psz 19:16 (pind. 1/07) universiti teknologi malaysia fileinterlanguage production in open and closed...
TRANSCRIPT
PSZ 19:16 (Pind. 1/07)
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
DECLARATION OF THESIS
Author’s full name : CATHERINE NGUOI CHUI LAM
Date of birth : 17 APRIL 1982
Title : COMPARISON OF LIMITED ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS’
INTERLANGUAGE IN MEANING NEGOTIATION IN OPEN AND
CLOSED TASKS
Academic Session : 2013/2014 I declare that this thesis is classified as :
CONFIDENTIAL (Contains confidential information under the
Official Secret Act 1972)*
RESTRICTED
(Contains restricted information as specified
by the organization where research was done)*
OPEN ACCESS
I agree that my thesis to be published as online
open access (full text)
I acknowledged that Universiti Teknologi Malaysia reserves the right as follows:
1. The thesis is the property of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. 2. The Library of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia has the right to make
copies
for the purpose of research only.
3. The Library has the right to make copies of the thesis for academic
exchange.
Certified by :
SIGNATURE SIGNATURE OF SUPERVISOR
820417135570
DR. AZIAN BT ABD AZIZ @ AHMAD
(NEW IC NO. /PASSPORT NO.) NAME OF SUPERVISOR
Date : 20 DECEMBER 2013 Date : 20 DECEMBER 2013
NOTES : * If the thesis is CONFIDENTAL or RESTRICTED, please attach with
the letter from the organization with period and reasons for
confidentiality or restriction.
SUPERVISOR’S DECLARATION
“I/We* hereby declare that I/we* have read this thesis and in my/our* opinion this
thesis is sufficient in terms of scope and quality for the award of the degree of
Master of Education (TESL)
Signature : ....................................................
Name of Supervisor I : Dr. Azian bt Abd Aziz @ Ahmad
Date : ....................................................
Signature : ....................................................
Name of Supervisor II : ....................................................
Date : ....................................................
Signature : ....................................................
Name of Supervisor III : ....................................................
Date : ....................................................
* Delete as necessary
COMPARISON OF LIMITED ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS’
INTERLANGUAGE IN MEANING NEGOTIATION
IN OPEN AND CLOSED TASKS
CATHERINE NGUOI CHUI LAM
A project report submitted in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the award of the degree of
Master of Education (TESL)
Faculty of Education
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
JANUARY 2014
ii
DECLARATION
I declare that this thesis entitled Comparison of limited English language learners’
interlanguage in meaning negotiation in open and closed tasks is the result of my
own research except as cited in the references. The thesis has not been accepted for
any degree and is not concurrently submitted in candidature of any other degree.
Signature : ....................................................
Name : CATHERINE NGUOI CHUI LAM
Date : 20 DECEMBER 2013
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the parties who have helped
me tremendously throughout the process of completing this project. Without your
support and assistance, this journey would not have taken place.
First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge my heartfelt thanks to my
supervisor, Dr. Azian bt Abd Aziz @ Ahmad, for guiding me through the whole
project with patience and love. It was a valuable experience working under your
supervision. Many thanks for your advice and assistance.
Besides, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all the eight
participants who have willingly participated in this study. Thank you for your time
and support. May God bless you all!
Special thanks go to my beloved husband and my family, especially my
mother, my sister and my brother as well as my dearest colleagues and friends for
their unwavering support and words of encouragement. Thanks for being there for
me all the time.
Last but not least, I would like to thank God for giving me the strength to
progress this far. Thanks for making all this possible for me.
iv
ABSTRACT
This study aims to explore Limited English Language Proficiency (LEP) learners’
interlanguage production in open and closed communicative tasks. In particular, the
learners’ meaning negotiation in open and closed communicative tasks, the quality of
interlanguage generated during these tasks and the learners’ perceptions on the two
communicative tasks were explored in this study. A total number of 8 participants
were engaged in both open and closed communicative tasks, stimulated recall
interviews and structured interviews as part of the data collection of this study. It was
found that closed communicative task can yield greater meaning negotiation as
compared to open communicative task. Meaning negotiation in closed
communicative task was mainly triggered by task complexity and lexical difficulties,
which might be due to the task design. Though open communicative task was
perceived as cognitively more demanding than closed communicative task, the open
and convergent nature of the task were found to be effective in pushing the learners
to focus on form during the task, hence resulting in the production of a better quality
interlanguage, in terms of an increased language accuracy and complexity as
compared to the latter. The findings have thus highlighted that communicative tasks
can at least benefit LEP learners from two aspects. Firstly, learners can be better
prompted to focus on form and accordingly expand their underlying interlanguage
during the communicative tasks through meaning negotiation strategies, particularly
clarification requests. Secondly, it was found that the open and convergent nature of
the task can effectively push the learners to generate better quality interlanguage, in
terms of language complexity and accuracy during open communicative task.
