Learners in Japanese Language Classrooms: Overt and Covert Participation

Learners in Japanese Language Classrooms This page intentionally left blank Learners in Japanese Language Classroom...

Author: Reiko Yoshida

44 downloads 1311 Views 1MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Learners in Japanese Language Classrooms

This page intentionally left blank

Learners in Japanese Language Classrooms Overt and Covert Participation

Reiko Yoshida

Continuum International Publishing Group The Tower Building 80 Maiden Lane 11 York Road Suite 704 London SE1 7NX New York 1NY 10038 © Reiko Yoshida 2009 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Reiko Yoshida has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: 978-0-8264-3429-6 (Hardback) Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The Publisher has applied for CIP data.

Typeset by Newgen Imaging Systems Pvt Ltd, Chennai, India Printed and bound in Great Britain by the MPG Books Group

Contents

Acknowledgements

vi

1. Overt and Covert Speech in Language Classrooms

1

2. A Review of Corrective Feedback and Quantitative Analysis

24

3. Corrective Feedback: Learners’ and Teachers’ Perceptions

55

4. A Review of Private Speech and Quantitative Analysis

130

5. Private Speech: Learners’ and Teachers’ Perceptions

155

6. Reinterpreting Learners’ Participation in JFL Classrooms

224

Appendices

234

References

239

Author Index

249

Subject Index

253

Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to many people who supported the publication of this book. First, I would like to thank Chihiro Kinoshita Thomson and William Armour, supervisors of my Ph.D. thesis, which is the basis of this book, for their support and suggestions during my Ph.D. study. I would also like to thank Amy Snyder Ohta and Tony Liddicoat, who provided valuable comments on a manuscript for this book and very useful advice for submitting a book proposal. My thank also goes to Ikuko Nakane who kindly sent advice about book publication from her own experience. Many thanks to teachers and learners who participated in this project and allowed me to record their speech and have interviews throughout a year. I learned a lot about the learners’ overt and covert participation in classes and the teachers’ and the learners’ perceptions about the learners’ speech. Finally, I would like to thank my family – my mother in Japan and my husband in Australia – for their encouragement and affectionate support which kept me working without giving up. Earlier versions of parts of this book have been published in the following articles: Yoshida, R. (2008). Functions of repetition in learners’ private speech in Japanese language classrooms. Language Awareness, 17(4), 289–306. Yoshida, R. (2008). Nihongo gakushuusha no jyooimen o arawasu puraibeeto supiichi (Affective function of private speech by Japanese language learners). Daini Gengo to shite no Nihongo no Shuutoku Kenkyuu (Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language), 11, 101–121. Yoshida, R. (2008). Perceptions of learners’ private speech by teachers and the learners in Japanese language classrooms. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 2(3), 268–288.

Chapter 1

Overt and Covert Speech in Language Classrooms

This book explores learners’ verbal participation in Japanese as a Foreign Language (JFL) classrooms, in relation to the classroom context and sociocultural factors such as learners’ motivation for language learning and teachers’ beliefs about their teaching. JFL classes at Australian universities usually include more than 20 students, especially at beginning or intermediate levels. From my experience as a JFL teacher, many students do not often ask questions or offer answers spontaneously in class. Practically speaking, it is difficult for a teacher in the limited class time to elicit answers from all students, given that he/she must not only make time to cover various vocabulary and grammatical items, but also allow for a couple of periods of peer work. This means that very few direct interactions between a teacher and a learner occur in class. Moreover, it is not easy to monitor all learners during peer work. Therefore, except when directly interacting with learners, a teacher cannot be sure about what they are doing or thinking. Furthermore, even with direct interaction, the teacher cannot always be certain how the learner has perceived it. How do individual learners perceive their interactions with their teachers or classmates in the classes? What are they actually doing or thinking about when not directly interacting with others? In short, how do they participate in the classes overtly or even covertly? To what extent are teachers aware of learners’ participation? These questions led me to carry out a study on JFL learners’ classroom speech, and on teachers’ and the learners’ perceptions of it. In this chapter, I first discuss how learners’ verbal participation can occur in class and how it may influence learning. I then introduce ‘sociocultural theory’, the theoretical framework of this study. Finally, I indicate the language program where the data of the study were collected, the participants, and methods for the data collection and analysis.

1.1. How Do Learners Participate in Language Classrooms? Second language (SL) and foreign language (FL) learners participate in class in various ways. They directly interact with their teachers by answering

2


questions or asking their own. They also interact with their classmates in peer work. Other than these direct verbal interactions, learners sometimes use private speech1 (Vygotsky, 1986), which is usually produced in a soft voice and directed towards the self and not others, in the classroom (Burdelski, 2001; Ohta, 2001). All speech, including private speech in the classroom, provides learning opportunities for the learners. Ohta (2001) pointed out the importance of studying all types of speech in SL/FL classrooms, as ‘learner production is a rich source of information about SLA 2 process’ (p. 3). Therefore, this study examines JFL learners’ overt participation, which is answering teachers’ questions or responding to the teachers’ or classmates’ feedback, as well as the learners’ covert participation, which is their use of private speech. Learners’ overt verbal participation can also occur other than when they respond to teachers or classmates, however, this study focuses on the situations, which tend to frequently occur in JFL classrooms. In the studies of classroom speech, researchers first focused on the interactions which trigger learners’ overt speech, investigating the direct interactions between teachers and learners. Typical interactions in SL/FL classrooms are different from ordinary conversations, showing particular patterns such as a teacher’s initiation (I), a learner’s response (R), and the teacher’s evaluation of the response (E), as described in Mehan (1979). Heap (1988) renamed the E-turn of a teacher as feedback (F), pointing out that the function of the turn is not only evaluation of the learner’s response. In this I-R-E/F sequence, a teacher asks a learner a question, the learner answers it, and the teacher gives feedback on the learner’s answer (Mehan, 1979, 1985; Ohta, 1999; Sinclair and Coulthard, 1975). The third turn of a teacher can be a positive evaluation of the learner’s correct answer, a negative evaluation of his/her incorrect answer, or a prompt for the learner to find the correct answer (Mehan, 1979). This negative evaluation or prompting is called corrective feedback (CF) and the interactions in giving and receiving CF have been examined in relation to learners’ learning (e.g. Lightbrown and Spada, 1990; Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Ohta, 2001; Panova and Lyster, 2002). In the 1990s, the ‘focus on form’ theory which posited that SL/FL learners should be encouraged to pay attention to particular linguistic forms in communicative language classes became prevalent. ‘Focus on form’ led second language acquisition (SLA) researchers to refocus on the existence of CF in classrooms. CF has been examined in relation to: (1) the learners’ errors that received CF (Lyster, 1998a; Mackey et al., 2000; Oliver, 1995); and (2) the types of CF that trigger the learners’ responses (Lyster, 1998b; Lyster and Ranta, 1997). Teachers often correct learners’ errors by reformulating the errors without mentioning that the answers were incorrect. This type of CF is called ‘recast’ and used most frequently (Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Moroishi, 2001; Panova and Lyster, 2002). The following excerpt in Ohta (2001) shows an example of a recast. T in the excerpt means a teacher, and S1 and Sr are


3

learners: 1

T:

2

S1:

3

Sr:

➙

4

T:

➙

5

Sr:

Ja rokuban, eeto S1-san doo shita n desu ka? Okay number six, S1 ((ask your partner)) what happened? Sara-san wa doo shita n desu ka? Sara-san, what happened? A:h ashi (.) ashi ni::, (.) ke::ga:: (.) oh. Ashi ni, kega o::, (2) o: suru n desu A:h I (.) injury: (.) my leg:: (.) oh. I injure ((error: non-past tense)) (.) my leg. Kega o (.) shita n desu. (Recast) You injured ((past tense)) (.) your leg. Oh. Shita n desu (Uptake) Oh. Injured. (Ohta, 2001, p. 142)

In the fourth line, the teacher corrected the learner’s inappropriate use of the present tense of the verb suru in the previous line by using the past tense of the verb. This is a recast. The learner repeated the teacher’s recast in the last line. Learners’ responses to CF are called ‘uptake’ (Lyster, 1998b; Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Panova and Lyster, 2002). Such CF and uptake can occur between learners and other learners as well as between teachers and learners (Ohta, 2001). However, SL/FL learners use private speech as well as overt speech in classes, and what facilitates their learning is not only direct interactions between teachers and learners and between learners and other learners in the classroom. Ohta (2001) pointed out that learners’ roles in a language classroom are not only addressees, but also auditors and overhearers. For example, in Ohta (2001), adult JFL learners, who were auditors, expressed their answers in private speech when teachers asked questions to either the class or other learners. The teachers’ recasts sometimes incidentally contrasted with the answers of the learners who used private speech. Ohta (2001) defined this type of recast as ‘incidental recast’. Some different types of incidental recasts are found in Ohta (2001), one of which is indicated in the following excerpt. F, one of the learners, is in a direct interaction with the teacher, answering the teacher’s question. B, the other learner, answers the question by using his private speech: 1

T:

2

F:

Denwa shite okimasu. ((writing)) (.) Denwa shtie okimasu (.) Hoka ni wa? Call in advance ((writing)). Call in advance (.) And what else? Sunakku to sarada o sunakku to sarada o shite oku


4

3

T:

4

B:

5

F:

6

B:

➙

7

T:

➙

8

B:

➙

Do ((error: word choice)) snacks and salad, snacks and salads in advance. Sunakku to sarada o:, Snacks and salads ACC:, ((T prompts F to provide a different verb)) °°Tsukete::°° °°attach°° Oh tsukutte (Incidental recast) Oh make °°°oku°°° °°°in advance°°° Tsukutte okimasu (.) (Incidental recast) Make in advance °°°Tsukutte oku°°° (Uptake) °°°Make in advance°°° (Ohta, 2001, p. 143)

As F’s answer in the second line shite oku (do) was incorrect, the teacher tried to elicit the correct answer by repeating the first part of the sentence in the following line. B vicariously answered by using the other inappropriate verb in his private speech in line 4. F realized the appropriate verb and presented the te-form of the verb, and B completed it with an auxiliary verb in the next line. F’s answer in line 5 and the teacher’s repetition in line 7 functioned as incidental recasts for B, and B showed uptake by repeating it in the last line. The initial interaction between the teacher and F was completed and possibly internalized by B, who was an auditor. This example indicates that a teacher’s and a learner’s overt speech in a CF episode were related to another learner’s private speech, and that the learner who used private speech noticed a correct form by covertly participating. Moreover, feedback seems not to be always necessary to facilitate learners’ learning in the SL/FL classroom. According to the ‘output hypothesis’, learners notice a gap between what they actually can produce and what they want to say even without provision of feedback (Swain, 1985; Swain and Lapkin, 1995). Producing language is not merely conveying a message (Swain, 2006). According to Swain (2006): through the process of talking-it-through – to another, with another or with the self – we may come to a new understanding, a new insight – we develop and learn. (p. 97) Swain named this ‘languaging’ to describe ‘the image of language as an activity’ not ‘as a conveyer of a fi xed message’ (p. 96). Lantolf and Thorne (2007) stated that learning happens by participating in ‘culturally organized activity’,


5

which includes: not just the obvious case of interaction with others but also . . . attempt to imitate3 [the linguistic behaviour of others] through private speech or dialogue with the self. (p. 218) JFL learners use private speech not only to answer teachers’ questions to the class or other learners, but also to repeat what teachers or other learners have said, to manipulate sounds or forms of teachers’ utterances, or to covertly respond to teachers or other learners (Burdelski, 2001; Ohta, 2001). The learners’ use of private speech in the classroom may trigger their learning even in the absence of responses to it. In order to understand classroom learning comprehensively, the study of classroom speech should examine learners’ private speech when they are auditors or overhearers as well as the interactions between teachers and the learners and between the learners and other learners when they are addressees. Ohta (2001) found the relationship between CF episodes, which are typical overt interactions in language classes, and learners’ private speech, which is their covert participation in the classes, by pointing out the existence of learners’ responses in private speech to teachers’ questions and the occurrence of incidental CF. However, CF episodes and learners’ private speech may be closely related to each other in more varied ways. Vygotsky (1978) stated that humans’ higher mental functions such as logical memory or the formation of concepts appear twice; first ‘between people as an interpsychological category and then within the child as an intrapsychological category’ (p. 163). Therefore, in order to examine the relationship between learners’ speech in SL/FL classrooms and the process of their target-language learning, it is essential to focus on both their overt and covert speech, which should be complicatedly associated with each other. Given the above, this study investigates both CF episodes between teachers and learners and between learners and other learners, which occur on the interpsychological plane, as well as learners’ private speech, which occurs on the intrapsychological plane, in JFL classrooms.

1.2. Speech in Classroom Contexts: Sociocultural Theory Considering that learners’ classroom speech and teachers’ and the learners’ perceptions of their speech are related to the classroom contexts and sociocultural factors such as learners’ motivation of language learning and teachers’ belief, ‘sociocultural theory’, which was developed by the Russian developmental psychologist, L. S. Vygotsky (1896–1934) and his colleagues, is used as a theoretical framework for this study. Sociocultural theory considers language as one of the most powerful tools of the human mind (Vygotsky, 1978, 1987), and

6


was taken up and supported by researchers of child development such as James Wertsch (1985). Since 1990, sociocultural theory has been interpreted and developed in the studies of SLA (Lantolf, 2000b; Lantolf and Appel, 1994b; Lantolf and Thorne, 2006), in which it considers the contexts where the learning occurs as being crucial. Lantolf and Thorne (2006) stated that sociocultural theory ‘offers a framework through which cognition can be systematically investigated without isolating it from social context’ (p. 1). This book analyses CF and learners’ private speech in the classrooms, based on sociocultural theory, in order to show the relationship between the learners’ learning and the classroom contexts and sociocultural factors. Following Ohta (2001), which is based on Vygotsky’s (1986) viewpoint that the process of development is more important rather than the end-product, this study uses the term ‘learning’ to refer to the process of the learners’ target-language development.

1.2.1. Fundamental Concept of Sociocultural Theory According to Lantolf and Appel (1994a), Vygotsky insisted that consciousness developed in the first place only through activity, and the explanation of consciousness is found in the interaction between humans, and humans to their artefacts. Humans created and invented tools to master and control nature (Vygotsky, 1981a), and humans shaped their world based on their own motives and goals through the use of tools in collaboration with other humans (Lantolf and Appel, 1994a). Therefore, the basic concept of sociocultural theory is that the human mind is mediated and human consciousness is a mediated mental activity (Lantolf, 2000a; Lantolf and Appel, 1994a). Vygotsky (1978) claimed that humans use not only instrumental tools, but also psychological tools such as signs or languages to mediate and control our relationships with others and with ourselves. Language as symbolic artefacts can completely restructure the whole mental operation of ourselves as well as others (Vygotsky, 1997). Moreover, for Vygotsky, principles of sociocultural learning theory can be applied to some different timescales. Vygotsky described four genetic domains for the study of higher mental functions, such as voluntary attention, intentioned memory and logical thinking, according to the timescales and the characteristics as follows (Lantolf, 2000a): 1. the phylogenetic domain is concerned with how human mentation has been passed through the generations and how it came to be distinguished from mental processes of non-human animals; 2. the sociocultural domain is concerned with the development of different types of symbolic tools by human cultures; 3. the ontogenetic domain focuses on how individual infant children appropriate and integrate mediational means (language) in the early development; and


7

4. the microgenetic domain looks at how new concepts are acquired through social/interactional means for a relatively short time-span. In microgenesis, it is generally believed that the reorganization and development of mediation can sometimes be traced in a talk between a novice and an expert. Microgenesis is central in sociocultural studies of second and foreign language learning (Mitchell and Myles, 1998). In a sociocultural perspective, learning can be explained as the internalization of new concepts through activities mediated with languages. When a particular form of a language is internalized, the learner becomes self-regulated regarding the form. Learning can occur when learners act with the assistance of others or the language as cultural artefacts within their zone of proximal development (ZPD). This type of assistance is often referred to ‘scaffolding’. To create ZPD through joint activities, intersubjectivity needs to be established between the interlocutors. Moreover, the internalization of a target language is influenced by the learners’ motives and the learners’ language learning goals (Activity Theory). These theories of internalization and the ZPD were established by Vygotsky himself, and the other theories of regulation, scaffolding, intersubjectivity and activity theory were developed by educational psychologists or applied linguists who followed his views. These theories will be explained in the following sections.

1.2.2. Internalization Vygotsky (1978) stated: In the initial phase reliance upon external signs is crucial to the child’s efforts. But through development these operations undergo radical changes: the entire operation of mediated activity (for example, memorizing) begins to take place as a purely internal process. (pp. 55–56) Lantolf (2000a) described internalization as a process through which a person changes from implementing concrete action with support of material artefacts or other individuals to implementing the actions mentally without any external support. Moreover, according to Lantolf and Thorne (2006), internalization is a person’s progressive achievement of ‘independence from specific concrete circumstances’ through ‘the idealization of social material activity’, however, even after the internalization the person keeps depending on ‘the mediational means’ available in concrete social environments (p. 159). Thus, Lantolf and Thorne stated that, even when individuals are alone, their performances are never asocial, because they use psychological tools genetically rooted in ‘socioculturally organized concepts, artifacts, and activities’ (p. 159). Lantolf and Thorne emphasized Vygotsky’s view that internalization is not a process that

8


an external model is transferred to formulate an internal duplicate, pointing out that the process is transformative. Vygotsky (1978) described the process of internalization as a series of transformations as follows: (a) An operation that initially represents an external activity is reconstructed and begins to occur internally. (b) An interpersonal process is transformed into an intrapersonal one. (c) The transformation of an interpersonal process into an intrapersonal one is the result of a long series of developmental events. (pp. 56–57) Vygotsky (1978) stated that for the internalization of cultural forms of behaviour to take place, psychological activity should be reconstructed according to sign operations. CF episodes are the interactions mediated with languages. Being involved in the CF episodes may lead the learners to internalize the forms or expressions that were targeted in the CF. As languages reconstruct the mental operation of not only others, but also the speakers themselves, learners’ private speech may trigger the internalization of the forms or expressions that are used by the speakers.

1.2.3. Regulation The theory of regulation is related to the theory of internalization. As described in the previous section, any function in a child’s cultural development emerges first in the interpsychological plane and next in the intrapsychological plane (Vygotsky, 1981b). According to Lantolf and Appel (1994a), the change from the intermental to the intramental plane indicates that a child has started to gain control over its own behaviours. This view overlaps Vygotsky’s (1978) internalization and Lantolf’s (2000a) explanation of the internalization. Wertsch (1979) categorized child development into three different stages: object-regulation, other-regulation and self-regulation. At the early stage of mental growth, a child’s ability to gain control over its environment is very limited, that is, the child is object-regulated. According to Wertsch (1979), at this stage, the child’s attention is attracted exclusively to its physical environment. At the next stage, the child becomes able to carry out certain tasks or activities under the guidance of a parent or more skilled individuals. At this stage, the child is other-regulated. Finally, the child becomes capable of autonomous functioning without any obvious external assistance. In short, the child comes to arrange and regulate its mental and physical activity through the appropriation of the regulatory ways utilized by others (Lantolf, 2000a). This is called self-regulation. Wertsch (1979) stated that private speech emerges in the process where the child is achieving self-regulation.


9

Ohta (2001) suggested that the increase of learners’ autonomy indicates an increase of their internalization of a target language. This means that when learners become more self-regulated, they are developing internalization. Therefore, it is necessary to examine to what extent learners are self-regulated or not in CF episodes as well as their use of private speech to find out their development of internalization.

1.2.4. Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) Vygotsky (1978) defined the ZPD as follows: It is the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers. (p. 86) Vygotsky (1978, 1986) explained that the idea of ZPD gives a more useful clue than the actual mental age of a child in terms of its intellectual progress. The degree of difficulty of solving problems for a child depends on how the problems are close to those solved independently by that child. At a particular level of complexity of the problems, children fail even with any kind of assistance. Vygotsky argued that it is not efficient to provide children with only problems they are able to manage without support. He suggests that the idea of ZPD should be taken into consideration for good instruction, because what children can do with assistance today is what they can do on their own tomorrow. Litowitz (1993) examined the literature regarding sociocultural theory and found that the ZPD not only indicates the transmission of cultural knowledge, but it also helps the internalization of dyadic roles and dialogic positions related to that knowledge. He also pointed out that in child–adult interactions, rejections of carrying out activities by children could mean early attempts of performance of adults’ functions of selecting and organizing activities. If provision of CF creates learners’ ZPD, learning may occur through the CF episodes. If learners use private speech within their ZPD, new linguistic forms or expressions that were used in the private speech may be internalized.

1.2.5. Scaffolding According to Wood et al. (1976), scaffolding is provided by an expert to a novice in their interaction of a problem-solving task. This scaffolding allows the novice to achieve the portion of the task that is beyond his/her current level of competence. Wood et al. (1976) described the six functions of scaffolding


10

as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Recruitment [recruiting interest in the task]; Reduction in degrees of freedom [simplifying the task]; Direction maintenance; Marking critical features; Frustration control; Demonstration [indicating an idealized version of the act to be performed]. (p. 98)

Donato (1994) proved that scaffolding could happen not only between an expert and a novice (e.g. a teacher and a learner), but also between two peers. In Donato’s study, the learners provided support to each other and coconstructed their knowledge. Donato called this type of scaffolding ‘collective scaffolding’.4 Stone (1993) also reviewed the literature about scaffolding and found two important points in the scaffolding between the two participants in an activity: (1) some minimal set of presuppositions about the situation at hand should be shared; and (2) each participant’s perspective should be respected. Moreover, Stone referred to the importance of non-verbal communicative devices (gestures, eye gazes and pauses) in the scaffolding process. Sharpe (2006) also pointed out the importance of multimodal strategies such as visual support (e.g. written explanations on the whiteboard) as well as scaffolding by way of dialogue to provide additional support for learners. Scaffolding is relevant to CF. In cases where learners are successfully scaffolded within their ZPD in CF episodes, learning can be triggered through the scaffolding.

1.2.6. Intersubjectivity Stone’s (1993) first suggestion, that is, sharing a presupposition about a situation at hand between interlocutors, is related to the establishment of intersubjectivity. Wertsch (1985) stated that interlocutors may differ in ways of defining or representing the same sets of objects and events in a situation, and explained that when the interlocutors define these objects and events differently, they cannot continue effective communication and their representations of many aspects of the setting become very different. To understand this problem, Wertsch referred to Rommetveit’s notion of intersubjectivity. Rommetviet (1979) states that ‘[c]ommunication aims at transcendence of the “private” worlds of the participants’ and sets up what might be called ‘states of intersubjectivity’ (p. 94). According to Wertsch (1985), intersubjectivity, which is sharing of the objects, events and goals of a task, is established between the interlocutors when they work collaboratively and define the above things in


11

the same way. To achieve intersubjectivity, the social and affective dimension of the task is important as well as the cognitive dimension, and both psychological and the social planes of participation are involved (Wells, 1999). Intersubjectivity is also associated with CF. The establishment of intersubjectivity between the provider and receiver of CF is important to lead the learners to notice or understand the CF.

1.2.7. Activity Theory Based on Vygotsky’s theory that the human mind is mediated through the use of tools and that humans shape their world according to their own motive and goals, A. N. Leont’ev, one of Vygotsky’s colleagues, constructed the Activity Theory (Wertsch, 1985). According to Leont’ev (1981), the same action can have a different motive and be performed in realizing various activities, while the same motive can trigger different goals which invite various actions. Wertsch (1985) explained Leont’ev’s statement, showing that ‘the goal-directed action of moving from one point to another’ could be carried out in various activities ‘such as play, work, or instruction’ (p. 204). Leont’ev also pointed out that what defines ‘action’ is not only the goal, but also the objective circumstance under which the action is executed. To explain this statement by Leont’ev, Wertsch (1985) described that a goal-direct action such as ‘reaching point N’ can be performed differently when the operational condition of the action such as ‘distance involved’ or ‘obstacle on the route to point N’ vary (p. 204). To show the examples of description of ‘motive’, Wertsch (1985) indicated the motives of two particular activities, labour and schooling. According to Wertsch (1985), the common motive of labour is productivity, while the motive of ‘formal schooling activity’ is ‘learning for learning’s sake’ (p. 213). Wertsch explained that in labour activity, errors, which are considered to reduce productivity, are avoided as much as possible, while in the schooling activity, a tutor may even encourage a learner to make errors so that he/she can learn from the errors. Wertsch stated that the same task can be carried out differently when the motive is different. Therefore, the Activity Theory consists of a threelevel scheme: activity, action, operation, which corresponds to motive, goal and operational conditions. Activity Theory has been applied to several SLA studies in the 1990s. For example, Coughlan and Duff (1994) indicated that different SL learners performed a task in different ways due to their different understanding of the task. Coughlan and Duff pointed out that the same task can become different ‘activities’ when the task is actually performed by learners. Spence-Brown (2003) also found that FL learners defined the same tasks differently according to their different goals or motivations for language learning. Gillette (1994) reported that the effectiveness of SL language learning and similar-looking strategies were different between the learners who perceived the course as an


12

opportunity to learn a valuable asset and those who took the course for the imposed requirement. Consequently, learners’ goals and motives for taking a Japanese language course may influence their learning of the linguistic forms or expressions that were targeted or used in CF or private speech.

1.3. The Language Program and the Participants 1.3.1. The Japanese Language Program The data for this study were collected from the Level 2 JFL course at a university in Australia in 2005. The course is composed of approximately 65 students with varying language backgrounds who are in their first, second or third years of their university study. They enrolled in the course after completing the Level 1 or beginners (two 14-week semesters) Japanese language course at the same university, or a Japanese language course at high school, or an equivalent Japanese language course. The students enrolled in the Level 2 JFL course are required to attend a 1-hour lecture and two tutorial classes (2-hour and 1-hour classes) every week in the 14-week semester. The 2-hour tutorial classes given at the beginning of the week were targeted for the data collection of this study. There are three tutorial classes taught by two teachers on Monday afternoon (T1) and evening (T2), and on Tuesday morning (T3). In Semester 1, data were collected from six learners in the T2 class taught by one of the teachers. In Semester 2, as three learners of six were allocated to the other two classes, which were taught by the other teacher, data were collected in all the tutorial classes. Tables 1.1 and 1.2 indicate the classes where the data were collected in Semesters 1 and 2. Names of the learners and the teachers are pseudonyms. Teaching plans for the tutorials were written by one of the teachers so that the teaching contents were same between the classes. The tutorials concentrated on the mechanics of the language such as grammar and vocabulary, and the other 1-hour tutorial attended more to the communicative function of the language. The tutorial class followed a regular pattern, that is, at the beginning of the class, each teacher introduced new kanji, 5 which are Chinese characters in Japanese, for approximately 30 minutes by writing them on the Table 1.1

Schedule of the classes (Semester 1)

Tutorial classes

Dates

Time

Teacher

Learners

T2

Monday

6.00 ~ 8.00

McCartney

Kiki, Erwin, Lily, Catherine, Jessica, Wendy

Number of students 25–31

Overt and Covert Speech in Language Classrooms Table 1.2

Schedule of the classes (Semester 2)

Tutorial classes

Dates

Time

Teacher

Learners

T1 T2

Monday Monday

1.00 ~ 3.00 6.00 ~ 8.00

Ito McCartney

T3

Tuesday

11.00 ~ 1.00

Ito

Kiki Erwin, Lily, Catherine Jessica, Wendy

13

Number of students 16–21 22–27 15–19

whiteboard and explaining the meanings and associated vocabulary. Then the teachers briefly reviewed grammatical forms that the students had been introduced to in the lectures of the same week. The students were required to do related tasks set out in the main textbook or workbook, either in pairs or groups. The teachers usually explained (and the textbook indicated) what linguistic forms should be practised in each task. After the students had done a task with their classmates, the teachers called on some students to share their answers with the class. When their answers were not correct, the teachers showed the correct answers to the class. After 1 hour, the class usually took a 5–10 minute break before resuming the latter half of the lesson. Course materials included the main textbook; supplementary course notes compiled by one of the teachers, including the explanation of grammar, vocabulary lists and information related to each topic in the main textbook; and a workbook accompanying the main textbook.

1.3.2. The Learners Six learners were involved in this study. The information of the learners’ backgrounds related to their Japanese language learning was collected by questionnaire which was given to each learner before the first classroom recording. Additional questions about their backgrounds were asked in the interviews when necessary. The questionnaire is found in Appendix 1. The details of the learners are as follows:

Catherine: Catherine is an 18-year-old female student at the second-year level at the university. She is majoring in psychology. She learned Japanese in the Level 1 course at the same university. She is an overseas student who came to Australia in 2003. She grew up in an English-speaking family in Singapore. She became interested in Japanese after visiting Japan on an exchange program during high school. She does not prepare for class, but reviews what she has learned each weekend. During the semester break, she prepares for the next semester on her own. She has a few Japanese friends with whom she regularly has Japanese conversations. Her goal for taking the course is to be able to have appropriate conversations with Japanese

14


people when she visits Japan for holidays in the future. She has received Distinctions for the assessments in Semesters 1 and 2.6 Erwin: Erwin is a 21-year-old male student at the first-year level at the university. He is an overseas student who came to Australia from Singapore in 2005. He grew up in an English-speaking family in Singapore. He has not chosen his study major yet, although he mentioned that he would major in either linguistics or Japanese. He had no official experience of Japanese instruction before starting the current course. However, he learned Japanese for approximately 4 years by reading a few Japanese textbooks for beginners, watching Japanese videos of TV dramas and listening to Japanese tapes which accompanied the Japanese textbooks. He does not prepare for classes. He reviews what he has learned only occasionally. He has no Japanese friends. His motivation for taking the course is to obtain an opportunity to learn Japanese in a formal setting. He has received Distinctions for the assessments for Semesters 1 and 2. Jessica: Jessica is a 19-year-old female student at the third-year level at the university. She is majoring in politics and economics. She was born in China and immigrated to Australia with her family in 1996. She took Japanese in the Level 1 course at the same university. She reads through the textbook before classes and reviews what has been introduced in class before the exams. She has no Japanese friends. Her goal for taking the course is to pass the subject as one of her elective subjects. She has received Passes for the assessments for Semesters 1 and 2. Kiki: Kiki is an 18-year-old female student at the second-year level at the university. She is majoring in psychology and international business. She is an overseas student who came to Australia in 2000 from China and completed high school in Australia. She learned Japanese in the Level 1 course at the same university. She visited Japan for a 2-week holiday. She does not prepare for classes, but reviews what has been introduced in class before the exams. Her mother, who lives in China, is very keen for her daughter to learn Japanese, and Kiki received private Japanese tutoring from a Chinese tutor for 3 months in 2004 in China before starting the Japanese course at the university in Australia. She met the private tutor three times a week, and each tutoring session took 2 hours. She learned both speaking and grammar in Japanese from the tutor, who was a university student who had stayed in Japan for 6 months. Kiki still meets the private tutor when she goes back to China in semester breaks. During these breaks, she prepares for the next semester with her Japanese language tutor in China. When she finds ‘good-looking boys’, she makes notes in Japanese so that her friends cannot read them. She also exchanges e-mails in Japanese with a Japanese friend in Japan once a month. Kiki takes the course, because her mother would like her to learn Japanese, and she is interested in staying in Japan


15

in the future in order to go shopping and meet ‘good-looking Japanese guys’ there. She has received a Pass for the assessment for Semester 1 and a Credit for the assessment for Semester 2. Lily: Lily is a 19-year-old female student at the second-year level at the university. She is majoring in interior architecture. She was born in China and immigrated to Australia with her family in 1995. She took the Level 1 Japanese course at the same university after learning Japanese at high school for 2 years. She speaks Chinese at home with her family. She stayed with a Japanese host family in Japan for 15 days in 2000. She does not prepare for classes, but reviews what has been introduced in class, usually on the weekends. She had a Japanese friend who stayed in Australia when she was at high school. She does not contact her anymore, because she went back to Japan. She is taking the course, because she likes Japan and would like to obtain further knowledge about Japanese language and culture. She was also interested in going to Japan as an exchange student. She has received a Distinction for the assessment for Semester 1.7 Wendy: Wendy is a 19-year-old female student at the second-year level at the university. She is majoring in English and Japanese. She was born in Australia, although her parents are from Hong Kong. She learned Japanese in the Level 1 course at the same university. She has visited Japan three times for holidays (5 days each). She started meeting a private tutor who is a native Japanese speaker in the middle of Semester 1 to review what she was learning in class. She takes the course to fill the requirement as her second major. She is also interested in teaching English and learning Japanese to improve her speaking skills in Japan after graduating from the university. She has received a Pass for the assessment for Semester 1 and a Credit for Semester 2. Table 1.3 shows brief descriptions of the learners.

1.3.3. The Teachers Two teachers were involved in this study. The teachers’ background information related to their Japanese language learning and/or teaching was obtained by asking them questions during the stimulated recall (SR) interviews. The details of the teachers are as follows:

Ito: Ito is a native speaker of Japanese and the coordinator of the course. She teaches the 1-hour lectures, and the 1-hour and 2-hour tutorials. She has 14.5 years experience in Japanese language teaching. She came to Australia from Japan to teach Japanese in 1989. She taught Japanese at a high school for a year and has been teaching Japanese at the university since 1990.

McCartney: McCartney is a non-native Japanese language teacher who worked as a journalist in Japan for 14 years. He is a Caucasian Australian


16

Table 1.3

The learners

Name

Major

Previous Japanese instruction

Experience of staying in Japan

Native language

Catherine

Psychology

1 year

10 days in 2000

Erwin

Undecided

None

Jessica

Politics Economics Psychology International Business Interior Architecture English Japanese

4 years (self-study) 1 year 1 year and 3 months

14 days in 2002

English Chinese English Chinese English Chinese Chinese

3 years

15 days in 2000

1 year

5 days in 2003, 2004 and 2005

Kiki

Lily Wendy

None

English Chinese English

male. He teaches the 1-hour and 2-hour tutorials. He came back to Australia from Japan in 1997. He has 4 years’ experience in teaching Japanese language at university.

1.4. Methods for Data Collection and Analysis An ethnographic approach was used for data collection in the study. The data were collected by the following three methods: (1) classroom observation, (2) audio and video-recording of the classes and (3) SR interviews. Nunan (1992) described the characteristics of ethnography as follows: methods of data collection (e.g. observations or interviews) are naturalistic and contextual, the type of data analysis is interpretative and discursive, and hypotheses are usually found after data analysis. From a sociocultural perspective, the context in which behaviour occurs is regarded as having a significant influence on that behaviour; therefore, an ethnographic approach was thought to be appropriate for this study. Data analysis consists of two stages. First, the learners’ errors that triggered CF, the CF itself, the learners’ responses to the CF and the learners’ private speech were categorized based on the transcribed data, and descriptive quantitative analysis was carried out to find out general patterns of CF episodes and the learners’ private speech. Secondly, CF episodes and the learners’ private speech in the transcripts were examined qualitatively with the methods of discourse analysis and conversation analysis, referring to the learners’ and the teachers’ comments in their SR interviews, in order to analyse CF episodes and the learners’ private speech and the teachers’ and the learners’ perceptions


17

of them more deeply in relation to the classroom contexts and sociocultural factors.

