Comprehensible Output by Ali Sheadeh

Language Learning 49:4, December 1999, pp.
627675
Non-Native Speakers Production of Modified Comprehensible Output and Second Language Learning
Ali Shehadeh
University of Aleppo King Saud University
This study investigated the ability of NNSs to modify their output toward comprehensibility in the contexts of NS-NNS and NNS-NNS interactions and the degree to which such modified comprehensible output (MCO) was other- or self-initiated. Picture-dictation and opinionexchange tasks were used to collect data from 8 NSs and 24 NNSs of English representing 13 different L1 backgrounds. The 2 tasks were performed in pairs (NS-NNS and NNS-NNS) and were audiotaped. The results showed that most repairs were self-initiated and that NNS-NNS interactions produced more other-initiations and otherinitiated MCOs on the picture-dictation task. The frequencies of these MCOs support the importance of modification toward comprehensible output as a process of second language acquisition.
Ali Shehadeh, Department of English Language, University of Aleppo, Syria (currently at the College of Languages and Translation, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia). I acknowledge the help I received from the editors of Language Learning and a number of anonymous reviewers, and I would like to thank them all for their advice and their many helpful suggestions and comments. Correspondence concerning this article may be sent to Ali Shehadeh, College of Languages and Translation, King Saud University, P.O. Box 87907, Riyadh 11652, Saudi Arabia. Internet: ashhada@ksu.edu.sa
627
Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.
628
Language Learning
Vol. 49, No. 4
Swain (1985) argued that comprehensible input is not sufficient for successful second language acquisition (SLA), but that opportunities for non-native speakers (NNSs) to produce comprehensible output are also necessary. She based her conclusions on findings from studies she conducted on immersion students in Canada. She found that although immersion students were provided with a rich source of comprehensible input, their interlanguage (IL) performance was still off-target; that is, they were clearly identifiable as non-native speakers or writers (Swain, 1984, 1985). Thus, Swain claimed that understanding new forms is not enough and that learners must also be given the opportunity to produce them. She, therefore, doubted that interactions and comprehensible input on their own are sufficient for SLA:
Conversational exchanges . . . are not themselves the source of acquisition derived from comprehensible input. Rather they are the source of acquisition derived from comprehensible output: output that extends the linguistic repertoire of the learner as he or she attempts to create precisely and appropriately the meaning desired. (Swain, 1985, p. 252)
Swain (1985) argued that the role of learner production of comprehensible output is independent in many ways of the role of comprehensible input. She proposed a hypothesis relating to the second language (L2) learners production comparable to that relating to comprehensible input. This she termed the comprehensible output hypothesis for SLA (1985, p. 249). Swain acknowledged the role of comprehensible input in SLA, but she argued that comprehensible output is also a necessary mechanism that aids SLA in many ways:
Its role is, at minimum, to provide opportunities for contextualized, meaningful use, to test out hypotheses about the target language, and to move the learner from a purely semantic analysis of the language to a syntactic analysis of it. (Swain, 1985, p. 252)
Shehadeh
629
Swain and Lapkin (1995) refined the comprehensible output hypothesis, developed in Swain (1985, 1993), and summarized it as follows:
In producing the L2, a learner will on occasion become aware of (i.e., notice) a linguistic problem (brought to his/her attention either by external feedback (e.g., clarification requests) or internal feedback). Noticing a problem pushes the learner to modify his/her output. In doing so, the learner may sometimes be forced into a more syntactic processing mode than might occur in comprehension. Thus, output may set noticing in train, triggering mental processes that lead to modified output. (Swain & Lapkin, 1995, pp. 372373)
Thus, Swain and Lapkin held the view that the activity of producing the target language (TL) is a mechanism that enables learners to notice a gap in their existing IL capacity. This noticing pushes them to consciously reprocess their performance in order to produce modified output. Swain and Lapkin (1995, p. 374) argued that noticing of a gap leads to mental processes that in turn lead to the production of modified, reprocessed output, and that this may represent the internalization of new linguistic knowledge, or the consolidation of existing knowledge. Figure 1 is an illustration of second language learning from an output perspective. Swain and Lapkin argued that what goes on between the first output and the
analyze input
noticing need to communicate output 1 (feedback) -internal -external
no solution
(analysis)
solution output 2
-simple inspection -complex thinking
Figure 1. Output and second language learning. From Problems in Output and the Cognitive Processes They Generate: A Step Towards Second Language Learning, by M. Swain and S. Lapkin, 1995, Applied Linguistics, 16, p. 388. Reprinted with permission.
630
Language Learning
Vol. 49, No. 4
second . . . is part of the process of second language learning (p. 386). In light of these arguments, they concluded that sometimes, under some conditions, output facilitates second language learning in ways that are different from, or enhance, those of input (p. 371). More recently, several SLA researchers have also argued that learning partly depends on L2 learners ability to attend to the relevant language features (Harley, 1998; Schmidt, 1995), to restructure knowledge (Dekeyser, 1998), to focus on form when learners notice a hole in their interlanguage (Doughty & Williams, 1998; Wright, 1996), on the extent to which noticing is learner-initiated (Long & Robinson, 1998), and on language production that gives learners the opportunity to reprocess and modify their performance toward comprehensible output (Swain, 1995, 1998). Of particular relevance to the current study is Swains argument that language production enables learners to notice the gap between what they can say and what they want to say when they formulate and test out hypotheses about the TL, when they consciously reflect on the language they are producing (metatalk), and when they move from semantic analysis of the TL to a more syntactic analysis of it (Swain, 1998, p. 79). According to Swain (1995, p. 126), language production, thus, prompts learners to stretch their current IL capacity in order to fill in the gap, enabling them to control and internalize linguistic knowledge. Negotiated interaction and the negotiation of meaning have until recently been taken as the basis for the provision of comprehensible input only (e.g., Chiang & Dunkel, 1992; Deen, 1995; Gass & Varonis, 1985, 1994; Holliday, 1995; Long, 1983a, 1983b, 1996; Pica, Doughty, & Young, 1986; Pica, Young, & Doughty, 1987; Varonis & Gass, 1985). In his (updated) interaction hypothesis, for instance, Long maintained that negotiation for meaning triggers interactional adjustments that are the main source of comprehensible input, and that comprehensible input in turn facilitates L2 acquisition (Long, 1983b, p. 214, 1996, pp. 451452). Some SLA researchers have argued for the importance of negotiated interaction and the negotiation of meaning for the
Shehadeh
631
production of comprehensible output as well (e.g., Pica, Holliday, Lewis, Berducci, & Newman, 1991; Pica, Holliday, Lewis, & Morgenthaler, 1989). For instance, Pica et al. (1989, p. 65) pointed out:
Although . . . research has focused mainly on the ways in which negotiated interaction with an interlocutor helps the learner to understand unfamiliar L2 input, we believe that it is also through negotiation that learners gain opportunities to attempt production of new L2 words and grammatical structures as well.
Pica et al. (1989, p. 84) further argued that through the negotiation of meaning both learners and their interlocutors work together to produce comprehensible input and comprehensible output. In her review article, Pica (1994) concluded that negotiation of meaning is important because it provides L2 learners with comprehensible input, provides feedback on their production, and gives them an opportunity to modify their IL utterances. Other researchers also drew attention to the importance of negotiation of meaning to NNSs output, particularly the modifications they make to their IL utterances when interlocutors signal difficulty in understanding (e.g., Hatch, Flashner, & Hunt, 1986; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Sato, 1986; Tarone & Liu, 1995; Van den Branden, 1997). For example, Van den Branden (1997, pp. 626627) argued that L2 learners enhanced performance is primarily determined by the frequency of negotiation routines they are engaged in. He emphasized that during negotiations learners can be pushed to produce far more than merely comprehensible output; they can be pushed to the production of output that is more complete and accurate (p. 630). Similarly, Lyster and Ranta (1997) maintained that negotiation involves the provision of corrective feedback that encourages self-repair, which in turn leads to more accurate and more comprehensible output. They stated, Negotiation involves . . . the provision of corrective feedback that encourages self-repair involving accuracy and precision and not merely comprehensibility (p. 42). By the same token, Tarone and Liu (1995, p. 118) demonstrated that participation in different situational contexts affects
632
Language Learning
Vol. 49, No. 4
the rate as well as the route of acquisition because this causes the competence of the L2 learner to develop differently. They suggested that the contexts in which the learner stretches his/her competence in the TL to its limits are the contexts in which the IL develops faster. Tarone and Liu concluded that the data examined in their study showed that
it is precisely in those contexts where Bob [the subject of their longitudinal case study] has to produce output which his IL cannot handle that the IL develops faster, with the richest variety of IL utterances and even possibly with structures out of developmental sequence. (p. 120) Studies on Comprehensible Output
The empirical research that investigated Swains arguments for the comprehensible output hypothesis and the related IL modification claims will be briefly summarized here for the sake of exposition. Pica (1988) examined negotiated interactions between 1 NS and 10 NNSs of English to find out how the NNSs make their IL utterances comprehensible when the NS indicated difficulty in understanding them. Data for the study were obtained from Picas earlier (1982) study. The data consisted of 10, 1 hr, transcribed audiotapes of 10 first language (L1) Spanish/L2 English NNSs of low-level proficiency interacting with an English NS who was an ESL teacher experienced in talking to foreigners. The topics discussed varied considerably and included issues such as previous education, future plans, personal matters, friends, relatives, academic work, and so forth. The findings revealed that NNSs generated their own modifications of initial trigger utterances only 48% of the time, but when they did so, consistently (91%) they showed targetlike use of English. Pica (1988) concluded that these results show that NNSs can modify their IL utterances in response to an NS signal to achieve output that is both more comprehensible and more targetlike:
Shehadeh
633
. . . more comprehensible because . . . during 95% of the interactions in which the NS signaled comprehension difficulty, the NNS response to the signal led to a successful resolution; and more target-like because 48% of the NNSs total number of responses to the NS signal were encoded, through their own initiation, in more target-like form, a figure which represents 91% of the NNSs self-initiated modification. (Pica, 1988, pp. 5960).