Therefore, by taking all these factors into consideration, a more productive
communicative task can be designed so as to better cater for the needs of this
particular group of learners.
v
ABSTRAK
Kajian ini bertujuan untuk mengkaji bahasa interlingual (interlanguage) yang
dihasilkan oleh pelajar yang lemah dalam penguasaan bahasa semasa berinteraksi
dalam dua jenis aktiviti komunikasi, iaitu aktiviti komunikasi yang bersifat ‘tertutup’
dan aktiviti komunikasi yang bersifat ‘terbuka’. Dalam pada itu, kajian ini akan
memberi fokus kepada cara-cara kumpulan pelajar tersebut berinteraksi, kualiti
bahasa interlingual yang dihasilkan dan persepsi kumpulan pelajar tersebut ke atas
kedua-dua aktiviti komunikasi yang berlainan sifat itu. Sejumlah 8 orang pelajar
telah melibatkan diri dalam kedua-dua aktiviti komunikasi tersebut dan dua sesi
temuramah, iaitu temuramah yang berpandu kepada stimuli dan ingatan serta
temuramah berstruktur. Hasil kajian menunjukkan bahawa kumpulan pelajar tersebut
telah berinteraksi dengan lebih kerap semasa menjalankan aktiviti komunikasi yang
bersifat ‘tertutup’. Kebanyakan interaksi yang dihasilkan semasa menjalankan
aktiviti komunikasi tersebut adalah berpunca daripada tahap complexity dan masalah
kekurangan perkataan, yang mungkin disebabkan cara rekaan aktiviti komunikasi
tersebut. Walaupun kumpulan pelajar tersebut berpandangan bahawa aktiviti
komunikasi yang bersifat ‘terbuka’ lebih mencabar daripada aktiviti komunikasi
yang bersifat ‘tertutup’ , sifat ‘terbuka’ aktiviti komunikasi tersebut dan syaratnya
yang mengkehendaki pelajar untuk mencapai sebulat suara pada akhir aktiviti
komunikasi tersebut telah terbukti efektif untuk menjadikan pelajar lebih tertumpu
kepada bahasa semasa menjalankan aktiviti tersebut. Akibatnya, interlingual yang
berkualiti tinggi, dari segi tahap komplesiti dan ketepatan bahasa telah dapat
dihasilkan semasa menjalankan aktiviti komunikasi yang bersifat ‘terbuka’ itu. Hasil
kajian ini telah menunjukkan bahawa aktiviti-aktiviti komunikasi boleh
memanfaatkan pelajar lemah bahasa dalam dua aspeks. Pertama, pelajar boleh
didorong untuk menumpu perhatian kepada bahasa dan seterusnya mengembangkan
interlingual semasa berinteraksi dalam aktiviti komunikasi, terutamanya melalui
permintaan penjelasan. Kedua, didapati bahawa ciri-ciri sesuatu aktiviti komunikasi
boleh mendorong pelajar untuk menghasilkan interlingual bahasa yang lebih
berkualiti. Oleh itu, aktiviti komunikasi yang lebih produktif boleh dihasilkan
sekiranya faktor-faktor seperti yang dibincangkan boleh diambil kira.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENT
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE
DECLARATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ABSTRACT
ABSTRAK
TABLE OF CONTENT
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
xi
LIST OF TABLES xii
LIST OF FIGURES xiv
LIST OF APPENDIXES
xv
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Background of Research Study 3
1.2 Statement of the Problem 5
1.3 Conceptual Framework 7
1.4 Research Objectives 8
1.5 Research Questions 8
1.6 Operational Definition of Terms 9
1.6.1 Limited English language proficiency learners
1.6.2 Negotiation of meaning
1.6.3 Open communicative task
1.6.4 Closed communicative task
1.6.5 Utterance
1.6.6 Quality of interlanguage
1.6.6.1 Complexity
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
vii
1.6.6.2 Accuracy
1.6.6.3 Fluency
11
11
1.7 Scope of the study
1.7.1 Limited English Language Learners
1.7.2 Negotiation of meaning
1.7.3 Open communicative task
1.7.4 Closed communicative task
1.7.5 Utterance
1.7.6 Quality of Interlanguage
1.7.6.1 Complexity
1.7.6.2 Accuracy
1.7.6.3 Fluency
11
11
12
12
12
13
13
13
14
14
1.8 Significance of the study 15
1.9 Summary
16
2 LITERATURE REVIEW 17
2.0 Introduction
2.1 Negotiation of meaning
2.1.1 Meaning negotiation models
2.1.2 Negotiation of meaning and second language
acquisition
2.2 Communicative tasks
2.2.1 Task features
2.2.1.1 Open and closed communicative tasks
2.3 Interlanguage
2.3.1 Quality of interlanguage
2.3.1.1 Interaction of complexity, accuracy and
fluency
2.4 Summary
17
18
18
20
24
27
30
32
34
37
39
viii
3 METHODOLOGY 42
4
3.0 Introduction
3.1 Research Design
3.2 Participants
3.3 Research Instruments
3.3.1 Open communicative task
3.3.2 Closed communicative task
3.3.3 Stimulated recall interview
3.3.4 Structured interview
3.4 Research Data
3.5 Data Collection Procedure
3.6 Data Analysis
3.6.1 Analyzing complexity
3.6.2 Analyzing accuracy
3.6.3 Analyzing fluency
3.6.4 Analyzing data from stimulated recall
interview
3.6.5 Analyzing data from structured interview
3.7 Summary
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.0 Introduction
4.1 Meaning negotiation in open and closed
communicative tasks
4.1.1 Frequency of Meaning Negotiation