1.4.1. Audio and Video-Recording The speech of Ito and McCartney and six learner-participants in three different classrooms were audio-recorded ten times each (each class went for 2 hours), with 40 hours in total. The learner-participants wore small clip-on microphones to record all their speech including private speech in each class. Due to some technical problems, one recording of Catherine and Jessica in Semester 1 and one recording of Kiki in Semester 2 were missed. McCartney wore a clip-on microphone with a small cassette recorder to record his speech. Ito’s speech was not individually recorded, because her speech was always clear on the tapes of the learners. A video camera was set at the front of each classroom and focused on the learner-participants. Video-recordings included the learners’ behaviours, the teachers’ behaviours when they moved towards the back of each classroom, the teachers’ speech, and verbal interactions between the teachers and the learners when the teachers asked task questions to the class or to particular learners, or when the learners asked the teachers questions in a teacherfronted situation. However, it was discovered that one video camera could not cover the whole class in cases when the room was large. As I did not control the learner-participants’ sitting positions in the classrooms, the video camera did not always include the six learners in Semester 1. It was possible to record all the learner-participants in each class in Semester 2. However, the video-recording could not include the learners’ facial expressions when they sat in the back of the classrooms. Moreover, as the camera was set at the front of the class facing the learners, the recordings sometimes did not include the teachers. Therefore, video-recorded data were used to supplement data from observations, audio-recordings and SR interviews. Tables 1.4 and 1.5 set out the dates when data for the audio and video-recordings were collected. I listened to the audio-recorded tape of each learner before conducting the SR interviews with them in the same week of the classroom recording, and took

Table 1.4

Weeks the data collection was carried out (Semester 1)

Week of the semester

Date

3rd week 5th week 9th week 12th week 13th week

14 Mar. 4 Apr. 2 May 23 May 30 May

Class T2 T2 T2 T2 T2


18

Table 1.5 Weeks the data collection was carried out (Semester 2) Week of the semester

Date

Class

Date

3rd week 5th week 7th week 11th week 13th week

8 Aug. 22 Aug. 5 Sept. 10 Oct. 24 Oct.

T1 & T2 T1 & T2 T1 & T2 T1 & T2 T1 & T2

9 Aug. 23 Aug. 6 Sept. 11 Oct. 25 Oct.

Class T3 T3 T3 T3 T3

notes based on all teacher speech, learner-participant speech and other learner speech before or after the learner-participants’ speech. I then marked the parts where CF episodes (both direct and incidental CF) occurred and the learners’ speech that I considered as their private speech, which was not the responses to others’ questions or comments directed particularly to them and vocalized softly. I watched the video-recordings of the classrooms after the interviews with the learners were carried out, and recorded non-verbal behaviours of both the learners and teachers in the corresponding part of these notes.

1.4.2. Classroom Observation I observed all the audio/video-recorded classes. Observation notes were taken and included sitting positions of the learner-participants, all items that the teachers wrote on the whiteboard such as newly introduced kanji, example sentences that include new grammatical forms, or answers of some task questions from the textbook or workbook, contents and procedures of the tasks used, as well as the behaviours of the teachers and the learner-participants. I particularly focused on the verbal and non-verbal behaviours of the learner-participants; however, all the interactions between the teachers and the learners in the class including the learner-participants were noted. When the learner-participants came late to the class, the time when they arrived and what the class was doing at that time was also recorded. In pair or group work, learners with whom the learner-participants worked were also noted. My comments on the teachers, learners or tasks used in the class were added, when I found anything particular during the observations. Both English and Japanese were used to take notes. The points that were focused on and noted in the observations can be found in Appendix 2. While a non-participant observation technique was basically employed, McCartney sometimes asked me for my comments as a native speaker about whether his Japanese expressions or the learners’ answers of task questions were appropriate or not in the class. When these occurred, I provided my comments. When McCartney provided a wrong kanji on the board and a wrong answer for one of the task questions, I pointed out that they were wrong. At the other times,


19

I listened to the class without providing my answers or comment. The observation notes were referred to when I listened to the audio-recorded tapes and watched the video-recorded tapes, when I made the transcriptions while listening to the audio-recorded tapes, and when I analysed the transcribed data.

1.4.3. Stimulated Recall Interview Pica (1994) pointed out that negotiation data seldom indicate clearly whether or not learners perceive the differences between their own production and a target model. As the study investigates the perception of CF and the learners’ private speech by learners and teachers, it was necessary to obtain the comments of the learners and the teachers on what they perceived when the learners’ speech occurred in the classrooms. Nunan (1992) described SR interviews as follows: a technique in which the researcher records and transcribes parts of a lesson and then gets the teacher (and, where possible, the students) to comment on what was happening at the time that the teaching and learning took place.8 (p. 94) I carried out interviews with both the teacher-participants and the learnerparticipants individually. Interviews with the learners were carried out after each recorded classroom session in the same week. Most of the interviews with the teachers were conducted at the beginning of the next week following the classroom recording because of their schedule. Each interview took 1 to 2 hours. Interviews with the learners were conducted in English. Interviews with Ito were carried out in Japanese, as that was the first language for both this teacher and myself. Both English and Japanese were used for interviews with McCartney to make the communication easier for the teacher and myself. All interviews were audio-recorded on cassette tape. Each interview consisted of two stages in the first three interviews in Semester 1 (3rd week to 9th week) and three stages in the last two interviews in Semester 1 (12th and 13th weeks) and in all the interviews in Semester 2. At Stage 1, I showed kanji introduced in class and the tasks done in the class to both the learners and the teachers and asked them for their general comments on these ‘kanji’ and tasks. At Stage 2, I and the participants listened to the tapes of the classroom recordings. In Semester 2, between Stages 1 and 2, I then asked the learners the task questions for which the learners’ answers were incorrect or inappropriate and where direct or incidental CF occurred after the answers in the classes. Due to time restrictions of the interviews, the audio-recordings of the classes could not be heard in full, so marked sections containing CF episodes and the learners’ speech that I considered as their private speech was played to all participants.

20


The participants could make comments at any time during the interviews. When the participants started their comments, I stopped the tape of the classroom recording and listened to them. I first asked the learners and the teachers what they were thinking about, when CF episodes and the learners’ private speech occurred in the classes, according to Gass and Mackey’s (2000) suggestion. When the participants do not provide sufficient information, further questions were asked. In terms of CF episodes, I asked the learners questions to find out whether they noticed and understood the CF after they occurred in the class. When the learners did not notice or understand the CF, I asked them what they were doing or how they were feeling at that time in the class to find the reasons why their noticing or understanding of the CF did not occur. I asked the teachers questions about their intentions behind providing particular CF, whether they considered that the learners noticed and/or understood their CF in the class, and why they thought that the learners noticed or understood or did not notice or understand the CF in the class. In terms of the learners’ speech that I considered as their private speech, I asked the learners what they were doing/thinking while talking and whether they were speaking to the teachers or classmates to find out whether it was private speech. I asked the teachers whether they noticed the learners’ private speech in the class. When the teachers mentioned that they noticed the learners’ private speech, I asked them what they thought about the learners’ speech in the class. Care was taken to elicit the perceptions of the participants at the time the CF episodes or learners’ speech that had occurred in the class, and not their perceptions when they listened to the recorded tapes in the interviews. I also instructed the participants that when they did not remember what they had been thinking about in the classes, to say so. The questions asked in the interviews are found in Appendix 3. During the interviews, I took notes of both learners’ and teachers’ comments made regarding the CF episodes and the learners’ speech that I considered as private speech beside the marked parts on the notes that I had made while listening to the audio-recorded tape of each learner. After each interview, while my memory of the interview with the participants was still fresh, I took further notes about their comments, remembering what they had said in the interviews and listening to the audio-recording of the interviews. I transcribed parts of the interviews where they were necessary in the process of the data analysis.

1.4.4. Transcripts of Audio-Recorded Data After the interviews with the learners and the teachers, I listened to the parts which were marked as the CF episodes and as the learners’ private speech in the notes and listened to in the interviews. Each direct and incidental CF episode was transcribed and coded according to the type of error made by the learners, CF


21

type and a category of the learner’s response. Each private speech of the learners was transcribed with the speech of the teachers, other learners or the learners themselves before and/or after the learners’ private speech, and categorized. I first made the transcriptions while listening to the audio-recorded tape of each learner’s speech in the classrooms. When McCartney’s speech was not clearly recorded on the learners’ tapes, I listened to the audio-recorded tapes of the teacher’s speech in the classrooms and revised the parts of the teacher’s speech in the transcriptions. The classroom observation notes and notes taken while watching the video-recorded data were referred to for information of the classroom procedures and non-verbal behaviours of the learners and the teachers. I added this information in the transcriptions when necessary. Transcriptions were compared with the notes that I took while listening to each learner’s tape before the interviews with them and the categorizations were re-examined. In the transcriptions, both colloquial and word-by-word translations with abbreviations were used according to the importance of showing the meanings and structures of the sentences clearly. In the cases where colloquial translations cannot be adequately given because of the differences in sentence structures between English and Japanese (e.g. incomplete Japanese sentences are usually difficult to translate into proper English), word-by-word translations were given. Translations were done by myself. Transcription conventions and abbreviations used to gloss Japanese are found in Appendix 4.

1.4.5. Discourse Analysis and Conversation Analysis Methods of discourse analysis and conversation analysis were used to analyse the data of CF episodes and the learners’ private speech. Discourse analysis has been utilized in SLA studies, while conversation analysis has been employed in the studies of I-R-E/F sequence in classrooms (Mehan, 1979; Ohta, 1999) as well as SLA studies (Markee, 2000; Mori, 2004). Nunan (1992) explained the difference between discourse analysis and conversation analysis as follows: Discourse analysis has developed within linguistics, . . . discourse analysts have studied textual factors such as the use of reference and conjunction, which contribute to cohesive discourse, as well as the ways in which speech acts such as ‘inviting’, ‘apologising’ and ‘denying’ are performed and interpreted within coherent discourse. Conversation analysis, on the other hand, has emerged from a school of sociology known as ethnomethodology, . . . [and] investigates such things as the management of turn-taking, repair strategies, the resolution of ambiguity, speaker selection, and topical relevance. (p. 160) According to Nunan (1992), discourse analysis is concerned with how the rhetorical routines are carried out in speech, while conversation analysis focuses

22


on the social routines. Nunan (1992) also referred to the difference of the types of data analysis between discourse analysis and conversation analysis, describing discourse analysis as categorical and conversation analysis as interpretative. Researchers in the two fields often draw a strict line between the two methodologies, but this study incorporates features from both. In this study, the data of CF episodes and the learners’ private speech were categorized according to types of the learners’ errors, the CF provided by the teachers or learners, and the learners’ responses after the CF, and types of the learners’ private speech, as previous studies of CF or private studies have done (Burdelski, 2001; Lyster, 1998a, 1998b; Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Mackey et al., 2000; Ohta, 2001). The categorization of the data is effective for indicating general patterns of CF episodes and the learners’ private speech that occur in the classrooms. This follows the tradition of discourse analysis. Individual cases of CF episodes and the learners’ private speech in the transcriptions were also analysed and interpreted in relation to the interview data9 to examine the relationship between the CF episodes or the learners’ private speech and the classroom context or sociocultural factors such as the learners’ goals or motivation. Conversation analysis is used with the detailed descriptions of the situations with the use of transcription symbols.

1.5. Overview of the Book Chapters 2 and 3 concern CF. In Chapter 2, I review previous studies of CF, indicate what are focused on in this study, and discuss the results of quantitative analysis. In Chapter 3, I introduce excerpts of CF episodes with the teachers’ and the learners’ comments in their SR interviews, in order to examine what actually occurred in the classes and how the teachers and the learners perceived the episodes. Chapters 4 and 5 concern the learners’ private speech. In Chapter 4, I review previous studies of private speech, discuss factors that have been overlooked by those studies, indicate analysis and discussion of the quantitative data. In Chapter 5, I discuss the learners’ private speech and the teachers’ and the learners’ perceptions of their private speech, with excerpts of private speech and the comments in SR interviews. In Chapter 6, I suggest reinterpreting JFL learners’ verbal participation in their classrooms and discuss pedagogical implications and the possibility of further studies, referring to the limitations of this study.

Notes 1

Vygotsky (1986) first developed the theory of private speech, although he described this type of speech as egocentric speech. According to John-Steiner (1992) and Lantolf and Thorne (2006), the term ‘private speech’ was coined by


2 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

23

Flavell (1966). This type of speech is expressed as private speech in this study, because the term has been widely used in second language acquisition studies. More detailed explanation of private speech is indicated in Chapter 4. SLA is second language acquisition. ‘Imitation’ in Lantolf and Thorne (2007) means repetition of what a person has heard with some modification or addition, and not an exact copy of what he/she heard, based on Vygotsky’s (1987) definition of imitation. Tharp and Gallimore (1988) stated that although scaffolding mainly focuses on the quantity of adult actions, such as how many levels the scaffolding supports, how the adult acts in assisting a child qualitatively varies from one another. Lantolf and Thorne (2006, 2007) pointed out that in the interpretation of scaffolding, teachers or experts control tasks until learners become able to accept the responsibility for the tasks. They argue, therefore, that scaffolding is ‘incommensurable with the ZPD concept’ (Lantolf and Thorne, 2006, p. 275), due to the lack of an active role of the learners in the interactions. Co-construction of knowledge and joint completion of tasks in collective scaffolding may be closer to the concept of ZPD. The Japanese language consists of three different sets of characters. The other two are hiragana, which is used as particles or with kanji in the expressions such as verbs or adjectives, and katakana, which is mainly used for loan words from foreign languages such as English. The university at which the informants study uses the following grading system: Pass ⫽ 50–64; Credit ⫽ 65–74; Distinction ⫽ 75–84; and High Distinction ⫽ 85–100. Lily’s grade for S2 is not clear. She passed the course; however, she did not tell me which grade she had received. In this study, time restriction before the interviews with the learners after classroom recordings did not allow me to make transcripts. Therefore, transcripts were made after the interviews. In conversation analysis, follow-up interviews are usually not used with video/ audio-recording, as Heap (1997) stated that ‘action is viewed not in terms of what the speaker intended, but in terms of what anyone who witnessed the action could use as legitimate grounds for identifying the action’ (p. 221). However, in my study, SR interviews were implemented to investigate how the teachers and the learners actually perceive CF, the learners’ responses after the CF, and the learners’ private speech.

Chapter 2

A Review of Corrective Feedback and Quantitative Analysis

In this chapter, I introduce the definition of CF and the operationalization of noticing and understanding of CF in this study. Secondly, I review previous studies of CF, discuss the factors that need further examination and indicate research questions about CF. Then I will introduce the categorization of the learners’ errors, CF and the learners’ responses after CF. Finally, I examine the quantitative data.

2.1. Overview of Corrective Feedback 2.1.1. Definitions of Corrective Feedback The definition of CF has its antecedents in studies concerning repairs. In Schegloff et al. (1977), CF is described as a type of repair. Research literature on repair examined the processes through trouble sources in interaction, and how they are resolved (Aston, 1986; Buckwalter, 2001; Chaudron, 1977; Kasper, 1985; Norrick, 1991; van Lier, 1988). Chaudron (1977) named the repair sequence between the teacher and learners after a learner’s error in SL classrooms as ‘corrective interaction’ (p. 29). Chaudron described the teacher’s response to a learner’s error such as comment on the error as ‘corrective feedback’ (p. 29). Over a decade later, when teacher’s feedback on a learner’s errors was focused on given to the impact of ‘focus on form’, Lightbrown and Spada (1990) also called the teacher’s feedback for correcting a learner’s error ‘corrective feedback’. Lyster and Ranta (1997) categorized teachers’ ‘corrective feedback’ into six types: 1. Explicit correction means the teacher’s ‘explicit provision of the correct form’ (p. 46); 2. Recast includes ‘the teachers’ reformulation of all or part of a student’s utterance, minus the error’ (p. 46); 3. Clarification request means the teacher’s use of ‘[a] phrase such as “Pardon me” ’ to ask for clarification of the learner’s utterance (p. 47);

Corrective Feedback and Quantitative Analysis

25

4. Metalinguistic feedback involves ‘either comments, information, or questions related to the well-formedness of the student’s utterance, without explicitly providing the correct form’ (p. 47); 5. Elicitation means the teacher’s technique to elicit a student’s utterance, for example, by ‘strategically pausing to allow students to “fill in the blanks” ’ or by repeating the student’s error (p. 48); 6. Repetition means ‘the teacher’s repetition, in isolation, of the student’s erroneous utterance (p. 48). Ohta (2001) claims that traditional CF research overall investigated the ‘repair initiated and completed by the teacher’ and the ‘repair initiated by the teacher and completed by the student’1 (p. 135). According to Ohta (2001), these studies of CF did not include episodes where a learner’s erroneous utterance incidentally contrasted with the utterance of the teacher or other peers who did not intend to correct the error. Ohta called this type of CF incidental recasts and an example was indicated in Chapter 1. These contrasting utterances were not considered as a type of CF in any other previous research. Ohta argues that the corrective potential of these contrasting utterances to trigger learners’ self-repair or noticing should not be overlooked. Given Ohta’s compelling insight, this study uses CF as broadly defined in Ohta’s study, that is, any utterances, produced by a teacher or learner, that either: (a) initiates repair on a malformed utterance, or (b) contrasts with a learner’s malformed utterance. (p. 135) Moreover, the definition of CF in this study includes teachers’ or classmates’ utterances, which incidentally function as explicit corrections, metalinguistic feedback, repetitions or elicitation to learners’ utterances, other than incidental recasts (a definition of each CF category is indicated in Section 2.2.2).

2.1.2. Noticing and Understanding of Corrective Feedback There is some debate about the importance of learners’ noticing in SL or FL learning. Tomlin and Villa (1994) suggested that learning without awareness is possible. However, Rosa and O’Neil (1999) pointed out that more researchers agree that noticing is a crucial component of SL learning (Leow, 1997; Robinson, 1995; Rosa and O’Neil, 1999; Schmidt, 1990, 1995). Moreover, Schmidt (1995) suggested that understanding (a higher level of awareness) is necessary for learning which includes induction and abstraction related to (semantic, syntactic or communicative) meaning. According to Schmidt (1995), noticing refers to ‘conscious registration of the occurrence of some event’ and ‘surface level phenomena and item learning’ (p. 29). CF does not promote learners’ learning unless the learners notice the feedback provided

26


to them. Therefore, a learner’s noticing of CF seems to be important. In this study, noticing is operationalized as a learner’s noticing of the existence of CF provided by teachers or classmates intentionally or incidentally. The learners’ responses to CF have been focused on to show the effectiveness of CF in previous studies (Lyster, 1998a, 1998b; Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Panova and Lyster, 2002). A learner’s noticing of CF can sometimes be expressed by his/her responses to the feedback. However, a learner’s noticing does not necessarily equate to understanding, and the learners’ uptake, which is expressed as overt verbal responses immediately after CF, does not always indicate their understanding of CF. Even when learners perceive their errors and the correct forms by receiving CF, they may not actually understand why their utterances are incorrect when compared to the correct forms. When learners do not understand the nature of their errors, they cannot transfer the concepts to produce the correct forms to different tasks. Therefore, CF may not be sufficiently effective when learners do not understand why their utterances are incorrect compared to the correct forms. In this study, understanding of CF is operationalized as a learner’s understanding of the nature of their errors and the differences between the errors and correct forms.

2.1.3. Studies of Existence and Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback In the 1990s, a concept called ‘focus on form’ (Long, 1991) became popular. It argued that learners of a SL/FL should be urged to take notice of particular linguistic forms in communicative language classrooms. ‘Focus on form’ led to the refocusing on the existence of CF in classrooms. Oliver (1995), Lyster and Ranta (1997) and Lyster (1998a, 1998b) examined CF in intensive language classes or an immersion program in a primary school. Recasts occurred most frequently, although the uptake rate after recasts was lowest. Most of the teachers’ recasts were similar to non-corrective repetitions and this made the recasts ambiguous to learners. Lin and Hedgcock (1996) and Panova and Lyster (2002) referred to the different perceptions of CF between the adult learners with higher proficiency and lower proficiency. Highproficiency learners incorporated CF more frequently than low-proficiency learners (Lin and Hedgcock, 1996). Recasts that happened most often were more noticeable to proficient learners compared to less-proficient learners (Panova and Lyster, 2002). Experimental studies were carried out to compare the effectiveness of CF (mainly recasts) and models (pre-emptive positive input) for adult learners. Recasts were effective to some extent, at least for short-term improvements of SL structures (Inagaki and Long, 1999; Iwashita, 2003; Long et al., 1998; Ortega and Long, 1997). Recasts were effective for more advanced learners


27

(Mackey and Philp, 1998). Han (2002) found four important conditions that lead recasts to the facilitation of learning: individual attention, consistent focus, developmental readiness and intensity. Ishida (2004) indicated the effectiveness of intensive recasts in a time-series design to increase the accuracy in the learners’ use of grammatical targets. Recasts were effective when the reformulation of a target was made with more prominence, either visually or auditorily; however, evidence of the unacceptability of the original utterances was not a crucial factor for SL development of Spanish language learners (Leeman, 2003). Trofimovich et al. (2007) examined how attentional control, phonological memory and analytical ability affect learners’ noticing and incorporation of recasts into their responses. They found that analytical skills are important for learners of English as a second language (ESL) to process recasts that they had received. Some experimental studies examined the difference of effectiveness between CF types and linguistic target forms. These studies suggested that CF tend to have different effects according to linguistic items such as lexis or grammar, or target forms such as comparative forms or past tenses in English. Ellis et al. (2006) found that metalinguistic information was more effective for ESL learners’ delayed imitation and scores of post-tests in terms of regular past tense than recasts. McDonough (2007) found that recasts and clarification requests were similarly effective for emergence of single past activity verbs in English. Although clarification requests led learners’ responses more often, numbers of target forms produced by learners were similar between the learners who received clarification requests and the ones who received recasts. McDonough (2007) suggests that relationship does not necessarily exist between responses after CF and learning. According to Ellis (2007), effect of metalinguistic feedback was immediate on English comparative form and delayed on English past tense. Ellis (2007) discusses that effects of CF vary depending on the amounts of learners’ explicit knowledge and the amounts of the learners’ exposure to the target forms after treatments. Effects of recasts were not found unless they were salient. In Loewen and Nabei (2007), recasts, metalinguistic feedback and clarification requests were equally effective for English question form in timed grammaticality judgement test after each treatment. Mackey and Goo (2007) conducted meta-analysis of experimental CF studies and pointed out delayed effect of CF, referring to the results of delayed post-tests in previous studies. Mackey and Goo (2007) discussed that CF seems to have short-term effect on lexis, while it seems to have longer-term effect on grammar. Some researchers focused on teachers’ CF and learners’ responses to the feedback in adult SL/FL classrooms. Ohta (2000, 2001) explored CF in JFL classrooms at university. Ohta (2001) explained that learners are not only addresses but also auditor, overhearer and eavesdropper in JFL classrooms, by using Bell’s (1984) theory of audience design, and pointed out the occurrence of incidental contrast between a learner’s erroneous utterance and a correct utterance of a

28


teacher in a teacher-fronted situation. Ohta (2001) found that incidental recasts, which occurred when the learners were auditors who were not directly addressed by the teachers, were slightly more frequent than recasts. In Ohta (2001), the rate of occurrence of recasts was low (29%), compared to 55% in Lyster and Ranta (1997). However, 38%2 of the recasts triggered partially or fully successful incorporation of the feedback by the learners, while 18% of the recasts ended up with the learners’ successful uptake in Lyster and Ranta (1997). Ellis et al. (2001) investigated not only CF episodes with teachers’ initiations, but also ones with learners’ initiations, which were the learners’ questions to their teachers about particular grammatical items in ESL classrooms, and this invited high rates of the learners’ successful incorporation of the CF (55%). According to Ellis et al., when learners are adults and motivated, in most of cases they are successful in perceiving linguistic problems in recasts. On the other hand, Lyster (2004) stated that recasts were not the most effective compared to the other CF, such as elicitation or metalinguistic feedback, for child learners in communicatively oriented SL classrooms of an immersion program. Loewen (2004) also examined the occurrence of uptake according to the broad definition of CF episodes. The rate of the learners’ successful incorporation of the CF was high (66.1%), and longer negotiation sequences tended to lead learners to produce successful uptake. Most of previous studies had not distinguished the different types of recast, however, after Ellis and Sheen (2006) had pointed out that recasts can take different forms, such as implicit/explicit or intensive/extensive recasts, some researchers started examining the effectiveness of recasts according to the different types. Sheen (2006) investigated characteristics of recasts which are effective for learners’ uptake and/or repair, and found that explicit recasts, which are short and repeated with single errors and declarative modes, were positively related to learners’ uptake and/or repair. Loewen and Philp (2006) re-examined the data of Loewen (2004) and found that recasts with stress, declarative intonation, one change and multiple feedback moves contributed to successful uptake. Most classroom studies investigated CF between teachers and learners, and studies of CF between learners in pair or group work are much less common. Ohta’s (2001) study included peer-learning settings, where it was found that classmates, not teachers provided more than 80% of CF, of which approximately 28% were recasts. When peers made errors, their partners provided assistance, such as co-constructing words or phrases with the peers or prompting them to self-correct, as well as providing CF such as recasts. Yoshida (2008a) examined learners’ perception of CF in pair work. When learners, who preferred to take initiatives, were often corrected by their partners or could not have a chance to present their own answers, they were not satisfied with their roles in pair work. These learners did not understand why their own forms were incorrect and why the forms in CF provided by their partners were correct, even when they repeated the correct forms after the CF.


29

2.1.4. Studies on the Perceptions of Corrective Feedback by Teachers and Learners While most studies, which were introduced above, investigated the effectiveness of CF in relation to the occurrence of uptake after CF or the results of post-tests after CF treatments, some studies examined the efficiency of CF by investigating teachers’ and learners’ perceptions of CF. Initially, researchers focused on the extent to which learners notice teachers’ CF in classrooms. Roberts (1995) investigated how university JFL learners notice or understand their teacher’s CF. A video-recording of the class was shown to three participating students who were asked to point out where the teacher’s corrections to someone in the class had occurred and to state the nature of the errors corrected. On average, approximately 35% of the CF was noticed and approximately 21% understood. After realizing that learners sometimes do not notice teachers’ CF, researchers investigated what situations make CF noticeable (Nabei and Swain, 2002), and what kinds of CF are noticeable (Mackey et al., 2007; Mackey et al., 2000; Moroishi, 2002; Nabei and Swain, 2002). Nabei and Swain (2002) examined how a college student attended to a teacher’s recasts in an English as a foreign language (EFL) class. Direct recasts, which are recasts directed to a particular learner, triggered the learner’s attention more often than incidental recasts, which are incidental contrasts between learners’ erroneous utterances and teachers’ recasts directed to other learners. The learner also attended to the teacher’s recasts more frequently in group discussions compared to teacher-fronted situations. The learner’s focus on meaning rather than form in terms of the teacher’s recasts led to a lack of the learner’s noticing of grammatical recasts. Learners’ perceptions of CF were also related to learners’ error types which triggered CF. Mackey et al. (2000) compared the perceptions of interactional feedback between learners of ESL and learners of Italian as a foreign language (IFL). While the learners perceived lexical, semantic and phonological feedback (CF triggered by lexical, semantic and phonological errors respectively) accurately, they did not often perceive morphosyntactic feedback (CF triggered by morphosyntactic errors) accurately. IFL learners perceived phonological feedback accurately much more frequently compared to ESL learners. Moroishi (2002) found that learners perceive more than 50% of teachers’ recasts accurately in Japanese as a foreign language (JFL) classes, perceiving morphosyntactic feedback more accurately than phonological and lexical feedback, thus contradicting Mackey et al. (2000). However, the learners did not recognize corrections in 24% of recasts in relation to grammar and did not notice the presence of 24% of recasts. In another study, Mackey et al. (2007) found that learners of Arabic as a FL generally understood their teachers’ intentions when the teachers were correcting morphosyntactic or lexical errors, but generally did not when the CF concerned phonological errors. When the CF was explicit, the teachers’ and the learners’ perceptions of CF frequently overlapped.

30


Researchers also focused on teachers’ intention of CF and learners’ interpretation of the CF. Kim and Han (2007) explored to what extent teachers’ intentions of recasts and learners’ interpretations of the recasts overlap, and whether the learners recognize gaps between their own errors and the linguistic information in the recasts. EFL learners recognized more than 50% of corrective recasts, and they noticed gaps between errors and linguistic information in more than 40% of corrective recasts, while they did not recognize more than 30% of corrective recasts. Morphosyntactic errors triggered recasts most frequently, and isolated declarative recasts with reformulation of a single error were more noticeable than interrogative recasts, including reformulations of multiple errors. Phonological feedback led the learners to recognize gaps most frequently. While all the above studies focused on interactional feedback, Han’s (2001) longitudinal case study examined a Thai student learning Norwegian at a university in Norway regarding her perception of a teacher’s written feedback. The learner’s errors about a particular form were persistent in her written output, despite the teacher’s repeated corrections by providing correct forms. In an interview, Han found that the learner perceived both her output and the teacher’s correction as acceptable. Furthermore, the grammar of the learner’s first language had contributed to the persistence of the errors. Consequently, Han (2001) claims that even though learners notice teachers’ feedback, they do not necessarily recognize the true difference between the corrected forms and their own output. Yoshida (in press), who investigated teachers’ and learners’ CF perceptions in JFL classrooms, supports Han’s (2001) finding. The learners sometimes did not notice their teachers’ CF or did not understand why their answers were incorrect compared to correct forms in CF, even when they responded to the teachers’ CF. However, the teachers tended to confirm the learners’ understanding of their CF, when the teachers perceived that the learners were ‘strong’ with good Japanese grammatical knowledge. The relationship between learners’ noticing or interpretation of CF and their SL/FL development was also explored with post-tests in some studies. Mackey (2006) examined the relationship between learners’ noticing of interactional feedback in ESL classes and their learning using the methodologies of stimulated recall (SR), learning journals, a questionnaire, and pre-/posttests. Among three targeted forms, feedback to question forms often took the form of negotiation, such as a request of clarification, whereas recasts were frequently used as feedback to plurals and past tense. Negotiation in relation to question forms triggered learners’ modified output more often than recasts involving plurals or past tense. Noticing was associated with the learners’ development of question forms, while no clear association was found in terms of the other two forms. Egi (2007) researched the relationship between JFL learners’ interpretation of recasts and their FL development. Results of the post-test indicated that the learners’ short-term development was much greater when they interpreted recasts as positive evidence alone or as a combination of


31

positive and negative evidence, compared to when the learners’ interpretation of the recasts was response to content. The mismatch found between the teachers’ intention of CF and the learners’ perception of the CF may be related to what kinds of CF teachers and learners consider as effective and how teachers actually choose their CF. Lasagabaster and Sierra (2005) examined undergraduate students enrolled in English Studies at the University of the Basque Country where the EFL teachers watched a commercially produced teaching video and judged the efficacy of the CF. Both teachers and students agreed that for effective CF, ‘more time, longer explanation, and use of different correction strategies’ are necessary (p. 112). Yoshida (2008b) found a gap between the teachers’ choice of CF and learners’ preferences. JFL teachers at an Australian university chose recasts, because they are not time-consuming (always a consideration for teachers watching the time and a lot of material to get through), and because they correct learners without intimidation by explicitly pointing out the errors. However, most of the JFL learners preferred to have the chance to self-correct before being given the answers (Yoshida, 2008b). Sato and Lyster (2007) investigated influence of learners’ perceptions of their interlocutors on their use of CF. Learners provided elicitations with each other much more frequently than native speakers did. The learners’ modified output after CF occurred far more frequently in learner–learner dyads compared to learner–native speaker dyads. The learners’ comments indicated that they were more comfortable asking questions when they interact with other learners than when they interact with native speakers.

2.1.5. Factors that Trigger Different Results between Studies These previous CF studies vary in learner population (children or adults), the research design (experimental or classroom) and the definition of CF episodes3 (including learner-initiated ones or not). These factors seemed to trigger the varied results reported in the studies such as the effectiveness of CF. As Nicholas et al. (2001) pointed out, the frequency and effectiveness of CF are different between experimental and classroom studies, because in experimental studies, ‘the number of linguistic features receiving feedback is limited’ and the participants are ‘in some sense “ready” to receive the recast’ (p. 749). This may invite a higher rate of the occurrence of CF and uptake. Oliver (2000) and Mackey et al. (2003) showed the influence of different contexts on the research results. Learners’ ages and the situations where CF occur (teacherfronted or pair-work) influenced the occurrence of the feedback and the pattern of interactions (Oliver, 2000). The amount of CF, chances for modified input and subsequent incorporation of the CF varied according to types of interlocutors (native or non-native speakers) and their ages in the interactions of dyads (Mackey et al., 2003).

32


The frequency and types of CF and responses may also be different between communication-focused and language-focused classrooms, as Ohta (2001) suggested. In the language-focused classrooms, linguistic forms that learners should learn are clearly introduced by teachers and in textbooks. In this situation, teachers and learners can be more aware of the linguistic forms than in the communication-focused classrooms where the flow of conversations is regarded as most important. The awareness of both teachers and learners in language-focused classrooms may lead them to use CF and respond to the CF frequently. Long (2007) contended that interlocutors should focus on meanings, not forms, while providing recasts and that ‘the corrections in recasts are implicit and incidental’ (p. 77). Long defines a corrective recast as: a reformulation of all or part of a learner’s immediately preceding utterance in which one or more nontarget-like (lexical, grammatical, etc.) items is/are replaced by the corresponding target language form(s), and where, throughout the exchange, the focus of the interlocutors is on meaning, not language as object. (Long, 2007, p. 77) Recasts that occur in language-focused classrooms may be different from the recasts that are defined by Long (2007), because both teachers and learners are usually aware of the linguistic forms that the learners should practice and learn. In communication-focused classrooms, CF seems to be more useful when learners pay attention to particular linguistic forms, as Oliver and Mackey (2003) suggested. They found the relationship between interactional context and CF in child ESL classes, indicating that the learners tended to use CF provided most frequently in explicit language-focused exchanges. Effective CF types seem to be different between communication-focused and language-focused classrooms. Lyster and Mori (2006) compared effective CF between French and Japanese immersion classes at the elementary level. Uptake occurred most frequently after prompts in the French classes where content was more focused in interactions, while recasts resulted in the most frequent uptake in the Japanese classes where linguistic accuracy was more focused.

2.1.6. Factors that Need Further Investigation In many of the previous studies, learners’ responses to CF were examined (Loewen, 2004; Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Moroishi, 2002; Ohta, 2001; Oliver, 1995). When learners showed uptake immediately after CF, the feedback tended to be regarded as successful. However, Roberts (1995) found that adult JFL learners did not often understand teachers’ CF correctly. Nabei and Swain (2002) pointed out that learners’ noticing of a teacher’s recasts was often superficial and not very accurate in a teacher-fronted situation of an adult


33

ESL classroom. Moroishi (2003) discussed that uptake does not prove the effectiveness of recasts, based on the finding of Mackey and Philp (1998) that developmentally ‘ready’ learners could acquire a higher level of structure even without uptake. McDonough (2007) states that learners’ responses after CF are not necessarily related to their learning. Furthermore, a mismatch existed between teachers’ intention of CF and learners’ interpretation of the CF (e.g. Han, 2001; Mackey et al., 2007; Moroishi, 2002). Therefore, teachers’ and learners’ perceptions of CF need to be further examined, in order to clarify the relationship between their CF perceptions and learning. Especially, only one study has investigated how teachers perceive learners’ responses to their feedback. This also needs to be examined. Moreover, the studies so far have not sufficiently examined the factors that affect or promote learners’ noticing or understanding of CF, and only one study investigated teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of CF to be received. Finally, it is important to investigate not only CF between teachers and learners but also CF between learners and other learners. Considering these factors, that have been overlooked or not sufficiently been examined, the following research questions are asked in this study: 1. How do learners perceive CF by their teachers or classmates when they respond to it? How do teachers perceive the learners’ responses to their CF? 2. What are the factors that promote/affect learners’ noticing and understanding of CF? 3. How do teachers choose CF? What type of CF do learners prefer to receive from their teachers?

2.2. Coding of Errors, Corrective Feedback and Responses 2.2.1. Learners’ Errors Transcriptions of the audio-recorded data were coded based on five error types: morphosyntactic error, phonological error, lexical error, semantic error and reading error of kanji, which triggered the use of CF by teachers or classmates in the classes. The coding scheme was based on Mackey et al. (2000) and Nishita (2004). The error types of the learners are found below. An example for each category is indicated from the data in this study. 1. Morphosyntactic error occurs when learners incorrectly use items such as word order, tense, conjugation and particles. (Ex.) E: You are supposed to say something like uh iie, amari uhh suzushii (.) jya nai deshoo ((error: should be ‘suzushiku nai’)) You are supposed to say something like uh no, it won’t be very cool.