In a more detailed and controlled study, Pica et al. (1989) transcribed and analyzed audiotapes of 10 adult NSs of Japanese, 5 males and 5 females, each interacting in English with 1 of 10 female NSs of English in a noninstructional, experimental setting. The NNSs were of low-intermediate and mid-intermediate proficiency levels. Three tasks were employed to collect data: informationgap, jigsaw, and discussion (opinion-exchange). The results showed that the NS signal type had a significant impact on the type of response NNSs made, regardless of task. Across all tasks, NNSs tended to modify their output most often when NSs signalled an explicit need for clarification rather than provided a model utterance for confirmation. Pica et al. (1985, pp. 8384) argued that the findings of their study provide empirical validation for Swains (1985) construct of the comprehensible output hypothesis as well as the other claims about the IL modification of NNSs. Nobuyoshi and Ellis (1993) investigated learners ability to produce more accurate output when teachers requested clarification. Six Japanese students performed the same task twice (telling a picture-based story to their teachers) a week apart. The researchers studied the use of past tense forms. The teachers requested clarification either when they noticed an incorrect use of the past tense form or when they did not actually understand the verb used. Nobuyoshi and Ellis found that when teachers pushed learners in the direction of greater accuracy in their production, learners were able not only to make self-repair, but also to achieve a higher accuracy level in their output. This improved accuracy of output resulted in improved performance, both immediately and over time.
634
Language Learning
Vol. 49, No. 4
Pica, Lincoln-Porter, Paninos, and Linnell (1996) compared the interaction of 10 dyads of English L2 learners with that of 10 dyads of learners and English NSs on two jigsaw tasks (a house sequence task and a story task). All NNS participants shared one mother tongue background (Japanese). They were all adult learners enrolled in pre-academic, low-intermediate-level classes. The researchers sought to investigate the difference in the learners further modification of their previous utterances when these utterances were modified by NSs or other learners. Pica et al. (1996) predicted that when learners were given signals that modified their previous utterances, they would produce a similar amount of modified output in their responses whether the signals were from other learners or from NSs (p. 63). As predicted, the results showed that there was comparable production of modified versions of their previous utterances when learners negotiated with NSs or with each other. Finally, Van den Branden (1997) investigated the effect, immediate and delayed, of various types of negotiation on L2 learners output in an instructional setting. He collected data from three groups of 16 fifth grade primary school pupils whose ages ranged from 11 to 12 years. The NNS pupils were each asked to describe six drawings (to solve a murder case) to an NS peer or teacher partner who was not allowed to see the drawings. The researcher found that children were able to modify their output interactionally when confronted with a negative feedback, and that these interactional modifications had delayed effect on their output in subsequent interactions (p. 626). Van den Branden concluded that children of 11 to 12 years old appear to be quite able to push each others output through negotiating meaning and content, and to learn enough from these negotiations to produce higher-quality output during subsequent interactions (p. 627). This review shows that previous empirical studies on comprehensible output and IL modification have collected data mostly from NS-NNS interaction (but see Pica et al., 1996) and only when interlocutors requested clarification. Past research did not investigate the role of NNS-NNS interaction or, more importantly, the
Shehadeh
635
role of self-initiation in providing opportunities for the production of comprehensible output. Examining the effect of these variables is important to further substantiate the theoretical claims underlying Swains comprehensible output hypothesis.
Purpose
This study therefore examines the ability of NNSs to modify their IL utterances in the direction of comprehensible output, termed here modified comprehensible output (MCO), in response to other-initiation and self-initiation, in both NS-NNS and NNSNNS interactions on two communication tasks: picture-dictation and opinion-exchange. These objectives were motivated by several considerations. First, Gass and Varonis (1985, 1986) and Varonis and Gass (1985) argued that NNS-NNS interactions provide greater opportunities than NS-NNS interactions for the negotiation of meaning and therefore for obtaining comprehensible input. The assumption is that a greater amount of negotiation work takes place in NNS-NNS discourse than in either NS-NS or NS-NNS discourse. Varonis and Gass (1985, pp. 8486) maintained that in NNS-NNS interactions, NNSs do not lose face by negotiating meaning in the same way as they might in NS-NNS interactions. They argued this is because NNS-NNS interactions provide NNSs with a nonthreatening forum within which to practice developing language skills, including an opportunity to receive input they have made comprehensible through negotiation (Varonis & Gass, 1985, p. 87). Thus NNS-NNS negotiation serves the function of providing NNS participants with a greater amount of comprehensible input. By extension, one might expect that NNS-NNS interaction will provide NNS participants with more opportunities to adjust their IL utterances in the direction of comprehensible output than NS-NNS interaction. Apart from Pica et al. (1996), previous empirical research on comprehensible output did not take NNS-NNS interaction into consideration. However, unlike Pica et al. (1996), the present study will investigate NNSs ability to encode their
636
Language Learning
Vol. 49, No. 4
own modification toward comprehensible output rather than examining their response to modified versions of their previous utterances supplied to them by their interlocutors, as was done by Pica et al. (1996). Also, there are occasions when NNSs modify their output to make it more comprehensible when they realize that their current or previous utterance is insufficient as a means for communicating the intended message. These are normally referred to in the literature as self-initiated self-completed repairs (Kasper, 1985). Ethnomethodological researchers (Schegloff, Jefferson, & Sacks, 1977; Kasper, 1985) earlier drew attention to the importance of self-repair. Specifically, in their seminal paper, Schegloff et al. (1977, pp. 364365) identified four types of repair in NS-NS interactions: self-repair issuing from self-initiation, self-repair issuing from other-initiation, other-repair issuing from otherinitiation, and other-repair issuing from self-initiation. It was further shown (Frch & Kasper, 1983; Schegloff et al., 1977) that self-initiations may be placed in three positions: (a) They may be placed within the same turn; (b) they may be placed in the turns transition space, that is, immediately after the end of the turn; or (c) they can be placed in third turn to the trouble-source, that is, in the turn subsequent to that which follows the trouble-source turn. On the other hand, other-initiations occupy one position only: the turn immediately subsequent to the trouble-source turn. Schegloff et al. (1977) claimed that in NS-NS conversations, self-initiated self-completed repairs are preferred to other types of repairs. They argued that there is ample evidence in support of this claim, in particular that (a) opportunities for self-initiation come before opportunities for other-initiation; (b) for those repairables (i.e., trouble-sources) where repair is initiated, sameturn and transitional space opportunities for self-initiation are frequently taken by speakers of the trouble-source; (c) the course of same-turn initiated repairs regularly leads to successful selfrepairs in same turn; and (d) other-initiation in most cases yields self-repair because although the addressee has a hearing or understanding problem and would initiate repair, he/she will normally
Shehadeh
637
give the speaker of the trouble-source the opportunity to repair for him/herself. Therefore, Schegloff et al. argued that self- and otherinitiation are related to each other and that their relatedness is organized in favor of self-repair (p. 374). They concluded that self-repairs are thus more effective than and are highly privileged over other-repairs: the organization of repair in conversation provides centrally for self-correction, which can be arrived at by the alternative routes of self-initiation and other-initiationroutes which are themselves so organized as to favor self-initiated selfrepair (p. 377). These observations were confirmed in a separate study by Schegloff (1979), who concluded that self-initiation, same turn repair is the most common and most successful too (p. 268). Moreover, the predominance of self-repair was also confirmed by studies of NS-NNS and NNS-NNS interactions, both in educational and in natural contexts (Brock, Crookes, Day, & Long, 1986; Chun, Day, Chenoweth, & Luppescu, 1982; Day, Chenoweth, Chun, & Luppescu, 1984; Gaskill, 1980; Kasper, 1985; Schwartz, 1980). Previous empirical research that investigated the IL modification of NNSs looked only at the opportunities that other-initiated clarifications (termed here other-initiated clarification requests) give NNSs to modify their performance in the direction of comprehensible output. For this reason, the present study will also consider the opportunities that self-initiations (termed here selfinitiated clarification attempts) give NNSs to modify their output toward comprehensibility. Finally, very few studies have examined the effect of type of task on initiation opportunities and NNSs production of comprehensible output (Pica et al., 1989; Pica et al., 1991; Pica et al., 1996). For example, Pica et al. (1989) investigated the effect of picture-drawing, jigsaw, and discussion tasks on initiation opportunities and IL modification toward comprehensible output. They predicted that opportunities given by NSs for NNSs to make their output comprehensible would be greatest in the information-gap picture drawing task, less so in the jigsaw sequencing task, and least during discussion task (p. 69). Pica et al. (1989) argued that
638
Language Learning
Vol. 49, No. 4
their hypothesis was believed to reflect the degree of NNS control over the amount of information needed for successful task completion and the precision with which this information needed to be employed. As predicted, they found that the picture-drawing task offered the largest percentage . . . of NS signals of requests for clarification and confirmation in comparison to jigsaw and discussion tasks (p. 74). However, previous research on comprehensible output did not examine the potential effect of type of task on opportunities for self-initiated clarification attempts by NNSs. For this reason, the effect of type of task on opportunities for other-initiation and self-initiation and on the MCOs produced in response to both initiation types will be examined in this study.
Research Hypotheses
By extending the arguments by Varonis and Gass (1985) and Gass and Varonis (1985, 1986) and the observations by ethnomethodological researchers like Schegloff (1979) and Schegloff et al. (1977), it is reasonable to expect that NNS-NNS interactions will also provide NNS participants with more opportunities for other-initiated clarification requests and self-initiated clarification attempts in the direction of comprehensible output than NS-NNS interactions. On the basis of these considerations, the first hypothesis was generated as follows: Hypothesis 1. Opportunities for the production of utterances exhibiting modification toward comprehensibility in NNS output would be greater in NNS-NNS interactions than in NS-NNS interactions, specifically: (a) There would be a greater proportion of other-initiated clarification requests. (b) There would be a greater proportion of self-initiated clarification attempts. (c) There would be more MCOs produced.
Shehadeh
639
Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun (1993) characterized picturedictation as a one-way task in which supply of information for successful task completion is required, and opinion-exchange as a two-way task in which supply of information for successful task completion is optional. This is because successful completion of a picture-dictation task, unlike an opinion-exchange task, depends heavily on the ability of the NNS participant dictating the contents of the picture to his/her task partner to be as comprehensible and as accurate as possible in supplying information when performing the task. Therefore, there will be more frequent clarification requests on a picture-dictation task than on an opinion-exchange task. In light of these arguments by Pica et al. (1993), the findings of Pica et al. (1989) above, and the ethnomethodological observations concerning the preference for self-initiated self-completed repair, there is reason to believe further that there will be more frequent other-initiations and self-initiations and more MCOs produced on the picture-dictation task than on the opinion-exchange task employed in this study. These considerations led to the formulation of the second hypothesis. Hypothesis 2. Opportunities for the production of utterances exhibiting modification towards comprehensibility in NNS output as a result of other- and self-initiations would be greater on the picturedictation task than on the opinion-exchange task, specifically: (a) There would be greater frequency of other- and selfinitiations, and (b) There would be more MCOs produced.