4.1.2 Types of Trigger
4.1.3 Frequency of different types of trigger
4.2 The quality of interlanguage in open and closed
communicative tasks
4.2.1 Complexity
4.2.1.1 Syntactic complexity
4.2.1.2 Lexical variety
4.2.2 Accuracy
42
42
43
44
45
45
46
47
48
50
54
55
56
56
57
57
57
59
59
60
60
62
65
67
67
67
70
71
ix
5
4.2.3 Fluency
4.2.3.1 The amount of speech
4.2.3.2 Repair measures
4.3 Perceptions on open and closed communicative tasks
in relation to language development
4.3.1 Task difficulty
4.3.2 Main problems faced during
communicative tasks
4.3.3 Factors affecting participants’ language
development
4.3.3.1 Open/closed nature of the tasks
4.3.3.2 Convergent nature of the tasks
4.3.3.3 Task complexity
4.3.3.4 Peer assistance
4.4 Correlation between participants’ perceptions and
their actual language performance in the
communicative tasks
4.5 Discussion of results
4.6 Conclusion
CONCLUSION
5.0 Introduction
5.1 Summary of the study
5.2 Summary of the results
5.2.1 Meaning negotiation in open and closed
communicative tasks
5.2.2 The quality of interlanguage in open and
closed communicative tasks
5.2.2.1 Complexity
5.2.2.2 Accuracy
5.2.2.3 Fluency
71
72
73
77
81
84
86
86
87
88
89
90
93
100
101
101
101
103
103
103
104
104
104
x
5.2.3 Perceptions on open and closed
communicative tasks in relation to language
development
5.3 Implications of the study
5.3.1 Material design in English language teaching
5.3.2 The teaching of LEP learners
5.4 Limitations of the study
5.5 Suggestions for future research
5.6 Conclusion
105
105
105
106
108
109
111
REFERENCES 112
APPENDIXES A- H 120
xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CAF Complexity, accuracy and fluency
ESL English as a second language
LEP Low English language proficiency
L1 First language
L2
SLA
Second language
Second language acquisition
xii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
NO. TITLE PAGE
3.1
3.2
Profile of participants
A summary of the characteristics of tasks employed in
this study
44
46
3.3
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
An overview of the research instruments used in this
study
A typical meaning negotiation cycle
The frequency of meaning negotiation in open and
closed communicative tasks
Lexical trigger and meaning negotiation sequences
Phonetic trigger and meaning negotiation sequences
Content trigger and meaning negotiation sequences
Task complexity trigger and meaning negotiation
sequences
Comparison of trigger types initiated in open and
closed communicative tasks
Examples of S1 and S2+ constructions identified from
the data
Comparison of syntactic complexity of interlanguage
generated in open and closed communicative tasks
Comparison of lexical variety of interlanguage
generated in open and closed communicative tasks
Comparison of grammatical accuracy of
interlanguage generated in open and closed
communicative tasks
58
61
61
62
63
63
64
66
68
69
70
71
xiii
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15
4.16
Comparison of the amount of speech generated in
open and closed communicative tasks
The types of repair measures identified from the data
Comparison of repair measures used by participants
in open and closed communicative tasks
Comparison of the level of difficulty of open and
closed communicative tasks
Comparison of the main problems faced during open
and closed communicative task
72
73
76
82
84
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
NO. TITLE PAGE
1.1 An overview of the conceptual framework of the
study
7
3.1 An overview of data collection procedure 50
3.2
4.1
4.2
5.1
An overview of data analysis of the study
An overview of participants’ perceptions on open
and closed communicative tasks in relation to their
language development
An overview of the results in this study
An overview of this study
54
78
93
102
xv
LIST OF APPENDIXES
APPENDIX TITLE PAGE
A Open Task: The Desert Island 120
B Closed Task: Picture Differences 121
C Structured Interview Questions 123
D Field Notes Template 124
E Guidelines for Taking Field Notes 125
F
G
H
Transcription Notation
Gass and Varonis’ (1985) model of meaning
negotiation
The framework of the types of trigger
127
128
129
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.0 Introduction
A number of researchers have attempted to explain ‘negotiation of meaning’
(see Long, 1980; Van den Branden, 1997; Oliver, 2002; Foster & Ohta, 2005). In
general, it refers to conversational modifications initiated by comprehension
difficulties in a communicative interaction. A variety of strategies such as
comprehension checks, confirmation checks and clarification requests can be used to
trigger negotiation of meaning in which interactants will be prompted to modify their
language output in order to facilitate message comprehension (Gass & Varonis,
1985).