34


2. Phonological error normally indicates mispronunciation of vocabulary. (Ex.) K: Kau, kaon, do you remember it changes. Kau, kaon, iku, ikon, suru, shiyoo, iku, ikon ((error: should be ‘kaoo’ and ‘ikoo’)) Buy, will buy, do you remember it changes? Buy, will buy, do, will do, go, will go. 3. Lexical error involves the inappropriate use of vocabulary or switching to learners’ first language because of their lack of lexical knowledge. (Ex.) S: Yasuku uhn (.) hairu uh [hairema, hairu Cheap ((ADV)) uhn (.) enter uh [(can) enter, enter C: [°Iremasu, iremasu° ((error: should be ‘hairemasu’)) [°Put in, put in° 4. Semantic error occurs when learners’ utterance is semantically inappropriate without including grammatical errors, or when learners incorrectly translate Japanese sentences into English or incorrectly explain meanings of Japanese grammatical items in English. (Ex.) K: °°Watashi no me o mi nagara°° (aruite itara okane o mitsuketa) ((error: choose inappropriate first clause to match the second clause in a bracket)) While walking, looking at my eyes, I found money. 5. Reading error of kanji indicates errors of kanji recognition. (Ex.) ((The teacher is talking about new kanji. Lily reads a kanji in the workbook aloud)) L: °Happa: hataraku?° ((error: should be ‘ugoku’ which means ‘move’)) °((makes no sense)) work?°

2.2.2. Corrective Feedback Corrective feedback was also categorized into 15 types according to the coding categories used in Lyster and Ranta (1997) and Ohta (2001). Ohta (2001) found incidental recasts, and her categorization of CF includes incidental recasts as well as recasts. However, the other direct CF such as metalinguistic feedback or elicitation has a potential function as incidental CF. In this study, the teachers’ CF to the learners other than the learner-participants – recasts, explicit corrections, metalinguistic feedback, repetition, elicitation, clarification request and combinations of more than one CF (multiple) – sometimes functioned as incidental CF for utterances of the learner-participants in their private speech or their talk with classmates during previous pair or group work. These instances of CF were categorized, for example, as incidental elicitation or incidental metalinguistic feedback as well as incidental recast. When the learner-participants responded to the incidental CF, they were categorized as


35

uptake and/or noticing. The types of direct CF were recast, explicit correction, metalinguistic feedback, repetition, re-asks, clarification request and multiple. Delayed recast occurred and was added as a category by myself. Definitions of these types of direct and incidental CF are indicated below. Examples for some categories are indicated from the data in this study. 1. Recast refers to an utterance that involves the reformulation of a learner’s erroneous utterance, usually contrasting the utterance with the learner’s erroneous utterance. Recasts occur immediately after the erroneous utterance. (Ex.) W: Mooimasu ((laugh)) ((error)) I am coming ((HUM)) ➙ S: Mairimasu I am coming ((HUM)) 2. Delayed recast refers to an utterance that occurs a little later, not immediately after a learner’s erroneous utterance and functions as a recast. 3. Incidental recast refers to an utterance that is not a response to a learner’s Erroneous utterance, but incidentally functions as a recast. Incidental recasts may occur immediately after the erroneous utterance, overlap with the erroneous utterance or occur after some delay. 4. Explicit correction refers to an utterance by either a teacher or a classmate that clearly indicates that a learner’s utterance is incorrect and provides the correct form. (Ex.) J: Ii tenki kara ((error)), because it will be good weather tomorrow Because the weather is good, because it will be good weather tomorrow. ((omitted)) ➙ S: Why don’t you say, not ‘ii tenki kara’, ‘ii tenki desu kara’. Why don’t you say, not ‘because the weather is good’ ((error)) ‘because the weather is good’? 5. Incidental explicit correction refers to an utterance that is not a response to a learner’s erroneous utterance, but incidentally functions as an explicit correction. Incidental explicit corrections may occur immediately after the erroneous utterance, overlap with the erroneous utterance, or occur after some delay. 6. Metalinguistic feedback refers to an utterance by either a teacher or classmate who provides metalinguistic comments, feedback or questions without providing a reformulation. (Ex.) ((Catherine makes a sentence ‘terebi ya sutereo ga doroboo o nusunda rashi’ which meant ‘I hear that a TV and a stereo stole a thief’)) ➙ E: I thought it’s a passive form because ((inaudible)) I don’t know

36


7. Incidental metalinguistic feedback refers to an utterance that is not a response to a learner’s erroneous utterance, but incidentally functions as metalinguistic feedback. Incidental metalinguistic feedback may occur immediately after the erroneous utterance, overlap with the erroneous utterance or occur after some delay. 8. Repetition refers to an utterance by either a teacher or a classmate that repeats a learner’s erroneous utterance. (Ex.) J: Ii tenki kara ((error)), because it will be good weather tomorrow Because the weather is good, because it will be good weather tomorrow. ➙ S: (..) Kara (..) CONJ 9. Incidental repetition refers to an utterance that is not a response to a learner’s erroneous utterance, but incidentally functions as a repetition. Incidental repetitions may occur immediately after the erroneous utterance, overlap with the erroneous utterance or occur after some delay. 10. Elicitation refers to an utterance by either a teacher or a classmate who strategically pauses in the middle of their utterance to elicit a learner’s completion. The teacher uses a partial repetition of the learner’s erroneous utterance or asks the learner questions (excluding the use of yes/no questions) to elicit the learner’s reformulation. (Ex.) C: Uhh suteki na doresu o kattara, umm oneesan ni kuremasu? ((error: ‘kuremasu’ should be ‘agemasu’)) Uhh if I buy a nice dress, I will give it to my elder sister ((error)) ((omitted)) T: Oneesan «ni» My elder sister «DAT» 11. Incidental elicitation refers to an utterance that is not a response to a learner’s erroneous utterance, but incidentally functions as an elicitation. Incidental elicitations may occur immediately after the erroneous utterance, overlap with the erroneous utterance or occur after some delay. 12. Clarification request refers to an utterance either by a teacher or a classmate who asks a request question for clarification. (Ex.) C: Uhn kono keeki wa uhn nari nagara tsukutta n desu ga, a amari jyoozu ni dekimasen deshita ((error: ‘nari nagara’ should be ‘naki nagara’)) Uhn I made this cake while crying, but I could not make it very well. ➙ T: Kono keeki wa? This cake TOP? 13. Incidental clarification request refers to an utterance that is not a response to a learner’s erroneous utterance, but incidentally functions as a clarification request. Incidental clarification request may occur immediately after


37

the erroneous utterance, overlap with the erroneous utterance or occur after some delay. 14. Multiple feedback refers to more than one of the above feedback occurring in one turn of the speech of the teacher or classmate. (Ex.) C: °ˆNigiyaka (.) to omoimasuˆ° ((error)) ° Î think it’s busyˆ° ((omitted)) ➙ T: What happens to ‘nigiyaka’? The point is that it’s uh it’s a naadjective. Harajyuku wa nigiyaka «da» to omoimasu ((metalinguistics feedback and recast)) What happens to ‘busy’? The point is that it’s uh it’s a na- adjective. I think Harajyuku is busy. 15. Incidental multiple feedback refers to an utterance that is not a response to a learner’s erroneous utterance, but incidentally functions as multiple feedback. Incidental multiple feedback may occur immediately after the erroneous utterance, overlap with the erroneous utterance or occur after some delay.

2.2.3. Learners’ Responses The learner’s responses after CF were categorized into five different types: uptake, acknowledgement, uptake and acknowledgement, unsuccessful uptake, and no uptake and no acknowledgement, based on the coding schema in Lyster and Ranta (1997) and Ohta (2001). Ohta (2001) classified learners’ short responses such as ‘oh’ after CF as ‘noticing’4 (p. 138). This type of response was regarded as uptake in Lyster and Ranta (1997) and Lyster (1998a, 1998b). Ohta separated this from uptake, as it shows that learners noticed CF without repetition of the CF or reformulation of errors. In this study, this type of response is categorized as ‘acknowledgement’. In this study, uptake means the learners’ responses that include correct reformulation of their errors. When the reformulations of errors were incorrect, they were categorized as unsuccessful uptake. When the learners’ responses did not include the reformulation of their errors, they were not categorized as uptake. The types of the learners’ responses after CF are found below. An example for each category is indicated from the data in this study. 1. Uptake occurs when the learner reformulates the erroneous utterance fully or partially, immediately after the feedback. (Ex.) L: Hai, uhhn Tookyoo-eki «ni»? de, densha «o»? oriru? ((error)) Yes, uhhn Tokyo station PAR PAR get off the train T: I think I might say Tookyoo-eki de


38

I think I might say ‘at Tokyo station’ L: Eki de At station Acknowledgement occurs when the learner responds to corrective feedback with expressions such as ‘yes’, ‘hai’ (yes) or ‘oh’ after corrective feedback. (Ex.) W: Mexico de wa jyuu daraa de kuruma o? ka kareru koto ga dekimasu ((error)) In Mexico you can rent a car with ten dollars T: Slight mispronunciation, >kariru< Slight mispronunciation, >rent< ➙ W: OK ((nods)) Uptake and acknowledgement occurs when the learner reformulates the erroneous utterance with expressions such as ‘yes’, ‘hai’ (yes) or ‘oh’ immediately after the feedback. (Ex.) L: °(Tanaka-san) Dake ga atta° ((error)) °There was only (Mr/Ms Tanaka)° T: Tanaka-san dake (.) datta, hai (There was a phone call) Only from Mr/Ms Tanaka, yes ➙ L: °Dake datta, um° °Only COP um° Unsuccessful uptake occurs when the learner incorrectly reformulates the erroneous utterance immediately after corrective feedback. (Ex.) J: Uh Kono hito wa umm kana kana soo desu ne, um? ((error)) Uh this person looks sad, um? T: Kanashi soo desu Looks sad ➙ J: (..) Kanashii soo ((error)) (..) I hear he/she is sad No uptake and no acknowledgement occur when the learner does not reformulate in his/her subsequent turn after corrective feedback or some delay. (Ex.) K: °Gozonji desu, uh° ((error)) °I know° ((HON)) T: «Zonjite» orimasu I know ((HUM)) ➙

2.

3.

4.

5.

2.3. Identification and Categorization of Learners’ Errors, Corrective Feedback and Learners’ Responses Errors, CF and responses were counted in the teacher-fronted and peerlearning settings separately. When the utterances of the teachers or other learners functioned as incidental CF for the learner-participants’ utterances


39

during the previous pair or group work after the participants received direct CF from their classmates in the pair or group work, the participants’ errors in the pair or group work were counted in both the peer-learning and teacherfronted settings. The following excerpt shows an example. ((During peer work)) ➙ 1 K: Uh chuu chuushajyoo ((error)) Uh ((the first part of ‘chuushajyoo’ (car park))) car park 2 M: Chuusha koto o, chuusha koto o, is it? Chuusha, chuusha suru koto o? Parking nom ACC ((error)), Parking nom ACC ((error)), is it? To park ACC ((After the pair work, the teacher is doing the task with the class, omitted)) 3 T: Or chuusha, chuusha suru, to park a car Or parking, park, to park a car 4 K: °Chuusha suru, you got it right° °Park, you got it right° (Kiki, 30 May) During peer work, Kiki needed the verb which means ‘park (a car)’ but she used the noun chuushajyoo (car park) in line 1. Her partner, M offered the verb chuusha suru (park) in line 2, and this functioned as a recast to Kiki’s use of the noun in line 1. Kiki did not respond to M. After the peer work, in line 3, the teacher also indicated the verb chuusha suru to the class after the other learner presented his answer. This functioned as an incidental recast to Kiki. She showed uptake after that. In this case, Kiki’s error in line 1 was counted in both the peer-work and the teacher-fronted settings. The learners’ utterances that were grammatically correct but did not include the forms that tasks required the learners to use were counted as errors, when the teachers provided CF in response. The teachers often repeated correct answers given by the learners who were asked the task questions. When both the learners’ answers and the teachers’ repetitions of the answers functioned as incidental CF to the utterances of the learner-participants, only the teachers’ repetitions were counted as incidental CF, because the learners generally tended to attend more to the teachers’ answers as correct answers rather than the answers of their classmates. When the learner-participants responded after the learners’ answers and the teachers’ repetitions respectively, both the answers and the repetitions were counted as incidental CF. When the learners commented in the interviews that their classmates said correct answers for them, but the classmates’ speech were not recorded on the tapes, the utterances of the classmates were counted as CF. After an error made by a learner-participant, several instances of CF occurred. In this case, when the learner repeated the same error, it was

40


categorized as ‘no uptake and no acknowledgement’. When the learner reformulated their errors incorrectly, it was categorized as ‘unsuccessful uptake’. Both cases were counted as new errors. When the learner did not respond or showed only ‘acknowledgement’, they were not counted as new errors. Partial reformulation of errors was counted as ‘uptake’. When the learner’s reformulation became close to the correct form or expression compared to his/her utterance before the CF, but was still not a perfect reformulation, it was categorized as ‘uptake’. When the learner-participants reformulated their utterances by reading the expressions that the teachers wrote on the whiteboard, they were categorized as ‘uptake’. As mentioned in Chapter 1, in the fourth recording in Semester 2 (10 Oct.), Kiki’s speech in the classroom was not recorded due to a technical problem. As Kiki’s speech, except for her speech in a soft voice, and the teacher’s speech were recorded on the video tape, transcriptions of the CF were made according to the video tape and the SR interview with Kiki. Kiki watched the video tape during her SR interview. Three CF episodes were found in the transcription. Kiki mentioned in the SR interview that she wrote the form given in the teacher’s CF in her notebook while repeating it, after receiving it in one of the CF episodes. When she watched the video-recording of the other CF episode in the interview, she realized that she wrote the wrong expression in her notebook while vocalizing it, after the teacher’s CF. Kiki’s repetitions of the CF were not recorded on the video tape, because the video-recording did not include her speech in a soft voice. However, the video recorded Kiki writing after these instances of CF. Therefore, these cases were categorized as ‘uptake’ and ‘unsuccessful uptake’ respectively. In the first recording in Semester 1 (14 Mar.), Catherine’s speech was not recorded due to a technical problem. However, one CF episode of Catherine was recorded on Lily’s tape. Therefore, the transcription was made according to the recording of Lily’s tape, and the error, the CF and responses were categorized and counted.

2.4. Frequency of Errors, Corrective Feedback and Responses Before detailed analysis of the CF and the learners’ private speech with the transcriptions and comments of the learners and the teachers in their SR interviews, it is useful to find out how often and what types of CF are used by the learners and/or the teachers, what types of learners’ errors trigger CF, and how often and how the learners respond to the CF provided, in order to obtain a general idea about the CF that occurred in the classrooms. Therefore, in this section, quantitative data are presented to show general patterns of the CF in the classrooms. Calculations in the tables are rounded to the nearest whole number, except where the data numbers are small and therefore require to be


41

taken to one decimal place for clarity and justification. First, the types of learners’ errors that received CF, the frequency of the CF and learners’ responses to the CF are analysed. Then, uptake and noticing of the direct and incidental CF by each learner are discussed. Finally, contextual factors that influenced the occurrence of the CF and/or noticing or uptake are discussed.

2.4.1. Learners’ Errors Tables 2.1 and 2.2 indicate the learner-participants’ errors that received CF in both semesters in the teacher-fronted and the peer-learning settings respectively. Morphosyntactic errors received CF most frequently, in line with Lyster (1998a), in both semesters and in both settings. The other types of errors did not receive CF often compared to morphosyntactic errors. This is unsurprising, given the structure of the classroom teaching method, that is, answering tasks for particular grammatical forms after the presentation of new kanji. Usually, approximately 90 minutes in 120-minute classes were spent for tasks to practise grammatical forms. Therefore, it appears that grammatical errors lead to corrective feedback most often. Table 2.1 Error types that received corrective feedback moves (teacher-fronted setting) Type of error

Semester 1 incidence

%


%

Morphosyntactic Lexical Phonological Semantic Kanji reading

45 10 3 2 4

70 16 5 3 6

29 1 3 7 3

68 2 7 16 7

Total

64

100

43

100

Table 2.2 Error types that received corrective feedback moves (peer-learning setting) Type of error


%


%

Morphosyntactic Lexical Phonological Semantic Kanji reading

17 3 2 2 0

71 13 8 8 0

20 4 9 0 0

61 12 27 0 0

Total

24

100

33

100

42


2.4.2. Corrective Feedback Table 2.3 shows the numbers of the types of CF provided by the teachers or classmates to the learner-participants in the teacher-fronted situations. Table 2.4 indicates the numbers of the types of CF provided by the teachers or classmates to the learner-participants in the peer-learning situations. The total number of CF decreased by 23% in Semester 2 in the teacher-fronted setting (Table 2.3), while it increased by 19% in Semester 2 in the peer-learning setting (Table 2.4). In Semester 2, a writing composition examination was

Table 2.3 Corrective feedback moves (teacher-fronted setting) Type of corrective feedback


%


%

Recast Incidental recast Elicitation Incidental elicitation Explicit correction Incidental explicit correction Clarification request Incidental clarification request Metalinguistic feedback Incidental metalinguistic feedback Incidental repetition Multiple Incidental multiple

9 44 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 6 2 4 4

10.2 50 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 2.3 2.3 3.4 6.8 2.3 4.5 4.5

11 14 2 4 2 2 8 0 2 4 0 3 3

20 25 4 7 4 4 15 0 4 7 0 5 5

Total

88

100*

55

100

* Rounded up.

Table 2.4 Corrective feedback moves (peer-learning setting) Type of corrective feedback


%


%

Recast Delayed recast Incidental recast Elicitation Explicit correction Clarification request Metalinguistic feedback Repetition Multiple

14 2 1 0 2 3 3 3 0

50 7 3 0 7 11 11 11 0

23 0 0 3 3 3 5 1 3

56.1 0 0 7.3 7.3 7.3 12.2 2.4 7.3

Total

28

100

41

100*

*Rounded up.


43

held in the last 30 minutes of class (sixth recording); two classes completed 30 minutes early (ninth recording), and a dictation test was given for approximately 20 minutes in one of the classes (tenth recording). These class structures may have contributed to the decrease of the CF to some extent. Out of 212 CF incidences throughout the two semesters, recasts, including delayed recasts, were 28% (59) and incidental recasts were also 28% (59). In Ohta’s (2001) study, incidental recasts occurred slightly more frequently than recasts (30% and 29% respectively). However, in this study, the occurrences of recasts and incidental recasts were equal. In the teacher-fronted setting, incidental recasts occurred most frequently (50%), and the rate of the occurrence of recast was low (10%) in Semester 1 (Table 2.3). The difference of the rate of the occurrence between recast (20%) and incidental recast (25%) became closer in Semester 2 compared to Semester 1. This may be influenced by the increase of the rate of the direct CF in Semester 2 (see Table 2.14). In Semester 1, McCartney did not recognize the names of some learners in his classes and did not have a clear idea about the learners’ abilities. In Semester 2, he realized that a few of the learner-participants were capable students. As these learners often sat in the front row of the classroom, he tended to ask task questions to these learners. When their answers included errors, McCartney provided direct CF. This may be one of the reasons for the decrease of the incidental recast. Clarification requests increased from 2.3% in Semester 1 to 15% in Semester 2. When McCartney asked task questions to Catherine in Semester 2, he sometimes did not understand Catherine’s utterances or was not sure about the correctness of her answer. He therefore used clarification requests in these cases after Catherine’s utterances and this may have contributed to the increase of the occurrence of clarification requests in Semester 2. CF between learners occurred in the teacher-fronted as well as peer- learning settings. When the answers of the learner-participants to the teachers’ questions included errors, the learners sitting next to them sometimes said correct answers to them, and this functioned as recasts. This occurred twice in Semester 1 and four times in Semester 2. Moreover, learners’ answers to the teachers’ questions sometimes contrasted with erroneous utterances of the learner-participants during the previous peer work, and functioned as incidental recasts.5 This occurred twice in Semester 1 and once in Semester 2. These cases were included in the total number of the CF in Table 2.3. In the peer-learning settings, the rate of the recast, including delayed recast, is more than half of the total CF that occurred in both Semesters 1 and 2, while only one incidental recast occurred in Semester 1. This result is understandable, because the learners try to resolve tasks with other learners in face-to-face situations. However, as Ohta (2001) pointed out, learners in one group occasionally overhear the utterances of the learners in other groups or the teachers’ utterances to other groups during peer work. These utterances

44


of the classmates or teachers function as incidental recasts for the learnerparticipants. In this study, one incidental recast occurred in Semester 1, when Kiki heard the utterance of McCartney directed at her neighbouring group and she then reformulated her utterance in her group work. In this case, the teacher’s utterance functioned as incidental CF for Kiki. Moreover, the CF between the teachers and their learners occurred in the peer-learning settings when the teachers found errors in the learners’ utterances and provided feedback during peer work. The CF between the teachers and learners including direct and incidental CF occurred twice in Semester 1 and 16 times in Semester 2 in the peer-learning settings.

2.4.3. Learners’ Responses The types of learners’ responses after CF are found in Tables 2.5 and 2.6. Table 2.5 indicates the learners’ responses in the teacher-fronted situation, and Table 2.6 shows their responses in the peer-learning situation. In the teacher-fronted setting, uptake (55%) occurred more frequently than no uptake and no acknowledgement (29%) in Semester 1 (Table 2.5).6 However, in Semester 2, the rate of no uptake and no acknowledgement (51%) Table 2.5 Types of learners’ responses after corrective feedback (teacher-fronted setting) Type of learners’ responses


%


%

Uptake Unsuccessful uptake Acknowledgement Uptake and acknowledgement No uptake and no acknowledgement

41 1 13 7 26

47 1 15 8 29

15 3 5 4 28

27 6 9 7 51

Total

88

100

55

100

Table 2.6 setting)

Types of learners’ responses after corrective feedback (peer-learning

Type of learners’ responses


%


%

Uptake Acknowledgement Uptake and acknowledgement No uptake and no acknowledgement

9 1 5 13

32 4 18 46

13 6 10 12

32 15 24 29

Total

28

100

41

100


45

is higher than the rate of uptake (34%). In Semester 2, the uptake rate of CF by each learner, except for Jessica and Erwin, decreased (see Tables 2.8–2.13). This decrease can affect the total uptake rate in the teacher-fronted setting. In the peer-learning setting, uptake (50%) occurred more frequently than no uptake and no acknowledgement (46%) in Semester 1, and the rate of uptake (56%) was much higher than no uptake and no acknowledgement (29%) in Semester 2. According to my comments in the classroom observation notes, in Semester 2, the learners were generally more relaxed, because they were familiar with the class structure compared to Semester 1, and interacted with their classmates more actively. This may have contributed to the increase of CF and uptake in the peer-learning setting.

2.4.4. Uptake and Noticing In this study, uptake is operationalized as the learners’ utterances that include correct reformulation of their errors, and noticing indicates every case when the learners noticed the existence of CF and responded to feedback. Unsuccessful uptake was counted as noticing, not as uptake. Noticing includes uptake, acknowledgement, acknowledgement and uptake, and unsuccessful uptake, but does not include the cases when the learners responded to the teachers’ elicitations and repeated the parts of their utterances that did not contain errors. The total numbers of uptake, noticing and no uptake in both settings are found in Table 2.7.7 Uptake rate in the teacher-fronted setting decreased in Semester 2 (35%) compared to Semester 1 (55%), while the uptake rate in the peer-learning setting slightly increased in Semester 2 (56%) compared to Semester 1 (50%). The noticing rate in the teacher-fronted setting also decreased in Semester 2 (49%) compared to Semester 1 (70%), while the noticing rate in the peerlearning setting increased in Semester 2 (71%) compared to Semester 1 (54%). The grammatical forms introduced in Semester 2, such as honorific and humble forms, were more difficult and complicated than the ones introduced in Semester 1. This may have affected the learners’ uptake and noticing of CF

Table 2.7 Frequency of uptake and noticing Teacher-fronted

Uptake Noticing No uptake

Peer-learning

S1*

S2*

S1*

S2*

48/88 (55%) 62/88 (70%) 26/88 (30%)

19/55 (35%) 27/55 (49%) 28/55 (51%)

14/28 (50%) 15/28 (54%) 13/28 (46%)

23/41 (56%) 29/41 (71%) 12/41 (29%)

*S1 means Semester 1 and S2 means Semester 2.

46


in the teacher-fronted setting in Semester 2. As mentioned in Section 2.4.3, according to my comments in the classroom observation notes, classroom recordings of the learners’ speech and the learners’ comments in their interviews, overall, the learners became more relaxed and actively participated in pair or group work in Semester 2 compared to Semester 1. This may have contributed to the increase in the rates of uptake and noticing in the peerlearning setting in Semester 2. As uptake and noticing rates may vary between the learners, it is necessary to look at the number of CF that occurred for each learner and the numbers of their instances of uptake, noticing and no uptake.8 As mentioned in Chapter 1, one recording of Catherine and Jessica in Semester 1 and one recording of Kiki in Semester 2 were missed. Therefore, the result cannot be a perfect comparison, though it gives some idea about the differences between the learners. Table 2.8 shows Catherine’s uptake and noticing rates. Catherine received more CF in Semester 2 (29 in total) than in Semester 1 (23 in total). Catherine was asked task questions frequently by McCartney in Semester 2 compared to the other learners. This may have contributed to the increase of the CF that she received in Semester 2. Her uptake rate and noticing rate in Semester 1 is high (70% and 78% respectively). Although Catherine’s uptake rate decreased in Semester 2 (48%), she still reformulated her erroneous utterances after almost half of the CF that she received. Erwin’s uptake and noticing rates are shown in Table 2.9. Erwin received the least number of CF. He vicariously answered McCartney’s questions to the class or other learners, often in his private speech, and interacted actively with his classmates. However, his utterances often did not include errors, both when he answered his teacher’s questions and when he said answers in private speech. In peer work, he tended to give CF to his classmates

Table 2.8

Frequency of uptake and noticing (Catherine)

Total number of CF

S1

23

S2

29


16 18 5

(70%) (78%) (22%)

14 17 12

(48%) (59%) (41%)

Table 2.9 Frequency of uptake and noticing (Erwin) Total number of CF

S1

6

S2

1


3 4 2

(50%) (67%) (33%)

1 1 0

(100%) (100%)


47

rather than receiving them. As a result, only a limited number of CF occurred for Erwin. He reformulated his erroneous utterances after 50% of the CF and noticed 67% of the CF in Semester 1. He received one CF move in Semester 2 and successfully reformulated his error after the CF. Jessica’s uptake and noticing rates are shown in Table 2.10. Jessica received no CF in Semester 1 in the peer-learning setting, while she received the largest number of CF during peer work in Semester 2. Out of 29 CF moves in Semester 2, 20 occurred in the peer-learning setting. According to the classroom observation notes and audio-recording of her speech, Jessica participated in peer work more actively in Semester 2 compared to Semester 1. This change may have contributed to the increase of the number of CF that she received in peer work in Semester 2. Jessica’s uptake rate increased from 44% in Semester 1 to 59% in Semester 2, although her noticing rate decreased from 75% in Semester 1 to 69% in Semester 2. Kiki’s uptake and noticing rates are found in Table 2.11. The rate of no uptake by Kiki is 60% in Semester 1 and 50% in Semester 2. These rates are higher than the other learners.9 She often commented in her interviews that she did not listen to teacher talk when it was not interesting for her. She was also strategic in the classroom. When the teachers were asking task questions to other students, she was sometimes trying to answer another task question on her own or with her neighbour to prepare for the occasion when the teacher asked her that task question. She did not listen to both the teachers’ instructions after she was called on by the teachers and answered a task question, because she thought that she would not be asked another question for a while. These strategies probably affected her noticing of incidental CF. Lily’s uptake and noticing rates are shown in Table 2.12.

Table 2.10

Frequency of uptake and noticing (Jessica)

Total number of CF

S1

16

S2

29


7 12 4

(44%) (75%) (25%)

17 20 9

(59%) (69%) (31%)

Table 2.11 Frequency of uptake and noticing (Kiki) Total number of CF

S1

35

S2

16


12 14 21

(34%) (40%) (60%)

4 8 8

(25%) (50%) (50%)

48

Learners in Japanese Language Classrooms Table 2.12 Frequency of uptake and noticing (Lily) Total number of CF

S1

30

S2

8


20 23 7

(67%) (77%) (23%)

3 4 4

(38%) (50%) (50%)

Table 2.13

Frequency of uptake and noticing (Wendy)

Total number of CF Uptake Noticing No uptake

S1

6

S2

13

4 6 0

(67%) (100%)

3 6 7

(23%) (46%) (54%)

Lily received 30 CF moves in Semester 1, while she received 8 CF moves in Semester 2. In her interviews in Semester 2, Lily mentioned that she was not very confident and did not participate in the class actively in Semester 2 compared to Semester 1. One reason for her lack of confidence, she pointed out, was the difficulty of finding time to study Japanese at home due to the heavy workload of her major subject. Lily’s less active participation in the class from her lack of confidence may have invited the decreased number of CF moves that she received in Semester 2. The rates of her uptake and noticing also decreased in Semester 2 (38% and 50% respectively) compared to Semester 1 (67% and 77% respectively). Her lack of time to review and prepare for the class may have affected the rate of her uptake and noticing in Semester 2. Table 2.13 indicates Wendy’s uptake and noticing rates. Wendy received only 6 CF moves in Semester 1. She noticed all the CF moves, and reformulated her erroneous utterances after 67% of the CF. In Semester 2, she received 13 CF moves. She noticed less than half of the CF (46%), and she successfully reformulated her erroneous utterances after 23 % of the CF. According to the classroom observation notes regarding the frequency of her talk in the classroom and audio-recording of her speech, she was quiet compared to the other learner-participants in both the first and second semesters. In the last interview of Semester 2, Wendy commented that she hesitated in speaking Japanese due to her lack of confidence in Semester 1, but that she became less hesitant in speaking Japanese in Semester 2 due to her increase in confidence. She mentioned that the private tutoring she had started taking in the middle of Semester 1 built her confidence, because she could ask questions to her Japanese tutor about the items that she did not understand in the class. Her increase in confidence may have led to her receiving more CF in Semester 2; however, the quantitative data show that this did not contribute to higher rates of uptake and noticing.


49

2.4.5. Direct Corrective Feedback and Incidental Corrective Feedback Table 2.14 shows the frequency of direct and incidental CF in both settings. In the teacher-fronted setting, the occurrence of the incidental CF was great (64) compared to the direct CF (24) in Semester 1, while the numbers of the direct CF (28) was slightly greater than those for the incidental CF (27) in Semester 2. McCartney’s tendency to ask task questions to capable learners such as Catherine may have invited the increase of the direct CF and the decrease of the incidental CF in Semester 2. The learners worked face-to-face with other learners in pairs or groups of three or four learners in peer-learning settings. It is unsurprising that direct CF occurred more often than incidental CF in this situation in both the first and second semesters. The rates of uptake, noticing and no uptake after direct and incidental CF are shown in Table 2.15. The learners showed uptake after 50% of the direct CF and 48% of the incidental CF. In Ohta (2001), learners indicated uptake after 39% of incidental recasts and noticing after 48% of incidental recasts. Incidental CF, in my study, includes CF such as incidental metalinguistic feedback or incidental elicitation other than incidental recasts. This broad definition of CF should have caused a higher uptake rate after incidental CF. The learners also noticed more than 60% of the direct and incidental CF. The study found individual differences of uptake rates after direct and incidental CF. The individual learners’ total number of direct CF that occurred in Semesters 1 and 2, the total number of incidental CF that occurred in Table 2.14 Frequency of direct and incidental corrective feedback Type of CF

Teacher-fronted

Peer-learning

S1

S2

S1

S2

Direct CF Incidental CF

24 (27%) 64 (73%)

28 (51%) 27 (49%)

27 (96%) 1 (4%)

41 (100%) 0

Total

88 (100%)

55 (100%)

28 (100%)

41 (100%)

Table 2.15 Frequency of uptake and noticing after direct and incidental corrective feedback


Direct CF (120)

Incidental CF (92)

60 (50%) 75 (63%) 45 (38%)

44 (48%) 58 (63%) 34 (37%)


50

Semesters 1 and 2, and the numbers of uptake, noticing and no uptake for each CF will now be discussed. Table 2.16 shows Catherine’s uptake and noticing rates after direct and incidental CF. Catherine received direct CF (31) more often than incidental CF (21). However, the rate of her uptake and noticing was higher after incidental CF (71% and 86% respectively) than after direct CF (48% and 55% respectively). In other words, she often noticed the incidental contrasts between her erroneous utterances and the utterances of her teacher or classmates, or realized her errors by incidental prompts. This may indicate that Catherine frequently attended to the teacher’s instructions and the interactions between the teacher and the other learners, noticed the differences between her utterances and their utterances, and reformulated her utterances successfully. Table 2.17 indicates Erwin’s uptake and noticing rates after direct and incidental CF. Erwin received the least direct CF (1) and incidental CF (6). He successfully reformulated his utterances after his teacher’s direct feedback. He noticed more than half of the incidental CF (67%), and reformulated his utterances after half of the incidental CF. Jessica’s uptake and noticing rates after direct and incidental CF are shown in Table 2.18. Jessica received direct CF more often (31) than incidental CF (14). Frequent occurrences of direct CF in pair work in Semester 2 (20) may have contributed to the greater number of direct CF. The rate of her uptake and noticing after direct CF was higher (61% and 77% respectively) than those after incidental CF (36% and 57% respectively).

Table 2.16 Frequency of uptake and noticing after direct and incidental corrective feedback (Catherine)


Direct CF (31)

Incidental CF (21)

15 (48%) 17 (55%) 14 (45%)

15 (71%) 18 (86%) 3 (14%)

Table 2.17 Frequency of uptake and noticing after direct and incidental corrective feedback (Erwin)


Direct CF (1)

Incidental CF (6)

1 (100%) 1 (100%) 0

3 (50%) 4 (67%) 2 (33%)


51

Table 2.18 Frequency of uptake and noticing after direct and incidental corrective feedback (Jessica)


Direct CF (31)

Incidental CF (14)

19 (61%) 24 (77%) 7 (23%)

5 (36%) 8 (57%) 6 (43%)

Table 2.19 Frequency of uptake and noticing after direct and incidental corrective feedback (Kiki)


Direct CF (32)

Incidental CF (19)

12 (38%) 15 (47%) 17 (53%)

4 (21%) 7 (37%) 12 (63%)

Table 2.20 Frequency of uptake and noticing after direct and incidental corrective feedback (Lily) Direct CF (12) Uptake Noticing No uptake

7 (58%) 8 (67%) 4 (33%)

Incidental CF (26) 16 (62%) 19 (73%) 7 (27%)

Kiki’s uptake and noticing rates after direct and incidental CF are found in Table 2.19. Kiki received 32 direct CF moves and 19 incidental CF moves. The rates of her uptake and noticing were higher after direct CF (38% and 47% respectively) than those after incidental CF (21% and 37% respectively). As mentioned in Section 3.3, Kiki was sometimes talking with her classmates or answering task questions to prepare for a case where she may be asked questions by teachers during the teachers’ instructions or during the interactions between the teachers and other learners, and did not listen to the teachers when she was not interested in their talk. This may have affected the rate of her uptake and noticing after incidental CF. Lily’s uptake and noticing rates after direct and incidental CF are shown in Table 2.20. Lily received incidental CF (26) more often than direct CF (12). According to the classroom observation notes and audio-recordings of her speech, Lily was asked questions by McCartney less often compared to Catherine and Erwin who were in the same class for both semesters. McCartney mentioned in his

52

Learners in Japanese Language Classrooms Table 2.21 Frequency of uptake and noticing after direct and incidental corrective feedback (Wendy)


Direct CF (13)

Incidental CF (6)

6 (46%) 10 (77%) 3 (23%)

1 (17%) 2 (33%) 4 (67%)

interview that he did not remember Lily’s name in Semester 2. McCartney’s perception of Lily may also have invited less frequency of calling on her to ask task questions. Lily reformulated her utterances for more than half of the direct and incidental CF, and noticed more than 60% of direct and incidental CF. Table 2.21 shows Wendy’s uptake and noticing rates after direct and incidental CF. Wendy received direct CF (13) more often than incidental CF (6). She noticed 77% of direct CF and reformulated her utterances after 46% of the direct CF. However, she noticed less than half of the incidental CF (33%), and reformulated her utterances after only 17% of the CF in Semester 2. Wendy used private speech least frequently, and this triggered less frequency of incidental CF that she received compared to the other learners. She may not have attended to incidental CF as she did to direct CF.

2.4.6. Contextual Factors in JFL Classrooms As the quantitative data showed, the occurrences of CF and learners’ uptake and noticing after CF in FL classrooms are related to some different contextual factors. CF does not occur frequently for those learners whose utterances include only a few errors, such as Erwin. Direct CF between a teacher and a learner in the teacher-fronted situation tends to occur to the learner who is often asked questions by the teacher, such as with Catherine. The occurrences of incidental CF in the teacher-fronted situation following peer work depends on how the learners participated in the tasks during the peer work. The incidental CF is likely to occur to the learners who actively answered many questions in the peer work. Learners’ noticing of incidental CF by a teacher in the teacher-fronted situation is influenced by the degree of their attention to the teacher’s speech. Direct CF between learners in peer-learning situations also tended to occur for the learners who actively participated in the tasks. When these contexts are taken into consideration, research into CF in FL classrooms is not as simple as most of the previous studies that investigated direct CF between a teacher and learners and the learners’ responses immediately after the feedback have suggested.