Method
Participants
Thirty-two adults, ranging in age from 22 to 37 years, were selected. There were 8 NSs (4 males and 4 females) and 24 NNSs of English (10 males and 14 females). All NNS participants were acquainted as ESL classmates in the same course. The NNSs
640
Language Learning
Vol. 49, No. 4
represented 13 different L1 backgrounds. These included Afrikaans, Arabic, Bengali, Cantonese, French, Greek, Italian, Korean, Mandarin, Farsi, Portuguese, Serbo-Croat, and Spanish. The NS participants were university teachers and postgraduate students experienced in talking to foreigners. The length of the NNSs residence in the UK at the time of the investigation ranged between 2 and 3 months. All NNS participants were enrolled in a communicatively oriented EAP (English for Academic Purposes) program at the language center of a British university and were receiving 5 hr of instruction weekly. The course was running simultaneously with their respective postgraduate studies at the various departments of the university. At the time of the investigation, the program had three levels of instruction, ranging from a beginning course, Level 1, to a course for advanced students, Level 3. The 24 NNS students were enrolled in Level 2, the intermediate ESL level.
Communication Tasks
Two communication tasks were selected and developed for the purpose of this study: a picture-dictation task and an opinionexchange (discussion) task. The selection of the two tasks was motivated in the first place by previous studies (e.g., Crookes & Rulon, 1988; Gass & Varonis, 1985; Hawkins, 1985; Lynch, 1988; Pica et al., 1991; Pica et al., 1993), and in particular by Pica et al.s (1989, p. 72) remark that there is a great deal of consensus regarding the value of these tasks in providing data on interaction in general and negotiated interaction in particular. (For more detailed exposition on the significance and usefulness of these and other communication tasks in SLA research and instruction, see two collections of informative articles edited by Crookes & Gass, 1993a, 1993b.) In the picture-dictation task, an NNS had to describe the contents of a picture to an NS or NNS partner who had to reproduce the picture as precisely as possible solely on the basis of the NNSs description. This means that successful completion
Shehadeh
641
of the task depends in the first place on the NNSs ability to supply a clear and accurate description of the picture he/she holds. The procedure for this task follows that of previous studies (e.g., Van den Branden, 1997; Varonis & Gass, 1985) in that an NNS was given a picture (a postcard in our case) to describe to an NS or NNS partner. The postcard itself was carefully selected as having clear, easily recognizable features describable in a simple vocabulary to enable the NNS to understand its content and describe it to his/her partner. Original color copies of the same postcard were distributed to all NNSs whose role was to describe the picture to their task partners. In addition to the oral explanation, each NNS speech partner with the picture was given a written set of instructions and guidelines. The opinion-exchange task employed in the present study was a discussion in which the interactants were required to exchange opinions about a short newspaper article. The task was open-ended and did not require any of the speech partners to use only the precise information available to them or adhere to any specific aspect(s) of the theme of the article. A copy of a controversial and stimulating newspaper article entitled Chauvinist Husband Divorced was photocopied and distributed to every participant. It is worth noting that this particular text was carefully selected to match the proficiency level of the NNS participants. Characteristics such as the length of the text (200 to 250 words), length of the sentence, complexity of content, and familiarity of vocabulary were all taken into consideration. Participants were given 10 min reading time to formulate their views, opinions, arguments, and so on.
Administration and Data Collection Procedures
Sixteen NNS participants were each teamed up with an NS or NNS partner and performed the two tasks. Each dyad performed the picture-dictation task and then the opinion-exchange task. The data were collected in two sessions. In the first session, there were 10 dyads. In the second session, 6 new dyads performed
642
Language Learning
Vol. 49, No. 4
the same two tasks that were performed by the 10 dyads earlier. In the picture-dictation task, dyads sat back-to-back to prevent any paralinguistic or nonlinguistic interference. All encounters were audiotape-recorded. The total number of tape-recordings was 32. Dyadic distribution of participants over the two tasks was as follows: 4 were female NSfemale NNS pairs, 4 were male NSmale NNS pairs, 5 were female NNSfemale NNS pairs, and 3 were male NNSmale NNS pairs. Altogether, there were 16 pairs distributed among four types of encounters as follows: 8 NS-NNS and 8 NNS-NNS pairs on the picture-dictation task; 8 NS-NNS and 8 NNS-NNS pairs on the opinion-exchange task.
Data Transcription
Systematically selected 5-min samples (between minutes 26 inclusive) of each audiotaped activity were transcribed for analysis. Several factors played a part in the selection of these samples. First, drawing on earlier studies (e.g., Duff, 1986; Gass & Varonis, 1985, 1986), which selected samples ranging between 5 and 10 min, it was believed that sufficient data for analysis would be obtained from the 5-min sample from each encounter selected in the present study. Second, as one picture-dictation encounter and three opinion-exchange encounters ended after 67 min, to maintain systematicity only the first 6 min of the other 28 dyadic encounters were transcribed for analysis. Third, the 1st min of each encounter was not selected for analysis because I wished to minimize the effect of the conversational preliminaries that generally precede focussing on the specific topic of the task to be performed (Aston, 1986, p. 132). Parts of the tapes selected were transcribed and doublechecked. To get the closest transcription possible and to maintain the highest possible quality, a team of 9 NSs of English rechecked and verified the transcriptions to ensure their accuracy. They were all given an introductory session informing them what to expect and what they were expected to do. In a limited number of cases where there were still unresolved transcription difficulties, the
Shehadeh
643
original participants were invited to interpret. The final transcription was intended to reflect what was recorded during the tasks with all its linguistic features marked in the transcription. These included all hesitation fillers, semiaudible murmuring, low voice quality, indications of unintelligible language, comprehension checks/signals, confirmation requests/signals, clarification requests, repairs, interruptions, overlaps, simultaneous speech, pauses, turn-giving, and turn-taking moves.
A Model for Interlanguage Modification Toward Comprehensibility
Partly based on Varonis and Gasss (1985) model,1 a new model was developed as a framework for describing NNSs IL modification toward comprehensible output and as a guideline for the analysis of the data (see also Shehadeh, 1991). The model falls into four functional primes. The first prime consists of a troublesource (TS) or trigger. The second prime consists of an initiator (I), which can be either self-initiation (SI) or other-initiation (OI). The third prime is the outcome (O) of initiation. And the fourth prime consists of the interlocutors reaction to the outcome (RO). A trouble-source may be either ignored or reacted to. In cases where the TS was ignored, there is often no way for the investigator to recognize that there was a breakdown in comprehension or communication, although something later in the discourse may indicate that in fact the listener had not understood (Aston, 1986),2 or that the speaker did run into difficulty but did not initiate repair (Hawkins, 1985; Varonis & Gass, 1985). On the other hand, the trouble-source may be reacted to either by the interlocutor, in which case we have other-initiation, or by the originator of the trouble-source himself/herself, in which case we have self-initiation. The outcome of initiation can take different forms, including ignoring the TS or other-initiation/signal of TS, failing to repair, appealing for help, switching to a new topic, expressing difficulty in repairing the TS, repeating the TS utterance without modification, or successfully repairing the TS by reprocessing and modifying IL
644
Language Learning
Vol. 49, No. 4
performance in the direction of comprehensible outputin other words, supplying modified comprehensible output (MCO). The reaction to the outcome is an optional unit of the routine that helps to tie up the routine in some way before the speakers return to the main flow of conversation. Following Lyster and Ranta (1997) and Spada and Frhlich (1995), clarification requests indicate to the NNS that his/her utterance has not been understood or has been misunderstood or that the utterance is ill-formed in some way. This means that clarification requests can refer to problems in either comprehensibility or accuracy, or both (Lyster & Ranta, 1997, p. 47). Similarly, self-initiated clarification attempts also reflect the NNSs realization that his/her utterance or part of it was not understood or was misunderstood by the interlocutor(s), or that the utterance was/is ill-formed in some way. In either case, the NNS realizes that a reformulation toward greater message comprehensibility is needed to transmit message meaning successfully, to use Picas (1994, p. 498) words. Modified comprehensible output can therefore be operationally defined as the output that NNSs achieve to make an initial utterance more accurate and/or more comprehensible to their interlocutor(s) in response to (a) other-initiated clarification requests and (b) self-initiated clarification attempts.3 On the basis of this definition, the model operates according to two different but closely related mechanisms. The first mechanism (TSOIORO) implies the presence of interpersonal negotiation of information units, which may be described as routines/ instances in which negotiation of meaning in the direction of greater message comprehensibility takes place between interlocutors. This mechanism is demonstrated by the following excerpt, which illustrates a simple routine for the negotiation of meaning between two NNSs. Here and throughout the excerpts cited, underlined items refer to the trouble-source (TS), italicized items to the outcome (O), and items that are both underlined and italicized refer to an outcome that is still a source of trouble. Numbers in parentheses refer to the length, in seconds, of a pause or cutoff within a speech turn or between speech turns.
Shehadeh
645
NNS1: NNS2: NNS1: NNS2:
two small bottle two small what? bot (1.0) small bottles yeah
TS OI O RO
Below is an excerpt of an extended negotiation of information unit that illustrates complex and embedded layers with a series of three signal-response exchanges for the negotiation of meaning: NNS1: NNS2: NNS1: NNS2: NNS1: NNS2: NNS1: NNS2: and another side one in that er (1.0) in side of table emm nabikin is hanging what? nappikin or towil what? towel or nappkin for er rubbing hand I dont know what is it (1.0) what is this for? for men to dry hands after washing towel towel uhh washing to dry hands yes yes TS OI O/TS OI O/TS OI O RO
The second mechanism (TSSIORO) implies the provision of information units that are completed without negotiation of meaning. These may be described as routines/instances in the direction of greater message comprehensibility in which no actual negotiation of meaning takes place. This mechanism is demonstrated by the following example, which illustrates a series of NNSs self-initiated clarification attempts leading to IL modification toward comprehensibility. NNS: yes because if the woman is (0.8) the wife always go out (0.6) goes out and left his his husband eh (1.0) her husband and her son in the home (0.7) at home its its not reason able for for . . .
It is worth noting that the reason self-initiated modifications have not been previously studied within the task-based framework used in the present study is that repair and its various outcomes (e.g., modified input, feedback, and modified output)
646
Language Learning
Vol. 49, No. 4
have been investigated within the context of negotiation, seen as a mutual activity that occurs during episodes of mutual attempts to clarify message meaning (see, for example, studies by Gass & Varonis, 1986; Nobuyoshi & Ellis, 1993; Pica, 1988; Pica et al., 1989; Pica et al., 1991; Pica et al., 1996; Van den Branden, 1997; Varonis & Gass, 1985). In this sense, self-initiated clarification attempts appear to fall slightly out of the operationalized definition of negotiation moves. However, the present study will look at both initiation types, because, as demonstrated above, both give the NNS the chance to modify his/her IL utterances toward greater comprehensibility in order to transmit message meaning successfully (see also Swain, 1998; Swain & Lapkin, 1995, for a similar position).