The role of negotiation of meaning as an important aspect of interaction
within the context of second language acquisition (SLA) is well documented in the
literature (see Ellis, Tanaka & Yamazaki, 1994; Varonis & Gass, 1982). For instance,
Ellis et al. (1994) examined the effects of meaning negotiation on learners’
vocabulary acquisition while Varonis and Gass (1982) investigated the importance of
foreigner talk in negotiation of meaning between native and non-native speakers
(NS-NNS). Findings of the studies suggest that negotiation of meaning can promote
second language acquisition (SLA) through the opportunities provided for second
language (L2) learners to obtain comprehensible input and produce comprehensible
output, which in turn will facilitate L2 learners’ interlanguage development.
Indeed, it is through negotiation of meaning that learners can obtain input
which is modified to facilitate their comprehension. This is because when there is a
2
focus on meaning in an interaction, learners will be prompted to negotiate input so as
to make it comprehensible for the understanding of the intended message. The
importance of comprehensible input is addressed in Krashen’s Input Hypothesis
(1985) which postulates that sufficient comprehensible input will promote SLA.
Furthermore, meaning negotiation provides the opportunities for learners to
generate the comprehensible target language to assist L2 comprehension. In so doing,
learners are prompted to modify their language output through interactional
adjustments. Swain’s Comprehension Output Hypothesis (1985) suggests that
comprehensible output plays an equally important role in learners’ language
development because the nature of SLA cannot be sufficiently explained with only
comprehensible input.
Negotiation of meaning also provides the opportunities for learners to test and
modify their interlanguage (IL) hypotheses. White (1987) explained that the
discrepancy between learners’ IL rules and L2 structures will prompt the learners to
modify their IL rules in their attempt to produce comprehensible output. A variety of
interlanguage modification strategies, such as semantic modifications,
morphosyntactic modifications, topic switches and repetitions might be employed in
L2 learners’ attempts to negotiate input in meaning negotiation (Pica, Holliday,
Lewis, Berducci & Newman, 1991).
Engaging learners in meaning negotiation tasks would thus lead them to
produce enhanced interlanguage, where according to Faerch & Kasper, (1983)
interlanguage is a unique L2 learners’ language system generated on the basis of the
learners’ IL system, first language (L1) system or the use of particular
communication strategies. Modified input, with its simplified lexical, phonological
and syntactic forms will facilitate L2 learners’ lexical acquisition while the L2 output
production will draw the learners’ attention to syntactic processing as they
consistently test their IL hypotheses and expand their IL in their efforts to negotiate
meaning (Crossley & McNamara, 2010). Therefore, it can be concluded that L2
learners’ interlanguage development relies heavily on both comprehensible input and
output which are made available through meaning negotiation in an interaction.
3
Interlanguage development is thus another contribution of meaning negotiation as far
as SLA is concerned.
Thus, negotiation of meaning plays a crucial role in providing the
opportunities for L2 learners to get comprehensible input and comprehensible output
which are essential for SLA (Long, 1985; Pica, Lincoln-Parker, Paninos & Linnet,
1996) while allowing L2 learners to obtain valuable feedback to facilitate their
interlanguage development.
1.1 Background of research study
To date, a growing body of L2 research has been conducted on negotiated
interaction, focusing on the quantity of meaning negotiation generated by different
task types (see Bitchener, 2004; Fujii, Obata, Takahashi & Tanabe, 2008; Gass,
Mackey & Ross-Feldman, 2011; Gurzynski-Weiss & Revesz, 2012; Yufrizal, 2001).
Some attention has also been given to task-related factors, such as task complexity
and task difficulty (Robinson, 2001; Qiao, 2010), dyadic arrangements (Yufrizal,
2001), task repetition (Hawkes, 2012) and task setting (Gass, Mackey & Ross-
Feldman, 2011). However, exploring negotiation of meaning quantitatively in terms
of the frequency of negotiation moves generated by the tasks is insufficient to
explain the nature of meaning negotiation. As Foster and Ohta (2005) highlighted, a
quantitative analysis of negotiation of meaning tells very little about the value of a
communicative task in relation to learners’ language development. This suggests that
learners’ generated output, if studied qualitatively, can lead to a more insightful
understanding of meaning negotiation which takes place across the different task
types.
Although a number of recent studies have begun to see the need to address
the quality of meaning negotiation in relation to different task types, these studies
were mainly conducted among learners of intermediate proficiency level (see
Luciana, 2005; Pawlak, 2006; Murphy, 2003). Other studies (see Qiao, 2010;
Robinson, 2001) did not even give due attention to the participants’ proficiency
level, thus overlooking the role of language proficiency, as a variable which may
affect the patterns of meaning negotiation. For instance, Qiao (2010) conducted her
4
study among a group of mixed-level proficiency learners while the language
proficiency level of the participants was not even addressed clearly in Robinson’s
(2001) study.