53

2.5. Summary of the Chapter In this chapter, I indicated previous studies of CF and discussed the analysis of quantitative data of CF in this study. Results of previous studies varied. While recasts did not often lead learners to uptake (Lyster, 1998a, 1998b; Lyster and Ranta, 1997), recasts were effective for learners’ short-term development of SL structures (Inagaki and Long, 1999; Iwashita, 2003; Long et al., 1998; Ortega and Long, 1997). Learners also perceived different types of CF, such as morphosyntactic, lexical or phonological feedback more correctly in different studies (Mackey et al., 2007; Mackey et al., 2000; Moroishi, 2002). Previous studies suggest that contextual factors, such as learners’ ages, types of interlocutors or situations where CF occur, contribute to these different results. Furthermore, a mismatch was found between teachers’ intention of CF and learners’ interpretation of the CF (e.g. Han, 2001; Mackey et al., 2007; Moroishi, 2002). The results of the quantitative analysis indicated that CF episodes are associated with the classroom context and the learners’ background. In this study, more than 60% of errors which triggered CF were morphosyntactic errors, reflecting the classroom teaching structure, which focused on language forms by reviewing and practising certain grammatical forms in communicative tasks. The learners’ individual differences in the frequency of the CF that they received were associated with how often they were called on by the teachers to answer task questions or how actively they participated in peer work. The occurrence of recasts and incidental recasts was equal (28%), and these two types of CF were more than half of the total number of CF incidences. This result is similar to Ohta’s (2001) finding, although the incidence of incidental recasts was slightly higher than the number of recasts in her study, and suggests that classroom CF studies should examine incidental CF, which most previous studies have overlooked, as well as direct CF. The learners’ noticing and uptake rates of CF were different between Semester 1 and Semester 2 as well as between individuals in both teacher-fronted and peer-work settings. This seemed to be related to the different degree of difficulty of the grammatical forms that were being practised in the classes and how the learners were relaxed and active in peer work. Most of the learners responded to more than half of the CF moves that they received. Incidental CF occurred frequently in the teacher-fronted settings (73% in Semester 1 and 49% in Semester 2); however, this seldom occurred in the peer-work settings, in line with Ohta (2001). This shows the relationship between the frequency of particular types of CF and the situations in which they occur. As Ohta (2001) discussed, face-to-face interactions with partners or other members in pair/group work contributes to the occurrence of direct CF rather than incidental CF, while teacher-fronted settings provides the learners with ‘private spaces’ (p. 66) in which incidental CF could occur. The learners’ noticing and uptake rates of direct and incidental

54


CF varied, showing that some learners responded to incidental CF more often than direct CF. Noticing and uptake of incidental CF were related to the learners’ attention to the teachers’ or other learners’ speech in the teacher-fronted settings. The learners’ classroom strategies, such as answering other task questions when the teachers were asking particular task questions to the class or other learners, affected the noticing of incidental CF. The learners reformulated the errors following almost half of the CF and responded to more than 60% of CF. However, as mentioned earlier, learners’ responses to CF do not necessarily mean that they understood the feedback. Moreover, classroom contexts and factors related to the learners’ and the teachers’ backgrounds should be examined in association with CF episodes. Therefore, qualitative analysis is necessary to investigate the perceptions of CF by the teachers and learners. This is introduced in Chapter 3.

Notes 1 2

3

4

5

6 7

8

9

Some studies such as van Lier (1988) focused on learners’ self-repair. The uptake rate of the recasts is 42% in Ohta (2001); however, this rate was corrected to 38% following personal communication between me and Ohta (A. S. Ohta, personal communication, 3 January, 2007). Ellis et al. (2001) and Loewen (2004) examined the focus-on-form episode, which ‘includes all the discourse that relates to one particular linguistic item’ (Loewen 2004, p. 155), and this included both teacher-initiated and learnerinitiated CF episodes. Expressions such as ‘oh’ can express understanding as well as noticing. However, in my study, for quantitative analysis, learners’ responses without reformulations of their errors were categorized as noticing. This occurred when the teachers did not repeat the learners’ correct answers after the learners presented the answers. In these cases, the learners’ answers which contrasted with the utterances of the learner-participants were counted as incidental CF. Uptake includes ‘uptake’ and ‘uptake and acknowledgement’ in the table. Uptake constitutes the total number of uptake, and uptake and acknowledgement in each semester in Tables 2.5 and 2.6. Noticing consists of the total number of uptake, unsuccessful uptake, acknowledgement, uptake and acknowledgement in each semester in Tables 2.5 and 2.6. ‘No uptake’ equates to ‘no uptake and no acknowledgement’ in each semester in Tables 2.5 and 2.6. As stated in the first paragraph in Section 2.4.4, ‘uptake’ means the learners’ correct reformulation of their errors, and ‘noticing’ means the learners’ responses to CF including ‘uptake’; therefore, the total number of ‘noticing’ and ‘no uptake’ matches the total number of CF. The exception is Wendy’s no uptake rate (54%) in Semester 2.

Chapter 3

Corrective Feedback: Learners’ and Teachers’ Perceptions

This chapter includes the analysis and discussion of the data of CF episodes that were collected by classroom recordings and SR interviews in relation to the perceptions of CF by both the learners and the teachers in the classroom context. In the first section, I indicate how direct and incidental CF occurrences are interrelated and how the learners benefit from the CF, or sometimes do not notice the CF in the classroom context. Secondly, I discuss the relationship between the learners’ responses to CF and their understanding of the CF, and the factors that affect or promote the learners’ understanding of CF. Thirdly, I indicate the explanations of the effectiveness of recasts, how the teachers choose CF types and what kinds of CF the learners prefer to be provided with by their teachers. Fourthly, I examine the relationship between the learners’ understanding of CF and their development of correct forms, and the examples where the learners spontaneously asked questions about task answers to their teachers. Finally, I present the answers of the research questions.

3.1. Corrective Feedback in the Classroom Context The analysis of the data collected by both the classroom recordings and the SR interviews revealed results that are difficult to be discovered by focusing on only language used in classroom interactions. CF episodes are closely related to the classroom contexts in which they occurred. As Ohta (2001) found, the teachers’ CF for particular learners functioned as incidental recasts to the other learners. In the following example, Catherine’s response to McCartney’s elicitation functioned as incidental CF to Erwin. McCartney asked a task question to Catherine after pair work: Excerpt 1 1

C:

Uhn kono keeki wa uhn nari nagara tsukutta n desu ga, a amari jyoozu ni dekimasen deshita.


56

➙

➙

➙

2

T:

3

C:

4

T:

5

C:

6

T:

7 8

C: T:

9

C:

Uhn I made this cake while crying ((error)), but I could not make it very well. Kono keeki wa? This cake TOP? I was, uh because I was crying while making the cake, that’s why it’s not good. Aa Kono keeki wa, umm Oh, this cake TOP, umm [Nari nagara ((laugh)) [While crying ((laugh)) [Maybe you would have to have a comma (.) after that. If you are going to cry while making a cake, ((laugh)) Then, the cake doesn’t cry, so you have to put a comma there to indicate that there’s a break and it’s not the subject crying. Kono keeki wa naki nagara, [[naku, nakimasu, naki nagara Then, the cake doesn’t cry, so you have to put a comma there to indicate that there’s a break and it’s not the subject crying. I made this cake while crying, [[cry ((PLA)) cry ((POL)) while crying [[°Naki, naki° [[°((a first part of ‘naki nagara’ (while crying)))° (Catherine, 2 May)

The task required the learners to choose an expression to fill in a blank space of a sentence and change the expression with nagara (while). Catherine chose naku (cry) and made a sentence with an incorrect form of the verb in line 1. The teacher was not sure about what Catherine had said and asked for clarification in line 2, where Catherine gave him an English translation of her sentence and repeated nari nagara [sic] (while crying) in line 5. The teacher mentioned the necessity of a comma after kono keeki wa and showed the correct form naki nagara in line 8. Catherine repeated naki, the part where she made an error in the last line. In his SR interview, the teacher commented that he did not really expect the learners to make a correct form with nagara, because they had not learned the vocabulary naku yet, and he was not quite sure about Catherine’s understanding of his feedback. According to Catherine, during pair work before this interaction, she considered that the polite form of naku should be narimasu and wrote the answer nari nagara in her notebook. After the teacher’s explanation in line 8, she realized that the polite form of naku was nakimasu. In her SR interview, I asked Catherine for the negative form of naku and she answered with the correct form nakanai.

Corrective Feedback: Perceptions

57

Interestingly, this interaction between the teacher and Catherine functioned as an incidental CF move for Erwin. During pair work preceding Excerpt 1, Erwin made the following utterance: Excerpt 2 1

E:

Nooto nooto o toru nagara jyugyoo o uketa. Kono keeki wa naku nagara (.) denwa de hanasu nagara tsukutta n desu ga, amari jyoozu ni dekimasen deshita. (. . . .) okane ga nakatta kara arubaito o shita nagara, shi nagara gakkoo ni ikimashita (. . .) tabako o suu nagara (..) sumi nagara While taking note ((error)) I took the class. This cake TOP while crying ((error)) (.) while talking on the phone ((error)) I made CONJ, but I could not make it very well (. . . .) as I did not have money, while doing a part time job ((error)) while doing, I went to school (. . .) while smoking ((error)) (..) while smoking ((error)) (Erwin, 2 May)

In his SR interview, Erwin commented that he understood that naku in his textbook meant ‘is missing’, because it was written in hiragana and not in kanji, which expresses the meaning of a word. The pronunciation of the word that means ‘missing’ (nakusu) is similar to the one that means ‘cry’ (naku). The following excerpt shows Erwin’s reaction during the previous excerpt between the teacher and Catherine: Excerpt 3

➙

1

C:

2

T:

3

C:

4

T:

5

E:

Kono keeki wa uh nari nagara: tsukutta n desu ga, a amari jyoozu ni dekimasen deshita. I made this cake while crying ((error)), but I could not make it very well. Kono keeki wa? This cake TOP I was, because I was crying while making a cake, that’s why it’s not good. Aa, kono keeki wa umm (.) maybe you would [have to have a comma (.) after that. Oh, this cake TOP umm (.) maybe you would [have to have a comma (.) after that. [°Naki° [°((a first part of ‘naki nagara’ (while crying)))° (Erwin, 2 May)


58

Catherine’s translation of her answer in line 3 functioned as incidental metalinguistic feedback for Erwin and made him notice the meaning of naku. This led Erwin to self-correct the verb forms from naku nagara to naki nagara. Erwin mentioned in his SR interview that he realized that naku meant ‘cry’ and made the verb form naki for nagara in the last line. In Excerpt 3, Erwin, who was an overhearer of the interaction between Catherine and the teacher, benefited from the interaction and noticed the correct form. As Ohta (2001) found in her study, a learner becomes an overhearer to an interaction of a neighbouring pair during pair work. Kiki overheard McCartney’s utterance to a neighbouring group during peer work. In the following example, Kiki was practising how to ask and give directions, looking at a map in the textbook with her group members: Excerpt 4 ((During group work, Kiki is trying to work out an expression ‘how can I get there?’ in Japanese)) 1

K:

Dooka ikimasu ka How can I go ((error))? ((omitted)) 2 K: Dooka, yeah uhn tai taishi taishikan made uhn How ((error)), yeah uhn to the embassy uhn 3 S: Taishikan made To the embassy 4 K: Suupaa kara From the supermarket 5 S: Suupaa kara: From the supermarket 6 K: Doo ikimasu ka How can I go? ((omitted)) 7 S: Koosaten de: mi hidari? At the intersection, ((the first part of ‘migi’ (right))) left? 8 K: Um Um 9 S: Mi hidari: hidari: ((the first part of ‘migi’ (right))) left, left 10 K: Ni magarimasu PAR turn 11 S: Magarimasu Turn 12 K: Suupaa o, sono ato [suupaa o Supermarket ACC, after that [supermarket ACC

Corrective Feedback: Perceptions 13

S:

14

K:

59

[Suupaa wa uh [Supermarket TOP uh Doo yatte ikimasu ka How can I go? (Kiki, 23 May)

In the first line, Kiki’s utterance Dooka ikimasu ka was incorrect. She used the correct expression Doo ikimasu ka (How can I go?) in line 6. After a while, she used the more appropriate expression Doo yatte ikimasu ka in line 14. According to Kiki’s comment, she realized that dooka did not sound proper after saying it and omitted ka after doo because another ka, a question marker, was at the end of the sentence. Then she overheard that the teacher was suggesting the expression doo yatte iki masu ka to the group sitting next to her group, and she repeated it. Overhearing the teacher’s suggestion to the neighbouring group, an incidental recast, led Kiki to notice the most appropriate expression. Although the teacher’s speech to the neighbouring group was not recorded on Kiki’s tape, it was clear on the teacher’s tape. The video recorded the teacher standing close to Kiki and talking to the next group for a while during the group work. This example shows that a learner can be active as an overhearer who uses any possible learning opportunity in the classroom context, as Ohta (2001) suggested. Learners often provided help with each other when their classmates sitting close to them were called on by the teachers. In the following excerpt, Wendy’s classmate helped her: Excerpt 5 ((The teacher shows a picture in which two people are drinking wine, looking at mountains))

➙

1

T:

2

W:

3 4

T: W:

5

S:

6

W:

7

T:

Eeto yama o, yama o mimasu, yama, [ii desu ka? Well mountain ACC, look at the mountain, mountain, [OK? [°Yama, yama o° [°Mountain, mountain ACC° ((holds out his hand towards Wendy)) Oh ((laugh)) OK. Yama o: (.) mi: mitara Oh ((laugh)) OK. If I see the mountain ((error)) °°Mi nagara, nagara°° °°While looking°° Oh, mi nagara, ee wain o: nomi masu ((laugh)) Oh while looking, well I drink wine ((laugh)) Yama o mi nagara, wain o nomimasu, hai. While looking at the mountain, I drink wine, OK. (Wendy, 2 May)


60

Wendy used the inappropriate form mitara (if see) in line 4. S who was sitting next to her suggested Mi nagara (While seeing) in a soft voice in line 5 and Wendy repeated it with an acknowledgement in the following line. According to Wendy, she was thinking about the answer, repeating yama (mountain) in line 2. She was a little bit surprised when McCartney suddenly pointed her out to answer the question. When her classmate mentioned Mi nagara, she realized that she had omitted na. Although she sounded mitara not migara in line 4, she was not aware when she was saying it. CF moves provided by classmates were sometimes not recorded on the learners’ audio tapes. The following example is a CF episode between Kiki and McCartney: Excerpt 6 1

T:

2

K:

3

T:

4

K:

5

T:

6

K:

7

T:

8

K:

➙

9

T:

➙

10 11 12

Ss: K: T:

13 14 15 16

K: T: K: T:

➙

➙

➙

➙ ➙

Yonban, yonban requires a little bit of imagination. In which case, I will try (.) Kiki-san Number four, number four requires a little bit of imagination. In which case, I will try (.) Kiki A (.) uh kono kono machi o tooru koto ga dekiru n desu yo Oh (.) uh you can go along this, this town ((error)) Kono This Uh kono uh koko de uh kono machi o tooru, michi Uh this uh here uh go along this town, road, Michi Road Michi o tooru koto ga dekiru n desu yo You can go along the road Umm tooru? Umm go along? Tooru, yeah Go along, yeah I think you would say, did uh, if they listen to you, you might get run over by the car. [((laugh)) [((laugh)) So there need to, So Kiki-san, you said ‘you can go along this road’. So there need to, So Kiki, you said ‘you can go along this road’. I said, yeah, you can cross the road, yeah So what you want to say is ‘you can cross the road’ Yeah Wataru Cross


➙

17

K:

18

T:

19

K:

20

T:

21

K:

61

Wataru Cross Wataru, um. Kuruma, kuruma ga, Kiki-san Cross, yeah. Car, car NOM, Kiki Hai Yes Kuruma ga michi o tooru, kodomo ga michi o wataru Cars go along the street, children cross the street °Wataru° °Cross° (Kiki, 30 May)

The task required the learners to make a sentence with koto ga dekiru (be able to), while looking at a sign with two children walking across the road. Kiki’s pronunciation of the kanji ‘michi’ (road) was incorrect in line 2. According to Kiki, she knew the meaning of michi (road) and did not mean ‘town’ by saying machi. After the teacher’s clarification request, Kiki repeated her sentence with machi again and corrected it to michi. Although it was not clearly recorded on her tape, Kiki commented in her SR interview that her friend, M sitting next to her said michi when she said machi in line 4 and that this reminded her of the correct pronunciation of the word. Thus, CF moves between the learners were embedded in CF moves between the teachers and the learners. This suggests the importance of SR interviews to obtain the information that was not audio-recorded. The teacher repeated Kiki’s expression tooru (go along) in line 7 and this was followed by her repetition of it. The teacher tried to elicit a more appropriate expression from Kiki in line 12 after making a funny comment about the expression tooru in line 9. After Kiki’s utterance that she meant ‘cross’ by tooru, the teacher introduced the verb wataru (cross) and Kiki repeated it. The teacher confirmed the difference between tooru and wataru with Kiki in lines 18 and 20, and Kiki repeated wataru again. The teacher commented that he got Kiki’s attention in line 18, because she was talking with her neighbour and not listening to him then. He considered that Kiki understood the difference between the two verbs, because he explained it thoroughly with a funny comment and the example sentences. Kiki commented that she understood the difference between the two verbs after the teacher showed the verb wataru in line 16, and that she started talking with her friend, because she found the correct answer. To the same question at the beginning of her SR interview, she mentioned wataru immediately after saying kono michi o tooru, showing the development of distinguishing these two verbs in her language system. CF moves between learners were also embedded in incidental CF episodes between the teachers and the learners. Catherine sat with her friend, A, in every recorded class. In the following long excerpt, Catherine received


62

some different incidental CF moves from the teacher and direct CF from A. McCartney read a sentence from a letter in a task out of the workbook. The learners needed to change the expression ki ni suru (care about) in the sentence to suit the content of the letter: Excerpt 7 1

T:

2

C:

3

T:

4

C:

5

T:

6

C:

7

A:

8

C:

9

T:

10

C:

➙

11

T:

➙

12

S:

13

C:

➙

14 15

T: C:

➙

16

T:

➙

➙

Demo moshi taihen dattara, again ‘tara’ But if it is a trouble, again ‘tara’ [°°Ki ni suru na°° [°°Do not care°° [Taihen’ this is a na-adjective? taihen, taihen na hito, [[taihen dattara [Trouble, this is a na-adjective, trouble, a difficult/splendid person [[if it is a trouble [[°Ki ni suru° [[°You Care° Ki ni suru mm You care mm °Ki ni shite kimasu° °I care° ((error)) °°Ki ni shinai de°° °° ((te-form of ‘ki ni shinai’ (do not care)))°° °Ki ni shinai de?° °((te-form of ‘ki ni shinai’ (do not care)))° [If it’s taihen, if it’s too much or nuisance [If it’s a trouble, if it’s too much or nuisance [Ki ni shimasen [I do not care If you don’t really have to do ((incomprehensible)) ki ni suru, what would you do with ‘ki ni suru’ If you don’t really have to do ((incomprehensible)) care, what would you do with ‘you care’? [[Ki ni suru, ki ni shinai [[You care, you do not care [[°Ki ni shinai, shinai de?° [[°((te-form of ‘ki ni shinai’(do not care)))° Thanks. ‘Ki ni’ it’s a negative and polite [Shimasu [((ending of the verb ‘ki ni shimasu’(care))) [so please ‘ki ni shinai de (.) kudasai’ [So please ‘please do not care’


➙

17

C:

18

T:

19

C:

63

°Ki ni shinai de° °((te-form of ‘ki ni shinai’ (do not care)))° Ki ni shinai de kudasai Please do not care °°Ki ni shinai de kudasai°° °°Please do not care°° (Catherine, 22 Aug.)

Catherine’s utterance Ki ni suru na (Do not care), an imperative in line 2, semantically suited the sentence; however, she needed to change it to a more polite expression for the letter. The teacher was talking to the class. Catherine’s utterance Ki ni shite kimasu in line 6 was erroneous. The utterance of A (sitting next to Catherine) Ki ni shinai de in the next line functioned as a recast to Catherine and she repeated it. The teacher’s translation of the first clause of the sentence in line 9 functioned as an incidental metalinguistic feedback to Catherine and she mentioned Ki ni shimansen, the negative polite form of ki ni suru. The following question by the teacher in line 11 functioned as an incidental elicitation to Catherine and she repeated ki ni shinai de which overlapped with another student, S’s utterance Ki ni suru, kini shinai (You care, you do not care). The teacher heard S and mentioned that the expression should be in the negative polite form in line 14. This functioned as incidental metalinguistic feedback for Catherine and she said the affirmative polite ending after ki ni in the following line. The teacher finally presented the correct sentence with a request form at the end in line 16 and this functioned as an incidental recast for Catherine who repeated the first part Ki ni shinai de again after it. The teacher’s repetition of the sentence in line 18, another incidental recast to Catherine, triggered her repetition of the whole sentence in the last line. Catherine responded to each utterance of the teacher, and she spoke softly in most of the utterances. Although she spoke up a few times, the teacher did not hear her. In some other parts of the task, they needed to use the forms te iku or te kuru (to express change of an event or an action or express the direction of an action is going away or coming towards the speaker) that they had learned in the class. Catherine commented in her interview that she tried to use the forms for all the questions, which is the reason for her erroneous utterance in line 6. In line 2, she used the negative form of ki ni suru with an imperative, and then she manipulated ki ni suru by saying some different forms, including both affirmative and negative forms. According to Catherine, after the teacher’s explanation in lines 9 and 11, she realized that the negative form was appropriate; however, she was still not very sure about the expression that was needed and was testing a few different forms. When the teacher said ki ni shinai de kudasai, she understood that it was an appropriate ending from the content of the letter. Excerpt 7 indicates a good example of Catherine’s thinking process of making the correct form. Her manipulations of the forms show her use of the language as a cognitive tool through the mediation of the direct and


64

incidental CF. However, she presented the incorrect answer Ki ni shite kurenai at the beginning of the interview. Kurenai is the negative form of kureru, which means ‘someone gives something to me’, and this form was taught with the forms in relation to ‘giving and receiving’ in the previous week of the recording of Excerpt 7. As a few different kinds of grammatical forms were introduced in each week, Catherine seemed to be confused with the forms. Excerpts 5, 6 and 7 indicated that the learners benefited from CF from both their teacher and classmates who provided help to them or who were trying to work out the answers. The learners also benefited from CF episodes between their teacher and classmates who were called on, when they provided their help to the classmates. In the following example, Catherine showed her answers to her classmate who was called on by McCartney: Excerpt 8

➙

((The teacher is talking about a task question)) 1 T: Soo desu ne. Because it’s a question, probably goes up [at the end OK. Because it’s a question, probably goes up [at the end 2 C: [°Iie° [°No° 3 T: Kinoo takusan denwa ga [[atta? Ii desu ka? Were there many phone calls yesterday? OK? 4 C: [[°Tanaka-san shika° [[°Only Mr/Ms Tanaka° 5 T: Sorede Henji wa? Ee S-san, henji-wa? ((points out the student who is sitting next to Catherine to answer the question)) Well, the answer is? Well S, the answer is? 6 S: Hai, uhn Yes, uhn 7 C: °Iie° °No° 8 S: Uhn (.) iie, [iie Uhn (.) no, [no 9 C: [°°Tanaka-san, Tanaka-san°° [°°Mr/Ms Tanaka, Mr/Ms Tanaka°° 10 S: Uhn Tanaka-san Uhn Mr/Ms Tanaka 11 C: °°Dake desu°° °°Only COP°° ((present tense)) 12 S: Dake desu Only COP 13 T: Soo desu ne, or might be ‘dake datta’ That’s right, or might be ‘only ((past tense, PLA))’


C:

15

S:

16

C:

17

T:

18

S:

19

C:

20

T:

21

C:

65

°°Datta°° °°COP°° Uhn (.) dake Uhn (.) only °°Deshita°° °°COP°° ((past tense, POL)) Tanaka-san dake Only Mr/Ms Tanaka Datta COP [[°°Datta, um°° [[°°COP um°° [[Datta, hai ii desu ne, or Tanaka-san shika nakatta COP yes, that is right, or it was only Mr/Ms Tanaka °Shika nakatta° °Only ((past tense of ‘nai’ (none)))° (Catherine, 30 May)

Catherine started answering the teacher’s question in private speech in lines 2 and 4. After the teacher called on S who was sitting next to her, she helped him by telling her answers to him in lines 7, 9 and 11, and S repeated them. The teacher’s feedback to S in line 13 functioned as an incidental CF to Catherine and she repeated datta (the past plain form of desu) in line 14. As S tried to repeat the teacher’s feedback in line 15, Catherine suggested deshita (the polite past form of desu) to him in the following line. S repeated the teacher’s suggestion datta in line 18 and Catherine showed her agreement in the subsequent line. Catherine repeated Shika nakatta (only) in the last line, the alternative expressions that the teacher showed in the previous line. According to Catherine, she first tried to make a sentence with shika (only) in line 4; however, she could not complete the sentence. When the teacher corrected S’s answer with datta in line 13, she understood that she should have used the past tense. Although she changed datta (plain form) to deshita (polite form), she realized that the plain form was more appropriate, because the question was in the plain form, after hearing S’s answer in line 18. After the teacher’s suggestion of the alternative expression, she found how to form the sentence with shika. At the beginning of the interview, she answered the question with dake desu and immediately self-corrected it to deshita. I asked Catherine to also make the answer with shika, and she answered Tanaka-san shika nai (It is only Mr/Ms Tanaka) without using the past tense of the adjective nai. Catherine’s answers showed her awareness of using the past tense to answer a question with the past tense; however, this skill had not really stabilized. She may have been developing it for internalization. The teacher’s incidental CF created the ZPD for Catherine to understand the correct forms and meanings. She paid


66

attention to the incidental CF and used it as external assistance to develop her understanding of the appropriate forms. This is understandable, because Catherine was indirectly participating in the interaction between the teacher and her classmate who was called on, by providing her help to the classmate. In this situation, Catherine could benefit from the interaction as auditor and indirect participant in the interaction between S and the teacher. Kiki also provided her help to the learner who was called on by McCartney to answer a task question to fill in a blank space of the sentence with one of several expressions and change the verb in the expression with nagara (while): Excerpt 9 ((After pair work, the teacher points out S, sitting next to Kiki to answer one of the task questions)) 1

T:

2

K:

S-san S °°Watashi no me o mi nagara°° °°While looking at my eyes°°

((omitted)) 3

S:

4

T:

5

S:

6

T:

7

M:

➙

8

T:

➙

9 10 11 12

Ss: K: T: K:

➙

13

T:

14

M:

➙

Watashi no me o mi nagara While looking at my eyes Watashi no me o mi nagara While looking at my eyes Aruite tara: okin o mi•tsu•keta. I was walking and found money ((error)) Okane o mitsuketa umm, well ‘aruite itara okane o mitsuketa’, so somebody found some money I found money umm, well ‘while walking I found money’, so somebody found some money °°Kuda o mi?°° °°Look down°° ((error)) So S, do you think you found money by looking at your eyes? ((laugh)) ((laugh)) While walking? ((laugh)) °°Sorry [[Uhn uhn what’s this one? What’s this one?°° ((talking to M)) [[So somebody, somebody was walking and found some money. °°Kuda?°° °°Down?°° ((error))


➙

K:

67

°°Kuda? kuda?°° °°Down? down?°° ((error)) 16 M: °°I don’t know, I don’t know, I’m not sure°° 17 S: Uh kuda o Uh down ((error)) ACC 18 T: OK, he’s got it. So let’s have a listen. 19 S: °°Kuda?°° °°Down°° ((error)) 20 T: S, doozo, over to you. S, please, over to you. 21 S: Hai, uh Yes, uh 22 M: °°I’m not sure°° 23 S: Uh uh (.) Uh uh (.) 24 K: °°Ku?°° °°((the first part of ‘kuda’ (down))) ((error))?°° 25 M: °°I’m not sure°° 26 T: °Try not to do, it’s making work° 27 S: Kuda o mi mi nagara, aru: aruite tara, okin o mi:tsuketa While looking down ((error)) and walking, I found money ((error)) 28 T: OK, yes, uhn except that we don’t read it, we don’t read money in Chinese way in Japanese, it’s it’s uh ‘kinyoobi’, ‘kinyoobi’ is, that’s the kanji ‘kin’ for ‘kinyoobi’ but (.) with money, it’s o•ka•ne, okane, but you did very well (.) Shita o mi nagara OK, yes, uhn except that we don’t read it, we don’t read money in Chinese way in Japanese, it’s it’s uh ‘Friday’, ‘Friday’ is, that’s the kanji ‘kin’ for ‘Friday’ but (.) with money, it’s o•ka•ne, money, but you did very well (.) While looking down 29 K: °°Shita°° °°Down°° 30 T: Can you do that again, I got to give you work, I got to make you work, can you say that again. 31 S: Um with that one? 32 T: Yes 33 K: °°Shita, shita o mi nagara°° °°Down, while looking down°° ((omitted)) 34 S: Mi nagara uh aru: aruite tara o: ee While looking uh and walking, ((the first part of ‘okane’ (money)) well


68

35

K:

36

S:

°°Oka°° °°((a part of ‘okane’ (money)))°° Kane kane: o mi:tsuketa. Money, I found money. (Kiki, 2 May)

Kiki chose one of the expressions and used it with nagara for S in line 2, and S said it to the teacher in line 3. After the teacher’s repetition of his expression in line 4, S read the rest of the sentence in the textbook. After the teacher translated the last part of the sentence into English in line 6, M, sitting on the other side of Kiki, chose another expression and said it in a soft voice, although his reading of the kanji ‘kuda’ was incorrect. The teacher’s question to S in line 8 functioned as an incidental elicitation to Kiki and she showed her acknowledgement by laughing. Kiki apologized to S and asked M the reading of a kanji in the expression that she chose in line 12. M read it as kuda again in line 14. However, he expressed his uncertainty in line 16 after Kiki’s repetition of his reading. S who was listening to them said ‘uh kuda o’ in line 17 and the teacher who heard him encouraged him to present his new answer in line 18. Kiki, who was trying to help S, repeated ku, the first part of the kanji reading that M said in line 24. Although M was still expressing that he was not sure about the reading, S had to present the sentence in line 27. After giving a long explanation about S’s error of the reading of the kanji ‘kane’ (money), the teacher corrected his other error in the kanji reading by recast in line 28. Kiki repeated the correct reading shita (down) in line 29 and said the correct phrase shita o minagara (while looking down) to S who was told to correct his errors by the teacher. She also told S the teacher’s correction of his error of another kanji reading in line 35. Kiki, S and M were sitting in the back of the classroom, and Kiki and M spoke very softly in order to help S without being heard by the teacher. The teacher commented in the interview that he noticed how the students sitting around S were helping him, although he did not know what they were actually saying. According to the teacher, although learners learn from other learners as well as from the teacher, only repeating what other learners said does not lead them to learning. The teacher considered that other learners, including more advanced learners in the class, also should have learned from this long interaction between the teacher and S, and that S understood his feedback. After this interaction, the teacher went to S and shook hands with him, appreciating his efforts to work out the answer. However, as found in Excerpt 9, S only repeated what Kiki or M had said each time and could not repeat the teacher’s correction on his own without Kiki’s help. Therefore, his understanding of the feedback by the teacher and his classmates could be suspect. Kiki, who was trying to help S, seemed to notice the correct forms. According to Kiki, she first understood the meaning of watashi no me o mi nagara as ‘looking


69

at money with my eyes’. When the teacher mentioned the English translation of the phrase in line 8, she realized her misunderstanding. After the teacher’s feedback to S in line 28, she understood the correct reading of kanji ‘shita’ and ‘kane’. While S’s understanding of the CF that he had received was uncertain, Kiki, who was not an addressee of the teacher’s CF, learned from the incidental CF. M, who provided the kanji reading kuda to Kiki and S, may have learned the correct reading of the kanji, as well, through the incidental CF, although he did not repeat the correct reading.1 In the classroom, teachers talk not only to addressees, but also for auditors when they ask questions or give instructions to particular students (Ohta, 2001). Ohta explained that the learners who are not addressees of the CF by a teacher, but auditors or overhearers, may be more likely to notice CF, because they have more abundant resources in their working memory (memory that is activated from long-term memory). It may be easier for learners to process language forms when they have no pressure to think about correct answers and present them to the class, as Ohta (2001) pointed out. In the above example, Kiki, who was an auditor, could understand the incidental CF while under no pressure. Moreover, her intention to help her classmate may have promoted her involvement in the interaction between the teacher and the classmate, and this resulted in enhancing her understanding of the feedback. In addition to this, the teacher’s CF seemed to create the ZPD for Kiki, but not for S. Mackey et al. (2007) stated that the level of participation of learners in CF episodes has seldom been investigated. When JFL learners intend to help their classmates who were called on by teachers, the level of the learners’ participation in the CF episodes increases, although they do not directly participate in them. This suggests that the increased level of the learners’ participation in the CF episodes through their intention to help their classmates contributes to their noticing and understanding of incidental CF. Bunno (2004) examined ‘off-stage private interaction’ between learners in order to solve problems related to ‘on-stage exchanges’ between the teacher and the other learners in a Japanese language class for foreigners in Japan. Bunno stated that off-stage private interaction between learners does not necessarily mean the intervention in the classes, but that it has the function for the learners to participate in the classes and to support classroom management without disturbing ‘on-stage exchanges’. In my study, the CF between the learners that was embedded in the CF between the learners and the teachers promoted the learning of the learners who participated in the embedded CF episodes. As ‘off-stage private interaction’ helped learners’ understanding of the issues related to ‘on-stage exchanges’, the embedded CF between the learners generally supported the learners’ understanding of the teachers’ CF without disturbing them. Incidental CF occurred frequently in the teacher-fronted setting, and the learners benefited from the incidental CF. The learners sometimes confirmed the correctness of the forms which they were not sure about during


70

the previous peer work, by receiving incidental CF from their teachers during post-task activities. In the following example, Kiki and M are trying to make a sentence koto ga dekiru (be able to), while looking at a sign of a car park in the textbook: Excerpt 10 ((During pair work)) 1 K: How about ‘parking’? This one, parking (.) paakingu ((laugh)) How about ‘parking’? This one, parking (.) parking ((laugh)) No, no, no, there must be something, [uh [Uh chuu chuushajyoo [Uh ((the first part of ‘chuusha’ (park))) car park 4 M: Chuusha koto o, chuusha koto o, is it? Chuusha, chuusha suru koto o? Parking nom ACC ((error)), Parking nom ACC ((error)), is it? Parking, to park ACC ((After the pair work, the teacher is doing the task with the class)) 5 T: Ichiban, S-san, what, what did you work it out Number one, S, what, what did you work it out? 6 S: Uhn so koko de kuruma o Uhn ((a first part of ‘soko’ (there))) here car ACC 7 K: °Noru?° °Ride?° 8 S: Tomaru tomaru koto ga dekimasu You can stop ((intransitive)) ((error)) 9 T: Dekimasu, yes. On, on reflection of it, it should be ‘tomeru koto ga dekimasu’ Can, yes. On, on reflection of it, it should be ‘you can stop’ ((transitive)) 10 M: °Tomeru?° °Stop° ((transitive))? 11 K: °Um stop° °Um stop° 12 T: Or chuusha, chuusha suru, to park a car Or parking, park, to park a car 13 K: °Chuusha suru, you got it right° °Park, you got it right° (Kiki, 30 May)

2 3 ➙

➙

M: K:

During the pair work, Kiki said the noun, chuushajyoo (car park) in line 3, and S said the verb chuusha suru (park (a car)) in line 4. After the pair work, the


71

teacher asked the question to one of the students, S. Kiki completed S’s answer with another verb, noru (ride) in line 7. ‘You can get in a car’ is ‘Kuruma ni noru koto ga dekiru’. Therefore, Kiki needed to change the particles from o to ni. However, because the sign meant a car park, ‘Kuruma o tomeru koto ga dekiru’ (You can park a car) was more appropriate, as the teacher showed in line 9. The teacher corrected tomaru, the intransitive verb that S used in line 8, to the transitive one tomeru. After the teacher’s feedback to S in line 9, M repeated the verb tomeru (stop) and Kiki provided the English translation of the verb in line 11. The teacher’s suggestion of the alternative verb chuusha suru in line 12 functioned as an incidental recast to Kiki and she made a comment to M with the repetition of the verb in the last line. According to Kiki’s comments in her interview, when M said chuusha suru in the pair work, she was not sure whether she could use suru, the expression for a verb after chuusha. She realized that it was possible when the teacher mentioned the expression. Therefore, she did not show her uptake after her classmate, M’s feedback in the pair work, while she showed uptake in line 13 after the incidental CF by the teacher after the pair work. In relation to the intransitive verb tomaru (a car stops) and the transitive verb tomeru (someone stops a car), she correctly answered the difference, when I asked it in the interview. She also remembered the expression chuusha suru for the same task question by myself at the beginning of the interview. This is an example where the learners confirmed the correctness of the grammatical forms that they were uncertain about during pair work, when the teachers checked their answers of the task questions with the class after the pair work. As Ohta (2001) referred to the importance of this type of post-task activity, it provides the opportunities for learners to learn from incidental feedback as well as direct feedback. As shown in this section, incidental CF is interrelated with direct CF. Incidental CF occurred in four different situations: (1) during post-task activities after peer work, (2) when the learners answered the teachers’ questions to the class or other learners by using private speech, (3) when the learners helped their classmates who were asked task questions by providing their own answers, and (4) when one of the learners overheard her teacher’s suggestion to a neighbouring group. Situations 1, 2 and 3 are teacher-fronted settings and Situation 4 is a peer-work setting. Figures 3.1–3.4 indicate the occurrence of CF in each situation. In the figures, T means a teacher and L1 and L2 mean learners. In Situations 1, 2 and 3, the teacher’s direct CF to L1 functions as incidental CF for L2 who made the same or similar error as L1. L1’s responses to the teacher’s CF also functions as incidental CF for L2 in some cases. Other than these cases, when L1 presents the correct answer in Situations 1 and 2, the answer functions as incidental CF for L2’s answers during the previous peer work or in his/her private speech. When L1 presents the correct answer without using the one which L2 provided in Situation 3, L1’s answer also functions as incidental


72

T: asks a question to L1

L1: L1’s answer includes an error

L2: L2’s utterance in a previous peer work includes the same or similar error as L1’s Direct CF Incidental CF

Figure 3.1

Occurrence of CF in Post-Task Activity Situation


L1: L1’s answer includes an error

L2: L2’s answer in private speech includes the same or similar error as L1’s

Figure 3.2

Occurrence of CF in Private-Speech Situation


L1: L1 presents the answer which includes an error that L2 gave him/her

L2: helps L1 by giving his/her own answer which includes an error

Figure 3.3

Occurrence of CF in Helping a Classmate Situation

T: suggests an expression to L1 pair or group

L1 pair or group

L2: L2, who used expressions which include an error, in a neighbouring pair or group overhears the teacher’s suggestion

Figure 3.4

Occurrence of CF in Peer-Work Situation


73

CF for L2. Even when L2’s error is different from L1’s, the teacher’s presentation of the correct answer can be incidental CF for L2. In Situation 2, when the teacher asks a question, no learners directly answer the question, and L2’s vicarious response in private speech includes an error, the teacher’s presentation of the correct answer can be incidental CF for L2. While the occurrence of incidental CF in Situation 1 is delayed after L2’s errors, incidental CF normally occurs shortly or immediately after L2’s error in Situations 2 and 3. In Situation 4, the teacher’s suggestion to L1’s pair/group functions as incidental CF for L2 who overhears it. In Situation 1, L2 sometimes does not listen to the teacher and/or L1, as found in the learners’ comments after Excerpts 18, 19 and 20. In this case, L2 is a non-participatory audience member. Therefore, while in Situation 1, L2 is a non-participatory audience member or an overhearer without responding to the teacher or L1 either overtly or covertly at the stage where incidental CF occurs, in Situations 2 and 3, L2, who is an auditor, is an indirect participant in the CF episodes by responding to the teacher’s questions, by using private speech, or by giving his/her answers to L1.2 Most of the previous studies focused only on direct CF between teachers and learners in teacher-fronted settings and between learners in peer-work settings. Ohta (2001) found the occurrence of incidental recasts when learners vicariously responded to teachers’ questions by using private speech (Situation 2). The study found that incidental CF also occurred in some other situations, although overhearing the speech of other learners who were working in neighbouring groups in peer work, which was indicated in Ohta (2001), was not found in the data of my study. The study suggests that the occurrences of CF in the classrooms are more complicated and dynamic than the findings in previous studies.