Coding of Data
All data were coded on the basis of the model proposed above and according to the categories displayed in the Appendix. The data were coded/marked for the following categories: (a) otherinitiated clarification requests in which interlocutors requested clarification, made an explicit statement of nonunderstanding, or requested reformulation, explanation, expansion, paraphrase, or elaboration;4 (b) self-initiated clarification attempts in which NNSs attempted to clarify or reformulate an utterance or part of it by lexical means or nonlexical means when they realized their output was not understood or was misunderstood, or that it was/is ill-formed in some way; (c) NNSs response to (a), including coding for the particular outcome type (ignoring the signal for repair, failing to repair,appealing for help [direct and indirect],expressing difficulty in repairing, switching the topic, or successfully producing MCO); (d) NNSs response to (b), including coding for the particular outcome type (failing to repair, appealing for help [direct and indirect], expressing difficulty in repairing/communicating the intended message, switching the topic, or successfully producing MCO). It is worth mentioning that in the NNS-NNS interactions, just like NS-NNS interactions, the focus was on one NNS
Shehadeh
647
onlythe NNS whose role was to describe the picture to his/her task partner (on the picture-dictation task)and on that same NNS on the opinion-exchange task. More precisely, in all interactions, the focus was on one NNSs responses to (a) self-initiation and (b) an NS or NNS partner initiation. All data were coded for c-units, as defined by Brock et al. (1986) as utterances (words, phrases and sentences, grammatical and ungrammatical) that provide linguistic, referential, or pragmatic meaning to NS-NNS and NNS-NNS interactions. Based on a 20% sample of data, interrater reliability for the coding was .92. This sample was coded by three raters, myself and two other trained raters of the nine NSs who had already double-checked and verified the transcriptions for accuracy.
Analysis
The data collected for each hypothesis were analyzed in terms of frequencies, proportions, and percentages, and for level of significance. The first analysis examines the frequencies, proportions, and percentages of initiations (other and self) in relation to tasks (picture-dictation vs. opinion-exchange), encounters (NS-NNS vs. NNS-NNS), and the proportions of MCO instances provided in these contexts, including their provision after one-signal or extended-negotiation routines. The second type of analysis relates to the level of significance of the MCOs produced. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was used to examine the frequency of MCOs produced in relation to type of speech partner, type of task, and type of initiation.5 The level of significance was set at .05.
Results
Hypothesis 1(a)
The first part of Hypothesis 1 predicted that NNS-NNS interactions would provide a greater proportion of other-initiated
648
Language Learning
Vol. 49, No. 4
clarification requests than NS-NNS interactions. To test this prediction, proportions of NS other-initiations were compared to proportions of NNS other-initiations on the same task. This prediction was partially supported by the results. On the one hand, there were no significant differences between the total proportion of NS other-initiations and NNS other-initiations on the picturedictation task and the opinion-exchange task when taken together, F(1, 30) = 1.31, ns, nor when the opinion-exchange task was taken alone, F(1, 14) = 0.06, ns. On the other hand, however, a level of significance was achieved on the picture-dictation task when taken alone, F(1, 14) = 8.46, p < .05, showing that the proportion of NNS other-initiated clarification requests was greater than that of NS other-initiated clarification requests on this particular task. These results are shown in Table 1.6 As Table 1 shows, a total of 212 other-initiated clarification requests were made across both tasks, 88 cases (or 42%) of which were initiated by the NS partners and 124 cases (or 58%) by the NNS partners.
Hypothesis 1(b)
The second part of Hypothesis 1 predicted that NNS-NNS interactions would result in a greater proportion of self-initiated clarification attempts than NS-NNS interactions. To test this
Table 1 Frequencies and Proportions of NS Other-Initiations and NNS Other-Initiations NS other-initiations n 74 14 88 % 41 47 42 NNS other-initiations n 108 16 124 % 59 53 58
Task Picture-dictation Opinion-exchange Total
Total n 182 30 212
Shehadeh
649
prediction, frequencies and proportions of self-initiations in NSNNS interactions were compared to frequencies and proportions of self-initiations in NNS-NNS interactions. This prediction was not supported by the results. There were no significant differences between the total proportion of self-initiations in NS-NNS interactions and the total proportion in NNS-NNS interactions on the picture-dictation task and the opinion-exchange task when taken together, F(1, 30) = 0.17, ns, or when looked at separately: F(1, 14) = 0.02, ns, for the picture-dictation task, and F(1, 14) = 0.16, ns, for the opinion-exchange task. The results of this prediction are shown in Table 2. As Table 2 shows, a total of 435 self-initiated clarification attempts were made across both tasks, 212 cases (or 49%) of which were self-initiated by NNSs when their speech partners were NSs, and 223 cases (or 51%) when their speech partners were other NNSs. Unlike the findings of prediction (a) of Hypothesis 1, this finding did not exhibit any significant differences in the performance of NNSs with regard to self-initiation in both types of interaction.
Hypothesis 1(c)
The most important part of Hypothesis 1 relates to the possible association of type of speech partner with NNS production of MCOs.
Table 2 Frequencies and Proportions of Self-Initiations in NS-NNS Interaction and NNS-NNS Interaction Self-initiations in in NS-NNS interaction n 115 97 212 % 50 48 49 Self-initiations in in NS-NNS interaction n 117 106 223 % 50 52 51
Task Picture-dictation Opinion-exchange Total
Total n 232 203 435
650
Language Learning
Vol. 49, No. 4
This is the motivation underlying the third prediction of this hypothesis. Hypothesis 1 (c) predicted that there would be a greater proportion of MCOs produced in NNS-NNS interaction than NS-NNS interaction. To test this prediction, proportions of the MCOs produced in NS-NNS interactions were compared to those produced in NNS-NNS interactions (Table 3). Results of ANOVA produced mixed support for this prediction. On the one hand, the first case, which deals with the occurrence of NS-initiated MCOs versus NNS-initiated MCOs produced on the picturedictation task, reached significance, F(1, 14) = 20.17, p < .05. On the other hand, no significant differences were observed between the MCOs produced across both tasks and both initiation sources (other- and self-) when all these variables were taken together, F(1, 62) = 1.52, ns, or when the other three cases were looked at separately: F(1, 14) = 0.00, ns, for NS-initiated MCOs versus NNS-initiated MCOs on the opinion-exchange task; F(1, 14) = 0.20, ns, for self-initiated MCOs in NS-NNS interactions versus NNS-NNS interactions on the picture-dictation task; F(1, 14) = 0.35, ns, for self-initiated MCOs in NS-NNS interactions versus NNS-NNS interactions on the opinion-exchange task. As displayed in Table 3, a total of 573 instances of MCOs were produced across both tasks and all contexts, 258 (or 45%) of which were produced by NNSs when their task partners were NSs, and 315 (or 55%) when their task partners were other NNSs. The findings of Hypothesis 1 so far show that there are very few differences of effect between NSs and NNSs as speech partners. Such differences were observed in the proportion of otherinitiated clarification requests (in 1(a)) and other-initiated MCOs produced (in 1(c)) on the picture-dictation task. One of the basic assumptions underlying the hypothesis under consideration was that NNS-NNS interactions would involve more negotiation of meaning than NS-NNS interactions. With this in mind, it was believed that NNS-NNS interactions would exhibit a greater proportion of extended negotiation routines toward comprehensibility than NS-NNS interactions. Based on this assumption, a further analysis was conducted to see if
Table 3 Frequency of MCOs Produced in NS-NNS and NNS-NNS Interactions in Relation to Source of Initiation and Task Source of initiation Other Self Total MCOs produced in NS-NNS interactions n 54 13 102 89 258 % 37 50 48 47 45 MCOs produced in NNS-NNS interactions n 91 13 109 102 315 % 63 50 52 53 55
Task PD OE PD OE
Total n 145 26 211 191 573
Note. PD: picture-dictation; OE: opinion-exchange.
652
Language Learning
Vol. 49, No. 4
there were any significant differences between the two types of interaction in this respect. As displayed in Table 4, this analysis revealed that there were 53 cases of MCOs produced after extended negotiations in NS-NNS interactions and 84 in NNS-NNS interactions. ANOVA showed that there were significant differences between the two contexts, F(1, 62) = 5.39, p < .05, with the NNS-NNS interactions providing a significantly greater proportion of MCOs produced after extended negotiations than NS-NNS interactions. Overall, the results of Hypothesis 1 revealed that there were some differences between NS-NNS and NNS-NNS interactions with regard to initiation and MCO. Namely, NNS-NNS interactions provided significantly more instances of other-initiations and other-initiated MCOs on the picture-dictation task. They also provided a significantly higher proportion of the MCOs produced after extended negotiations than NS-NNS interactions. On the other hand, there were no significant differences between the two types of encounters with regard to (a) proportions of self-initiations on either task, (b) proportions of self-initiated MCOs produced on either task, and (c) proportions of other-initiations and otherinitiated MCOs produced on the opinion-exchange task. Thus, the findings of Hypothesis 1 lend partial support to the assumption that NNS-NNS interaction would provide better contexts than NS-NNS interaction for other-initiation and self-initiation, and for IL modification toward comprehensibility.
Hypothesis 2(a)
The first part of Hypothesis 2 predicted that there would be greater frequency of other-initiations and self-initiations on the picture-dictation task than the opinion-exchange task. To test this prediction, the effect of type of task on initiation was examined by comparing the total frequency of initiations (other- and self-) on each task. The results showed that there was a total of 647 initiation occurrences across both tasks; 414 (or 64%) of these were made on the picture-dictation task and 233 (or 36%) on the
Shehadeh
653
opinion-exchange task. ANOVA showed that there were significant differences in opportunities for initiation on each task, F(1, 62) = 16.72, p < .01, such that the picture-dictation task provided more initiation instances than the opinion-exchange task. Further analyses were conducted to see if the type of initiation (other- or self-) played any role in bringing about these differences. Examining the frequency of other-initiated clarification requests showed that there were significant differences, F(1, 30) = 86.81, p < .001, between the two tasks. There was a total of 212 cases of other-initiated clarification requests across both tasks; 182 (or 86%) of these were made on the picture-dictation task and 30 (or 14%) on the opinion-exchange task. It is worth noting that although the level of significance adopted for the present study was .05, here the difference between the opportunities provided by the two tasks was significant at the level of .001. Examining the frequency of self-initiated clarification attempts showed no difference between the two tasks, F(1, 30) = 1.24, ns. A total of 435 cases of self-initiated clarification attempts were made across both tasks; 232 (or 53%) of these were made on the picture-dictation task and 203 (or 47%) on the opinion-exchange task. As can be seen from these figures, the occurrence of selfinitiated clarification attempts was almost evenly distributed between the two tasks.
Hypothesis 2(b)
The second part of Hypothesis 2 predicted that there would be more MCOs produced on the picture-dictation task than the opinion-exchange task. In light of the results of Hypothesis 2(a), it is reasonable to expect significant differences between the two tasks in terms of the opportunities each task offers NNSs to modify their IL utterances in the direction of comprehensible output. To test this prediction, the proportion of MCOs produced on the picture-dictation task was compared to the proportion of