It is thus obvious that limited English language proficiency (LEP) learners are
totally absent from the focus of attention although in actual fact, it is this particular
group of learners that deserve more attention. This is because as limited language
users, negotiating of meaning in an interaction posed a high level of challenge for
this specific group of learners. Furthermore, when it comes to English in second
language (ESL) classrooms, a lack of understanding of how task types affect the
meaning negotiation among the LEP learners might result in meaningless language
activities to the detriment of its failure to achieve its desired learning outcomes.
These meaning negotiation tasks might be interesting for high proficiency learners
but might not be productive for LEP learners. Therefore, an understanding of the
influence of meaning negotiation on LEP learners’ language acquisition is crucial for
both ESL learners and educators.
As language is a means of communication, learners who have similar first
language (L1) background might depend heavily on their shared L1 whenever they
need to communicate. Therefore, dealing with learners who have similar L1 might
run the risk of having them resort to their first language whenever there is a
comprehension gap in their communication. This is particularly true for LEP learners
as their limited English language ability to function adequately in meaning
negotiation tasks might push them to look for more familiar terms in their shared first
language. These learners are unconsciously exposed to the risk of misusing the
meaning negotiation tasks, presenting a distorted picture of how these tasks are
initially meant to be carried out. Thus, dealing with LEP learners with the same L1
remains a challenge for a lot of ESL teachers.
Despite a burgeoning literature on meaning negotiation generated across
different task types in the field, we have little knowledge of how LEP learners
negotiate meaning when they are engaged in such communicative tasks due to a lack
of proper attention addressed to the target group. As reported by Ellis (2009a),
learners’ language proficiency is one of the factors contributing to their differences
5
in task performance, which further strengthened the argument of why LEP learners
deserve equal attention as far as their interlanguage performance is concerned.
Therefore, this study intends to explore how limited English proficiency
learners negotiate meaning in two types of communicative tasks in the ESL
classroom, namely, open and closed communicative tasks. In particular, this study
will examine the quality of the interlanguage generated by the two different task
types in terms of its complexity, accuracy and fluency so as to find out whether open
or closed communicative tasks can provide more learning opportunities for LEP
learners as far as SLA is concerned.
1.2 Statement of the problem
Negotiation of meaning has dominated the discussion of second language
acquisition as it provides the opportunities for both comprehensible input (Choi,
2003; Uggen, 2012) and comprehensible output (Bitchener, 2004; Choi, 2003;
Kuiken & Vedder, 2002; Luciana, 2005; Swain, 1985) necessary for language
learning. However, meaning negotiation tasks have yet to receive its due attention in
Malaysian ESL classrooms despite its abundant pedagogical benefits.
Research conducted in ESL classrooms revealed that language teaching in
Malaysia is predominantly examination-oriented as the main concern is put on
teaching grammatical skills that learners need in order to get good results in their
examinations (see Ambigapathy, 2002; Koo, 2008; Fauziah Hassan & Nita Fauzee
Selamat, 2002). Furthermore, Fauziah Hassan and Nita Fauzee Selamat (2002) also
reported that speaking and listening activities were the least employed language
activities in the classrooms, suggesting meaning negotiation tasks are not fully
optimised in Malaysian ESL classrooms.
Borg (2003) suggested that teachers could have transformed their teaching
techniques from their experience of being L2 learners and their own personalities. In
this context, the teachers might be influenced by the traditional structural approach to
language teaching adopted by their language teachers. Some of them might believe
6
learners acquire the language by learning the language items in a structured way
through the series of Presentation-Practice-Production (PPP).
The tasks in PPP mainly consist of situational grammar exercises which are
meant for reinforcing the linguistic features introduced in presentation and practice
stage (Ellis, 2009a). They are different from communicative tasks in task-based
instruction (TBI), an approach which places great emphasis on communicative tasks.
The latter engages learners in content-oriented meaningful activities (Littlewood,
2004). A focused task differs from a situational grammar exercise in that the former
provides opportunities for learners to use specific linguistic features (a focus on
form) while allowing them to attend to semantic and pragmatic processing of the
target language (a focus on meaning) through accomplishing the tasks (Ellis, 2009a).
Instead of getting learners to use the language just for the sake of using it, language
is used primarily as a means for achieving the outcomes in TBI (ibid). Therefore, it is
obvious that the distinction between PPP and TBI mainly lies in the final stage,
namely, the production phase in terms of language practice. Through negotiating of
meaning in communicative tasks, learners can be prompted to produce and expand
their interlanguage which in turn will facilitate their SLA.
Nevertheless, although teachers may hold positive attitudes towards TBI, it is
generally perceived that TBI is only meant for high proficiency students and might
disadvantage weak students (Choo and Too, 2012). In other words, teachers might
not have the confidence to use communicative tasks among limited English language
proficiency learners (LEP) due to their perception that such tasks cannot benefit LEP.
Thus, given the same communicative task, LEP learners and intermediate or
high proficiency learners might approach the task differently due to their diverse
proficiency level. Interaction among LEP learners might display frequent
communication breakdowns due to their inability to function adequately in
communication. As Foster and Ohta (2005) found out, more communication
breakdowns were observed in communication among Japanese L2 learners due to
their relative lower language proficiency as compare to English L2 learners in their
study.