3.2. The Learners’ Responses to Corrective Feedback and Their Understanding of the Corrective Feedback The learners noticed and responded to the direct and incidental CF provided by their teacher and classmates in many of the examples in Section 3.1. However, as the results of the previous studies (McDonough, 2007; Nabei and Swain, 2002; Roberts, 1995) imply, learners’ uptake may not always indicate their understanding of the CF. In this section, the relationship between the learners’ uptake or acknowledgements after CF and their understanding of the CF is discussed. The following excerpt is an example of Wendy: Excerpt 11 ((The teacher points out Wendy to answer a task question)) 1

W:

Mexico de wa jyuu daraa de kuruma o? ka kareru koto ga dekimasu. In Mexico you can rent ((error)) a car with ten dollars ((error))


74

➙

2

T:

➙

3 4

W: T:

5

W:

6

T:

7

W:

➙

Slight mispronunciation, >kariru< Slight mispronunciation, >rent< OK ((nods)) Kariru koto ga dekimasu ka? Can you rent? Uhhn Uhhn And uh doru And uh dollar Doru ((nods)) Dollar ((nods)) (Wendy, 30 May)

Wendy was required to change the sentence ‘Mekishiko de wa jyuu doru de kuruma o karirare masu ka’ (Can you rent a car with ten dollars in Mexico?) by using koto ga dekiru, which also means ‘can’. The teacher corrected Wendy’s mispronunciation of kariru (rent) in line 2 and Wendy showed her acknowledgement by saying ‘OK’ and nodding in the next line. Then the teacher corrected her expression daraa which was very similar to the English word ‘dollar’ to doru, the equivalent Japanese expression. Wendy repeated it with nodding in the last line. In his SR interview, the teacher commented that he corrected Wendy’s pronunciations of kariru and doru, and that he confirmed her understanding of his feedback from her reactions and ‘body language’. Both teachers tended to confirm the learners’ understanding of their CF, when the learners responded to it both verbally and non-verbally. However, Wendy’s memory of this episode was quite vague. She mentioned in her SR interview that she was not really listening to the teacher’s feedback. To my question why she said ‘OK’ and nodded after the feedback, she said that she may have understood them then. At the beginning of the interview, she answered ‘Mekishiko de wa jyuu daraa [sic] de kuruma o kaeru 3 [sic] koto ga dekimasu ka’ to the same question by myself. The teacher regarded Wendy’s errors as mispronunciations of the words. Wendy knew the meaning of the verb kariru, because the teacher mentioned the meaning before asking her the question. However, her error was not simply the pronunciation of the word because of her inability of making the correct plain form of the verb from the potential form karirareru (can rent). This indicates that the teacher did not realize a real nature of the learner’s error, as Han (2001) and Yoshida (in press) pointed out. Although the teacher considered that provision of the correct form was appropriate to lead Wendy to understand it, she needed further scaffolding with an explanation of the verb conjugation. The teacher’s CF did not create a ZPD for Wendy in the above episode. He could have checked whether Wendy could self-correct the verb form kareru [sic] before providing the correct form kariru in line 2. However, he did


75

not do so, because he understood that Wendy’s use of the incorrect verb form to be her mispronunciation of the verb. For another error made by Wendy, as doru was written in katakana in the textbook, she only needed to read it correctly. According to her, she was not careful and said it in English, because she was nervous when the teacher called on her. In the following example, Jessica repeated a correct form after McCartney’s explanation: Excerpt 12 ((The teacher points out Jessica to answer a task question)) 1

J:

2

T:

3

J:

4

T:

5

J:

➙

6

T:

➙

7 8

J: T:

➙

Uh Kono hito wa umm kana kana soo desu ne, um? Uh this person umm looks sad ((error)), um? Kana«shii» Sad Kanashii Sad Kanashi soo desu Looks sad (..) Kanashii soo (..) I hear he/she is sad ((error)) Kanashi [soo Looks sad [Shii soo Be very careful, because if you don’t drop that ‘i’, it means something different. For those who went to the lecture this morning, A-sensei4 pointed out the important difference. I’m not planning to do this today ((writes ‘kanashii soo desu’ (I hear that he/she is sad) on the board)), but ‘kanashii soo desu’ with ‘i’ left in, it’s a reported speech, ‘he said she was sad’. But today I’m dealing with ((crossing out one ‘i’ in the sentence on the board)) dropping ‘i’ to make ‘kanashi soo desu’. So that’s why you have to be careful with your pronunciation there. Make sure you know the difference. Ii desu ka, minasan, kanashi soo desu. Be very careful, because if you don’t drop that ‘i’, it means something different. For those who went to the lecture this morning, the teacher A pointed out the important difference. I’m not planning to do this today ((writes ‘kanashii soo desu’ (I hear that he/she is said) on the board)), but ‘I hear he/she is sad’ with ‘i’ left in, it’s a reported speech, ‘he said she was sad’. But today I’m dealing with ((crossing out one ‘i’ in the sentence on the board)) dropping ‘i’ to make ‘looks sad’. So that’s why you have to be careful with your pronunciation there. Make sure you know the difference. OK everybody? ‘Looks sad’.


76

9

Ss:

10

J:

[[Kanashi soo desu [[Looks sad [[Kanashi soo desu [[Looks sad (Jessica, 14 Mar.)

After Jessica’s erroneous utterance in the first line, the teacher showed the adjective kanashii (sad) and Jessica repeated it. After the teacher showed the correct form of the adjective with soo (look like) twice in line 4 and 6, Jessica repeated it with the wrong form without dropping i of the adjective each time. After the teacher gave a precise explanation about kanashii soo (I hear that someone is sad), the class repeated kanashi soo desu (look like sad) after the teacher and Jessica made the correct repetition with them. According to McCartney, in the class, he considered that Jessica understood the difference between kanashi soo and kanashii soo; however, after listening to the recorded tape in the SR interview, he realized that Jessica only repeated what he said without understanding the difference. He actually believed that Jessica said kanashi soo not kanashii soo in lines 5 and 7 in the class and in his SR interview when he listened to the recorded tape. As the mora at the end of a word is very softly pronounced in Japanese5 and Jessica’s utterance in line 7 overlapped with the end of McCartney’s own utterance, it may have been difficult for him to perceive Jessica’s utterances correctly. He mentioned that his explanation was not clear enough in spite of his long explanation, and that he should have written the sentences in English on the board or shown other examples. He also commented that Asian students tend to pretend to understand to make their teachers happy, even when they do not understand. According to Jessica, she did not understand the semantic difference between kanashi soo and kanashii soo. In other words, although she noticed the teacher’s CF and the correct form, she did not understand why her utterance was incorrect as the answer, compared to the correct form. However, she was satisfied because she found what the correct answer was. She did not ask the teacher a question, because she considered that she would probably find it when she reviews the forms before an examination. Vygotsky (1986) stated that a fundamental responsibility of formal education is the development of students’ conceptual understanding of the world. In Excerpts 11 and 12, the teacher’s CF did not result in the learners’ conceptual understanding of the forms. In Excerpt 11, Wendy responded and nodded after her teacher’s CF, although she did not seem to clearly understand his CF. In Excerpt 12, Jessica repeated the correct form in concert with the class without asking her teacher a question, although she did not understand the semantic difference between the form and her error. This behaviour led the teacher to misconstrue that they understood his CF in the classes. It is noteworthy to discuss the reasons why this occurs in the classroom context. This behaviour


77

may be explained in relation to the ‘act’ of the learners and the teachers and the learners’ preference to solve problems from a social viewpoint in the classroom (Allwright 1989, 1996; Shimazu 2003). Ochs (1993) explained ‘social identity’, which is not a person’s perception of the self, but socially constructed, with the concepts of ‘act’ and ‘stance’ (p. 288). Ochs (1993) described the ‘social act’ as ‘any socially recognized, goal-directed behaviour, such as making a request, contradicting another person, or interrupting someone’ and ‘stance’ as an expression of ‘a socially recognized point of view or attitude’ (p. 288). Speakers construct not only their own identities, but also the social identities of other interlocutors by using a verbal act or stance (Ochs, 1993). Shimazu (2003) applied these concepts to a teacher and JFL learners in a university setting. JFL learners in my study seemed to be aware of their roles as learners in the classroom from their comments in their SR interviews that they preferred to show agreements with their teachers and not to disturb the flow of the teaching. Repeating their teachers’ corrections and showing acknowledgements suit the ‘act’ of the learners, such as understanding and using the items that they learn in class (Shimazu, 2003), while not accepting the teachers’ CF as evaluations or asking questions after the CF does not support the ‘act’ of the teachers, which is controlling the length of conversations and the learners’ participation (Shimazu, 2003). Therefore, the learners may have been following the ‘act’ of the learners by responding to the teachers’ CF and showing acknowledgements, even when they did not fully understand the teachers’ CF. Allwright (1989, 1996) explained classroom behaviour and perception – both teachers’ and learners’ – as they relate to social and pedagogical pressures present in the language classroom. According to Allwright (1989), language classes are simultaneously both social and pedagogical events, and there is a conflict between the discoursal demands of classes as social events, which must be trouble-free to avoid social strain, and as pedagogic ones, which must deliberately incorporate some ‘troubles’ so that the students can learn by solving them (p. 36). Allwright (1989) claimed that language classroom interaction troubles are typically resolved with a minimum social strain; however, the pedagogical outcomes are often unsatisfactory. Learners tend to perceive that reminding a teacher of a failure to treat a question adequately is impolite, and embarrassing the teacher is even more embarrassment for the learner who does it (Allwright, 1996). Karp and Yoels (1976) also stated that both teachers and learners avoid situations that might trigger social embarrassment for one another. Boulima (1999, p. 240) cited Pica (1987, p. 12) that in SL/FL classrooms, learners may avoid asking for clarification or confi rmation from a teacher, because these ‘acts’ can ‘be perceived as challenges to the knowledge and professional experience of the teacher’ who should be ‘an acknowledged authority and an expert of the target language’.


78

The learners may have avoided asking questions after their teachers’ CF, because they could trigger social strain, embarrassment for the teachers and themselves, and be perceived as challenges to the teachers’ knowledge. Asking questions after the teachers’ CF can also disturb cohesion of the class, as Senior (1999) pointed out. Therefore, they probably preferred to respond to the teachers’ CF in the social perspective by showing acknowledgements verbally and/or non-verbally, or repeating what the teachers said, although their pedagogical purpose, understanding of the CF, was not really satisfied. McCartney was actually aware of this kind of learner behaviour. As found in his comment in his SR interview, he described this as a characteristic of Asian students.6 The teachers were likely to perceive the learners’ responses after their CF as the learners’ understanding of the CF, although the learners may have responded simply to maintain a social relationship with the teachers. This supports Karp and Yoels (1976) findings. Showing acknowledgements and uptake without understanding the CF provided also occurred in CF episodes between learners in the peer-work setting. Catherine received CF moves from her friend, A, during peer work. The following excerpt shows one of these instances: Excerpt 13

➙

1

C:

2

A:

3

C:

4 5 6

A: C: A:

7

C:

Kuruma o unten shite: shite:itara: While driving a car Kootsuujiko Traffic accident Kootsuujiko ni atta (..) Is that number six? ‘denwa o hanashi (.) nagara’ I had a traffic accident. (..) is that number six? ‘while talking on the phone’ ((error)) ((inaudible)) Number six Denwa de, denwa de: On the phone, on the phone Yeah, denwa de Yeah, on the phone (Catherine, 2 May)

Catherine’s partner, A, corrected her incorrect use of the particles in line 3 by recast in line 6, and Catherine repeated it in the last line. However, according to Catherine’s comment in her SR interview, she did not understand why the particle should be de not o, although she noticed the correct form in A’s recast and agreed with A. A provided another CF move in the later peer work in the


79

same class: Excerpt 14

➙

1

C:

2

A:

3

C:

Sensei ga: amari yoku:nai da shi, jyugyoo mo omoshirokunai da shi, sono koosu o otosu tsumori desu. As the teacher is not very good ((error)) and the class is not interesting, either ((error)), I intend to drop out of that course. Nai shi, nai shi Not, not Nai shi, oh nai shi, OK, sensei ga amari yokunai shi, jyugyoo ga omoshirokunai shi, sono koosu o otosu tsumori desu. Not, oh not, OK, as the teacher is not very good and the class is not interesting, I intend to drop out of that course. (Catherine, 2 May)

The task required the learners to combine a few sentences into one by using the conjunction shi. In Catherine’s utterance in the first line, a copula da between the adjectives yokunai (not good)/omoshirokunai (not interesting) and shi was not necessary. A provided a recast in line 2 and Catherine made a sentence with the correct form. Japanese has two different adjectives: na-adjective and i-adjective, and each adjective has affirmative and negative forms, as Table 3.1 indicates. Catherine’s error seems to be related to her confusion between na-adjectives and i-adjectives as well as between their affirmative and negative forms. The plain forms of adjectives or verbs are necessary before the grammatical form shi. The plain forms of na-adjectives include da at the end such as kirei da (pretty). However, the negative forms of the na-adjectives do not include da at the end, such as kirei jya nai (not pretty). Moreover, both the affirmative and negative forms of i-adjectives do not include da at the end. Ii (good) and omoshiroi (interesting) are both i-adjectives. Catherine confused them with the affirmative forms of na-adjectives. In her SR interview, Catherine commented Table 3.1

na-adjective i-adjective

Two Japanese adjectives

kirei na hana (pretty flower) omoshiroi hon (interesting book) ii tenki (good weather)

Affi rmative form

Negative form

Kono hana wa kirei da (This flower is pretty) Kono hon wa omoshiroi (This book is interesting) Tenki ga ii (The weather is good)

Kono hana wa kirei jya nai (This flower is not pretty) Kono hon wa omoshiroku nai (This book is not interesting) Tenki ga yoku nai (The weather is not good)


80

that she followed her partner’s suggestion, although she did not really understand why she did not need da. Excerpts 13 and 14 look like successful examples of CF with Catherine’s acknowledgements and uptake immediately after A’s recasts. However, her understanding of the CF did not occur. A did not provide any explanations, other than the recasts to Catherine’s errors. This may be because A was not aware of Catherine’s confusion between the particles and between the adjectives. Catherine commented in her interview that A had already read the whole textbook and knew all answers to the task questions. Catherine’s awareness of her friend may have led her to the immediate acceptance of his correction, without showing any uncertainty or disagreement. When the learners consider that their classmates are more advanced than themselves, they may sometimes accept the CF of the classmates without understanding the CF, as they did with their teachers.

3.3. Affective Factors of the Learners’ Noticing or Understanding of Corrective Feedback As discussed in Section 3.2, the occurrence of the learners’ understanding of CF could be affected by the roles of the teachers and the learners in the classroom, and the learners’ perception of their teachers as the experts of the language and teaching and of their classmates as more advanced than themselves. In this section, other factors that affect the learners’ noticing or understanding of CF are discussed. The learners’ understanding of CF is also relevant to their motivation to language learning. Learners’ low motivation does not seem to lead them to analyse the CF that they receive, and this tends to result in their lack of understanding of the CF. Jessica received some different CF about a Japanese counter system from Ito during peer work. She could not find the rule to make correct forms with a counter kai, which is used with numbers to indicate the frequency of actions. The following excerpt shows one of the examples: Excerpt 15 ((During pair work, the teacher comes to Jessica’s pair))

➙

1

J:

2

T:

3

J:

4

T:

Uhn jyuukai uhn [jyuukai Uhn ten times ((error)) uhn [ten times ((error)) [Jyukkai [Ten times Jyukkai mo uhn ikimashita Even went ten times Soo, jyukkai mo ikimashita, ne


➙

5 6

S: T:

7

S:

8

T:

9

J:

10

T:

11

J:

12

T:

13

J:

14

T:

81

Yes, even went ten times, OK OK. Do I ask you this same question for this? Um Um Aoki-san wa doo desu ka How about Mr/Ms Aoki? Soo Yes Uhn is that ichikai? Uhn is that ‘once’? ((error)) Ikkai Once Ikkai Once Ikkai mo Even once Ikkai mo ikimasen deshita Did not go even once Soo, ikkai mo ikimasen deshita, soo ne, soo desu Yes, did not go even once, yes, yes (Jessica, 11 Oct.)

The teacher corrected Jessica’s pronunciation of jyukkai (ten times) by recast in line 2 and Jessica repeated it. According to the teacher, she regarded the particle mo, which expresses large or small quantities or frequencies, as more important than pronunciation of the numbers with a counter here; therefore, she did not emphasize the correction of Jessica’s pronunciation.7 Jessica mentioned in her SR interview that she realized the correct forms, but that she usually forgets them very quickly and has a problem when expressing frequency with kai and the other numbers. Jessica’s pronunciation of ikkai (once) was incorrect in line 9. As she was not confident, she was actually asking the teacher a question. The teacher showed the correct pronunciation of the word in line 10. Jessica repeated it and made the correct sentence Ikkai mo ikimasen deshita (Did not go even once) in line 13. The teacher commented in her SR interview that this type of pronunciation error is difficult to be fi xed after only one or two corrections. Before this interaction, Jessica manipulated the form once with a counter. This is shown in the following excerpt: Excerpt 16 ((During pair work)) 1

S:

Inu no sanpo ni ikimashita ka Did (he/she) take a dog for a walk?


82

2

J:

Uhhn umm uhhn is that uhn ichigai? or hitogai, ichigai mo uhn sanpo ni ikimasen deshita Uhhn umm uhhn is that uhn ‘once’ ((error)) or ‘once’ ((error))? Did not go for a walk even once ((error)) (Jessica, 11 Oct.)

Jessica’s problem does not seem to be the pronunciation of the words, but the understanding of the rules to form the expressions with numbers and their counters. The frequency of actions basically is indicated by adding the counter kai after numbers. However, when the numbers are one (ichi), six (roku), eight (hachi) and ten (jyuu), it is necessary to contract the last morae of the numbers such as ikkai or jyukkai, as in Table 3.2. Jessica commented that she did not notice the similarity of the rules between the formations of jyukkai and ikkai. Interestingly, a CF move about a counter word occurred again with Jessica later in the same class: Excerpt 17 ((During pair work)) 1

S:

2

T:

3

J:

Aoki-san wa ooyasan ni [(.) chuui saremashita ka Was Mr/Ms Aoki warned by his landlord/lady? [Dekita? Any question? ((talking to the class)) [Have you done? Any question? ((talking to the class)) Uhh hai, uhn rokuka rokukai mo, uhn chuu uhn chuui saremashita ka Uhh yes, uhn was he even warned six times ((error))?

Table 3.2 Numbers and frequencies Numbers

Frequencies

ichi (one) ni (two) san (three) yon/shi (four) go (five) roku (six) nana/shichi (seven) hachi (eight) kyuu/ku (nine) jyuu (ten)

ikkai (once) nikai (twice) sankai (three times) yonkai (four times) gokai (five times) rokkai (six times) nanakai (seven times) hakkai (eight times) kyuukai (nine times) jyukkai (ten times)

Corrective Feedback: Perceptions ➙

4

T:

5

J:

83

Rokkai «mo» [[chuui saremashita, ne He was even warned six times, OK? [[Rokkai mo [[Even six times (Jessica, 11 Oct.)

The teacher was trying to let the class complete the peer work in order to move on to the next part of the classroom schedule. Jessica and her partner were still answering the questions. The teacher heard Jessica’s expression rokukai and corrected it by recast in line 4 and Jessica repeated it with the particle mo. Jessica commented in her SR interview that she did not remember the previous expressions jyukkai or ikkai here, and that she realized the correct form rokkai (six times), but that she would have problems when using kai with the other numbers, because she did not find any particular rules to use the counter kai with numbers. According to Jessica, it was not necessary to understand and memorize how to use counters with numbers, because she usually referred to the table of the counters in her textbook when she had to use them. The teacher mentioned the difficulty of correcting this type of error again in her interview and referred to the number of students who had pronunciation problems. However, later in the interview, she commented that Jessica’s problem did not look like a pronunciation problem, but a grammatical problem. This is an example where the teacher’s perception of a learner’s errors changed during the interview. The teacher did not notice a real nature of the learner’s error in the class, while she realized it during the interview. If she had noticed Jessica’s problem during the class, she might have provided more appropriate assistance for the learner. Jessica repeatedly mentioned in her interviews that she very quickly forgets what she has practised in class. Her inability to find similar rules between the CF moves that she received may contribute to the difficulty with her memory organization and remembering appropriate items when she needs them. At the beginning of the interview, to the same question by myself, Jessica used the correct expression for jyukkai and ikkai, but used the incorrect word rokkatsu for rokkai. She could not explain why she said rokkatsu. Although she successfully contracted the sounds before the counter, she was not sure about the difference between these forms and the forms of the counter kai with the other numbers. Jessica could not develop the conceptual knowledge of the counter system that is crucial to internalize the grammatical form. This may be related to her lack of strategies to find the similarity between particular grammatical forms. Stern (1975) stated that good language learners frequently use strategies of experimentation and planning in order to develop new language into an ordered system and of revising this system progressively. Reiss (1985) reported that good language learners constantly process new information. The lack of use of these strategies seemed to affect Jessica’s learning. Lantolf

84


and Frawley (1984) described this type of behaviour as object-regulatory. Lantolf and Frawley reported that in a story-telling task, intermediate ESL learners could not find the connections between the frames of the story and were ‘object-regulated’ in the task by the frames of objects. Therefore, Jessica is object-regulated at the point where she could not connect the similar linguistic items with each other in the CF that she received. Moreover, her lack of motivation to analyse the language further may also have affected the use of appropriate learning strategies. From the perspective of activity theory which explains the relationship between the goals and motives of learners and their outcomes, Jessica’s problem of being unable to find rules when she received some different CF moves of similar kinds of forms may be related to her goal and motive to take the Japanese language course. Gillette (1994) found that SL learners’ success is related to their goal of taking the language course. Jessica decided not to take the subject of Japanese language the following year at the beginning of Semester 2, and commented that she would probably keep learning Japanese culture or economics, but not the language. Her goal of learning the Japanese language was to pass the course and her objective of attending the classes was to find out the correct answers to the tasks in order to prepare for examinations. Therefore, she was not motivated to analyse the answers and compare them with her own answers for gaining further knowledge. Trofimovich et al. (2007) state that analytical skills influence learners’ processing of recasts. Jessica’s examples in Excerpts 15, 16 and 17 suggest that analytical ability may be affected by the learners’ motivation. Jessica’s goal and motive may have affected her ability to find out particular rules. On the other hand, her inability to find rules may have produced her reduced interest in the subject and kept her motive low. In addition, her other-regulated attitude of always relying on the table in the textbook may be related to her low motive for learning the language. Another factor affecting the learners’ noticing or understanding of CF was the lack of their attention to CF, especially in the case of incidental CF. The learners’ noticing of incidental CF is associated with their careful attention to the utterances of the teachers or classmates. Incidental CF is sometimes provided by both a learner who is called on and his/her teacher, when the teacher repeats the learner’s answer. However, as incidental CF is not directly provided to learners, careful attention to the utterances of their teachers and/ or classmates is essential. Han (2002) stated that individual attention is necessary for the facilitation of learning by receiving recasts. Especially for incidental recasts, learners need to attend to the utterances of teachers and/or other learners to notice the contrasts between them and their own erroneous utterances. In the following example, Jessica did not notice the incidental CF by Ito and her classmate. The learners needed to answer a teacher’s question ‘Nanji ni kenkyuu shitsu ni kuru n desu ka’ (What time will you come to my office?) with a humble form of the verb to show the respect towards the interlocutor


85

in the task: Excerpt 18 ((During pair work)) 1 J: Jyuu ji kurai, oh yeah (.) kurai, [[is it jyuu ji At about ten o’clock, oh yeah (.) ‘about’ [is it ten o’clock? 2 S: [[Ni mairimasu? [[PAR I am coming ((HUM)) 3 J: (.) Which? 4 S: Is it mairimasu? Is it ‘I am coming’? ((HUM)) 5 J: Mai, mai is uh, oh yeah ((looking at her textbook)) STE, STE is uh, oh yeah ((looking at her textbook)) 6 S: Humble? 7 J: Yeah, [yeah 8 S: [Yeah? 9 J: Omairumasu PRE I am coming ((HUM, error)) ((after pair work)) 10

T:

11

S:

12

T:

➙

13

S:

➙

14

T:

➙

Nanji ni kenkyuu shitsu ni kuru n desu ka? (..) Dare ka ni yatte moraoo, who can answer this question? Nanji ni kenkyuu shitsu ni kuru n desu ka, sensei asking, and you will answer as . . . What time are you coming to the office? (..) Let’s ask someone, who can answer this question? What time are you coming to my office? A teacher is asking and you will answer as . . . Kuji ni mairimasu I am coming ((HUM)) at nine o’clock Kuji? Nine o’clock? Ni mairimasu PAR I am coming ((HUM)) Kuji ni mairimasu, ne I am coming ((HUM)) at nine o’clock, OK? (Jessica, 6 Sep.)

During pair work, after her partner’s suggestion of mairimasu, a humble form of kimasu (come) in line 2, Jessica checked the table in her textbook and confirmed that mairu is a humble form of kuru (come). She added an unnecessary o for the polite expression before mairimasu in line 9, and changed mairi to mairu, the plain form of the verb. Table 3.3 shows the conjugation of the verb kuru.


86

Table 3.3

Conjugation of the verb kuru (come)

Regular form Humble form

Plain form

Polite form

kuru mairu

kimasu mairimasu

Jessica also commented that she wrote the sentence Jyuuji ni omairumasu in her notebook. In her interview, she could not remember the humble form of the verb kuru (come). The answer of the student in lines 11 and 13 and the teacher’s repetition of the answer in line 14 could function as incidental CF for Jessica. However, Jessica commented that she did not notice anything when she heard this interaction in the class. As Jessica did not attend carefully to the utterances of her classmate and teacher, her noticing of the incidental CF did not occur. Although Kiki noticed and understood the incidental CF in Excerpt 9, she tended not to notice the incidental CF in the teacher-fronted setting. The following excerpt occurred immediately after Excerpt 6. Excerpt 19 1

T:

2

K:

3

T:

➙

4

S:

➙

5

T:

Hai, sorekara jya hachiban. Before taking a break let’s do number eight, hachiban OK, then number eight. Before taking a break, let’s do number eight, number eight °Wataru° °Cross° And uh S And uh S Koko de chikatetsu, chikatetsu ni noru koto ga dekimasu. You can take subway here. Hai, chikatetsu ni noru koto ga dekimasu or chikatetsu no densha ni noru koto ga dekimasu. Yes, you can take subway or you can take subway train. (Kiki, 30 May)

Kiki was still repeating the teacher’s correction to her answer to the previous question in line 2. The answers by S and the teacher in lines 4 and 5 could be incidental CF to Kiki’s answer during the previous pair work.8 However, in her SR interview, Kiki mentioned that she was not listening to either S or the teacher, because she would not be asked questions by the teacher for a while after having already answered one of the questions. To the same question by myself, she could use the expressions koko de and ni noru koto ga dekiru n desu yo, although she could not remember the word chikatetsu (subway).


87

According to Shima (2004), Japanese language learners use avoiding strategies such as ‘hiding at the back so as not to be picked out by the teacher’ in classrooms (p. 16). Shima explained that these strategies are used by the learners to make their learning environment more comfortable by not taking risks. It is almost impossible for learners to fully attend to a teacher and classmates at every moment of the class. Therefore, Kiki’s behaviour of not attending to the classroom events when there is a very little chance to be asked a question by the teacher could be her classroom strategy to make the classroom comfortable for herself. However, this strategy affected her noticing of incidental CF. Kiki also tended to prepare her answers to the task questions while the teacher was asking the other task questions to the class or the other learners. In the next excerpt, Kiki is working with M and the other classmate S. They needed to change the verb form from the polite past to the plain past to connect the sentence with a grammatical form shi, which lists an action or implies a reason: Excerpt 20 ((During group work)) 1

➙

K:

Kinoo wa shiken o ukema, uke: what’s ((incomprehensible)) form of ‘uke’? Yesterday I took an exam ((incomplete)) ((STE of ‘ukeru’ (take))) what’s ((incomprehensible)) form of ((STE of ‘ukeru’ (take)))? 2 S: Uke? ((STE of ‘ukeru’ (take)))? 3 K: Ukeru? Ukeru: ((incomprehensible)) (.) uke Take ((PLA))? take ((incomprehensible)) (.) STE 4 S: Uke? STE 5 K: Um Um ((omitted)) 6 K: Uh you got an answer ((to M)) 7 M: Ukeru shi: I take an exam 8 K: Shiken o uku shi, uku shi I take an exam, take an exam ((error)) ((After pair work, the teacher is doing the task with the class)) 9 T: Hai, uhn I perhaps would point it out uh in the first example of back on the previous page, you notice uh originally the, the ending of the verbs are the polite forms, but uh when you use them before ‘shi’, you can simplify them back down to the plain forms, and you can keep the last final verb as a

88

Learners in Japanese Language Classrooms masu-form if you like, so S, it could be ‘kinoo wa shiken o uketa shi: «uketa» shi, sakubun mo kaita shi’ OK, uhn I perhaps would point it out uh in the first example of back on the previous page, you notice uh originally the, the ending of the verbs are the polite forms, but uh when you use them before ‘shi’, you can simplify them back down to the plain forms, and you can keep the last final verb as a masu-form if you like, so S, it could be ‘yesterday I took an exam and wrote a composition’ (Kiki, 2 May)

During group work, Kiki used the incorrect verb form uku (take (an exam)) before shi in line 8. The teacher’s metalinguistic explanation with the correct form in line 9 could function as incidental CF for Kiki. However, in her interview, Kiki commented that she was not listening to the teacher, because she was answering the other task questions in case the teacher would call on her to answer them. She provided an erroneous answer uke shi to my question in the interview. Learners use particular classroom strategies, such as ‘preparing answers in one’s head’ in case the teacher asks him/her, to manage classroom activities (Shima, 2004). From her comments in her interviews, Kiki was found to have a strong desire to be seen as a capable student by her teacher and classmates. She was often preparing answers with her friend or on her own while the teachers were asking her classmates other task questions in case her teachers asked her questions. Kiki’s use of this classroom strategy affected her noticing of the incidental CF. To sum up, one of the learners’ low motivation for taking the course did not lead her to analyse the CF that she received, and this triggered her lack of understanding of the CF. The learners’ lack of attention to the utterances of the teachers or classmates affected their noticing of incidental CF. One of the learners’ strategies of not listening to her teachers when she considered that she would not be called on, and of preparing answers to task questions in case the teachers might ask her questions affected her noticing of incidental CF, which had the potential to lead her to learning.