Table 4 Frequencies, Proportions, and Percentages of MCOs Produced After One-Signal and Extended Negotiations in NS-NNS and NNS-NNS Interactions Participants NS-NNS interactions Task PD OE Total NNS-NNS interactions PD OE Total
Note. PD: picture-dictation; OE: opinion-exchange.
Initiation source Other Self Other Self
One-signal MCOs n 44 82 9 70 205 % 81 80 69 79 79 64 74 62 82 73
Extended-negotiation MCOs n 10 20 4 19 53 33 28 5 18 84 % 19 20 31 21 21 36 26 38 18 27
Total n 54 102 13 89 258 91 109 13 102 315
Other Self Other Self
58 81 8 84 231
Shehadeh
655
MCOs produced on the opinion-exchange task. The results showed that there was a total of 573 instances of MCOs produced across both tasks; 356 (or 62%) of these were provided by the picturedictation task and 217 (or 38%) by the opinion-exchange task. ANOVA showed that there were significant differences between the two tasks, F(1, 62) = 10.30, p < .05, such that the picturedictation task provided a greater proportion of the MCOs produced than the opinion-exchange task. Further analyses were also conducted here to see if the type of MCOs produced (other-initiated or self-initiated) played any role in bringing about these differences. Examining the frequency of other-initiated MCOs showed that there were significant differences, F(1, 30) = 73.47, p < .001, between the two tasks. There was a total of 171 cases of other-initiated MCOs produced across both tasks; 145 (or 85%) of these were provided by the picture-dictation task and 26 (or 15%) by the opinion-exchange task. Again, it is worth noting that although the level of significance adopted for the present study was .05, here we have another case in which the difference between the opportunities provided by the two tasks was significant at the level of .001. The frequency of self-initiated MCOs produced on each task was examined. The results found no difference between the two tasks, F(1, 30) = 0.58, ns. There was a total of 402 cases of self-initiated MCOs produced across both tasks; 211 (or 52%) of these were provided by the picture-dictation task and 191 (or 48%) by the opinion-exchange task. It is clear from these figures that the occurrence of self-initiated MCOs produced was also almost evenly distributed between the two tasks. Yet, a further analysis was carried out to examine if there were differences between the two tasks with regard to extended negotiations toward the MCO instances produced. As shown in Table 5, there were 91 instances of extended negotiations for the MCOs produced on the picture-dictation task and 46 on the opinion-exchange task. ANOVA showed that the picture-dictation task offered a significantly greater proportion of extended negotiations than the opinion-exchange task, F(1, 62) = 12.57, p < .05.
Table 5 MCOs Produced After One-Signal and Extended Negotiations on Picture-Dictation and Opinion-Exchange Type of MCO produced n Other Other Self Self Other Other Self Self One-signal MCOs % 44 58 82 81 265 9 8 70 84 171 n 81 64 80 74 74 69 62 79 82 79 Extendednegotiation MCOs % 10 33 20 28 91 4 5 19 18 46 n 19 36 20 26 26 31 38 21 18 21
Task Picturedictation
Participants NS-NNS NNS-NNS NS-NNS NNS-NNS NS-NNS NNS-NNS NS-NNS NNS-NNS
Total 54 91 102 109 356 13 13 89 102 217
Total Opinionexchange
Total
Shehadeh
657
Altogether, the results of analysis provided full support for Hypothesis 2. The findings showed that the picture-dictation task provided significantly greater opportunities than the opinionexchange task to initiate clarification and produce MCOs. Further analyses revealed that these differences were primarily due to differences in the frequency of other-initiated clarification requests and the proportions of other-initiated MCOs produced. The occurrence of self-initiated clarification attempts and the proportions of self-initiated MCOs produced were not significantly different between the two tasks. Differences between the two tasks were also found in relation to extended negotiations toward the MCO instances produced, with picture-dictation exhibiting a significantly higher proportion of extended negotiations than opinion-exchange.
Discussion
The overall results of hypothesis testing showed that in most cases trends in the predicted direction were observed, although in some cases not at a significant level. First of all, Hypothesis 1(a) showed that NNS partners provided a greater proportion of otherinitiated clarification requests than NS partners, despite the fact that the differences were not statistically significant (124 instances or 58% vs. 88 instances or 42%, respectively). This finding lends limited support for Varonis and Gasss (1985) position that NNS-NNS interaction provides NNSs with greater opportunities than NS-NNS interaction to negotiate meaning (but see discussion of Hypothesis 1(c) below). Unlike prediction (a), which was partly based on previous research, I am not aware of any study to date that has investigated the proportion of self-initiated clarification attempts in NS-NNS interaction versus NNS-NNS interaction. For this reason, it will not be possible to compare the findings of prediction (b) with those of other research. This study has revealed that the occurrence of self-initiated clarification attempts was almost evenly distributed between the two types of interaction (212 instances or 49% in
658
Language Learning
Vol. 49, No. 4
NS-NNS interactions and 223 instances or 51% in NNS-NNS interactions). This suggests that the occurrence of self-initiated clarification attempts is less likely to be affected by the type of the speech partner (be it NS or NNS) than that of other-initiated clarification requests. Confirmation of this result awaits further research findings. With regard to prediction (c), my findings showed that a significantly greater amount of extended negotiation work took place in NNS-NNS interactions than in NS-NNS interactions for the MCOs produced (84 cases vs. 53 cases, respectively). This implies that NNS-NNS interaction provides NNSs not just with input that they have made comprehensible through negotiation (Varonis & Gass, 1985), but also with more extended negotiation routines to modify their IL utterances toward comprehensible output than NS-NNS interaction provides them. This result further supports observations by Tarone and Liu (1995, pp. 120121) that the interactional context in which L2 learners need to produce output which their current IL capacity cannot handle pushes the limits of their IL system to make it handle the output, a process that gives rise to more extended negotiations. At the same time, this reflects the pressure placed on NNSs in the NNS-NNS interaction to stretch and exploit their IL capacity to the limit in order to make themselves understood, given the limited linguistic knowledge of their NNS interlocutors. With regard to task, Pica et al. (1989, p. 74) found that picture-drawing offered the highest occurrence of NS signals of requests for clarification and confirmation in comparison to jigsaw and discussion tasks (over 20% of NS c-units on the picture-drawing task, 11% of NS c-units on the discussion task, and 9% of NS c-units on the jigsaw task). In this respect, the results of Hypothesis 2(a) provide further confirmation for Pica et al.s (1989) finding that a picture-dictation task offers a significantly higher occurrence of other-initiated clarification requests than an opinionexchange task (182 cases or 86% vs. 30 cases or 14%, respectively). On the other hand, the findings of Hypothesis 2(b) were not consistent with Pica et al.s (1989) study, which investigated the
Shehadeh
659
amount of opportunity each task offers NNSs for the production of modified output. Pica et al. (1989) found that the tasks in which NNSs participated [picture-drawing, discussion, and jigsaw tasks] did not have a significant effect on their modification of their output (p. 77). Contrary to Pica et al.s (1989) findings, the results here revealed that the picture-dictation task did provide NNSs with significantly more opportunities to produce other-initiated MCOs than the opinion-exchange task (145 cases or 85% of the MCO instances produced vs. 26 cases or 15%, respectively). In fact, the finding of Pica et al.s (1989) study was unexpected because, as described above, they also found that the picture-dictation task offered the largest percentage of NS signals of requests for clarification and confirmation in comparison to discussion and jigsaw tasks. Indeed, Pica et al. (1989) themselves were surprised to get this result:
The absence of significant effect for task was surprising since we had predicted that NNS control over information would be shared with NS during the jigsaw and discussion tasks but would persist throughout the information-gap task, and that this would influence the signal-response pattern of our participants. (Pica et al., 1989, p. 78)
However, the finding of the present investigation supports Pica et al.s (1996) study, which showed that type of task may play varying roles in providing learners with opportunities in the direction of comprehensible output. They found that the storytelling task provided NNSs with higher percentages of modification of their output in both NS-NNS and NNS-NNS interactions than the house sequence task. Differences between the two tasks were also observed with respect to the proportion of MCOs produced after extended negotiation routines. Picture-dictation exhibited a significantly higher proportion of extended negotiations than opinion-exchange. This means that when successful completion of the task depends primarily on the NNS supplying accurate and comprehensible output (as in the case of picture-dictation), a higher proportion of extended negotiation routines is more likely to occur.
660
Language Learning
Vol. 49, No. 4
The results of the present study further revealed that the significant differences between the two tasks observed in this study were due to the frequencies of other-initiations and other-initiated MCOs produced and not those of self-initiations or self-initiated MCOs produced. Opportunities for the latter were not affected by type of task, because both tasks provided equally high proportions of self-initiations and self-initiated MCO instances. Type of task only affected the proportions of other-initiations and instances of otherinitiated MCOs produced in favor of picture-dictation. It is important to note here that this study has revealed that the frequencies of self-initiations and self-initiated MCOs produced, unlike those of other-initiations and other-initiated MCOs, are not affected by type of interlocutor (NS or NNS) or type of task (picture-dictation or opinion-exchange). As shown earlier, high proportions of self-initiations and the self-initiated MCOs produced were prevalent in all the contexts and variables examined in the study. This result provides empirical validation for earlier observations about the preference for self-initiated, self-completed repair over other-initiated repair in NS-NS, NS-NNS, and NNSNNS interactions (Brock et al., 1986; Chun et al., 1982; Day et al., 1984; Gaskill, 1980; Kasper, 1985; Schegloff, 1979; Schegloff et al., 1977; Schwartz, 1980). Indeed, this study has shown not only that self-initiated self-completed repairs are more favored than otherinitiated other-completed repairs, but also that their high occurrence is constant across all contexts and encounters. If further studies provide support for these findings, then we may have important pedagogical implications for language learning with regard to the importance of self-initiated self-completed repair in the L2 classroom, in particular that (a) learner-based adjustments should be encouraged over teacher- or peer-based adjustments, and (b) the final objective of repair must be directed toward approximating NS-NS interactional normsnamely, the predominance of self-initiated self-completed repair.7
Shehadeh
661
MCO and L2 Learning
Pica et al. (1989, p. 83) maintained that comprehensible output is an outcome of linguistic demands placed on the NNS by the interlocutors in the course of negotiated interaction. Previous research has shown that NNSs tend to modify and reformulate their output when their NS speech partners signal an explicit need for clarification (Nobuyoshi & Ellis, 1993; Pica, 1988; Pica et al., 1989; Pica et al., 1991; Pica et al., 1996; Van den Branden, 1997). The present study has further shown that NNSs encoded their own modification toward comprehensible output in response to other-initiation and self-initiation, in both NS-NNS and NNSNNS contexts. As displayed in Table 6, the present study revealed that out of 212 cases of other-initiated clarification requests across both tasks, NNSs achieved 171 NNS-based MCO instances (81%); and out of 435 cases of self-initiated clarification attempts, they achieved 402 NNS-based MCO instances (92%). These results are important in light of theoretical conclusions (Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Pica, 1988; Pica et al., 1989) that the NNSs ability to accomplish self-adjusted comprehensible output (i.e., NNSbased MCO) rather than other-adjusted comprehensible output (i.e., interlocutor-based MCO) is evidence that supports Swains (1985, 1993) claim that the comprehensible output forces the learner to move from semantic analysis of the TL to a syntactic analysis of it. And according to Swain (1995) and Swain and Lapkin (1995), when learners move from semantic analysis to syntactic analysis of the TL (i.e., when they attempt to produce the L2), they become aware of (notice) a gap in their current IL performance. Swain (1995, 1998) and Swain and Lapkin (1995) have consistently argued that when learners reprocess and modify their current performance to make it more enhanced, they are engaged in mental processes that are part of the process of language learning. For instance, Swain and Lapkin (1995, p. 374) concluded that pushing learners beyond their current performance level can lead to enhanced performance, a step which may represent the internalization of new linguistic knowledge, or the consolidation of existing knowledge.
