously, the transcript shows the turns in the order theyhave been sent, not in the order they have been written. A second possibil-ity is that NNS3 had actually read the response of NNS1. Her questionwould simply reflect she had in mind another alternative that was viablefor her in this context.

>>

>>

>>

:1SNN

:2SNN1

:1SNN:3SNN:4SNN:3SNN:2SNN:5SNN

2:2SNN

soledodacifingisleseeuQ?senirallat

senirallatleseeuq

seldooN?sdracsenirallatnosSatsapsesenirallatlE

oev,hAatsaposdracsenirallatlE

imocolosolimaCederdaplEsenirallatsol

senirallatsalodneitne

ehtfogninaemehtsitahW?seldoon

seldoonehtsitahw

seldooNsdracseldoonerA

"atsapsiseldoonehTeesI,hA

atsaprosdracseldoonehTseldoonehtetarehtafsolimaC

ylno

seldoonehtdnatsrednuI


8/16

286 CALICO Journal


The utterance, El tallarines cards o pasta, is the third indicator in thisroutine and suggests that NNS2 needs confirmation after having read twoalternatives. What is interesting is that while the previous turns have workedto resolve the nonunderstanding for NNS3 (Ah, veo) they did not have thesame effect on NNS2. The frequent absence of question marks in some ofthe turns may have led her to interpret El tallarines es pasta as a ques-tion rather than as an assertion. It is the intervention of NNS5, an ad-vancement in the horizontal line,8 which seems to finally clarify the mean-ing oftallarines for NNS2. To sum up, this routine shows that the OTChat allows each participant to engage in the negotiation of meaning, thatis, to indicate a breakdown in communication and to work towards itsresolution at different stages in the unfolding of the group discussion.

Some of the types of primes found by Varonis and Gass in oral interac-

tions are also present in the electronic medium. In our data, some types ofprimes occurred more frequently than others. With respect to the indica-tor, Varonis and Gass identified several types: echo, explicit statement ofnon-understanding, no verbal response, and inappropriate response. Someof these types also appear in synchronous written group interaction. Inexample 3, the indication of nonunderstanding is expressed by an echo,the repetition of the unknown lexical item, followed by a turn with a ques-tion mark.

Example 3

The overwhelming majority of the indicators found in our data (19 outof 21) are what Varonis and Gass call explicit statement of non-under-standing. Most of them were expressed in the form of a direct appeal forassistance, for example: qu significa X? what is the meaning of X? asin example 4, es X Y? is X Y? and es X Y o Z? is X Y or Z? as inexample 5, and Qu? What? as in example 6.

Example 4

>>>>

:1SNN:2SNN:2SNN

3:1SNN

!oluhcnuseolimaColuhC

?

pmipomocseoluhC

!pmipasiolimaCpmiP

?

pmipekilsioluhC

>>

>>

:1SNN

:2SNN03

:2SNN

euqebasaroseforpaleuqosneiP.oluhcse

!sepucoerpetoNatorbalapanuseonoluhC

?oluhcacifingiseuQ

?selgnineoluhcseeuqaerbalapatseesoN

swonkrehcaetehttahtknihtI.sioluhctahw!yrrowtonoD

drowdabatonsioluhCnaemoluhcseodtahW

hsilgnEnioluhcsitahWdrowsihtwonktonodI


9/16



Example 5

Example 6

Nevertheless, the most frequent way of requesting help was through theuse of the formula qu es X? what is X? as in Examples 4 and 7.

Example 7

Students are exposed to formulas of the type what is X? in the in-structional setting. They learn these chunks in beginning language coursesand continue to use them regularly in subsequent ones. It is possible thatthe classroom context in which the task took place favored the use of thisformula as a way to indicate nonunderstanding.

The predominance of explicit ways of expressing nonunderstanding andthe 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. Itshould be noted that there were only two instances of echoes, and noinstance of inappropriate response.9

The low incidence of echoes in our data can be explained by comparinghow the echo functions in the oral versus the written medium. In face-to-face oral interactions, an echo may indicate that the interlocutor is notsure about what s/he has heard or if s/he understands. In this type ofinteraction, suprasegmental features (e.g., intonation) and paralinguisticfeatures (e.g., gestures, facial expressions, and head and eye movements)are part of the message and can help to clarify the source of thenonunderstanding. In addition, in an oral exchange the immediate pres-sure to keep the conversation going would favor the use of brief and lesselaborated ways (e.g., echoes) to indicate non-understanding. In contrast,in the electronic medium one would expect echoes to be infrequent. Onthe one hand, they cannot emerge as a result of perceptual difficulties inthe decoding of the message; on the other, the unavailability of thesuprasegmental and paralinguistic features of oral face-to-face interactionmitigates their effectiveness. The additional time that the electronic me-