3.4. The Factors that Promote the Learners’ Noticing or Understanding of Corrective Feedback While there are some affective factors for the learners’ understanding of CF, the factors that promote the learners’ understanding of CF were also found in the classroom context. When the learners spontaneously participated in the CF episodes, despite the indirect participation, they tended to notice or understand the incidental CF. In Section 3.1, the study discussed how the


89

learners are indirect participants in CF episodes when they answer the teachers’ questions by using private speech or when they help their classmates who were asked task questions by giving their own answers, while learners are nonparticipatory audience members or overhearers when they listen to the teachers’ instructions and/or other learners’ answers without responding to them in post-task activities. The learners frequently noticed or understood incidental CF in private-speech situations and in helping a classmate situations. However, as shown in Excepts 18, 19 and 20 in Section 3.3, the learners sometimes did not notice incidental CF in post-task activity situations. This difference may be due to the different degrees of the learners’ participation in the CF episodes. Learners are usually more involved in the CF episodes when they vocalize answers in their private speech or help their classmates, rather than when they only listen to teachers and/or other learners.9 Moreover, the learners’ vocalizations of their answers are spontaneous when they vicariously respond to the teachers or when they help their classmates, compared to when they present their answers after being called on by the teachers. This spontaneity may lead the learners to attend to incidental CF, even though their participation in the CF episodes is indirect. Visual support, such as sentences written on the board or in the textbook, also helped the learners’ understanding of CF. In the following example, the sentence written on the board by McCartney functions as incidental CF for Lily. The teacher gave pictures to pairs or groups of students and asked them to make sentences with node (because), while looking at the task work pictures. Catherine’s group was given a photo of a red sports car. After the peer work, the teacher told a student in Catherine’s group to present the sentence that they had made: Excerpt 21 1

S:

Kuruma wa hayai iku node, jiko kootsuu ni aimashita. Because a car goes fast ((error)), I had a traffic accident ((error)). 2 T: Hai? Sorry? 3 S: Jiko kootsuu ni aimashita. I had a traffic accident ((error)).10 4 T: Kuruma wa Car TOP 5 S: Hayai iku node As (it) goes fast ((error)) 6 L: °Hayaku node° °As (it) is fast° ((error)) 7 S: Jiko kootsuu ni aimashita. I had a traffic accident ((error)). ((The teacher writes ‘hayai node’ (because it is fast) on the board))


90

➙

➙

➙

8

T:

9

L:

10

S:

11

T:

12

S:

13

T:

14

C:

15

S:

16 17 18

L: C: T:

19 20

S: T:

21

L:

22

T:

It’s an i, i-adjective It’s an i, i-adjective °Hayai no° °Fast ((the first part of ‘node’ (because)))° Actually I am saying ‘hayai iku node’ Actually I said ‘(it) goes fast ((error))’ Aa it’s not fast Oh it’s not fast Iku Go Ee iku Well, go Hayai iku Goes fast ((error)) Hayai iku, goes fast Goes fast ((error)), goes fast Doesn’t make sense. Going fast Hayai, hayai, it is fast, hayai. You said ‘it goes fast’? Fast, fast, it is fast, fast. You said ‘it goes fast’? Yes A ((writes ‘hayaku iku node’ (because it goes fast) on the board)) Oh °A iku node, [hayaku iku node° °Oh as (it) goes, [as it goes fast° [Hayaku iku node [As it goes fast (Lily, 14 Mar.)

In the first line, a student of the group, S, used the adjective hayai (fast) before the verb iku (go), although he needed to use the adverb hayaku. As the teacher did not hear him clearly, he asked for clarification twice in lines 2 and 4. After S repeated the part Hayai iku node [sic] (As it goes fast) in line 5, Lily suggested Hayaku node, which was incorrect, in her private speech and she meant ‘as it is fast’. The teacher wrote ‘hayai node’ (as it is fast) on the board and provided a metalinguistic explanation in line 8. Lily read the part of the expression on the board in line 9. Then S and Catherine explained to the teacher that they meant ‘as it goes fast’ not ‘as it is fast’, and this took a long time from lines 10 to 17. Lily made a comment about their expression in line 16. She spoke up louder compared to her other speech; however, neither the teacher nor the other students paid attention to it. After the teacher realized that S wanted


91

to say ‘as a car goes fast’, he presented the expression hayaku iku node 11 on the board and Lily read it in her private speech in line 21. The expressions written on the board by the teacher functioned as incidental CF for Lily. Hayai (fast), which is an adjective, is necessary before a conjunction node, while hayaku (fast), which is an adverb, is needed before a verb iku (go). Lily’s expression hayaku node in line 6 shows her confusion between the adjective and the adverb. In her SR interview, Lily mentioned that she realized the correct form hayai node, when the teacher wrote it on the board. She also commented that she did not know how to combine the adjective hayai with the verb iku and found out how to do it when the teacher wrote hayaku iku node on the board. Lily’s utterance in line 21 is categorized as ‘finding’ in private speech. Her brief expression ‘a’ before reading the expression is a change-of-state token, as described in Heritage (1984). Heritage stated that in natural conversation, the English expression ‘oh’ can indicate some kind of change in the producer’s ‘locally current state of knowledge, information, orientation or awareness’ (p. 299), and that noticing is one of the changes that can be proposed with ‘oh’. The learners used this in their private speech with English and Japanese expressions that are equivalent with ‘oh’ such as ‘ah’, a (oh) or naruhodo (I see). This showed the learners’ noticing of correct forms or errors. Leeman (2003) reported that recasts are effective when the reformulations of errors are prominent with visual or auditory support. Hatano (1993) stated that the functions of the resources such as textbooks or software programs are not only to provide information, but also to create a collective ZPD without the teachers’ intervention. In Excerpt 21, the sentence on the board provided Lily with scaffolding and created her ZPD with the teacher’s utterance, and she understood her error and the correct form. A few learners mentioned in the interviews that written items on the board or over head transparency (OHT) helped their understanding, especially when expressions were long or the teachers spoke quickly. McCartney indicated his awareness of the importance of visual support, commenting that he should have written sentences on the board when he provided CF to Jessica. Ito showed an example sentence in the textbook when she gave a CF move to Kiki. Thus, the teachers and some learners perceived that visual support with the provision of CF vocally is effective for the learner’s understanding of CF. In the following example, Kiki noticed the correct form in the incidental CF provided by McCartney and her classmate a little later after the CF, when she found the form in a table in her textbook. Excerpt 22 ((The teacher points out a student to answer a task question)) 1 S: ((silent))


92

2

K:

3

T:

➙

4

S:

➙

5

T:

6

Ss:

7

K:

8

T:

9

Ss:

10

K:

➙

°°Tenki wa samui soo desu°° °°I hear that the weather is cold °° ((error)) Now you are looking at the image and getting impression of that. Samui, samu soo Cold, looks cold Samu soo desu, samui, samu soo desu, samu soo desu, page 60. Minasan, samu soo desu. It looks cold, cold, it looks cold, it looks cold, page 60. Everybody, it looks cold. [Samu soo desu [It looks cold [Samui soo desu [I hear it’s cold ((error)) Samu soo desu nee I hear it’s cold, isn’t it? [[Samu soo desu nee [[It looks cold, doesn’t it? [[Samui soo desu nee [[I hear it’s cold, isn’t it? ((error)) (Kiki, 14 Mar.)

McCartney told the student, S, to make a sentence with soo (look like), looking at a picture in the textbook. Kiki expressed her answer with samui soo desu in private speech in line 2. Although Kiki meant ‘it looks cold’, her utterance actually meant ‘I hear that it is cold’. The teacher repeated S’s correct answer samu soo and asked the class to repeat it after him in line 5. The class repeated Samu soo desu twice in lines 6 and 9. Kiki repeated it with them, although she was still saying Samui soo desu. S’s answer in line 4 and the teacher’s repetition of it in line 5 functioned as incidental CF for Kiki; however, she did not notice her error. As Kiki was sitting at the back of the classroom and speaking softly, the teacher did not hear her in the class repetition. After listening to the recorded tape in his SR interview, the teacher mentioned that Kiki’s utterance included an error first, but that she repeated it correctly in a choral repetition. As explained in Section 3.2, in Japanese, the mora at the end of a word such as /i/ is not pronounced very explicitly, and Kiki’s repetitions overlapped with other learners’ in the choral repetitions. Therefore, the teacher did not hear her expressions correctly. The teacher considered that Kiki understood the correct form, because he thought she repeated it correctly. However, Kiki’s utterance in the choral repetition still included the same error. He emphasized the importance of repetition of phrases or sentences which he frequently told the class to repeat after him; consequently,


93

the teacher misconstrued that Kiki realized the correct form by hearing and saying it repeatedly. According to Kiki, although she did not notice her error in the choral repetition, she realized the correct form samu soo a little later after the repetition when she found a table about how to change an adjective before soo in her textbook. This is an example of a delayed uptake, although she did not vocalize the correct form.12 This also indicates the possibility that noticing or understanding CF may occur later and not immediately after CF, when the learners check the targets of CF with visual resources such as the textbook, or written items on the OHT or board. Moreover, the learners’ noticing or understanding of CF may occur when they review the lessons at home. This example also suggests that learners may not vocalize correct forms when they notice or understand them. In this example, Kiki’s vocalization of the grammatical form did not directly help her to notice her error and the correct form. However, by repeating an incorrect form a few times, she may have been more aware of the form. This awareness may have helped her to notice the difference between the correct and incorrect forms when she found the correct form in the table in her textbook. Kiki needed the external visual assistance as well as the vocalized CF to notice the contrast between the correct form and her error. Although Kiki noticed the correct form with visual support, she did not understand the semantic difference between samu soo (looks cold) and samui soo (I hear that it is cold); therefore, her understanding of the CF did not occur. One of the SR interviews also functioned as CF. Kiki realized her misunderstanding of Ito’s CF in the class, while watching the video-recording of the class. The following example was in the class where Kiki’s recording was missing because of a technical problem in Semester 2. The excerpt was made from the video-recording that did not include her private speech: Excerpt 23 ((The teacher asks a task question to S who is sitting next to Kiki))

➙

1

T:

2

S:

3

T:

4

K:

Jyaa niban wa doo desu ka? (.) S-san Then how about number two? (.) S (.) Uh inu noni hanashite imasu (.) Uh although it’s a dog ((error)), it is speaking Hai, inu wa noun dakara, noun? (.) nanoni, inu nanoni hanashite imasu, to narimasu, ne OK, ‘dog’ is a noun, so noun (.) although it’s a dog, it is speaking ((writes the answer in her notebook)) (Kiki, 10 Oct.)

The task required the learners to make a sentence with noni (although), while looking at a picture of a dog which is talking to a woman. S, who was sitting next to Kiki, answered the teacher’s question with the incorrect noun phrase


94

with noni in line 2. The teacher showed the correct form with a metalinguistic explanation in line 3. To the same question by myself at the beginning of the interview, Kiki provided another incorrect form inu danoni. After watching the video, Kiki mentioned that she and S agreed about the use of the expression inu noni in the pair work before the above excerpt, and that she understood the teacher’s feedback as inu danoni when she said inu nanoni (although it is a dog) and wrote inu danoni in her notebook. The teacher’s feedback to S in line 3 functioned as incidental CF for Kiki, although her understanding was not correct. She noticed her misunderstanding when she watched the video before I pointed it out. Therefore, watching the video functioned as another CF move that led Kiki to correct her understanding of the teacher’s feedback. This example suggests that delayed uptake may occur after the classes when learners find or listen to the same or similar forms to the ones in the CF. The learners noticed or understood their classmates’ CF in the peer-learning setting. In peer work, learners scaffold with each other and co-construct their knowledge (Ohta, 2001; Storch, 2002; Swain, 1998; Swain et al., 2002). Examples of collective scaffolding (Donato, 1994) were found in the interactions between learners in pair or group work. In peer work, the power between the learners who participate in the interactions is equal, while teachers often control the interactions between them and the learners. The equality of power seemed to contribute to the learners’ presentation of their own opinions and asking questions to their partners, which led them to understand correct forms. Kiki always sat together with her friend, M, in the classes in Semester 1, as Catherine also did. The following example shows Kiki’s interaction with M in pair work in Semester 1. Kiki and her partner are trying to make a sentence with koto ga dekiru (be able to), while looking at a sign of a subway station: Excerpt 24

➙

➙

((During pair work)) 1 K: Chikate no eki aru koto ga dekimasu Subway ((error)) station can be ((error)) 2 M: Uh (.) what did you say, eki what Uh (.) what did you say, station what 3 K: Uh eki o a aru, it means there has (.) I don’t know, chikatetsu [no Uh station ACC there is, it means there has (.) I don’t know, subway [GEN 4 M: [No, no, we, you can’t say, you can’t say there is, there is uh ‘chikate aru dekimasu’. You have to say uhn ‘chikate’ [No, no, we, you can’t say, you can’t say there is, there is uh ‘subway ((error)) there is, can’ ((error)). You have to say uhn ‘subway’ ((error)) 5 K: Uh te no eki o aru koto ga dekimasu Uh ((makes no sense)) GEN station ACC there can be

Corrective Feedback: Perceptions ➙

6

M:

7

K:

8

M:

9

K:

10 11

M: K:

12

M:

13

K:

14

M:

15

K:

16

M:

17

K:

18

M:

19

K:

➙

20

M:

➙

21 22

K: M:

23

K:

➙

➙

➙

➙

95

No No Ari arimasu There is How can you say ‘there is, there is a subway station’, ‘dekimasu’ means you can do something. How can you say ‘there is, there is a subway station’, ‘can’ means you can do something. What What? You have to say you can take [[subway there [[Uhh yeah oh no no noru noru koto, noru koto ga (.) deki: ru n desu yo. [[Uhh yeah oh ride, to ride, you are able to ride. (. . . .) Koko de, koko de wa: chikate (. . . .) Here, here TOP, subway ((error)) No eki o toru koto ga dekiru n desu yo GEN can take station >What what what< >What? What? What?< Toru, to ride Take, to ride Uh no•ru Uh ride Noru Ride Koto ga nom NOM Dekiru n desu [yo Can [De de, should be ‘de’ [PAR PAR should be PAR You can ride [[and then [[Eki, should be eki, eki de chikate o noru [[Station, should be station, ride on subway at the station ((error)) No, no eki, because you are talking about seeing the sign, so so maybe just, there, koko de chi chikatetsu no, chikatetsu no eki de noru koto ga dekiru n desu yo. No, no station, because you are talking about seeing the sign, so so maybe just, there, here subway GEN at a subway station you can ride. (Kiki, 30 May)


96

In the first line, Kiki used koto ga dekiru inappropriately and made a sentence that meant ‘there can be a subway station’. Her partner used a clarification request in line 2, explicit correction in line 4 and metalinguistic feedback in line 8. Then he finally expressed an appropriate sentence in English in line 10 and this elicited Kiki’s appropriate expression noru koto ga dekiru n desu yo (you can ride). As Kiki used the incorrect verb toru in spite of her correct use of the verb noru in line 11, her partner suggested noru in line 16 after asking Kiki for clarification in line 14. M also provided CF in line 20 to Kiki’s use of the inappropriate particle o in line 13. Then he suggested the expression eki de (at the station) in line 22; however, Kiki disagreed and expressed that koko de (here) was more appropriate than eki de in the last line, although this was not clear in her utterance and her answer was not fully appropriate. According to Kiki, she tried to say that there is a subway station in the first part and realized that her use of koto ga dekiru was not appropriate with this sentence when her partner pointed it out. In the last line, she meant that eki de was redundant with koko de (here). This is an example of collective scaffolding between the learners. Both Kiki and M actively participated in the task by providing their own answers. M’s consistent feedback from lines 2 to 10 made Kiki realize that her use of koto ga dekiru in her sentence was inappropriate. From lines 11 to 19, they coconstructed the sentence with koto ga dekiru. After M’s suggestion in lines 20 and 22, Kiki showed her opinion, which included the uptake of M’s CF, disagreeing with M’s suggestion. The occurrence of collective scaffolding in the above episode may be related to the equality of power between the interlocutors. Kiki did not need to pretend to understand M’s CF or agree with him in the interaction with her friend, as she actually did in the interactions with Ito, who was her teacher in Semester 2.13 Scaffolding also occurred between Erwin and Catherine when they sat next to each other and worked together with Catherine’s friend, A, during peer work in Semester 2. The following excerpt is a CF episode between Erwin and Catherine. What the learners had to do was, after hearing a conversation between a and b, to express what they heard by using rashii (it seems/I hear). The conversation between a and b was ‘Kinoo doroboo ni hairareta n desu tte?’ (Did you have a thief in your house yesterday?) ‘Ee, ie ni kaette kitara terebi ya sutereo ga nakunatte ita n desu yo’ (Yes, I found that a TV and a stereo were missing after coming back home): Excerpt 25 ((During group work)) 1

A:

2

C:

OK, terebi ya sutereo ga OK, TV and stereo NOM Doroboo o nusu Thief ACC ((STE of ‘nusumu’ (steal)))


➙

➙

➙

➙

➙

A:

97

Nusunda rashii, no, nusunda rashii, yeah nusunda rashii Seemed to steal, no, seemed to steal, yeah seemed to steal 4 C: How about the past tense for, like, you were stolen 5 A: Nusunda Stole 6 C: Nusunda rashii Seemed to steal 7 A: Yeah ((inaudible)) Yeah ((inaudible)) ((A student near her group asks the teacher the meaning of ‘doroboo’)) 8 C: Doroboo (.) umm (.) ee uchi ni kaette kita ra, terebi ya sutereo o Thief (.) umm (.) well, when I came back home, TV and stereo ACC 9 A: I think ‘nusunda, nusunda rashii’ ((inaudible)) I think ‘stole, seemed to steal’ ((inaudible)) 10 C: Nusunda rashii Seemed to steal 11 E: Nusunda rashii, is it? nusumareta (.) that was stolen, you didn’t see him Seemed to steal, is it? Stolen (.) that was stolen, you didn’t see him 12 C: Yeah, but then rashii is [‘seems to be’, I think Yeah, but then ‘seems to’ is [‘seems to be’ I think 13 E: [I don’t know (..) I thought it’s a passive form because ((inaudible)) I don’t know 14 C: Right, how about ‘terebi ya sutereo ga [[doroboo o nusunda rashii’ Right, how about ‘TV and stereo seemed to steal a thief’? ((error)) 15 E: [[Terebi ya sutereo ga Doroboo ni nusumareta rashii [[TV and stereo seemed to be stolen by a thief 16 C: Nusu: STE 17 A: How about ‘nusumareta’? How about ‘stolen’? 18 C: Ha? Ha? 19 E: They got stolen 20 C: Nusu (.) mareta? ((writing in her notebook)) Stolen ((writing in her notebook)) 21 E: Nusumareta rashii (.) probably (They) seemed to be stolen (.) probably


98

22

C:

23

A:

Ummto (. . .) Nusumareta rashii deshoo Well (. . .) (They) seemed to be stolen COP ((error)) Rashii, nusumareta rashii, nusunda, nusumareta rashii AUX, (They) seemed to be stolen, Stole, (They) seemed to be stolen (Catherine, 24 Oct.)

From lines 1 to 7, Catherine and A made a sentence, ‘Terebi ya sutereo ga doroboo o nusunda rashii’ (A TV and a stereo seemed to steal a thief). Erwin suggested the use of nusumareta, the passive form of the verb nusunda in line 11. However, Catherine pointed out the necessity of rashii at the end of the sentence in line 12. Erwin provided metalinguistic feedback in line 13 and Catherine was still thinking about her previous sentence in line 14. After Erwin showed the sentence with the passive form of the verb nusumareta (stolen) in line 15, A agreed with him by suggesting the use of nusumareta in line 17. Catherine repeated nusumareta in line 20 and manipulated it by adding deshoo in line 22. Interestingly, Catherine used the passive verb ‘you were stolen’ in English in her utterance in line 4, and her use of the particle o after terebi ya sutereo (TV and stereo) in line 8 was correct to form the sentence ‘Doroboo ga terebi ya sutereo o nsunda rashii’ (A thief seemed to steal TV and stereo). However, her use of the particles after terebi ya sutereo and doroboo was incorrect in line 14. She commented in her SR interview that she was not aware of using the passive English expression in line 4 and the particle o in line 8. According to Catherine, she suggested to Erwin to add rashii after the verb because he did not use it in line 11. After he mentioned that nusumareta was the passive form in line 13, she realized what he had said was correct, although she was still wondering about the sentence that she and A had made previously. She wrote nusumareta in her notebook in line 20. She was not aware of adding deshoo after nusumareta rashii. After this, she made a sentence by using nusumareta rashii in line 22. She did not write it in her notebook. After this interaction, the teacher asked Catherine this same task question, following the answers of a few other students. The answers of the other students were ‘Doroboo ga haitta rashii’ (A thief seemed to break in) and ‘Doroboo ga ita rashii’ (There seemed to be a thief). Catherine’s answer was ‘b-san no terebi ya sutereo ga nusumareta rashii’ (Mr/Ms b’s TV and stereo seemed to be stolen). She mentioned that she omitted doroboo ni (by a thief) because it was not necessary in this sentence. Her answer shows not only her correct understanding of the sentence structure with the passive form of the verb, but also her ability to add the appropriate expression at the beginning of the sentence and delete the expression that did not affect the clarity of the sentence. To the same question in her interview, she answered ‘Kinoo doroboo wa b-san no uchi ni irerareta rashii’ [sic] (A thief seemed to be entered Mr/Ms b’s house). She confused the transitive verb ireru (put in) with the intransitive verb hairu (enter). In this case, the passive form hairareta was not necessary and she could simply say haitta rashii ((A thief) seemed to break in (b’s house)). Catherine


99

made an alternative sentence without repeating the sentence that she learned in the group work. However, she overgeneralized the use of the passive forms of verbs. This error may indicate the development of her ability to use passive forms of verbs rather than the failure to use them in an appropriate sentence structure. Lantolf and Thorne (2006) referred to ‘dynamic assessment’ as a methodology of learners’ assessment. According to Lantolf and Thorne (2006), dynamic assessment is ‘based on the concept of development within the ZPD’ and does not separate instruction from assessment, as ‘non-dynamic assessment’ does (p. 327). In dynamic assessment, the examiners provide ‘mediated assistance’ to the learners in the assessment process. The assistance gradually develops from implicit to more explicit, and the learners are assessed according to the types of mediated assistance that they need to find out correct answers. The objective of dynamic assessment is to not only lead learners to complete a task with assistance from someone else, but also to transfer the performance to different tasks as evidence of internalization (Lantolf and Thorne, 2006). Catherine may have been trying to transfer her mediated performance during the group work to form a sentence with a different verb, although it was not successful. In Excerpt 25, Erwin’s scaffoldings created the ZPD for Catherine and A, and led them to understand the appropriate verb form in the sentence. A’s manipulation of the verb forms in line 23 suggests his understanding of the passive form of the verb compared with the non-passive form. The equality of power between Erwin and Catherine is found in Catherine’s presentation of her opinion in line 12 and her question in line 14 after Erwin’s CF in lines 11 and 13. All the members of the group actively participated in the task and seemed to understand the correct form after their interaction. In Excerpts 24 and 25, CF episodes are long and M and Erwin gave some different types of CF, such as clarification request, metalinguistic feedback and recast, to Kiki and Catherine. This matches the factors of effective CF, more time and longer explanation (Lasagabaster and Sierra, 2005; Loewen, 2004). When the learners were involved in longer CF episodes, they tended to remember the interactions and the correct forms in their SR interviews. The other example of collective scaffolding is found in the interaction between Jessica and her partner in their pair work. Jessica received many CF moves from her classmates during peer work in Semester 2. The following excerpt indicates one of the examples. They needed to ask and answer questions by using shika (only) or mo, which expresses that particular actions are frequent, while looking at a table in their textbooks: Excerpt 26 ((During pair work)) 1

S:

Then Chon-san wa: ((inaudible)) Chon-san wa (.) uh zaku zaku zakumon?


100

2

J:

➙

3

S:

➙

4 5

J: S:

6

J:

7

S:

8

J:

9

S:

10

J:

➙

Then Mr/Ms Chon TOP ((inaudible)) Mr/Ms Chon TOP (.) uh composition ((error))? Yeah zakumon yeah Yeah composition ((error)) yeah What that mean [sic] What does that mean? Uh like a story? no, what’s that called, composition Composition, saku ahh sakubun, sakubun. Sakubun o kakimashita ka Composition, ((the first part of ‘sakubun’ (composition))) ahh composition, composition. Did he/she write a composition? Uhhn sakubun (.) uhn hai (.) uhn i han? ipaashi (.) i ipaashi mo uhn ipaashi shika, ipaashi shika uhn kakimashita Uhhn composition (.) uhn yes (.) uhn one ((makes no sense)) one page (.) one page ((error)) PAR uhn only one page, wrote only one page ((error)) Paaji (.) peeji Page ((error)) (.) page Peeji, [ah sorry Page, [ah sorry [Ippeeji [One page Ippeeji, I think so, hai uhn ippe ippeeji shika kakimasen deshita One page, I think so, yes, uhn ((the first part of ‘ippeeji’ (one page))) wrote only one page. (Jessica, 11 Oct.)

In the first line, her partner’s reading of Japanese word ‘composition’ which was written in kanji in the textbook was incorrect, although Jessica agreed with S’s pronunciation in line 2. After Jessica said the meaning of the word in line 4, S realized the correct reading in line 5. Jessica agreed with the corrected reading and answered S’s question with the incorrect Japanese pronunciation of the word ‘page’. Her partner corrected the pronunciation in line 7, and after the repetition of the word in line 8, Jessica made a sentence with the correct pronunciation of the word in the last line. According to Jessica, she noticed there was something wrong with her partner’s pronunciation of the word ‘composition’ in line 1; however, she agreed with him without mentioning it, because she was not sure about the correct reading. Jessica’s sentence in line 6 includes a grammatical error as well as the incorrect pronunciation of the word ‘page’. She used shika (only) with kakimashita, the past affirmative form of the verb kaku (write), although it should be used with the negative form of the verb. Jessica commented that the teacher


101

presented an example sentence of shika in the lecture, but that she could not catch it because the teacher said it quickly. As the teacher showed a sentence with shika and a negative verb form earlier in the class, Jessica remembered it and used kakimasen deshita, the negative ending in her sentence in the last line. This indicates the importance of showing key structures repeatedly in the classes. At the beginning of the interview, she used the correct pronunciation of the word ‘page’ and shika with the negative verb form. Although Jessica avoided disagreeing with S’s reading of sakubun, her English translation of it in line 4 elicited S’s correct pronunciation in the subsequent line. Jessica and S co-constructed the knowledge of the meaning and reading of the word. S’s CF in lines 7 and 9 triggered Jessica’s understanding of the correct pronunciation of ‘page’, and she self-corrected her error of the verb form in the last line. This can be another example of collective scaffolding in which both Jessica and S benefited. Both of them monitored the forms and meanings of the words through the assistance of their interlocutors. According to van Lier (2000), when the interlocutors are at similar levels of proficiency, they are likely to use a wider range of conversational features, and deeper processing of language tends to occur, compared to the interactions between a novice and an expert. When the language ability of the learners were close in peer work, CF was likely to occur more frequently and lead the learners to an understanding of the CF. Although Ito commented in her SR interview after the class of Excerpt 26 that she was worried about Jessica’s pair, because her partner was a less capable student, he frequently provided Jessica with CF, which caused Jessica to understand some of the CF moves. Jessica also contributed to the pair work by explaining how to do the tasks as well as some expressions to her partner. The similarity of their proficiency level of the language seemed to promote their negotiations that led Jessica to understand the CF. Moreover, the similarity of the proficiency levels between the peers may have contributed to their establishing the intersubjectivity in the cognitive dimension, sharing linguistic problems and solving them together. Catherine and Kiki preferred to sit with their friends for peer work throughout the course. While Catherine sometimes accepted her friend’s CF without understanding the CF, she understood his CF in the other cases. Working with friends may have helped to establish the intersubjectivity in the social dimension in the peer work, to be open to correction and be corrected, and to enjoy the tasks in a relaxed atmosphere. The learners may also make friends with those whose proficiency level of the target language is similar to theirs in the class. In Excerpts 24, 25 and 26, the learners used both Japanese and English language in the interactions with their classmates to communicate with each other and resolve linguistic problems. Swain and Lapkin (1998) reported that two French immersion students used both their first and second languages as tools of communication as well as SL learning by producing alternatives,


102

evaluating the alternatives, and jointly constructing the knowledge to solve linguistic problems in a collaborative task. As Swain and Lapkin suggested, in peer work, the learners’ first language (English)14 functioned as a mediational tool to regulate their own behaviours, to attend to particular FL structures, and to produce and evaluate alternatives. These excerpts also show the learners’ languaging (Swain, 2006). They worked out solutions by ‘talking-it-through’. While talking about the problems that they were having with their classmates, they realized correct forms or vocabulary and came to new understandings. To sum up, the learners’ indirect participation in incidental CF episodes by using private speech or providing help to their classmates enhanced their attention to the incidental CF and led them to notice or understand the CF. Visual support promoted the learners’ noticing or understanding of CF, and suggested the possibility of the occurrence of delayed uptake when the learners checked what items were being introduced by the teachers, in their textbooks, on the board or on the OHT. A learner’s understanding of CF while watching the video-recording of the class also suggested that delayed uptake may occur when the learners found the same or similar forms after the class. Collective scaffolding was an essential factor to enhance the learners’ understanding of their classmates’ CF in peer work. A similarity of language proficiency seemed to promote negotiations between the learners, which led to their understanding of the classmates’ CF, and also seemed to help establish intersubjectivity between them, which can trigger collective scaffolding.

3.5. Effectiveness of Recasts The teachers most frequently used recasts, including incidental recasts, in line with many previous classroom studies of CF (Lyster, 1998a, 1998b; Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Moroishi, 2001; Ohta, 2001; Oliver, 1995). However, they sometimes commented in their interviews that they should have given explanations as well as contrasting the learners’ erroneous answers with correct forms by recasts. The teachers did not seem to consider that recasts are always effective for the learners’ noticing or understanding of correct answers. This section examines the recasts that resulted in the learners’ noticing or understanding of them and the ones that did not do so. The teachers’ recasts sometimes resulted in the learners’ understanding of the CF. In the following example, McCartney’s recast elicited Erwin’s selfcorrection. Erwin needed to change a sentence by using a potential form koto ga dekiru (can): Excerpt 27 ((The teacher asks one of the students to read a task question)) 1

S:

Nihon de wa nijyussai de osake ga nomemasu ka


➙

2

T:

3

E:

4

T:

5

E:

103

Can you drink alcohol at 20 years old in Japan? Hai, nomemasu ka, nomemasu ka. Erwin, can you change that around. Give us a different . . . Yes, can you drink?, can you drink? Erwin, can you change that around? Give us a different . . . Nihon de wa nijyussai de osake wa nomeru koto o dekimasu ka Can you drink alcohol ((error)) at 20 years old in Japan? Osake (.) o Alcohol (.) ACC O nomu koto ga dekimasu ka ACC can you drink? (Erwin, 30 May)

Erwin changed osake ga nomemasu ka (can you drink alcohol?) by using koto ga dekiru (be able to) in line 3, although he used the incorrect particle o instead of ga for koto ga dekimasu ka. Nomeru in his answer also meant ‘be able to drink’; therefore, his answer was redundant. He used the particle wa after osake, although he needed to use the object marker o between the noun osake and the verb nomu. The teacher repeated the first part of the sentence with the appropriate particle o in line 4, and Erwin self-corrected the latter part with the particle o. According to the teacher, he was slightly surprised to find that Erwin’s answer was erroneous, because he considered that Erwin was a very capable student who almost always said appropriate answers. However, he was satisfied, because Erwin realized the correct answer very quickly after his feedback and he confirmed his understanding of the correct form. In dynamic assessment (Lantolf and Thorne, 2006), learners who could self-correct their errors after the first prompt are considered to be more advanced than the learners who needed more explicit prompts. Therefore, Erwin’s self-correction of the verb form nomu (drink) and the particles from o to ga in line 5 after the teacher’s provision of the correct particle o after osake (alcohol) in the previous line shows that Erwin’s ability to use these forms is more developed compared to the learners who cannot self-correct these errors. Erwin mentioned that he first wondered whether he should say hatachi, that is, the other expression of ‘20 years old’ (nijyussai) and decided to say nijyussai, because there was a kanji ‘sai’ (years old) in the sentence. As he answered without giving it much thought, he did not know why he changed the particles from o to wa and he was not aware of changing the particles from ga to o. ‘Osake wa nomu koto ga dekiru’ (you can drink alcohol) is grammatically correct and it is used especially when it implies a comparison between other things and drinking alcohol. Therefore, Erwin may have had an input of the expression during his self-study of Japanese before starting the course. According to Ohta


104

(2001), overgeneralization of the particles such as wa (topic marker) and no15 (genitive marker) is very commonly found in the speech of native-speaker children of Japanese. When the teacher said osake o in line 4, Erwin considered that o was more appropriate and realized that he should have used the plain form of the verb nomu (drink) before koto ga dekiru. He also commented that he was more familiar with nomeru rather than nomu koto ga dekiru. At the beginning of his SR interview, Erwin answered ‘Osake ga nomu koto ga dekiru’ to the same question by myself. He used the correct verb form with an inappropriate particle. Substitution of ga for o is common in not only SL/FL learners of Japanese, but also in native-speaker children (Clancy, 1985), as also cited in Ohta (2001). Kanagy (2001) stated that SL/FL learners need to go through this type of error in their developmental process. Ohta (2001, p. 123) pointed out this type of error as a ‘developmental error’. Therefore, Erwin may have been in the process of developing his self-regulation on the use of the particles to increase the internalization. In the following example, Lily understood the correct forms and meanings of two different verbs after the incidental recast by her classmate: Excerpt 28 ((The teacher asks one of the students to read out a task question))

➙

1

T:

2

S:

3

L:

4

T:

5

S:

6

L:

7

S:

8

T:

9

L:

Let’s keep going. I think we are learning things. Number three (.) eeto let’s go to S. Let’s keep going. I think we are learning things. Number three (.) well let’s go to S. Uhn jyui jyuuissai nara Dizuniirando ni Uhn if you are 11-years old, Disneyland PAR °Yasuku° °Cheap° ((ADV)) Yasui, yasuku Cheap ((ADJ)), cheap ((ADV)) [Yasuku uhn [Cheap ((ADV)) uhn [°°Yasuku°° iru? [°°Cheap°° ((ADV)) insert ((error))? Hai hai hairu: uhn ((STE of ‘hairu’ (enter))) enter ((PLA)) uhn Um hairemasu Um can enter ((POL)) Hairu? Enter ((PLA)) (Lily, 30 May)

Corrective Feedback: Perceptions Table 3.4

105

Transitive and intransitive verbs

Plain form Potential form Polite potential form

Transitive verb

Intransitive verb

hairu (enter) haireru (can enter) hairemasu (can enter)

ireru (put something in) irerareru (can put something in) ireraremasu (can put something in)

The teacher asked a student, S, to read out one of the task questions. The kanji after yasuku (cheap) is read hai, written in the polite potential form with the subsequent hiragana ‘re masu’, and means ‘can enter’. Lily read it as iru in line 6. S’s utterance hairu (the plain form of the verb) in lines 7 functioned as an incidental recast for Lily. The teacher’s utterance hairemasu (the polite potential form of the verb) in line 8 also showed that Lily’s reading of the kanji was incorrect. This kanji is read as i as well as hai according to the contexts of the sentences. However, when it is read as i, the plain form should be ireru, not iru. Hairu is an intransitive verb which means ‘something or someone enters’, and ireru is a transitive verb which means that ‘someone puts something in’, as Table 3.4 indicates. After the utterances of S and the teacher, Lily repeated the plain form of the verb in the last line. Lily read the word correctly at the beginning of her interview and commented that she understood the correct reading, because hairu is ‘enter’ and ireru is ‘put a thing in’. This shows that Lily knew the meanings of both verbs; however, she had confused the use of the verbs. In Excerpts 27 and 28, Erwin and Lily were self-regulated enough to benefit from the recast and the incidental recast by their teacher and classmate. When learners have this level of self-regulation, in other words, when they can find out the nature of their own errors and the formal and semantic differences between the errors and correct forms by the contrast between them, recasts may be effective to lead them to understanding of them. The teachers tended to use recasts when the learners’ answers were close to the correct forms, but slightly different; however, the recasts were not likely to end up with the learners’ noticing or understanding of them, despite their awareness of the linguistic forms that they were practising in the tasks. In the following excerpt, Kiki produced an example. The task was a matching exercise between the first and second clauses by using a conditional form ba (if). Ito picked up Kiki’s utterances after the teacher’s question and corrected her error by a recast: Excerpt 29 1

T:

Muzukashii tango naraba? If it is a difficult word?


106

➙

2

K:

3

T:

Ookii jisho o tsutta hoo ga ii desu You had better use ((error)) a big dictionary Tsukatta hoo ga ii desu (.) ne? To narimasu You had better use (.) OK? becomes like this (Kiki, 8 Aug.)