7
With the problems highlighted in the preceding paragraphs, it is timely that
this research which looks at LEP learners’ interlanguage production in meaning
negotiation be conducted. LEP learners’ interlanguage production should be given
due attention so that teachers can have a better idea to design potential
communicative tasks which can push this particular group of learners towards
producing better quality interlanguage to facilitate their SLA.
1.3 Conceptual framework
Figure 1.1 An overview of the conceptual framework of the study
Communicative tasks, which require learners to use the target language as a
tool of communication can generate meaningful interaction which will facilitate
second language acquisition (McDonough & Mackey, 2000). These tasks can be
further characterized, depending on whether indeterminate information or
determinate information is required for task completion (Loschky, 1988; Long,
1989). The former is better known as open tasks whereas the latter is referred to as
closed tasks.
When learners are engaged in communicative tasks, the need to negotiate
meaning is initiated as they work together to achieve L2 comprehension towards
accomplishing the tasks. Learners are prompted to negotiate meaning when there are
comprehension difficulties which push them to generate, modify and expand their
Communicative
tasks
Limited
English
language
proficiency
learners
Open
task
Closed task
N
ego
tiat
ion
of
Mea
nin
g
I
n
p
u
t
O
u
t
p
u
t INT
ER
LA
NG
UA
GE
8
interlanguage to ensure the availability of both comprehensible input and output in
the interaction. Interaction provides the opportunities for learners to produce
comprehensible output as they are prompted to modify their language output during
meaning negotiation (Swain, 1985). On the other hand, interactional modifications
resulted from negotiation of meaning in an interaction will promote
modified/comprehensible input which can facilitate message comprehension (Long,
1985). All these elements, shown in Figure 1.1 will be discussed further in Chapter
2.
1.4 Research Objectives
Three specific objectives are outlined in this study. Firstly, this study seeks to
examine how the participants negotiate meaning in open and closed communicative
tasks. Secondly, this study will compare the quality of interlanguage generated by the
two different communicative tasks from the aspects of complexity, in terms of
complexity of utterances and lexical variety, accuracy, in terms of the percentage of
error-free utterances and fluency, in terms of the amount of speech and repair
measures. Finally, this study also intends to investigate the perceptions of the
participants on open and closed communicative tasks in relation to their language
development.
1.5 Research questions
Three research questions addressed in this study are:
1. How do participants negotiate meaning in open and closed communicative tasks?
2. In comparing open and closed communicative task, which task will generate
better quality interlanguage in terms of:
(a) complexity,
(b) accuracy,
(c) and fluency
3. What are the participants’ perceptions of open and closed communicative tasks in
relation to their L2 language development?
9
1.6 Operational definition of terms
The terms related to this study are defined as follows:
1.6.1 Limited English language proficiency learners
The definition of limited English language proficiency (LEP) learners is
derived from the description of language users based on Aggregated Scores found in
The MUET Handbook by the Malaysian Examinations Council (2006). In this study,
it refers specifically to students who achieved the two lowest bands, namely, Band 1
and Band 2 in Malaysian University English Test (MUET) examination. This is
because according to MUET descriptors (Malaysian Examinations Council, 2006).
Band 1 and Band 2 scorers are categorized as limited language users, referring to
those who have limited language ability to function adequately in communication.
1.6.2 Negotiation of meaning
Negotiation of meaning is defined as a strategy, which is realized as
conversational modifications and prompted by comprehension difficulties in a
communicative interaction (Foster & Ohta, 2005). In the context of this study, it
refers to the ways the participants work together to achieve mutual understanding of
the intended message when they are engaged in two communicative tasks, namely,
open and closed communicative tasks.
1.6.3 Open communicative task
An open task refers to a communicative task whose outcome is not
predetermined or rather open-ended (Long, 1989). In an open task, there is no single
predetermined solution as a number of solutions or outcomes are possible, depending
on the discussion. This definition of open communicative task will be adopted for the
purpose of this study.
10
1.6.4 Closed communicative task
A closed task refers to a communicative task which requires very restricted
information to be exchanged for the task completion (Long, 1989). In a closed task,
there exists a single correct solution which is predetermined by the task designer.
This definition of closed communicative task will be adopted for the purpose of this
study.
1.6.5 Utterance
An utterance can be identified by the change of intonation contour, boundary
pauses or semantic units in a stream of speech (see Crookes & Rulon, 1985). This
definition of utterance is adopted for the purpose of this study. In this study, an
utterance is identified by first locating the semantic units in the stream of speech. As
such, each utterance is seen as constituting a single semantic unit.
1.6.6 Quality of interlanguage
Learners’ language production can be assessed from three aspects, namely, its
complexity, accuracy and fluency (Skehan, 1996). Since these three variables are
interdependent, there is a need to include all three in explaining the quality of
interlanguage explored in this study. Particularly, it refers to the quality of language
output generated by the participants when they are engaged in open and closed
communicative tasks in this study.