>>

>>

:1SNN:2SNN:1SNN:3SNN

?sdracsenirallatnosSatsapsesenirallatlE

oev,hAatsaposdracsenirallatlE

?sdracseldoonerA"atsapsieldoonehT

eesI,hAatsaprosdracseldoonehT

>>:1SNN:2SNN

?odneinivjedalle,OeuQ

?gnimocXehs,OtahW

>>:1SNN:2SNN

1:1SNN

osoritnemnusedivaDeuqosneiPosoritnemseeuq

raiLA

.railasidivaDtahtknihtIrailsitahw


10/16

288 CALICO Journal


dium affords for interactants to code and decode messages would explaintheir preference for more explicit ways of indicating nonunderstanding.Some of the factors already mentioned that relate to the nature of the

medium can explain why inappropriate responses do not appear in ourdata. The exchange in Example 8, taken from Varonis and Gasss oraldata, is not likely to be found in a written discussion.

Example 8

In this example, it seems that the presence of a certain type of noiseaccentinterfered with the message itself, and the listener replied to an

erroneously perceived utterance. Furthermore, in the oral medium, thepressure to keep the conversation going may prompt the interlocutor torespond in an unsuitable way. This pressure does not exist in written dis-cussions. Thus, participants may choose to remain silent when they do notunderstand or are not sure whether they understand a previous turn.10

The response is a turn that acknowledges in some way the request foradditional information that is implicit or explicit in the indicator. The typesof responses found in Varonis and Gass study were: repetition, expan-sion, rephrasing, acknowledgment, and reduction. Given that the major-ity 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 clarifythe meaning of the unknown word. Nevertheless, they overwhelmingly

preferred to use the native language equivalent. This type of response wasnot present in Varonis and Gasss study. We must take into account thatthe nonnative speakers of their study were second language learners ofEnglish who lived and studied in the country where the target languagewas spoken. In addition, not all of the learners shared a common L1. Incontrast, we are examining here a situation of foreign language learning inwhich students share the L1 among themselves, with the instructor, andwith the community at large. Consequently, the tendency to rely on the L1should be expected.

Acknowledgments and reductions are not logical options after the typesof indicator present in the routines of this study. Acknowledgment couldfollow an echo indicating that the interlocutor is unsure about what s/heheard, but this type of echo cannot occur in written interaction. Recallthat 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 repeti-tion (see Example 9).

>>:1SNN:2SNN

?yrtnuocruoynitnedutsauoyerA?ssalcymni


11/16



Example 9

NNS1 typed the definite article la and the following noun mucama to-gether lamucama. Her turn functions as the trigger. The next turn withthe indefinite article una preceding the sequence lamucama clearly showsthat NNS2 interpreted lamucama as one word. Then, NNS1 self-correctsand separates the articleLA from the noun mucama. It is interesting tonote that a typing error resulted in a breakdown in communication similar

to those that occur in oral interactions because of certain types ofmissegmentation errors (Peters, 1985).

Most of the breakdowns in the conversations were successfully resolvedby providing a translation into English of the unknown word in the trig-ger. Still, in two exchanges the provision of an English equivalent in theresponse was not effective and brought about a series of embeddings inwhich the interactants tried to clarify the appropriateness of the use of agiven term in the context of the classroom discussion. The excerpt in ex-ample 10 illustrates what we have labeled pragmatic negotiation.

Example 10

T NNS1: Camilo es un chulo! Camilo is a chulo!I NNS2: Chulo

I NNS2: ?3

R T NNS1: Chulo es como pimp Chulo is like pimp2

RR I NNS3: Camilo es un pimp?! que dice! Camilo is a pimp?!what are you saying?

RR I NNS4: Carmen tu estas extrano! Carmen you are weird!2

RR I NNS3: saben que la profesora lee You know that the teacherlo que escribimos, si? reads what we write, right?

12R T NNS1: Pienso que la profesora I think that the teacher

sabe que es chulo. knows what chulo isNo te preocupes! Do not worry!Chulo no es una palabrota Chulo is not a bad word

I NNS2: Que significa chulo? What does chulo mean?30I NNS2: que es chulo en ingles? what is chulo in English?