662
Language Learning
Vol. 49, No. 4
Table 6 Frequencies, Proportions, and Percentages of Outcome Types in Relation to Other-Initiated Clarification Requests and Self-Initiated Clarification Attempts
Task Other-initiated clarification requests n Outcome MCOs produced n 145 26 171 % 80 87 81 Other outcome typesa n 37 4 41 % 20 13 19
Picture-dictation Opinion-exchange Total Task
182 30 212
Self-initiated clarification attempts n Outcome MCOs produced n 211 191 402 % 91 94 92 Other outcome typesa n 21 12 33 % 9 6 8
Picture-dictation Opinion-exchange Total
232 203 435
aOther outcome types: outcomes not resulting in NNSs production of MCO
(failing to repair, appealing for help, expressing difficulty in repairing the intended message, repeating the trouble-source utterance without modification, switching to a new topic).
Swain and Lapkin (1995) based their conclusion on the findings of a recent introspection study they conducted in which they tried to shed more focussed light on the processes and mechanisms that L2 learners follow to reprocess and modify their IL utterances. The researchers sought to try to arrive at the mental processes . . . reflected in the changes students made to their output (p. 381). They examined the ability of 18 eighth grade immersion students learning French to consciously reprocess their IL output without any sort of external feedback when faced with a performance problem. The task given to the students was to write a report on some environmental problem. The students
Shehadeh
663
were instructed to think aloud while writing, and especially when they were faced with a problem. Swain and Lapkin (1995) found that there were 190 occasions in which students encountered a linguistic problem in their output. In each case the students forced themselves to modify their output toward greater comprehensibility. That is, communicative needs forced students to move from semantic analysis of the language to syntactic analysis of it. Swain and Lapkin argued that on each occasion, the students engaged in mental processing that may have generated linguistic knowledge that is new for the learner, or consolidated existing knowledge (p. 384). In other words, it was argued that in the process of modifying their IL utterances toward greater message comprehensibility, L2 learners are engaged in some restructuring of the system that affects their access to the knowledge base, and that this restructuring process is part of second language learning. If these arguments by Swain (1995, 1998) and Swain and Lapkin (1995) are valid, the present findings provide empirical support for Swains (1985, 1993) earlier theoretical conclusion that comprehensible outputlike comprehensible inputis a mechanism that plays a role in promoting SLA. Accordingly, it will be possible to argue that the function of L2 learners production is not just that of indirectly generating more comprehensible input, as claimed by, for instance, Krashen (1982, 1985, 1994), but also facilitating second language development by providing the learner with an opportunity to produce comprehensible output achieved by reprocessing and modifying his/her current IL capacity toward successful and more accurate use of the target language. By the same token, it is possible to argue further that negotiated interactions are important not just because they provide NNSs with an opportunity to receive input that they have made comprehensible through negotiation (Deen, 1995; Doughty, 1992; Gass & Varonis, 1994; Loschky, 1994; Varonis & Gass, 1985), but also because they provide them with an opportunity for IL modification in the direction of comprehensible output, as shown by this and other studies (e.g., Pica et al., 1996; Tarone & Liu, 1995; Van den Branden, 1997). Based on these considerations, Figure 2 shows a
664
Language Learning
Vol. 49, No. 4
possible link between negotiation of meaning, comprehensible input, comprehensible output, and language learning. It is important to note, though, that this model involves some speculation because no one has yet shown clearly if there is (or if there is not) a direct relationship between interaction with L2 learners, their comprehension of input data, feedback on their IL utterances, and their (modified) performance, on the one hand, and L2 acquisition on the other (Pica, 1994, p. 507). However, Swain and Lapkin (1995, p. 373) speculated that although no one has yet shown directly that these modified, or reprocessed, responses are maintained in the learners interlanguage, the assumption is that this process of modification contributes to second language
Communication that involves negotiation of meaning
Opportunity for less competent NNSs to provide feedback on their current comprehension ability in the L2, enabling their interlocutors to make the necessary simplifications and adjustments to their production
Opportunity for NNSs to expand their current interlanguage capacity in response to otherinitiated clarification requests and self-initiated clarification attempts, to test out hypotheses about the L2, and to move from a purely semantic analysis of the L2 to a more syntactic analysis of it
Modifying input to NNSs (provides)
Modifying output by NNSs (generates)
Comprehensible input
Comprehensible output
Language learning
Figure 2. A link between negotiation of meaning, comprehensible input, comprehensible output, and language learning.
Shehadeh
665
acquisition. The present model is based on the underlying assumption that when learners stretch their current IL capacity and modify their performance to meet communicative demands, they are engaged in cognitive processes that have been implicated in second language learning, to use Swains (1995, p. 130) words.
Conclusion
Perhaps the most important conclusion of the findings of this study is that the role of L2 learners output should be extended beyond just being a source of obtaining feedback in order to generate (more) comprehensible input. If this conclusion is valid, then the present study provides empirical validation for previous theoretical claims (e.g., Hatch, 1978; Hatch et al., 1986; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Sato, 1986; Swain, 1985, 1993; Tarone & Liu, 1995); and it supports the findings of existing experimental and quasi-experimental research (Nobuyoshi & Ellis, 1993; Pica, 1988; Pica et al., 1989; Pica et al., 1996; Swain & Lapkin, 1995; Van den Branden, 1997) into the significance of L2 learners output in language learning. The other conclusion is that if interlanguage modification leading to comprehensibility is found to be integral to successful L2 learning, it is not only other-initiated clarification requests that matter, but more importantly the extent to which self-initiated self-completed modification is a normal learning/teaching strategy because its high occurrence is more prevalent and more constant across all variables and contexts, as shown by this study. However, more focussed empirical research, introspection studies, and retrospective interviews are needed into this seemingly important area, which may ultimately reveal that successful second language learning depends on ways of comprehending input and on ways in which language production relates to acquisition and learning. If further studies provide support for the present findings and these assumptions, learners output should be given a more active role in second language learning.
Revised version accepted 10 May 1999
666
Language Learning
Vol. 49, No. 4
Notes
1
Unlike Varonis and Gasss (1985) model (which considered other-initiations only), the present model takes into consideration both other-initiation and self-initiation of repair. 2 Aston (1986, p. 139) pointed out that sometimes interlocutors do not react to a trouble-source (i.e., they feign comprehension) in order to keep the conversation going, reaffirm satisfactory communication, and maintain a satisfying rapport. 3 A Language Learning anonymous reviewer pointed out that comprehensible output may not necessarily always be correct, or vice versa. This is because interlocutors reactions are sometimes unreliable indicators of comprehension or noncomprehension (Aston, 1986). To an extent, this is true. However, it is assumed here that the adjustments that NNSs make to their performance toward comprehensibility will be achieved by their attempts to provide more accurate/correct and more comprehensible output (see also Lyster & Ranta, 1997, p. 47; Spada & Frhlich, 1995, p. 25, for a similar argument). Furthermore, it is believed that NNSs attempts to modify and adjust their output (whether to make it more accurate/correct or more comprehensible) will expand their current IL capacity (Pica et al., 1996); and the underlying assumption of this study in Swain and Lapkins (1995, p. 374) terms is that pushing learners beyond their current performance level can lead to enhanced performance, a step which may represent the internalization of new linguistic knowledge, or the consolidation of existing knowledge. Nevertheless, isolating and examining the proportion of comprehensible but incorrect/less accurate output versus correct/more accurate but less comprehensible output, and the proportion of output that is more targetlike versus output that is less targetlike, merits an independent and more detailed analysis of NNSs adjusted/modified output. This will be the subject of a future paper. 4 It is well established that explicit corrections and confirmation requests tend not to elicit NNS-generated repair, and thus they are not as conducive to modification of NNS output as clarification requests (see, for example, Aston, 1986; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Pica et al., 1989). For this reason, these were excluded from analysis in this study. 5 Some initiations (other and self) gave rise to other outcome types (those not resulting in MCO), including failure to repair, appealing for help (direct and indirect), expressing difficulty in repairing the intended message, repeating the trouble-source utterance without modification, or switching to a new topic (see the Appendix). Examining the specific proportions, frequencies, and percentages of these outcome types falls outside the scope of the present analysis. These were not reported here, therefore. 6 I did not consider instances of initiation or the MCOs produced by individual dyads because the current study investigated the overall effect of type of speech partner (NS vs. NNS) and type of task (picture-dictation vs. opinion-
Shehadeh
667
exchange) on NNSs ability to adjust their IL performance in response to other- and self-initiations. 7 It must be noted that to some extent this depends on the proficiency level of the learner. For instance, Lyster and Ranta (1997, p. 58) pointed out that this is . . . feasible in L2 classrooms only where learners already possess an adequate level of proficiency.
References
Aston, G. (1986). Trouble-shooting in interaction with learners: The more the merrier? Applied Linguistics, 7, 128143. Brock, C., Crookes, G., Day, R., & Long M. (1986). The differential effects of corrective feedback in native speakernonnative speaker conversation. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn (pp. 229236). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Chiang, C., & Dunkel, P. (1992). The effect of speech modification, prior knowledge and listening proficiency on EFL lecture learning. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 345374. Chun, A., Day, R., Chenoweth, N., & Luppescu, S. (1982). Types of errors corrected in native-nonnative conversations. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 537548. Crookes, G., & Gass, S. (Eds.). (1993a). Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Crookes, G., & Gass, S. (Eds.). (1993b). Tasks in a pedagogical context: Integrating theory and practice. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Crookes, G., & Rulon, K. (1988). Topic and feedback in native speaker/nonnative speaker conversation. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 675681. Day, R., Chenoweth, N., Chun, A., & Luppescu, S. (1984). Corrective feedback in native-nonnative discourse. Language Learning, 34, 1945. Deen, J. (1995). Dealing with problems in intercultural communication: A study of negotiation of meaning in native/nonnative speaker interaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. Dekeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 4263). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Doughty, C. (1992). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431470. Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second