In line 2, Kiki responded with an incorrect pronunciation of the past tense of the verb tsukau (use) to the teacher’s question to the class, and the teacher corrected it by a recast in the last line. The teacher commented that she heard Kiki’s answer and corrected the error. She considered that Kiki understood her correction. Kiki mentioned that she realized that tsukatta was the correct pronunciation of the verb after receiving the teacher’s feedback. However, when I asked her to read the same sentence in the textbook in her SR interview, Kiki said that it should be either tsutta or tsukatta. Although she remembered the correct pronunciation, she confused it with her own error. The following example indicates another recast that Ito gave to Kiki. In pair work, the learners were answering task questions by using jya nai ka to omoi masu (I think), which expresses a speaker’s opinion indirectly. Kiki was answering a question ‘Saru wa niku o taberu deshoo ka’ (Does a monkey eat meat?). Ito, who was walking around the classroom, heard Kiki’s answer and corrected it by a recast: Excerpt 30 ((During pair work))

➙

1

K:

2

T:

3

K:

4

T:

Saru wa um niku o taberu deshoo ka. Saa yoku wakaranai n, a waka, yoku wakarimasen ga, umm tabenai n jya nai n ka to omoimasu Does a monkey eat meat? Well, I am not sure, umm but I think it does not eat (meat) ((error)). Tabe nai n jya nai ka to Does not eat PAR PAR Omoimasu I think Ne OK (Kiki, 24 Oct.)

In line 1, Kiki added an extra n between tabenai n jya nai and a particle ka to her answer. The teacher corrected it by recast in line 2 and Kiki completed the teacher’s sentence in the following line. In this case, Kiki did not notice the teacher’s correction and she commented that the teacher only repeated what she said. According to the teacher, she considered that Kiki understood


107

her feedback in the class; however, she became uncertain about Kiki’s understanding after listening to the tape of the classroom recording in her SR interview. She mentioned that she should have showed Kiki the difference between the correct form and her error more clearly. After this interaction with the teacher, while answering the next question of the task with her partner, she repeated jya nai n ka to omoimasu a few times. At the beginning of the interview, to a similar question by myself, Kiki answered ‘Buta wa atama ga yokunai jya nai ka to omoimasu’ (I think that a pig is not clever). This time, she did not use the extra ‘n’ between yokunai n jya nai (not good) and the ka particle; however, she missed ‘n’ between yokunai and jya nai. She was not aware of making these errors. Lyster (1998b) stated that teachers use recasts in a very similar way to positive feedback by repeating learners’ utterances with reformulations of errors, and that learners sometimes misunderstand their recasts as positive feedback. This is equivalent with Kiki’s case in Excerpt 30, because she perceived the teacher’s recast as the repetition of her answer. As a result, she considered that her answer was correct. Han (2002) pointed out intensity as one of the important conditions for recasts to facilitate learning. Sheen (2006) and Loewen and Philp (2006) stated that when recasts are more explicit with stress, declarative intonation, a single error focus and multiple feedback moves, they trigger successful uptake. When the difference between the learners’ erroneous utterances and the correct forms are subtle, such as in Excerpts 29 and 30, teachers need to use a more explicit recast with emphasis on the difference between the learners’ errors and the correct forms, or more explicit feedback rather than recasts to lead the learners to notice and understand the differences. While the teachers sometimes mentioned in their interviews that they should have given not only recasts, but also explanations, McCartney commented in his SR interview that he did not provide explanations when the learners’ errors were basic. However, this resulted in a lack of understanding of the teacher’s incidental CF by Erwin, who made the same error during the previous pair work: Excerpt 31 ((During pair work)) 1

E:

Shidonii wa suzushii deshoo ka? Will it be cool in Sydney?

((His partner does not know how to answer the question. She asks a few questions in English)) 2

E:

You are supposed to say something like uh iie, amari uhh suzushii (.) jya nai deshoo. You are supposed to say something like uh no, it won’t be very cool ((error)).


108

((After the pair work, the teacher points out Erwin and another student to ask and answer the question))

➙

3

E:

4

S:

5

T:

Kyoo Shidonii wa suzushii deshoo ka. Will it be cool in Sydney today? Uhn (.) ie, amari amari suzushii (.) shii jya nai deshoo. Uhn (.) no, it won’t be very cool ((error)). Suzushi «ku» nai deshoo It won’t be cool. (Erwin, 14 Mar. 14)

During the pair work, the learners asked and answered each other’s questions, while looking at a table about the weather and the temperatures of some different places in the world. Erwin answered suzushii jya nai deshoo (it won’t be cool) with the incorrect form of the adjective in line 2 to his own question Shidonii wa suzushii deshoo ka (will it be cool in Sydney?). After the pair work, the teacher told Erwin and the other student, S, to ask and answer the same question. S’s answer in line 4 included the same error of the form of the adjective suzushii (cool) as Erwin answered in the pair work. The teacher corrected it by recast with emphasis ku in the adjective-form in line 5. This error of Erwin and S is related to their confusion between the naadjective and i-adjective. The negative ending jya nai is used for na-adjectives. For example, kirei na (pretty) becomes kirei jya nai (not pretty). However, for the negative ending of i-adjectives, the last parts of the adjectives have to be changed with ku to add nai after that (refer to Table 3.1). As found in Excerpt 31, suzushii (cool) becomes suzushiku nai (not cool). Distinguishing between the two adjectives can be confusing for the learners, because both look similar when they are used with a copula at the end, such as kirei desu (pretty) and suzushii desu (cool). According to the teacher’s comment in his SR interview, the learners should not make the above error at that stage, because they are not complete beginners. He commented as follows: It is difficult to catch up with some of the poor students who still do not know what they should have known last year (in the first-year level course). (McCartney, 22 Mar.) McCartney did not give further explanation of the different forms of the adjectives, because he believed that the explanation of such a ‘basic’ error would be a waste of time for most of the other learners in the class. He considered that S probably understood his feedback. Although the teacher mentioned that the learners who made the above error should not be advanced students, Erwin, who made the same error, was one of the advanced students who the teacher regarded as being very good.


109

According to Erwin, he understood that suzushii jya nai and suzushiku nai were both acceptable when the teacher provided the recast to S’s answer. As an SL learner understood that forms in her answers and her teacher’s written feedback were both acceptable in Han (2001), this indicates that learners do not always recognize the true difference between the correct forms and their own utterances, even when they notice the correct form in teachers’ CF, as Han (2001) suggests. As Catherine also showed similar confusion between na-adjectives and i-adjectives, this kind of confusion is very common among the learners at the beginning level. In Ohta (2001), a learner at the first-year level of a Japanese language course could not make the negative form with an i-adjective yasashii (kind). In my study, the learners were at the second-year level of the course, and the teacher’s judgement that errors in relation to the formation of the negative forms with adjectives are based on the fact that these grammatical forms were taught at the first-year level. However, as Ohta (2001) pointed out, learners do not master grammatical forms according to the order that they were introduced in the course, and they need some time until they reach the stage where they use correct forms consistently. Reviewing confusing grammatical forms repeatedly may be necessary in the class. The teacher could explain the differences of forming the negative endings between na-adjectives and i-adjectives to the class, which may have triggered Erwin’s conceptual understanding of his error and the correct form. Recasts were effective in this study when the learners were self-regulated enough to understand the semantic and formal differences between the correct forms and their own errors by being shown the contrasts, while recasts were not effective when the differences between the correct forms and the learners’ errors were subtle. For the learners’ errors in relation to two confusing forms, such as i and na-adjectives, not only recasts, but also explanations about the differences between the forms were necessary.

3.6. The Teachers’ Choice and the Learners’ Preference of Corrective Feedback Types As mentioned in Section 3.5, the teachers did not consider that recasts were always effective. The teachers’ CF sometimes led the learners to notice or understand their feedback; however, they did not do so at other times. This may be relevant to the teachers’ choice of CF and the learners’ preference of CF. In this section, how the teachers choose the CF, such as recasts, and what kind of CF the learners actually prefer to receive from their teachers are discussed. In their interviews, I asked the teachers how they chose the types of CF to provide to their learners.

110


McCartney mentioned that he had no policy about his provision of CF, because ‘they always come out automatically’. He pointed out a few times that he had to move on to the next questions, even when he was unsure about the learners’ understanding, because of the time restriction of the classes. He also commented that he gave grammatical explanations as much as possible in the classes, because the survey conducted by the course coordinator in Semester 1 revealed that the learners needed explanations of grammatical items. From the data of the CF that he had provided in the classes and his comments in his interviews, he tended to give explanations for the errors that he considered as common among his learners, while he was likely to use only recasts for ‘basic errors’ and when the errors included the items that the learners did not learn in the class. Ito seemed to have a more systematic theory based on her teaching policy of not denying what her learners said. To explain her policy, Ito pointed out that if the teacher corrects the student’s error when he/she was expressing an answer, the student would give up completing the answer. According to Ito, she tended to decide on the CF types she would provide based on the learner’s error types. For example, when she considers that an error is common among the students, she would explain precisely the difference between the error and a correct form, even if the student who made the error felt slightly embarrassed. However, when an error looks minor and not very important, she would correct it without giving an explanation. From these comments, Ito seemed to use recasts for minor errors, and her awareness of trying to not make the learners feel intimidated would also promote her use of recasts rather than explicit corrections. As Ellis et al. (2006) found that metalinguistic explanations were more effective than recasts, the teachers seemed to consider that the provision of correct answers by recasts are sometimes not sufficient to facilitate learning and therefore metalinguistic explanations are necessary. The teachers shared their perceptions at the point that they provide explanations as well as correct forms when the learners’ errors are common, and that they provide recasts without explanations when the learners’ errors are minor or basic. Ito was aware of the learners’ fear of being corrected in the class. McCartney commented that giving further explanations about the expressions that the learners have not learned yet may intimidate the average and less capable learners. Moreover, the teachers often felt the pressure of the time restriction, as both teachers sometimes mentioned in their interviews that they could not give further explanation after their CF due to the time limitation of the class. This matches the result in Yoshida (2008b). Teachers cannot provide a detailed explanation for each error of the learners, because they have to teach a number of items in the limited time duration. Allwright (1996) explained that teachers are constantly faced with the problem of immediately choosing which items are important in order to avoid spending time on less important items.


111

As the teachers sometimes could not judge the reasons for the learners’ errors correctly in the class and commented in their interviews that they should have given different types of CF, it is not always easy for them to decide on whether they should give recasts or more explanation immediately after the learners’ errors. The teachers also need to decide on what kind of explanation they should give. In the following example, McCartney provided metalinguistic feedback to a learner who could not answer a task question. The teacher’s feedback functioned as incidental CF for Erwin who used an inappropriate form in his vicarious response, and he realized the correct form. However, Erwin did not understand the semantic difference between the correct form and the form that he had given, because the teacher did not explain the difference between the answer to the question and the similar form that could be confusing for learners. The following excerpt is the example: Excerpt 32 ((The teacher asks a student a task question. S needs to make a sentence with ‘soo’ (look like), while looking at a picture in the textbook))

➙

1 2

S: E:

3 4

S: T:

5

Ss:

6

E:

((silent)) °Ame ga furu soo nee° °I hear that it is going to rain° ((error)) ((silent)) There is a rule, masu-form, fuirmasu, furi soo, ame ga furi soo desu. There is a rule, masu-form, it rains, it looks like it is going to rain, it looks like it is going to rain. [Ame ga furi soo desu [It looks like it is going to rain. [Ame ga furi soo desu [It looks like it is going to rain. (Erwin, 14 Mar.)

While S could not answer the question, Erwin vicariously said his answer Ame ga furu soo ne in line 2. Although he meant, ‘It looks like going to rain’, his answer literally meant ‘I hear that it is going to rain’. The teacher presented the correct form ame ga furi soo desu (it looks like it is going to rain) after showing how to form furi soo from the polite form of the verb furimasu (it rains/ snows), and Erwin repeated it with some other students. According to Erwin, he understood that furi soo was the correct form. To explain his understanding, he mentioned that furi soo sounded better than furu soo. He commented that he did not often think about grammar, but judged the correctness of forms based on whether they sound proper or not. He was not


112

aware of the semantic difference between furi soo and furu soo (I hear that it is going to rain). Excerpt 32 indicates that learners sometimes accept correct forms without understanding the semantic differences between the correct forms and their own errors. It is necessary for learners to understand semantic differences as well as formal ones between correct forms and their own errors to comprehend the nature of their own errors. When there are similar confusing forms with different meanings, this indicates that knowing the formal and semantic differences between them is useful for the learners who confuse them. As mentioned earlier, Japanese particles are difficult to acquire for many learners. In the following example, Jessica did not notice the different use of particles according to the change of the sentence structures, because McCartney did not explain this. The task required changing ‘kuruma no unten ga deskimasu ka’ (can you drive a car?)16 by using koto ga dekiru (be able to): Excerpt 33 1

T:

2

S:

3

T:

4

J:

➙

5

T:

➙

6 7

J: T:

8

J:

➙

9

S:

➙

10

T:

S-san, S-san S, S Unten ((inaudible)) Driving ((inaudible)) Unten, unten Driving, driving °Unten ga dekimasu ka, Nihon wa unten o unten o dekiru koto ga° °Can you drive? Japan TOP driving ACC driving ACC can nom NOM° ((error)) Uh ‘dekimasu’ is uh irregular form of ‘suru’ Uh ‘can’ is uh irregular form of ‘do’ °Su, uh° Unten suru Drive °Unten suru° °Drive° Unten suru koto ga Drive nom NOM I think the correct usage is ‘unten suru koto ga dekimasu ka.’ Look at, I’ll let you read that sentence, yonban, I’ll read it out in the text, ‘Nihon de wa jyuurokusai ni naru to, kuruma no unten ga [dekimasu ka’ I think the correct usage is ‘can you drive?’ Look at, I’ll let you read that sentence, number four. I’ll read it out in the text, ‘Can you drive a car when you become 16 years old in Japan?’


J:

113

[°°Dekimasu ka°° [°° Can you?°° (Jessica, 30 May)

Jessica’s answer in line 4 included an error. As dekimasu (can) is a polite form of dekiru and suru means ‘do’, the teacher’s explanation in line 5 did not really make sense, although this provided the verb suru that Jessica needed to use instead of dekiru in line 4. Jessica repeated the first part of suru with an acknowledgement in line 6. Then the teacher introduced the verb unten suru in line 7 and Jessica repeated it. The answer could be either ‘Kuruma no unten o suru koto ga dekimasu ka’ or ‘Kuruma o unten suru koto ga dekimasu ka’ since they both mean ‘are you able to drive a car?’ In the first sentence, kuruma no unten is a noun, while unten suru is a verb in the second sentence. The teacher presented the second one in line 10. In this sentence, the particle after kuruma (car) should be changed from no to o, although the teacher did not mention this. Jessica repeated the last part of the sentence in the last line. After Excerpt 33, the teacher explained kanji for dekiru and repeated the two sentences ‘Unten ga dekimasu ka’ and ‘Unten suru koto ga dekimasu ka’ without the first part kuruma no or kuruma o. To the same question in the interview, Jessica answered ‘Kuruma no unten suru koto ga dekimasu’ [sic] without the question marker ka at the end, although she was not confident. The sentence structures with different particles are confusing for learners. Therefore, the teacher’s explanation was necessary. The teacher may not have been aware of the use of the different particles in the class, or may have avoided the explanation due to a lack of confidence in explaining it. I also asked the learners about their preference of the types of error correction that the teachers provide. Kiki and Catherine preferred receiving clear indications of the existence of errors with explanations of the differences between the errors and the correct forms. Catherine mentioned that when her teacher only provides correct forms, she may misunderstand her answer as being acceptable. Jessica preferred the provision of the correct forms on the board with explanations of their differences to the errors as well as vocal presentations of the correct forms by her teacher. Erwin and Wendy preferred not obvious, but clear indications of the existence of errors. Lily preferred receiving correct answers without explanations, because she did not want the teacher to point out her errors in front of the other learners. According to Lily, she would be able to find out how her errors were different from the correct forms on her own, and if it were not possible, she would ask her teacher personally after the class. On the other hand, Catherine was not scared to be corrected by her teacher in the class. She commented that being heard and corrected by a teacher is good for her learning. She pointed out that McCartney usually did not correct her utterances during peer work unless she or her friend asked him questions. This shows individual differences in the learners’ preferences


114

for the CF that they receive from their teachers. Teachers need to be careful in indicating the existence of errors in the utterances of the learners such as Lily. As Ellis (2007) suggested, teachers should vary how to correct according to the cognitive and affective needs of individual learners, although this is not always easy for teachers in classes. All the learners stated that they would like to be given time to think about correct answers without being provided correct forms immediately after their errors,17 in line with the finding in Yoshida (2008b). Jessica commented that although she preferred the provision of correct answers by the teacher immediately after her errors in Semester 1, she found it useful to work out correct answers on her own more often in Semester 2 due to an increase in her confidence. Jessica actually showed her uptake after Ito’s elicitation in the following example from Semester 2: Excerpt 34 ((During pair work, Jessica is working with Wendy))

➙

➙

➙

1

J:

2

W:

3

J:

4

T:

5

J:

6

T:

7

J:

8

T:

9

J:

10

T:

Uh atama uh uh yoku wakarimasen ga Uh head uh uh although I am not sure Um Um Buta wa âtamaˆ ii n uhn iku uhn ikunai n jya nai ka A pig is clever ((error)) uhn I think (a pig is) not clever ((error)) Ii no hantai wa nani kana: What is the opposite of ‘good’? A A What is the opposite, negative of ‘ii’ What is the opposite, the negative of ‘good’? Uhn yoku? Uhn ((the first part of ‘yoku nai’ (not good))) Soo soo, dakara? yokunai? Yes, yes, so? Not good Yokunai n jya nai ka to omoi masu I think (a pig is) not clever Soo soo soo, ne? Yes, yes, yes, OK? (Jessica, 25 Oct.)

In this peer work, Jessica was working with Wendy. In line 3 Jessica used an incorrect negative form of ii (good). The teacher asked the question twice in order to elicit her answers in lines 4 and 6. Jessica responded by saying yoku in line 7 and the teacher provided the correct negative form yokunai (not good)


115

and Jessica completed the sentence with n jya nai ka to omoi masu (I think) in line 9. According to Jessica, she was not thinking carefully about the answer she said in line 3 and after being asked the negative form of ii by the teacher, yoku came up in her mind. The teacher provided graduated assistance, from implicit to more explicit, by asking a question in Japanese first in line 4 and then in English in line 6, and providing the negative form of ii in line 8 after Jessica showed the correct form yoku in the previous line. This assistance by the teacher created the ZPD for Jessica. Ito commented that she confirmed Jessica’s understanding of the negative form yokunai, because she said yoku and could complete the sentence with n jya nai ka to omoi masu after yokunai. However, she mentioned that she is not sure whether Jessica would be able to use the expression after the class. This shows the teacher’s perception that the learners’ understanding of CF is not always equivalent with their ability to use the correct forms after the classes. Jessica successfully answered the same question at the beginning of the interview. While she still had a problem with finding out a rule between similar grammatical forms through Ito’s CF, she showed some development by understanding the teacher’s implicit CF. Jessica’s development may be related to her motives for learning the Japanese language. Lompscher (1999) stated that there are three types of interrelated motives: social learning motives, self-related motives and cognitive motives. Social learning motives are derived from the learners’ desire to communicate and cooperate with other people. Self-related motives are relevant with the learners’ own development, achievement and well-being. Lompscher divided cognitive motives into higher motives and lower ones. The learners with lower cognitive motives focus on isolated facts, details and superficial relations and their goal is to gain a result. The learners with higher cognitive motives have a fundamental interest in learning the object itself and are concerned with how to achieve a result rather than being satisfied with it. Lompscher explained that higher motives tend to lead learners to intensive cognitive activities for longer periods, while lower motives invite only short-term and superficial ones. Jessica’s motive for learning Japanese was at a lower level in Semester 1, because she was satisfied with being given the correct answers by her teacher and did not try to analyse them by comparing them to her errors. According to her comment, Jessica preferred to be given chances for self-correction of her errors in Semester 2; therefore, her motive seemed to be closer to a higher level in Semester 2 compared to Semester 1. The learners’ preference of CF that they receive varied according to the individuals. However, all the learners except Lily preferred the teachers’ clear indication of the existence of errors. All the learners preferred being given time to think about the correct answers before being provided with them. This shows that they prefer receiving CF such as elicitation or metalinguistic feedback rather than recasts immediately after their erroneous or inappropriate


116

utterances. This matches the result that the learners tended to understand CF in the longer negotiations. The learners’ preference for implicit CF that gives them chances to self-correct their own errors also matches the concept of dynamic assessment that provides gradual assistance from implicit to more explicit feedback, according to the learners’ responses. Lantolf and Thorne (2006) pointed out that feedback should be systematic and sensitive to the learners’ ZPD, although feedback in classrooms is arbitrary. It may be practically impossible to prepare the process of CF for all the questions that teachers give in advance and to allow all the learners who make errors in their answers to go through the extensive feedback process in the limited time of the class. Feedback such as recasts is sometimes sufficient for learners to understand and internalize the correct forms, when they are selfregulated enough to notice the formal and semantic differences between their errors and the correct forms. However, when learners do not have this level of self-regulation, they still prefer to have opportunities for self-correction, although Jessica preferred the provision of correct answers by her teacher in Semester 1. Therefore, more implicit CF such as elicitation or metalinguistic feedback, which is more sensitive to their ZPD, may be appropriate as the first CF to provide rather than the CF such as explicit corrections or recasts.

3.7. The Learners’ Understanding of Corrective Feedback and Their Development of Correct Forms The learners sometimes could not indicate the correct forms, vocabulary or pronunciations in their SR interviews, even after they understood them in the class. Even after they successfully produced correct forms of the corrected items in their SR interviews, the understanding may not result in the development of correct forms. In these cases, the learners may not have yet reached the stage where they were able to complete tasks without external assistance by other people. As Vygotsky stated, learners’ development is idiosyncratic and cannot be achieved in a short period of time. Catherine showed acknowledgements and uptake after McCartney’s incidental CF to her error of particles; however, she failed to present correct par ticles in her SR interview. In the following excerpt, Catherine and A are working together to fill in the blanks of a sentence with the appropriate particles: Excerpt 35 ((During pair work)) 1

C:

2

A:

A Tookyoo eki de Yamanote-sen kara Chuuoo-sen made Well at Tokyo station from Yamanote line to Chuoo line ((error)) Norikaeru


117

Change ((Later in the class)) ➙

➙

3

T:

4

C:

5

T:

6

C:

Tookyoo eki de Yamanote-sen kara Chuuoo-sen ni norikaeru I change from Yamanote line to Chuoo line at Tokyo station °Um° °Um° Nani nani kara nani nani [ni norikaeru Change from something to something [°Ni° [°To°

((The teacher writes the sentence on the board)) ➙

7

T:

8

C:

9

T:

10

C:

Yamanote-sen «kara» Chuuoo-sen «ni» From Yamanote line to Chuoo line °Ni, kara, um° °To, from, um° Norikaeru Change °Um° °Um° (Catherine, 23 May)

In the pair work, Catherine used the inappropriate particle made in line 1. The presentation of the correct answer to the class by the teacher in line 3 functioned as an incidental recast for Catherine and she showed her acknowledgement in line 4. After the teacher’s metalinguistic explanation in line 5, Catherine showed her uptake by repeating the correct particle ni in line 6. Then the teacher repeated the answer after writing it on the board, and Catherine repeated both particles with an acknowledgement. According to Catherine’s comment in her interview, she understood that the appropriate particle was ni and not made to mean ‘changing train lines’. The particles that Catherine used in line 1 indicate distance or time duration, such as ‘Tookyoo kara Oosaka made’ (from Tokyo to Osaka) or ‘sanji kara goji made’ (from 3 o’clock to 5 o’clock), while changes of transportation are expressed by the particle ni instead of made. All these particles are translated by using ‘from’ and ‘to’ in English. Therefore, her confusion of the use of the particles may be transferred from English. Her answer to the question before listening to the tape was ‘Tookyoo eki ni Yamanote sen kara Chuuoo sen de norikaeru’, showing her confusion about the particles ni and de. Native-speaker children of the Japanese language often make errors with the particle ni, as JFL learners do (Clancy, 1985), as also cited in Ohta (2001). Therefore, Catherine’s confusion between the particles ni and de may be a developmental error.


118

Wendy often could not provide the correct forms in her interview, even after she indicated uptake or acknowledgements in the class. However, in her SR interview after the following example, she presented the correct answers to the task. In the following excerpt, Wendy and her partner were working with a task that required them to connect the words Tookyoo eki (Tokyo station)/densha (train)/oriru (get off) with particles: Excerpt 36

➙

➙

1

W:

2 3

S: W:

4

S:

5

W:

6

S:

7

W:

8

S:

9

W:

10

S:

Is that one ‘ni’? Is that one PAR? I don’t know. And then ‘o’? And then ACC? (.) De (.) PAR De? PAR? Tok Tookyoo eki [de: At Tokyo station [De [At Densha Train O ACC O ACC (Wendy, 23 May)

Wendy chose ni as the first particle in line 1, although she was not confident. After her partner stated the correct particle de in line 4, Wendy repeated it twice in lines 5 and 7. Although her memory of this interaction was not clear, she chose the correct particle in her interview. She also mentioned that she reviewed the task with her tutor at home after the class. Repeating tasks by reviewing them at home can develop the internalization of correct forms and meanings. Reviewing the classes when the learners’ memories are still fresh should also contribute to the occurrence of delayed uptake. However, most of the learners did not review the classes until the weekend or before the exam periods. Oxford (1990) categorized ‘reviewing well’ as one of the memory strategies, and suggested reviewing in carefully spaced intervals until the production of the target items become automatic. This may be difficult for FL learners at university, because they also have large workloads for their other subjects. It may be necessary for them to review what they learned


119

at least after the classes as well as before the exams to help the internalization of their understanding of the CF that they had received in class. Although Lily understood McCartney’s incidental CF in Excerpt 21, she failed to express the correct form 48 days later in a class in the same semester. In the class, Lily and her partner were given the same photo of a red sports car for the exercise to practice making a sentence with nakereba naranai or the contracted form, nakya nannai, both of which meant ‘have to’. The following excerpt is an interaction between Lily and her partner during the pair work: Excerpt 37 1

L:

Akai kuruma o (.) unten suru no toki? unten menkyo o ((incomprehensible)) nakereba naranai? When I drive a red car ((error)), a driver’s licence ACC ((incomprehensible)) have to ((omitted)) 2 S: Is it (.) ‘haya:’ (.) how to say ‘drive fast’ Is it (.) ((the first part of ‘hayai’ (fast))) (.) how to say ‘drive fast’? 3 L: Hayai de? Fast ((error))? 4 S: Hayai itte, hayai Go fast ((error)), fast ((ADJ)) 5 L: Ikanakereba naranai I have to go 6 S: How do you say, ‘ikanakereba naranai’, so ‘hayai ikanakya nannai’ How do you say ‘have to go’, so ‘I have to go fast’ ((error)). ((After a while)) 7

L:

Hayai, hayai iku, ikana ikanakucha ((incomprehensible)) ‘go fast’ is ‘ikanai, ikanakucha’ Fast ((ADJ)), go fast ((error)), ((the first part of ‘ikanakucha’ (have to go))) have to go ((incomprehensible)) ‘go fast’ is ‘do not go, have to go’ (Lily, 2 May)

Lily and her partner, S, were trying to make a sentence with hayai (fast) and iku (go). S formulated the sentence ‘hayai ikanakya nannai’ [sic] (I have to go fast) in line 6. Although Lily found that she should change the adjective hayai to the adverb hayaku in Excerpt 21 in the previous class, she produced the expression hayai iku [sic] in line 7. The information that she had received earlier in the semester did not internalize, even though she understood the incidental CF and indicated uptake in her private speech after the feedback in the previous class.


120

After this pair work, McCartney asked Lily’s partner, S, to present a sentence that they made. The next excerpt is an interaction between the teacher and S: Excerpt 38

➙

➙

➙

1

T:

2

S:

3

T:

4

S:

5

T:

6

S:

7

T:

8

S:

9

T:

10

S:

11

T:

12

L:

Akai supootsu kaa desu ne. Red sports car. Uh supootsu kaa o unden suru18 no toki Uh when I drive a sports car ((error)) Unten suru [toki When I drive [Haya hayai ikana ikanakya nannai. [I have to go fast ((error)). Again? Again? Uh spootsu kaa o unden suru toki? Uh when I drive a sports car Hai Yes Hayai Fast ((ADJ)) Hayaku Fast ((ADV)) Hayaku ikanakya nannai. I have to go fast. Hayaku ikanakya naranai, hai. Hayaku ikana kya naranai. A couple of little mistakes which uh some, some of you still make, uhn uh a verb in front of ‘toki’, you don’t need ‘no’. I have to go fast, yes. I have to go fast. A couple of little mistakes which uh some, some of you still make, uhn uh a verb in front of ‘when’, you don’t need GEN. °Yes° °Yes° (Lily, 2 May)

The teacher corrected S’s erroneous utterances with an unnecessary particle no in line 2, by recasts in lines 3, and S repeated them in lines 6, although his pronunciation of unten (driving) was still not appropriate. According to Lily’s comments in her interview, she also said the phrase kuruma o untensuru no toki [sic] (when I drive a car) in the pair work, as seen in line 1 in Excerpt 37. She was not sure whether hayai (adjective) or hayaku (adverb) was correct before ika nakya nannai (have to go) and finally chose hayai. Therefore, the teacher’s recasts to S in lines 3 and 9 also functioned as incidental recasts for Lily. Lily mentioned that she noticed her errors when the teacher provided the


121

feedback to her partner and that she understood the correct forms. As she showed acknowledgement in line 12 after the teacher’s presentation of the correct form, she was aware of her errors and the correct forms. The learners tended to pay attention to incidental CF after their partners were called on and presented their answers that included the same errors as the learners’ during the previous peer work. In this situation, the learners seemed to be overhearers who listen to the interactions between the teacher and their partners carefully in preparation to assist their partners if necessary. Although Lily understood the correct form with the adverb hayaku (quickly) and the verb iku (go) in the previous class, she made the same error as S and Catherine had made in Excerpt 21. She may have been in the process of her development of the correct form, but may not have been self-regulated enough to work out the correct form on her own. As Excerpts 35, 37 and the results of the SR interviews showed, the learners’ understanding of the CF did not necessarily mean their internalization of the correct forms that had been targeted by the CF. They may still need external support when formulating the targeted items for a while after they understood the correct forms in the CF, because they are still in the process of internalizing the forms. Internalization can be promoted when learners review classes while their memories are still fresh.

3.8. Asking Teachers Questions during Peer Work Although the learners usually did not often initiate interactions with their teachers by asking them questions in the teacher-fronted settings, they asked teachers questions during peer work, while the teachers were walking around in the classes to help the learners. This was not found often on the recorded data, because McCartney did not approach all the pairs or groups during peer work. However, in their interviews, the learners recalled the correct forms of the linguistic items that they asked the teachers about, and their memories of the episodes of asking questions were clear compared to their memories of some of the CF episodes. ‘Preemptive’ focus-on-form episodes in Ellis et al. (2001) include episodes that were triggered by learners’ questions about linguistic forms to teachers. According to Ellis et al., CF episodes that were triggered by learners’ responses to teachers’ questions, which my study investigates, are included in ‘reactive’ focus-on-form episodes. In this section, ‘preemptive’ episodes, which were initiated by the learners’ questions to one of the teachers during peer work, and the learners’ comments on the episodes in their SR interviews are introduced. In the following example, Catherine and her partner are trying to make questions and answers while looking at a map of a railway network in Japan during pair work. Catherine made a question, ‘A eki kara F eki made kyuukoo de iku koto ga


122

dekimasu ka’ (Can you go from A station to F station by express train?) and wondered how she would answer the question. According to the map of a railway network, the express train was available to go from A station to E station, but not to F station. Only the local train that stops at every station went to F station. Catherine asked a question to McCartney who came close to her pair: Excerpt 3919 1

C:

Sensei, uhn if I want to uh ask, I can say, whether I can say ‘yes’, from A to F, does that mean that you must get off or on the train from beginning to the end or you can change trains in between Teacher, uhn if I want to uh ask, I can say, whether I can say ‘yes’, from A to F, does that mean that you must get off or on the train from beginning to the end or you can change trains in between

((omitted)) ➙

➙

2

T:

A kara E made kyuukoo: ni notte, sorekara E de norikaete kakueki densha de ikemasu Take the express from A to E, and then you can change trains at E and go by local train 3 C: Uh the answer of this would be yes or no (.) Would it be yes or no, if I ask like you know ‘A-eki kara F-eki made kyuukoo de iku koto ga dekimasu ka’ Uh the answer of this would be yes or no (.) Would it be yes or no, if I ask like you know ‘Can I go from A Station to F Station by express?’ ((omitted)) 4 T: Kyuukoo dake de ikemasen You cannot go by only express (Catherine, 30 May)

Catherine asked the teacher how to answer the question in line 1. The teacher explained in Japanese how to go from A station to F station in line 2. Catherine was still confused about whether the answer would be ‘yes’ or ‘no’. After a few exchanges of the teacher’s clarification request to Catherine’s question between lines 3 and 4, he suggested the expression Kyuukoo dake de ikemasen (You cannot go by only express) that meant ‘no’ as the answer to the question in line 4. In her SR interview after the classroom recording, Catherine commented on the above episode before listening to the tape and presented the answer to the question, ‘Iie, kyuukoo dake de ikemaesn. A kara E made kyuukoo ni notte, E de norikaete, E kara F made kakueki de ikemasu’ (No, you cannot go by only express. After going from A to E by express, you can change at E and go from E to F by local train). Her combination of the teacher’s answers in lines 2 and 4


123

indicates her understanding of his feedback and the appropriate answer to the question. The teacher provided the way to go from A Station to F Station in Japanese in line 2 as well as the yes/no answer in line 4 to Catherine’s repeated question. This assistance by the teacher created the ZPD for Catherine and led her to internalize the correct answer and the explanation of how to go from A station to F station. The following long excerpt is an example of Wendy asking McCartney a question during pair work. Wendy and her partner are trying to make a sentence with koto ga dekiru (can), while looking at some different signs in their textbooks: Excerpt 4020 ((Wendy and S are looking at a sign of a subway station))

➙

➙

1

S:

(.) Densha o: (.) Train ACC 2 W: What’s ‘ride’? densha o: suru ((laugh)) What’s ‘ride’? train ACC do ((laugh)) 3 S: Not suru, I, I, I don’t remember ((looking for the word in the textbook)) (. . . .) [umm uh wakarana::wakarana:i Not suru, I, I, I don’t remember ((looking for the word in the textbook)) (. . . .) [umm uh I don’t know 4 W: [°Noru?° Densha o no noru? [°Get on? ° Get on a train ((error))? 5 S: (.) Densha «ni» noru, koko de wa densha ni (.) Get on a train, here TOP train PAR 6 W: Densha «o» Train ACC 7 S: O? ACC? 8 W: No? No? 9 S: No No ((The teacher comes to them and asks how they are going. S asks a question about a sign with two people riding bicycles)) 10

S:

11

T:

12

S:

Is that this one, this one and uh ‘ jitensha o no noru?’ Is that this one, this one and uh ‘ride a bicylce’ ((error)) Jitensha ni noru? Ride a bicycle Ni or o


124

➙

➙

➙

➙ ➙

➙

➙

13

T:

14

S:

15

T:

16

S:

17

T:

18

S:

19 20 21 22 23

T: S: T: S: T:

24 25 26

S: T: S:

27 28

T: W:

29

T:

30

W:

31 32

T: W:

PAR or ACC Ni PAR Ni (.) Why can’t you use ‘o’ here, is it just the way or PAR (.) Why can’t you use ACC here, is it just the way or Jitensha o (.) For this one, no Bicycle ACC (.) For this one, no Normally use ‘noru’ uh normally come with ‘ni’, particle ‘ni’ not ‘o’? Normally use ‘ride’ uh normally come with PAR, particle PAR not ACC? Umm kuruma ni noru, densha ni noru, jitensha ni noru Umm get in a car, get on a train, ride a bicycle Jitensha ni noru Ride a bicycle Yes Same goes with uhn uhn taxi and uh With what Taxi? [[Takushii, no noru, yes Taxi, get on, yes [[And bus or train Yes Is that all use ‘ni’ Is that all use PAR Yes So ‘to get off’ is ‘o’(.) get off something So ‘to get off’ is ACC (.) get off something Oriru, yes. Densha o oriru Get off, yes. Get off a train OK, ‘to get on’ is ‘ni’ OK, ‘to get on’ is PAR Yes, or to be, to ride on OK (Wendy, 30 May)

At the beginning of the excerpt, Wendy and her partner were trying to make a sentence, while looking at a sign of a subway station. They were trying to use the phrase densha ni noru (get on a train). After choosing the inappropriate verb suru (do) in line 2, Wendy self-corrected it with the appropriate verb noru (get on) with the inappropriate particle o in line 4. Although S suggested the appropriate particle ni in line 5, Wendy and S were not very sure which particle was really appropriate. When the teacher approached them later in the pair work,


125

S asked the teacher which particles they should use for ‘riding a bicycle’ for the other task question in lines 10 and 12. The teacher suggested ni in lines 11 and 13. S, who wondered why the other particle o could not be used for noru, asked the teacher about the particles for some other transportations, mentioning taxi, bus and train in lines 20, 22, 24 and 26. The teacher answered that the particles ni should always be used for all the means of transportation. Wendy, who was listening to their interaction, confirmed with the teacher that o should be used for oriru (get off) and ni should be used for noru (get on) in lines 28 and 30. In her SR interview after Excerpt 40, Wendy commented on the above episode before listening to the tape and showed the use of the correct particles for both oriru and noru. This excerpt also indicates an example of Wendy overhearing the interaction between S and the teacher. Their interaction functioned as incidental CF for Wendy. Moreover, Wendy asked the teacher the question for confirmation after the interaction. Ohta (2001) reported that JFL learners asked their teachers questions during pair work when they are not certain about their answers, and that both learners in the pair benefited by confirming their answers with the teachers. In the above example, S’s many questions to confirm and clarify the use of the particle ni between the means of transportation and the verb noru (ride/get on) and the long interaction between her and the teacher from lines 10 to 27 created the ZPD for Wendy to understand and internalize the use of the particles ni and o with the two different verbs noru (ride/get on) and oriru (get off). Her conceptual understanding of the use of the particles with the verbs is clearly found in her questions to the teacher for confirmation. Dobinson (1996) investigated ESL learners’ recall and retention of new vocabulary that was introduced in the class. Dobinson stated that the most crucial factor for recall of new vocabulary items is ‘interaction with the data’ (p. 224). For example, when the learners searched for word meanings by using a dictionary in the classes, they recalled the words most frequently. When JFL learners interacted with certain linguistic items more actively and spontaneously by asking the teachers questions rather than passively receiving CF, the chances of internalizing the items seemed to increase. Learners are more self-regulated when they ask questions about their own linguistic problems compared to when the problems are pointed out by teachers with CF after their erroneous answers. This self-regulation of the learners may contribute to the internalization of correct forms. However, due to the small number of examples in the asking-question situation, it is impossible to state that the learners were always self-regulated in this situation.