No se esta palabrea I do not know this word

This exchange starts with a negotiation routine to clarify the meaning ofthe word chulo. The response Chulo es como pimp triggers a first em-bedded routine in which the interactant attempts to justify the appropri-

>>

:1SNN

:2SNN:1SNN

:2SNN

.anosrepalseneiuqesonamacumalelbisopseamacumalanuseeuq

amacumALselbisopse,otneisol

?etseseeuq

sinosrepehtohwwonktnodIdiamehtelbissopsiti

diamehtasitahwEHTelbissopsiti,yrrosmaI

diam?sihtsitahw


12/16

290 CALICO Journal


ateness of the word in the context of the Spanish class. NNS3s comment(camilo es un pimp?! que dice! and saben que la profesora lee lo queescribimos, si?)and NNS4s turn(Carmen tu estas extrano!)suggestorat least seem to suggest to NNS1that NNS3 and NNS4 assume thatchulo has the exact connotative value as pimp.11 NNS1s response (Piensoque la profesora sabe que es chulo. No te preocupes! Chulo no es una

palabrota) attempts to excuse the use of the word chulo in this context.To sum up, the examples presented above show that the OT Chat allows

participants to engage in the negotiation of meaning, that is, to indicate abreakdown in communication and to work towards its resolution at dif-ferent stages in the unfolding of the discussion. As the examples illustrate,learners negotiated the meaning of a lexical item in the majority of theroutines. Nonunderstandings that are likely to occur in the oral medium

due to noise, accent, etc. cannot emerge in the written electronic environ-ment. This situation explains the absence of certain type of primes (thatare medium dependent) in the negotiation routines of the electronic me-dium. Participants showed a preference for certain types of indicators andresponses. This preference may be related to the academic and the foreignlanguage learning context in which the interactions took place.

CONCLUSION

The second language literature has identified negotiation routines inoral interactions by which learners give and receive feedback and helpeach 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 for-

eign language engage in negotiation of meaning in computer-mediateddiscussions. Nevertheless, some of the types of primes used in the elec-tronic medium differed from those documented in the oral medium. Inthe overwhelming majority of routines, learners indicated a breakdown incommunication by means of an explicit statement of nonunderstanding inthe form of a classroom learned formula learned. Other types of indica-tors were either absent or very infrequent. The types of responses docu-mented in previous studies were not present in this study, with the excep-tion of one instance of repetition in the form of self-correction. The learn-ers in this study resorted to their native language to resolve instances ofnonunderstanding.12 While recourse to the L1 was an efficient and fastmeans to return to the horizontal line of the conversation, it did not pushlearners to modify their output. It remains to be seen whether the use ofthe L1 is a characteristic of a typical foreign language learning situation inwhich learners share the native language or whether there are other fac-tors that might account for this use.


13/16



The model adopted to analyze the data of the study allowed the re-searchers to observe how each learner contributed and benefited fromgroup interaction, both to indicate/resolve misunderstandings and to con-tinue the discussion in the horizontal line. The electronic medium notonly seems to afford more opportunities for active participation in a groupdiscussion (Kern, 1995), but it also provides a forum where participantscan engage in the negotiation of meaning at their own pace.

NOTES

1 It does not imply that interaction involving teachers does not have any impact oninterlanguage development. Studies such as Tanakas (1991, cited in Ellis, 1994)

offered evidence that interactionally modified input (through teacher-learner in-teraction) resulted in better comprehension and in more words being learnedand retained over time than either baseline input or premodified input.

2 A possible objection that might be raised against group work is that learners areexposed to and might incorporate defective forms. Several studies (Gass & Varonis,1989; Bruton & Samuda, 1980) have shown that learners do not generally incor-porate errors of a nonnative speaker peer. On the contrary, there are numerousexamples of modifications in the direction of the correct target language forms.

3 While writing the results of this study, it came to our attention that anotherinvestigation was addressing this issue though in a slightly different approach(Pellettieri, 2000).

4 The questions were on the content of an adapted short novel, Rosaura a las diezby Marco Denevi, that students were reading for this class.

5

OT Chat, a networking protocol used by Macintosh computers, allows users toengage in written synchronous discussions. Chatters sit at individual computerterminals linked together electronically. With OT Chat, it is possible to open chatrooms in which participants can work in groups. Each participant can composeand send messages which appear on all participants screens. Participants canrespond to whichever messages they choose.

6 Numbers between turns represent other utterances that are not part of thenonunderstanding routine. These utterances usually move the discourse forwardin a linear fashion (represented by Varonis and Gasss model by a horizontal line).

7 Note that question marks and other orthographic conventions are sometimesomitted. Due to the online nature of the task, participants may have been morefocused on the content of the messages than on the conventions of the writtenlanguage.

8

A turn that moves forward the discussion of the content question.9 No (verbal) response, one of the indicators that appears in Varonis and Gasssdata, is difficult to trace in transcripts from computer-mediated group interactiondue to the flexibility in turn taking that the combination of medium and groupsize affords.

10 Although there is less pressure in the written medium to respond than in the


14/16

292 CALICO Journal


oral medium, the number of conversational participants also contributes to lightenthe turn-taking pressure.