1.6.6.1 Complexity
Complexity is defined as the capacity of a language user to use more complex
syntactic patterning, which can be examined from both grammatical complexity and
lexical variety (Skehan & Foster, 1999). In this study, the syntactical complexity will
be examined through complexity of utterances, following Nakahama, Tyler and Van
Lier’s (2001) study which involves separating utterances with only one verbal
construction and utterances with more than one verbal construction. Meanwhile,
lexical variety is determined using Guiraud’s Index of Lexical Richness, which is
11
operationalized as the number of different words (types) divided by the square root
of the total number of words (tokens).
1.6.6.2 Accuracy
Accuracy refers to the capacity of a language user to use error-free, well-
controlled forms in communication (Skehan & Foster, 1999). In this study, the
accuracy of learners’ interlanguage is measured by the percentage of error-free
utterances identified in the data.
1.6.6.3 Fluency
Fluency refers to the capacity of a language user in coping with real-time,
meaning-focused communication (Skehan and Foster, 1999). In this study, language
fluency is examined from two aspects, namely, the amount of speech (the total
number of utterances) and repair measures (involving the number of repetitions, false
starts, reformulations and filled pauses divided by total speaking time).
1.7 Scope of the study
The scope of this study will be explained as follows:
1.7. 1 Limited English Language Learners
The criterion under scope is participants’ level of English language
proficiency. This study only involves those falling into the norm of limited English
language proficiency (LEP), which is derived based on the descriptors of MUET
band scores (Malaysian Examinations Council, 2006). Band 1 students are described
as very limited language users while Band 2 students are described as limited
language users. These students scored within the range of zero to 139 scores out of
the maximum 300 possible aggregate scores. Generally, Band 1-2 scorers are
described as those display limited language ability to function adequately in
communication, therefore only this group of learners, particularly Malay second
language learners who have Malay language as their first language, are included in
this study.
12
1.7.2 Negotiation of meaning
Negotiation of meaning refers to the conversational modifications made by
interactants in their attempt to resolve any comprehension difficulties in their
interaction (Foster & Ohta, 2005). For the purpose of this study, Gass and Varonis’
(1985) model of meaning negotiation, which involves four consecutive moves,
namely, Trigger (T)- Indicator (I) – Speaker’s Response (R) and Reaction to the
Response (RR) is used as the frame of reference for researcher to identify the
meaning negotiation sequences and take the field notes for conducting stimulated
recall interview. Participants will be invited to provide explanations whenever an
utterance used to indicate non-understanding (Indicator) is noted. As both direct and
indirect indicators are signals of participants’ lack of understanding, both indicators
will be used to elicit participants’ recall of thoughts during the tasks. Both indicators
and utterances which are used to signal non-understanding (Triggers) will be
included in the field notes to serve as the points of departure for researcher to pause
and request for further explanations from the participants during stimulated recall
interview.
1.7.3 Open communicative task
An open communicative task has a rather open-ended outcome in which the
task completion depends primarily on the discussion of the participants (Long, 1989).
The open communicative task used in this study (The Desert Island) is a two-way
decision-making task which has more than one outcome option. Participants can
decide whichever five items to bring to the deserted island. However, the task is
designed to oblige participants to work towards convergence as they need to reach a
mutually acceptable list of items to bring to the deserted island. Therefore,
negotiation of meaning is expected as participants need to negotiate with each other
towards task accomplishment.
1.7.4 Closed communicative task
In a closed communicative task, participants are required to find out the
predetermined information which is needed for the task completion (Long, 1989).
13
The closed communicative task employed in this study (Picture Differences) is a
two-way jigsaw task which has only one outcome option. In order to complete the
task, participants need to find out the differences between the two pictures without
looking at each other’s picture. The task is closed and convergent in nature as
participants are required to work towards finding out the definite answers which are
predetermined by the task designer.
1.7.5 Utterance
According to Crookes and Rulon (1985), the change of intonation contour,
pauses or semantic units can be used to identify an utterance in a stream of speech.
For the purpose of this study, an utterance is identified as the part of speech which
constitutes a single semantic unit. ‘Utterance’ is used as the basic discourse unit in
this study rather than the ‘clause’ as used in Foster and Skehan’s (1996) study
because the latter is more suited for exploring written discourse. Besides, as this
study is exploring LEP learners’ interlanguage, participants might have limited
language ability to produce complex structures as displayed by clauses, thus it might
result in a less significant finding if the discourse is analyzed using ‘clause’ as the
basic unit.
1.7.6 Quality of Interlanguage
The quality of interlanguage is operationalized by the global measures of
complexity, accuracy and fluency (CAF), which according to Foster and Skehan
(1996), can be better suited for the purpose of this study because the task effects can
best be explained when all contributory influences on errors and differences are
taken into account.
1.7.6.1 Complexity
Language complexity is concerned with the capacity of a language user to use
more complex syntactic patterning (Skehan & Foster, 1999). In reviewing articles
conducted on complexity, accuracy and fluency (CAF), Ellis (2009b) argued that
complexity should not be narrowly defined as grammatical complexity, thus calling
14
for the need to include lexical variety as the second measure of language complexity
in the present study.