668
Language Learning
Vol. 49, No. 4
language acquisition (pp. 197261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Duff, P. (1986). Another look at interlanguage talk: Taking task to task. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn (pp. 147181). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Frch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983). On identifying communication strategies in interlanguage production. In C. Frch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 210238). London: Longman. Gaskill, W. (1980). Correction in native speaker-nonnative speaker conversation. In D. Larsen-Freeman (Ed.), Discourse analysis in second language research (pp. 125137). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1985). Task variation and nonnative/nonnative negotiation of meaning. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 149161). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1986). Sex differences in nonnative speaker-nonnative speaker interactions. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn (pp. 327352). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1994). Input, interaction and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 283302. Harley, B. (1998). The role of focus-on-form tasks in promoting child L2 acquisition. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 156174). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In E. Hatch (Ed.), Second language acquisition: A book of readings (pp. 401435). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Hatch, E., Flashner, V., & Hunt, L. (1986). The experience model and language teaching. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn (pp. 522). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Hawkins, B. (1985). Is an appropriate response always so appropriate? In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 162178). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Holliday, L. (1995). NS syntactic modifications in NS-NNS negotiations as input data for second language acquisition of syntax. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Kasper, G. (1985). Repair in foreign language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 200215. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
Shehadeh
669
Krashen, S. (1994). The input hypothesis and its rivals. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 4577). London: Academic Press. Long, M. (1983a). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126141. Long, M. (1983b). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation in the second language classroom. In M. Clarke & J. Handscombe (Eds.), On TESOL 82: Pacific perspectives on language learning and teaching (pp. 207225). Washington, DC: TESOL. Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. J. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413468). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 1541). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Loschky, L. (1994). Comprehensible input and second language acquisition: What is the relationship? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 303323. Lynch, A. J. (1988). Grading foreign language listening comprehension materials: The use of naturally modified interaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh, Scotland. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 3766. Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. ELT Journal, 47, 203210. Pica, T. (1982). Second language acquisition in different language contexts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Pica, T. (1988). Interlanguage adjustments as an outcome of NS-NNS negotiated interaction. Language Learning, 28, 4573. Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about secondlanguage learning conditions, processes and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493527. Pica, T., Doughty, C., & Young, R. (1986). Making input comprehensible: Do interactional modifications help? I.T.L. Review of Applied Linguistics, 72, 125. Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., Berducci, D., & Newman, J. (1991). Language learning through interaction: What role does gender play? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 343376.
670
Language Learning
Vol. 49, No. 4
Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 6390. Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language research and instruction. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 934). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D., & Linnell, J. (1996). Language learners interaction: How does it address the input, output, and feedback needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30, 5984. Pica, T., Young, R., & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 737758. Sato, C. (1986). Conversation and interlanguage development: Rethinking the connection. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn (pp. 2345). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Schegloff, E. (1979). The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In T. Givon (Ed.), Syntax and semantics. Vol. 12: Discourse and syntax (pp. 261286). New York: Academic Press. Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for selfcorrection in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361382. Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 163). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Schwartz, J. (1980). The negotiation of meaning: Repair in conversations between second language learners of English. In D. Larsen-Freeman (Ed.), Discourse analysis in second language research (pp. 138153). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Shehadeh, A. (1991). Comprehension and performance in second language acquisition: A study of second language learners production of modified comprehensible output. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Durham, England. Spada, N., & Frhlich, M. (1995). COLT. Communicative orientation of language teaching observation scheme: Coding conventions and applications. Sydney, Australia: National Center for English Language Teaching and Research. Swain, M. (1984). A review of immersion education in Canada: Research and evaluation studies. ELT Documents, 119, 3551. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass &
Shehadeh
671
C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing arent enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158164. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125144). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 6481). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371391. Tarone, E., & Liu, G. Q. (1995). Situational context, variation, and second language acquisition theory. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 107124). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Van den Branden, K. (1997). Effects of negotiation on language learners output. Language Learning, 47, 589636. Varonis, E., & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6, 7190. Wright, R. (1996). A study of the acquisition of verbs of motion by grade 4/5 early French immersion students. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 257280.
Appendix
The First Mechanism: Trouble-SourceOther-InitiationOutcome Reaction to Outcome
Underlined items refer to trouble-source signal and italicized items refer to the outcome. PD = picture-dictation task; OE = opinion-exchange task. Numbers in parentheses refer to the length, in seconds, of a pause or cutoff within a speech turn or between speech turns. 1. NNS trouble-source
672
Language Learning
Vol. 49, No. 4
2. Other-initiated clarification requests (NS or NNS speech partner signal of total or partial lack of understanding follows NNS trouble-source) a. Indication of partial or complete nonunderstanding (PD) NNS: annd on the table you have two flask NS: (1.0) flask? b. Partial repetition of the trouble-source plus a question word (PD) NNS: on the table theres two fask . . . two two what? NS: c. Request for elaboration, expansion, or paraphrasing (PD) NNS: two fas fas what is it for? NS: d. Explicit indication of nonunderstanding (OE) NNS: both of them is not hope this thing divorce happen I didnt understand sorry NS: 3. Outcome a. The NNS may ignore the signal to repair (PD) NNS: (6.0) annd on the back have two pillow NS: at the back? NNS: (6.0) and between the window and towel above the table b. Failing to repair (PD) NNS: annd there is a hannn NS: a what? NNS: a hannker NS: what is it for? NNS: which hanging coat and jacket a hannkker NS: a hanger? NNS: yes (0.8) err also there is two two . . . c. Expressing difficulty in responding to the signal (PD) NS: which corner? NNS: err the pigture is not sure of the er which corner d. Inserting new, but not directly relevant information (PD) NS: can you see the door er full view? NNS: its err rectangular door in the whole
Shehadeh
673
e. Repeating the original trouble-source utterance without modification (PD) NNS: there emm (1.0) they put it in paile NS: sorry? NNS: paile (0.8) understand? f. Confirmation or acknowledgment of signal only (PD) NNS: you have a plaete NS: a plaete? NNS: yes g. Modification of TS utterance (producing other-initiated, selfcompleted MCO) i. Phonological modification (PD) NNS1: its a betroom NNS2: a bed whom? NNS1: a bedroom a bedroom ii. Morphosyntactic modification (PD) NNS1: two small bottle NNS2: two small what? NNS1: bot (1.0) small bottles iii. Semantic modification 1. Synonyms and paraphrasing (PD) NNS2: a table? NNS1: no towel er handkerchief er for washing or bathing 2. Substitution (PD) NNS2: above? NNS1: you have yeah above on the top of the 3. Paraphrase and/or description (PD) NNS2: wha is it? NNS1: desk bedt bed bed bed is used for to sleep in 4. Reaction to outcome a. Comprehension signal (PD) NNS1: annnd two small bottle NNS2: two small what? NNS1: bot (0.6) small bottles NNS2: yeah
674
Language Learning
Vol. 49, No. 4
b. Continuation move (PD) NS: is the bed at the top or the bottom of the picture? NNS: emm (2.0) its on the right side of the picture NS: right carry on
The Second Mechanism: Trouble-SourceSelf-InitiationOutcome
1. Trouble-source a. Phonological (PD) NNS: there is a dtoor door b. Lexical (PD) NNS: on the right of the fo (0.8) of the picture theres c. Morphosyntactic (OE) NNS: but he want wanted her to be at home d. Referential (PD) NNS: (1.0) on the western (0.9) on the eastern wall 2. Self-initiated clarification attempts a. Lexical means (PD) NNS: just in front of me (0.7) I mean behind the door b. Nonlexical means i. Self-initiation of repair exhibited by a pause (OE) NNS: the wife always go out (0.6) goes out and left his his husband eh (1.0) her husband ii. Self-initiation signalled by a cutoff (PD) NNS: just to describe just the woo the direct wall iii. Self-initiation of repair signalled by the use of eh (OE) NNS: they have to be eh (1.0) to get divorced iv. Self-initiation signalled by the use of er (OE) NNS: to take er err to have some independence 3. The outcome a. Failing to self-repair (PD) NNS: beside the door there is a there is a cloat clo clo NS: a coat? b. Indirect appeal for help (PD) NNS: yes a glass (3.0) another thing which name in English I dont know but common in cooks c. Direct appeal for help
Shehadeh
675
(PD)
NNS: what you call on the wood before putting something hanging something? d. Explicit expression of difficulty in repairing/communicating the message (OE) NNS: not not emm I dont know how to say (laughs) e. Repeating the original trouble-source utterance or part of it without modification (PD) NNS: theres two fas (1.0) two fas and a cup f. Modification of TS utterance (producing self-initiated, selfcompleted MCO) i. Phonological modification (PD) NNS: on the left-hand side there is a dtoor door ii. Syntactic modification (OE) NNS: and her son in the home (0.7) at home its its not iii. Morphological modification (OE) NNS: the wife er just only want wanted to to divorce iv. Semantic modification 1. Using synonyms (PD) NNS: I think its also its picture or postcard 2. Exemplification (OE) NNS: in our case in Somalia emm always man likes exactly that the way he thinks but eh for the women emm they do all the activity (0.8) for example if they are farmers they look after the animals 3. Reordering and/or restructuring (OE) NNS: but the question of independence for me is not emm (1.0) I dont agree with the people