11 There is no basis in the novel to think that the character Camilo is a pimp. TheSpanish word chulo has several meanings, one of them being prepotent, arro-gant and another one being pimp. It is not clear in which of the two senses thestudent is using the word chulo.

12 The L1 emerged, even though participants were specifically told to use Spanishonly 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 lan-guage classroom: Conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language An-nals, 25, 455-464.

Bruton, A., & Samuda, V. (1980). Learner and teacher roles in the treatment oferror in group work. RELC Journal, 11, 49-63.

Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition ofinteractive competence. System, 22 (1), 17-31.

Denevi, M. (1964). Rosaura a las diez (D. A. Yates, Ed.). New Jersey: PrenticeHall.

Ehrlich, S., Avery, P., & Yorio, C. (1989). Discourse structure and the negotiationof comprehensible input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11,397-414.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1985a). Variation in native speaker speech modifi-cation to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,7 (1), 37-58.

Gass, S. M., & Varonis E. M. (1985b). Task variation and nonnative/nonnativenegotiation of meaning. In S. M. Gass and C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input insecond language acquisition (pp. 149-161). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1986). Sex differences in non-native speaker/non-

native speaker interactions. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conver-sation 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 insecond language variation (pp. 71-86). New York: Plenum Press.


15/16



Kelm, O. R. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second lan-guage instruction: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25(5), 441-453.

Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with network computers:Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Mod-ern Language Journal, 79, 457-476.

Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotia-tion of comprehensible input.Applied Linguistics, 4 , 126-141.

Long, M., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk and second lan-guage acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19 (2), 207-227.

Long, M., Adams, L., McLean, M., & Castaos, F. (1976). Doing things with words:Verbal interaction in lockstep and small group classroom situations. In J.Fanselow & R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL 76 (pp. 137-153). Washing-

ton, D.C.: TESOL.Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centred curriculum. New York: Cambridge Univer-

sity Press.

Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the develop-ment of grammatical competence. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.),Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59-86).New York: Cambridge University Press.

Peters, A. M. (1985). Language segmentation: Operating principles for the percep-tion and analysis of language. In D. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic studyof language acquisition: Vol. 2. Theoretical issues (pp. 1029-1067).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-lan-guage learning conditions, processes, and outcomes?Language Learn-

ing, 44 (3), 493-527.Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985). Input and interaction in the communicative lan-

guage classroom: A comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities.In S. M. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition(pp. 115-132). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Pica, T., Kanady, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communicationtasks for second language instruction and research. In G. Crookes and S.M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and second language learning: Integrating theoryand practice (pp. 9-34). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.

Porter, P. (1986). How learners talk to each other: Input and interaction in task-centered discussions. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversationin second language acquisition (200-224). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Rulon, K. A., & McCreary, J. (1986). Negotiation of content: Teacher-fronted and

small-group interaction. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversa-tion in second language acquisition (pp. 182-199). Rowley, MA: NewburyHouse.

Scarcella, R., & Higa, C. (1981). Input, negotiation, and age differences in secondlanguage acquisition.Language Learning, 31 (2), 409-438.


16/16

294 CALICO Journal


Sullivan, N., & Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environ-ments: A computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom.System, 29, 491-501.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible in-put and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C.G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253).Rosley, MA: Newbury House.

Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. (1985a). Miscommunication in native/non-native con-versation.Language in Society, 14 (3), 327-343.

Varonis, E., & Gass, S. (1985b). Non-native/non-native conversations: A modelfor the negotiation of meaning.Applied Linguistics, 6 , 71-90.

Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in thesecond language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13, 7-25.

Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory andpractice. Modern Language Journal, 81, 470-481.

AUTHORS BIODATA

Marisol Fernndez-Garca is an Assistant Professor in the Departmentof Modern Languages at Northeastern University. She teaches courses inSpanish language, linguistics, and applied linguistics. Her research focuseson input, interaction, and second language acquisition.

Asuncin Martnez-Arbelaiz is an Assistant Professor in the Departmentof Romance and Classical Languages at Michigan State University whereshe teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in Spanish linguistics.Her research interests are Spanish syntax and second language acquisi-tion.

AUTHORS ADDRESS

Marisol Fernndez-GarcaDepartment of Modern Languages400 Meserve HallNortheastern UniversityBoston, MA 02115-5000Phone: 617/373-3659Fax: 617/373-2298Email: [email protected]

Asuncin Martnez-ArbelaizDepartment of Romance and Classical Languages

314 Old Horticulture BuildingMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing, MI 48824-1112Phone: 517/353-0769, ext. 130Fax: 517/432-3844Email: [email protected]

cmc and interactionist model negotiation)

Documents