Syntactic complexity will be examined through the complexity of utterances,
following Nakahama, Tyler and Van Lier’s (2001) study in which the utterances are
analyzed based on their verbal constructions. The verbal complexity of the speech is
captured by assuming that the core of the speech lies in the verb and its agents
(subject and object). As Cribb (2004) highlighted, this measure of syntactical
complexity is a valid method of measurement in analyzing a spoken discourse.
Sentence complexity which is explored based on the clauses in a particular sentence,
is not adopted as the measure of language complexity in this study because it is more
appropriate to be used with a written discourse.
As for lexical variety, Guiraud’s Index of Lexical Richness, the number of
different words / types divided by the square root of the total number of words/
tokens will be used. This is because type/token ratio is the most commonly used
measure for exploring lexical variety (Iwashita, 2010). However, due to the
sensitivity of this formula to text length, Guiraud’s Index of Lexical Richness (types
/ √token), which can be used to compensate for the limitation (Masoud Saeedi, Saeed
Ketabi & Hossein Vahid Dastjerdi, 2011) is used.
1.7.6.2 Accuracy
The operation of accuracy is motivated by Skehan and Foster (1999) who
suggest that a global measure of accuracy is a better measure of language accuracy as
it takes into account all the different types of errors in the speech samples. Since
utterance is the basic discourse unit in this study, language accuracy is thus measured
by the percentage of error-free utterances found in speech samples.
1.7.6.3 Fluency
Language fluency is concerned with the capacity of a language user to cope
with real-time, meaning-focused communication (Skehan and Foster, 1999). Amount
of speech (the total number of utterances) is explored because according to Esser
15
(1995), the amount of speech is a good indicator of fluency (cited in Kawauchi,
2005). This fluency measure is also used in Abdurrahman Arslanyilmaz’s (2007)
study which looked into the relationship among tasks, negotiation of meaning and
language production. The second measure of fluency, is operationaized as repair
measures (involving the number of repetitions, false starts, reformulations,
hesitations and pauses) divided by total speaking time (see Elder & Iwashita, 2005).
This fluency measure will be included in this study to compensate for the
shortcoming of utterance count, as it takes into account repair measures used by the
participants and the length of the discourse.
1.8 Significance of the study
This study would extend the empirical database on the study of interlanguage
among ESL learners, particularly how do limited English language proficiency
learners negotiate meaning across the two different task types, namely, open and
closed communicative tasks. Meaning negotiation tasks provide a context for
learners to produce both comprehensible input and comprehensible output which in
turn will push them to generate interlanguage. Will different task types, which put
different demands on the learners, affect the learners’ meaning negotiation and their
interlanguage production? These will form the focus of this study.
Investigating the meaning negotiation pattern and quality of interlanguage
produced by limited English language proficiency learners will shed some light on
the valuable learning opportunities made available through engaging learners in the
two communicative tasks. Hence, this study helps to create awareness to ESL
teachers on the importance of communicative tasks in prompting the production of
interlanguage, even among limited proficiency learners.
Furthermore, this study also seeks to describe the differences in limited
English language learners’ interlanguage production to find out which task type,
namely, open or closed communicative task can foster better quality interlanguage
production among low proficiency learners. The findings of this study may also
guide ESL teachers to design productive communicative tasks so as to provide
sufficient opportunities for LEP learners to access and produce the target language.
16
As this study also intends to find out LEP learners’ perceptions of the two
tasks in relation to their language development, it will shed some light on the factors
that will affect the interlanguage production of LEP learners when they are engaged
in communicative tasks. The findings will reveal the areas which this particular
group of learners need more assistance on and the dimensions of tasks that can be
manipulated to better suit the purpose of facilitating LEP learners in acquiring the
target language.
1.9 Summary
To sum up, negotiation of meaning has been discussed thus far in the studies
of SLA. An extensive body of research has been done to explore the topic. However,
most of the research (see Bitchener, 2004; Fujii et al., 2008; Gass, Mackey & Ross-
Feldman, 2011; Gurzynski-Weiss & Revesz, 2012; Yufrizal, 2001) aim to explain
negotiation of meaning based on the quantity of negotiation of meaning generated by
learners across different task types. There is a lack of research investigating the
quality of meaning negotiation in relation to different task types. Furthermore, these
studies (see Luciana, 2005; Pawlak, 2006; Murphy, 2003) were mainly conducted
among learners of intermediate proficiency level, overlooking the fact that limited
English language proficiency (LEP) learners, due to their limited English language
ability to function adequately in negotiation of meaning demand greater attention
from educators to push them towards producing better quality interlanguage through
communicative tasks which allow them to negotiate meaning. Thus, this study is
initiated with the aim to explore communicative tasks in relation to LEP learners’
meaning negotiation and interlanguage development. In particular, it will address the
question of which communicative task, as in open or closed condition; will generate
more meaning negotiation and better quality of interlanguage among LEP learners
and how these tasks are perceived by the participants in relation to their language
development.