Comprehensible Output by Ali Sheadeh

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Comprehensible Output by Ali Sheadeh

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Language Learning 49:4, December 1999, pp.

Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.

Vol. 49, No. 4

Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.

noticing need to communicate output 1 (feedback) -internal -external

-simple inspection -complex thinking

Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.

Vol. 49, No. 4

Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.

Vol. 49, No. 4

Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.

Vol. 49, No. 4

Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.

Vol. 49, No. 4

Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.

Vol. 49, No. 4

Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.

Vol. 49, No. 4

Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.

Vol. 49, No. 4

Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.

Vol. 49, No. 4

Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.

NNS1: NNS2: NNS1: NNS2:

Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.

Vol. 49, No. 4

Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.

Vol. 49, No. 4

Task Picture-dictation Opinion-exchange Total

Total n 182 30 212

Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.

Task Picture-dictation Opinion-exchange Total

Total n 232 203 435

Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.

Vol. 49, No. 4

Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.

Total n 145 26 211 191 573

Note. PD: picture-dictation; OE: opinion-exchange.

Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.

Vol. 49, No. 4

Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.

Initiation source Other Self Other Self

One-signal MCOs n 44 82 9 70 205 % 81 80 69 79 79 64 74 62 82 73

Total n 54 102 13 89 258 91 109 13 102 315

Other Self Other Self

Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.

Participants NS-NNS NNS-NNS NS-NNS NNS-NNS NS-NNS NNS-NNS NS-NNS NNS-NNS

Total 54 91 102 109 356 13 13 89 102 217

Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.

Vol. 49, No. 4

Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.