3.9. Summary of the Chapter In this section, by answering each research question below, the study indicates how CF in the classrooms is influenced by their contexts and sociocultural

126


factors, in relation to the teachers’ and the learners’ perceptions. Research question 1: How do learners perceive CF by their teachers or classmates when they respond to it? How do teachers perceive the learners’ responses to their CF? The learners sometimes did not understand the CF provided by the teachers, even when they responded to the CF. The reason for the learners’ indication of agreeing with the teachers’ CF without understanding it could be explained from the social viewpoint of the classroom. The learners seemed to follow the ‘act’ of ‘learners’ and support the ‘act’ of ‘teachers’ by accepting the teachers’ evaluations and avoiding any social strain which is caused by disagreeing with the teachers or asking them further questions (Allwright, 1989; Shimazu, 2003). They also seemed to avoid situations that might trigger their social embarrassment, which is an indication of the lack of their understanding of the CF (Karp and Yoels, 1976). These learners’ behaviours caused their teachers to misconstrue the learners’ understanding of the CF. Similarly, and for the same reason, the learners sometimes indicated acknowledgement and/or uptake of their classmates’ CF without understanding it, when they considered that the classmates were more advanced than themselves. The teachers tended to confirm the learners’ understanding of their CF when the learners responded to the CF with non-verbal expressions such as nodding. They were sometimes not sure whether the learners had understood their CF such as recasts when they responded to them. One of the teachers commented that the learners’ understanding of the CF in the classes does not necessarily lead them to the correct use of the target items after the classes. The teachers commented in their SR interviews that they sometimes found that the learners did not understand their CF after confirming the learners’ understanding of the CF in the classes. One of the teachers changed her perception of a learner’s understanding of her CF in the class while listening to the recording of the class in her interview. In short, the learners’ responses to the CF did not always indicate their understanding of the CF. While the teachers were likely to perceive the learners’ responses to their CF with non-verbal expressions as the learners’ understanding of the CF, they sometimes did not confirm the learners’ understanding of their CF, even after the learners’ affirmative responses to them. The teachers’ perceptions of the learners’ understanding of their CF were sometimes shown to be different between the classes and their SR interviews, showing that their perceptions of particular interactions or speech in the classrooms are dynamic. Research question 2: What are the factors that promote/affect learners’ noticing and understanding of CF?


127

Several different types of factors are found to promote or affect learners’ noticing or understanding of CF. The learners’ spontaneity of participation in the CF episodes, even though the participation was indirect, increased their attention, which promoted their noticing or understanding of incidental CF. The existence of multiple scaffolding, that is, CF plus another artefact, such as visual support (e.g. as written sentences on the board, on an OHT or in the textbook) helped the learners’ noticing or understanding of CF. Written sentences on the board and a table in the textbook functioned as incidental CF or triggered a learner’s delayed uptake. The delayed uptake suggests that the learners may notice or understand the CF that they received in the classes later when they review the classes at home. In the CF episodes that occurred between the learners, the similarity of the learners’ language ability promoted their establishing intersubjectivity in the cognitive dimension, sharing linguistic problems and solving them collaboratively, while working with their friends contributed to their establishing intersubjectivity in the social dimension, being open to correction and being corrected, and enjoying the tasks in a relaxed atmosphere. In these cases, the learners co-constructed their knowledge of the target language, and this led them to understand the CF provided by their classmates. The learners’ use of the classroom strategy of preparing their answers in case they are called on affected their noticing of incidental CF. One of the learners who preferred to show off her ability when she was called on often used the strategy; therefore, her noticing rate of incidental CF was low compared to the other learners. The learners’ goals for taking the course also affected their understanding of CF. One learner whose goal was to pass the course rather than to learn the language tended to avoid analysing the CF that she received and could not relate the CF with a particular grammatical rule. As a result, she did not understand the CF. In summary, the effectiveness of the CF depends on a variety of factors, including the availability of multiple scaffoldings and collective scaffolding, a relaxed and collaborative environment, the learners’ attention to teachers’ instructions and other learners’ answers, and the learners having the goals of learning the language rather than simply passing the course. Research question 3: How do teachers choose CF? What type of CF do learners prefer to receive from their teachers? The teachers were aware of the importance of metalinguistic explanations as well as the provision of correct answers. The teachers commented that they tended to provide correct answers by using recasts for the errors that they considered as minor or basic, and that they usually provide explanations with

128


correct answers for common errors among the learners. One of the teachers seemed to provide correct answers by recasts to her learners rather than directly mentioning that their answers are incorrect, according to her policy of accepting what her learners said without immediately rejecting them. Both teachers in the study commented on the time restriction of the classes as the reason for not having given explanations after recasts. Thus, the teachers seem to use recasts frequently from a practical standpoint due to the time restriction of their classroom teaching and from their belief. All the learners, except for one, preferred the provision of a clear indication of the existence of errors or an explanation of the difference between correct answers and their errors. One learner preferred receiving correct answers without explanation, because she felt that pointing out her errors in front of her classmates by teachers was embarrassing for her. All the learners preferred being provided opportunities to self-correct their errors before the correct answers are given. This preference suggests the provision of gradual assistance from implicit to more explicit feedback to the learners’ responses. This shows that there is a mismatch between the teachers’ provision of correct answers by their frequent use of recasts and the learners’ preference of being given opportunities for self-corrections. Furthermore, a gap was sometimes found between the teachers’ perception of better CF and their actual use of CF in the classes, as shown by their comments in their interviews that they provided only recasts, because they did not have time for explanations.

Notes 1

2

3 4 5

6

7

8

Although M’s repetition was not recorded on Kiki’s tape, he may have repeated it very softly. However, this is not clear, because I could not interview M who was not a participant of the study. Learners may mentally participate in CF episodes by using their subvocal private speech, even when they only listen to teachers or other learners without vocalizing their responses. However, as the study investigates learners’ vocalized speech, this is beyond the focus of the study. Kaeru means ‘can buy’; however, Wendy did not mean that in her answer. A-sensei is the teacher who presented the lecture. A Japanese word is divided into a phonological unit, mora, which is different from English syllables (Tsujimura, 1996). As all the learner-participants have Chinese backgrounds, the study cannot discuss whether this kind of behaviour is a characteristic of Asian learners compared to learners with non-Asian backgrounds. The objective of the task was to become able to use the particle mo appropriately with affirmative or negative forms of verbs. The counter kai, which expresses frequencies, was introduced in the Level 1 Japanese course. See line 23 in Excerpt 24.


10 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18 19 20

129

The learners sometimes did not listen to the teachers and/or other learners, because they were thinking about or doing something else in post-task activities, as mentioned in Section 3.1. This indicates that learners’ attention can be easily distracted when they are only non-participatory audience members or overhearers. A traffic accident is ‘kootsuu jiko’. Kuruma wa hayaku iku node (as a car goes fast) is grammatically correct; however, ‘kuruma wa hayaku hashiru node’ (as a car runs fast) is the more appropriate expression, although the teacher did not mention this. This example was not counted as ‘delayed uptake’, because Kiki did not vocalize the correct form. The example where Kiki pretended to agree with Ito is indicated in Section 5.4 in Chapter 5 (Excerpt 59). As mentioned in Chapter 1, English is not Kiki’s first language; however, she received her high school education in English in Australia and usually speaks English to communicate with her friends outside the classroom. Overgeneralization of the particle no is found in Lily’s expression in Excerpt 37. The original task question is ‘Nihon dewa jyuurokusai ni naru to, kuruma no unnten ga dekimasu ka’ (Can you drive a car in Japan, when you become 16 years old?). As the classes were language-focused, the learners frequently noticed that they were corrected when they received recasts. Unden is a mispronunciation of unten. ➙ means the teacher’s answers to Catherine’s questions. ➙ in front of line 5 means CF. ➙ in front of the other lines indicate the teacher’s answers of the learners’ questions.

Chapter 4

A Review of Private Speech and Quantitative Analysis

In the previous chapter, I analysed and discussed CF episodes, including the learners’ overt and covert participations. Some examples of JFL learners’ private speech, their vicarious responses to the teachers’ questions, were found in the excerpts of CF. However, the learners’ covert participation by using private speech other than vicarious responses also needs to be examined. Therefore, I will analyse and discuss the learners’ private speech in the classrooms in the following two chapters. In this chapter, I first review previous studies of private speech, including the studies of children’s private speech, adult SL/FL learners’ private speech and classroom studies of private speech, discuss the factors that need to be further investigated, and present research questions about learners’ private speech. Secondly, I indicate the categorization of private speech in this study. Finally, I discuss the types and frequency of private speech, which were used by the learners, in relation to the classroom contexts and sociocultural factors.

4.1. Overview of Private Speech 4.1.1. Studies of Private Speech of Children Research of private speech was first started in the field of children’s private speech in their first languages. Vygotsky (1986) criticized Piaget’s view (1932) that the private speech of children is evidence of their egocentricism and disappears according to the development of their social speech. Vygotsky (1986) argues that private speech is not ‘a mere accompaniment to the child’s activity’ (p. 31) as Piaget’s theory indicates, but that it is a developmental stage of children’s speech from interpersonal to intrapersonal planes. According to Vygotsky (1978, 1986), the primary function of speech is interpersonal communication, and private speech is considered as evidence of the child’s developing ability to control his/her own behaviour. At the first stage, the structure of private speech is identical with that of social speech; however, the process

Private Speech and Quantitative Analysis

131

of transformation into inner speech, which is not vocalized, makes it elliptical (Vygotsky, 1986). After private speech turns into inner speech, it exists without disappearing. It resurfaces when the learner is faced with tackling difficult tasks. Private speech is associated with children’s ‘thinking’ and has functions of planning and problem solving as well as releasing their tension (Vygotsky, 1986). Wertsch (1985) also explained that the function of private speech and inner speech is to control and regulate human activity. Based on Vygotsky’s theory, researchers have investigated the private speech of children in relation to factors such as the tasks in which they engage, whether in the presence of their parents, and the age of the children. Kohlberg et al. (1968) conducted four studies to examine the theories of Piaget and Vygotsky and discovered that private speech was commonly found among children at the ages of 4–6 years, it decreased significantly after the ages of 6–7 years, and disappeared by the age of 10, when the children developed their internalized logical thinking. They also found that mental age and task difficulty are factors that primarily determine children’s private speech, while sex, nationality and chronological age are not crucial compared to the former factors. Kohlberg et al. support Vygotsky’s theory that private speech is associated with children’s cognitive development and the demands of cognitive activity. Berk and Garvin (1984) refined the categories of private speech by Kohlberg et al. and added ‘reading aloud’, which was often used by the learners at elementary school, as shown in Pechman (1978), and ‘affective expression’, which was pointed out by Flavell (1966) and John-Steiner and Tatter (1983). Private speech occurred most frequently in situations where children were engaging in academic tasks without the presence of an adult to give any direct guidance to their activity. Among Appalachian children, boys showed a slower rate of development of private speech, suggesting the influence of cultural aspects (Berk and Garvin, 1984). Berk and Garvin (1984) agreed with Vygotsky on the points that the primary function of private speech is self-guidance, that the developmental origin of private speech is related to social experience, and that private speech increases according to task difficulty. Behrend et al. (1989) classified ‘the presence of a parent’ into direct regulation and scaffolding, and discovered that the self-regulatory private speech of children did not decrease when the parents scaffolded without directly regulating the child’s activity. The frequency of private speech strongly related not to the most difficult task, but to the task with moderate difficulty. Behrend et al. suggested a strong relationship between private speech and children’s performance on the task in their next attempt (the next time the child attempts the task, he/she should be successful). This can be explained that private speech is most likely to occur within learners’ ZPD. Goodman (1981) researched private speech during jigsaw-puzzle solving, and Berk (1986) investigated private speech during math seatwork in classrooms. In both studies, the majority of task-related private speech was self-guiding,

132


indicating the learners’ plans or thoughts. However, task-irrelevant private speech did not have the function of constructively regulating children’s behaviour. Goodman (1981) reported that private speech occurred in failed or nearly failed performances. Frauenglass and Diaz (1985) pointed out the lack of a positive correlation between children’s production of private speech and their success in cognitive tasks, and explained that self-regulatory private speech is relevant to failure in tasks. Frawley and Lantolf (1986) criticized Frauenglass and Diaz (1985), arguing that the lack of a positive correlation between the amount of private speech and task success is not necessarily evidence of any contradiction to Vygotsky’s theory that an increase of private speech is associated with increasing cognitive development. According to Frawley and Lantolf, it is more important to examine the quality of private speech rather than its quantity. Moreover, they disagreed with the discussion in Frauenglass and Diaz (1985) and Berk (1986) that task-irrelevant private speech is non-self-regulatory, because the sole function of private speech is self-regulation. Frawley and Lantolf argued that task-irrelevant private speech can be self-regulatory, even though the surface appearance does not show the self-regulation. As Vygotsky (1986) stated that imitation plays an important role in child development, repetitions of words or phrases were found in children’s private speech (Berk and Garvin, 1984; Goodman, 1981). According to Kuczaj (1983), children compare their new knowledge of their first language with their old knowledge by modifying the language structures, as well as by imitating the utterances of others, and by repeating their own utterances, especially as ‘repetition of their own utterances may serve to consolidate and/or restructure earlier acquisitions’ (Kuczaj, 1983, p. 164). Kuczaj insists that children imitating parts of model utterances are not at random, but that the parts that they consistently imitate are ‘either within or slightly beyond their current level of linguistic competence’ (Kuczaj, 1983, p. 9). In Vygotsky’s (1978, 1986) perspective, this means that children imitate the parts of model utterances that are in their current development level or in their ZPD. Overall, the results of the previous studies support Vygotsky’s theory. To sum up, the frequency of children’s production of private speech decreases at certain ages, and after private speech turns into inner speech, it resurfaces when the children face a task difficulty. Private speech has a self-regulatory function to control and coordinate human behaviour and seems to be associated with children’s cognitive development.

4.1.2. Studies of Private Speech of Adult SL/FL Learners Since the 1990s, SLA researchers have been exploring the private speech of adult SL learners in association with learners’ language levels and goals of


133

language learning (Centeno-Cortés and Jiménez Jiménez, 2004; Lantolf, 1997; McCafferty, 1994b), task type (Appel and Lantolf, 1994) and cultural difference between learners (McCafferty, 1992). According to Wertsch (1979), the early forms of private speech are expressed in the description of particular aspects of the action or the environments, showing the characteristics of object-regulation. Wertsch (1979) explained that as a child’s private speech develops, it becomes separated from action and is concerned with planning, indicating a more selfregulatory function. The studies of private speech of adult SL/FL learners used Wertsch’s three developmental categories: object-regulation, other-regulation and self-regulation for the analysis of the learners’ private speech. McCafferty (1994b) found that lower-intermediate ESL learners generated a significantly greater amount of object-regulatory private speech in a picture narration task, compared to the learners with a higher level of proficiency, by ‘imposing inappropriate schema on the task’ (p. 126), labelling, counting or commenting on some aspects of the narrative. Lantolf (1997) found that learners of Spanish whose goal was to fulfil a language requirement rather than to learn the language engaged in ‘language play’ less frequently compared to the learners whose goal was to learn the language. Lantolf (1997) defined ‘language play’ as modifying the language structure or repeating the utterances of others or their own to compare old and new knowledge of the language.1 This definition is based on Vygotsky’s (1978) view of children’s ‘play’, where play is not a means of having fun, but takes on a crucial role for the development of children. Centeno-Cortés and Jiménez Jiménez (2004) investigated the private speech of learners of Spanish at different levels and native Spanish speakers in problemsolving tasks. Advanced learners seldom used metalanguage (the language used to analyse or describe a language), while numerous instances of metalanguage and metacomments such as ‘I’m horrible with this’ in intermediatelearners’ private speech indicated their special focus on the formal features of the language (pp. 25–26). Native speakers used private speech in the process of thinking for the resolution of the problem-solving tasks more frequently than the intermediate learners, suggesting the influence of the task type. Appel and Lantolf (1994) used recall tasks of expository and narrative texts to investigate the private speech of English native speakers and advanced ESL students. The participants constructed their plans through the act of speaking to themselves during the tasks. Both groups of the participants found more difficulty with the expository text than the narrative task. McCafferty (1992) compared the private speech of ESL learners between Hispanics and Asians. During the task to create a narrative according to a story as portrayed through a series of six sequential pictures, Hispanic students used other-regulatory utterances such as questions more frequently than Asian students did. SL/FL learners’ use of private speech for self-regulation was found in both solitary and communicative tasks. Learners of Spanish, ESL and Swahili used private speech to coordinate their own mental and linguistic activities

134


in relation to the problem-solving tasks in which they were engaging when they faced cognitively difficult situations (Brooks et al., 1997; Platt and Brooks, 1994). In these studies, the learners mediated their thinking in both firstlanguage and SL/FL private speech. DiCamilla and Antón (2004) examined the private speech used in the collaborative writing by 14 dyads of Englishspeaking college students studying Spanish. By repeating or reading aloud in private speech, the learners focused their attention on the task at hand and created psychological distance between the problems and their minds to control both themselves and the problems. Private speech is sometimes accompanied with non-verbal expressions such as gestures, as social speech does. McCafferty (1998) examined the relationship between SL private speech and the gestures of ESL learners during the tasks of narrative recall and picture narration. High correspondence was found between the use of gestures and private speech. The learners pointed towards the objects when they were commenting on them during the picture narration task (object-regulation), and moved their hands and fingers when they were asking questions such as ‘How can I say?’ (other-regulation). Gesture accompanied only one verbal form of self-regulation. McCafferty suggested that learners’ shaking their heads or nodding following an unfilled pause before speaking indicates their engagement in inner speech during the pause. The results of the previous studies found that adult SL learners use private speech in both their first languages and SL/FL to mediate or redirect an individual’s own activity in cognitively difficult situations, as children do in their first-language private speech. Learners’ language levels, cultural backgrounds, goals of language learning and task types in which the learners engage seem to influence their private speech. Private speech has a self-regulatory function in communicative tasks as well as in solitary tasks. Private speech and gestures seem to be tools for thought for SL/FL learners to promote the internalization of the language. All private speech (object-regulation, other-regulation and self-regulation) has important roles for learners to test or modify linguistic forms, concentrate on tasks or release their emotions. Even when the private speech of learners is not directly related to tasks or target-language items, it still has a function to control and regulate the learners’ behaviour while learning target languages. In this sense, all private speech can be self-regulatory, as Frawley and Lantolf (1986) mentioned. Moreover, private speech that is not directly associated with tasks or target-language items should not be overlooked.

4.1.3. Studies of Learning Strategies that Relate to Private Speech According to Vygotsky’s concept of private speech, children do not consciously repeat or manipulate words or phrase in their private speech. However, SL/


135

FL learners sometimes use private speech or subvocal private speech intentionally as their learning strategies. Some studies of SL/FL learning strategies mention learners’ use of vocalized private speech or subvocal private speech as their strategies, although the terminology is not found in the studies. Ramsay (1980) researched learners’ approach to Euskera, an artificial language, to find out the relationship between their level of success and learning strategies used. Successful learners vocalized their thinking or mental processes they were going through, while unsuccessful learners remained silent. O’Malley et al. (1985) interviewed high-school ESL students at beginning and intermediate levels about their strategy use. The ESL students reported that they used strategies such as repetition, note-taking and self-monitoring. In Reiss’s (1985) study, adult ESL learners indicated the frequent use of the strategies of answering questions in class, whether called on by teachers or not, mentally correcting the errors of other students, and ‘applying new material mentally while silently speaking to oneself’ (p. 515). These ‘mentally answering questions’ or ‘mentally correcting errors’ could be considered to be subvocal private speech when their verbal thinking is not vocalized. Lyczak (1979) assessed the effects of subvocal rehearsal on adult SL learners, and suggested that subvocal rehearsal promotes information to be stored in long-term memory in order to be available later. Recently, de Guerrero (2004) investigated subvocal private speech of beginning ESL learners in and outside the classroom.2 According to de Guerrero, at the early stage of development, SL subvocal private speech is mostly ‘an echo of external language’ (p. 108), and in form, this subvocal private speech can be syntactically developed as the learners mentally articulate the speech heard, or they rehearse for future speech production with their maximum efforts. However, subvocal private speech becomes very fragmentary when the learners attempt to mentally express their thoughts in the SL. SL/FL learners seem to spontaneously use strategies such as vocal and subvocal repetition or rehearsal to internalize their target languages. At the early stage of the development, their subvocal private speech seems to be ‘an echo of external language’ (de Guerrero, 2004, p. 108) and be expanded when they repeat what they have heard, or to rehearse something to vocally produce it later. However, it seems to be difficult for the beginners of SL to use subvocal private speech to express their thoughts.

4.1.4. Studies of Private Speech in FL Classrooms Some studies about FL learners’ private speech in classrooms have been carried out since 2000. Broner and Tarone (2001) divided ‘language play’ into two different categories: language play as rehearsal and language play as fun, in accordance with the definition of ‘language play’ by Lantolf (1997) and Cook (1997). Learners in a fi fth-grade Spanish immersion classroom used

136


well-mastered forms in language play as fun, while they used newly introduced forms in language play as rehearsal. Broner and Tarone (2001) suggest that language play as fun may be effective for SL acquisition as well as language play as rehearsal, because ‘the emotional excitement that comes with language play may simply make the L2 discourse more noticeable, and thus more memorable’ (p. 375). Cekaite and Aronsson (2005) examined children’s language play in collaborative work in an immersion classroom. Within joking events in their language play, the children showed their metalinguistic awareness by indirectly commenting on their own language use. Cekaite and Aronsson explain that by using this type of language play, the children practised a target language and became qualified as participants in the classroom community.3 Barnard (2003) investigated the private speech used by a student, who immigrated to New Zealand from Korea, in his Year 7 mainstream classroom. Due to his ‘minimal’ English ability and the absence of a first-language peer in the classroom, his interactions with his teacher and classmates were very limited. Most of his private speech was in his first language, Korean, in which he expressed his negative feelings about not being able to express himself in English. Burdelski (2001) explored the purposes of the use of private speech by primary school students in Japanese immersion classrooms in the USA. The results revealed four functions of private speech used by the learners: (1) wordplay (to control form or the sound of language used by the teacher or themselves, or to express fun verbally or non-verbally through smile or laugh);4 (2) rehearsal (to rehearse before performance and repeat a part of the teacher’s utterance); (3) response to a teacher or other learners; and (4) problem solving in the immediate circumstance. In wordplay, the children enjoyed manipulating the sounds or forms of words. This shows that language as rehearsal and language as fun sometimes overlap, as Broner and Tarone (2001) point out. Burdelski refers to Vygotsky’s (1978) statement that ‘play’ is crucial for the cognitive development of children. The children rehearsed what they would like to present by using their private speech before their performances. Burdelski explained that this function of private speech can promote the learners’ testing of new linguistic forms and their noticing of the differences between the new forms and their own interlanguage. The children also covertly participated in the class by vicariously responding to the utterances of teachers or other children. Burdelski explained that ‘problem-solving’ indicates a self-regulatory function of private speech and that the children regulated themselves by using both their fi rst and second languages. Ohta (2001) examined the private speech of seven learners in Japanese language classrooms at the first-year and second-year levels of the language course at a university in the USA. The learners vicariously responded to teachers in


137

their private speech when the teachers asked questions to the classes or other learners. They also repeated the utterances of the teachers or other learners and manipulated linguistic forms in their private speech. Great variability was found in the frequency of the private speech between the individual learners. The learners used private speech much more often in the teacher-fronted setting than in the peer-work setting. Ohta (2001) explained that the teacherfronted setting without explicit focus of a teacher or other learners allowed the learners a private space to repeat teachers’ or other learners’ questions and answer teachers’ questions privately, while in the peer setting the learners overtly completed or corrected each other’s sentences. According to Ohta (2001), learners test their hypotheses about the language to be acquired in private speech to work towards a solution, and the final solution needs to be re-expressed by using social speech in social interactions. Ohta (2001) stated that ‘repetition’ occurred very frequently in the learners’ private speech in JFL classrooms. A few studies focused on the ‘repetition’ in private speech. In the study of private speech of a classroom learner of Spanish, Lantolf and Yáñez (2003) distinguished ‘imitation’ from ‘repetition’. Imitation meant that learners’ repetition of what they heard contained some modification or addition, while repetition meant an exact copy of what they heard. Lantolf and Yáñez stated that imitation has a ‘transformative potential’ and implies ‘agency and intentionality’ that is a missing feature from a common interpretation of repetition (p. 99). The learner did not necessarily focus on the aspects that her teacher focused on in her private speech. Roebuck and Wagner (2004) investigated repetition of university learners in a Spanish conversation course while they were working with communicative tasks in pairs or groups. Repetition functioned as a communicative tool to make the learners participate more in the tasks as well as functioning as a cognitive tool to help them keep focused on what they were saying. Roebuck and Wagner suggested that repetition promotes a sense of involvement and facilitates interactions based on the statements of Tannen (1989) and Murphey (2001).

4.1.5. Factors that Need Further Investigation There are a few factors that previous studies have not sufficiently investigated in relation to SL/FL learners’ private speech. First, the social and affective functions of adult learners’ private speech in classroom have not been examined. From the previous studies of private speech in FL classrooms (Burdelski, 2001; Ohta, 2001), learners’ private speech in FL classrooms can be classified into two main functions. The first function may overlap cognitive and metacognitive functions as in McCafferty (1994a) and includes planning, guiding and monitoring. When learners practice pronunciation or manipulate linguistic

138


forms to search for or confirm correct forms, their private speech is used for this function. This type of function has been focused on in previous studies of learning strategies (Lyczak, 1979; Reiss, 1985) and the study of private speech in FL classrooms (Ohta, 2001). The second function is related to affective and social functions, as in McCafferty (1994a). Learners participate in classes in a covert way by using their private speech. As Breen (2001) pointed out, the opportunities of learners’ participation in classes are very often orchestrated by a teacher. As I stated in Chapter 1, from my experience as a JFL teacher and observations of other teachers’ classes, learners, at least many JFL learners, usually prefer not to disturb the flow of classes or a teacher’s instructions by asking many questions or expressing their opinions or ideas very often. Learners seem to avoid speaking out their own answers when a teacher asks a question to another student. For these learners, opportunities of overt participation in classes are limited; however, they can still participate in classes by responding to a teacher or classmate through their private speech without changing the flow of the classes or being face-threatening. Van Lier (1988) described this type of learners’ private speech as ‘private turns’ (p. 120) where private speech has a social function to covertly participate in classes. Private speech also gives learners opportunities for self-expression, including affective expression. These functions of private speech have not been sufficiently explored in any previous studies of adult private speech. Burdelski (2001) found that children express their emotion in their private speech with laughter in Japanese immersion classrooms. According to Barnard (2003), a Korean Year 7 student, who immigrated to New Zealand, expressed his frustration about his English ability by using private speech in the mainstream classroom. Therefore, adult FL learners may also use private speech for affective expression. Social and affective functions may have important roles as well as cognitive and metacognitive functions in adult FL learners’ private speech. These two functions are not clearly divided, but overlap. For example, when affective expression is uttered in SL/FL private speech, it may have a cognitive function. When learners repeat a teacher’s SL/FL utterances or vicariously answer task questions in their private speech, they might use covert self-expressions in their participations in the class. Previous studies did not examine which private speech is more associated with each function. In addition, learners’ private speech in both their first and target languages should be examined. Ohta (2001) examined JFL learners’ private speech in the target language in relation to their acquisition of the language. On the other hand, Antón and DiCamilla (1999) pointed out that learners’ first language plays some crucial roles in both interpsychological and intrapsychological planes. Learners may use their first language (English/Chinese in this study) or the language which they frequently use outside the classroom (English in


139

this study) in their private speech. Therefore, learners’ private speech in both Japanese and English/Chinese will be investigated. Finally, studies are necessary about learners’ awareness of their own use of private speech and teachers’ perception of their learners’ use of private speech in classrooms. These factors should be explored for further understanding of learners’ private speech in association with classroom contexts and sociocultural factors such as teachers’ teaching policy, and for revealing the learners’ awareness of the relationship between their own private speech and classroom learning as well as the teachers’ perception of the relationship between the learners’ private speech and their learning. Therefore, this study examines the above mentioned factors of JFL learners’ private speech. Research questions are as follows: 1. How does learners’ private speech function in JFL classrooms? 2. Are learners aware of their own private speech, and are teachers aware of the learners’ private speech in the classroom? If yes, how do they perceive the learners’ private speech?

4.1.6. Definition of Private Speech in FL Classrooms FL classrooms are very different environments from the ones where ordinary conversations occur outside the classrooms. Direct interactions between a teacher and a particular student do not often occur unless the teacher asks a task question to the student or unless the student asks a question to the teacher in a teacher-fronted setting, and when either the teacher or student approaches the other in a peer-work setting. Learners’ responses to the teacher’s questions to the class or other students are often not directed to the teacher; however, the teacher sometimes responds to these utterances. Learners interact with the other learners in a peer-work setting; however, they often answer task questions by taking turns without responding to each other’s utterances. As Ohta (2001) mentioned, distinguishing private speech from social speech in FL classrooms is not always easy and there is some overlap between the two types of speech. Wells (1999) also argued that actions are always both social and psychological with more focus on one of them according to the situation. It could be said that learners’ speech which occurs in FL classrooms is divided into two different types: the speech that is directed to a teacher or classmates (overt speech), and the speech that is not directed to a teacher or classmates (covert speech). In this study, the latter type of covert speech is defined as private speech. The study also follows the definition of private speech by Ohta (2001), based on Smolucha’s (1992) view as: ‘language directed to the self, whether or not an overhearer or potential interlocutor may be present’ (p. 38).

140


4.2. Identification of Private Speech After the interviews with the learners, I identified their private speech, according to the audio-recorded data and the learners’ comments in their SR interviews. When the learners commented in the interviews on the learners’ speech that I considered as their private speech in the class as talking to the teachers or classmates, these instances were not counted as private speech. The learners sometimes commented in their interviews that they were not sure about the intention of their own speech; whether they were talking to themselves or talking to the teachers or other learners in the class. These cases were not categorized as private speech. Ohta (2001) utilized the following characteristics to identify private speech: (a) [because it had] reduced volume, 5 (b) because it was not in response to a question/comment directed specifically to the individual by the teacher or another student, and (c) because it did not receive a response by the teacher or a classmate. (p. 38) My study followed these characteristics for the identification of the learners’ private speech. There were a few cases that the teachers heard or responded to the learners’ private speech. The last characteristic was not applied to these cases. In addition to the above standards, the comments on the learners’ particular utterances by the teachers and the learners were also considered to identify the learners’ private speech.

4.3. Categorization of Private Speech Private speech used by the learners was categorized according to its function. The categories of the learners’ private speech were created by myself based on Berk and Garvin (1984), Ohta (2001) and Burdelski (2001). The types of private speech used by the learners in this study are indicated below. An example for each category is indicated from the data in this study. 1. Repetition occurs when [the] learner repeats words, phrases, and sentences, in whole or in part. Material repeated may or may not be in the immediately preceding context. The learner may repeat after another or after him or herself (Ohta, 2001, p. 40). (Ex.) T: Kanji at the top of page 45 is ‘kita’, kita Kanji at the top of page 45 is ‘north’, north ➙ J: °Kita° °North°


141

2. Vicarious response occurs when [the] learner covertly answers a question addressed to another student or to the class, completes the utterance of another, or repairs another’s error (Ohta 2001, p. 40). (Ex.) S2: Sutando de kuruma ni gasorin o haite kara ((error: ‘haitte’ means ‘enter’)) After putting petrol in my car at a (petrol) station ((error)) ➙ L: °Ire° °((the first part of ‘irete’, te-form of ‘ireru’ (put in)))° 3. Manipulation occurs: a. when [the] learner manipulates sentence structure, morphology, or sounds (Ohta, 2001, p. 40); b. when the learner says a word or expression that sounds similar to the one in the textbook or the one that a teacher or a classmate has said, or a word, an expression or sentence that is related to the one that a teacher or a classmate has said; c. when the learner makes an alternative expression or sentence to the one in the textbook or the one that a teacher or a classmate has said; d. when the learner says English or Japanese translations of a teacher’s utterance or items in the textbook. (Ex.) K: °°Ome ni kakaru, kakarimasu, kakarimashoo, kakarimashoo°° °°Meet ((HUM, PLA)) meet ((HUM, POL)) let’s meet (HUM, POL)) let’s meet°° ((HUM, POL)) 4. Rehearsal occurs when the learner practices saying words, phrases and sentences, in whole or in part to prepare for when a teacher calls on him/her to answer a task question. The learner answers a task question that the class has not done yet or is not currently doing. (Ex.) T: Moving along, number eight, number eight, we’ve been looking at that one too long ➙ C: °Yamanote sen de Tookyoo eki made itte kara, Narita yuki no kyuu kyuukoo ni° ((answering a question in her textbook)) °After going to Tokyo Station by Yamanote line, to the express bound for Narita° 5. Comment occurs when the learner makes a comment on him or herself, a teacher or another student, or what is happening in the class. (Ex.) T: Maa suu byaku en kana? ((error: should be ‘suu hyaku en’)) several hundred yen, [suu hyaku en, hai Well, maybe several hundred yen, several hundred yen, [several hundred yen, yes ➙ L: [°Uh takai desu° ((laugh)) [°Uh it’s expensive° 6. Finding occurs when the learner indicates his/her finding of errors, correct forms, or new forms or expressions, and so on. Includes very short

142

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

Learners in Japanese Language Classrooms utterances such as ‘Oh’ or ‘Aa’ (Oh). (Ex.) T: Do you remember that uh I’m going ne, before you depart everyday, you say ‘itte kimasu’ ne? Remember? Do you remember that uh ‘I’m going’ OK? before you depart everyday, you say ‘I’m going (and coming back)’ OK? Remember? ➙ W: °A° °Oh° Reading aloud occurs when the learner reads aloud words, expressions or sentences on the board or in the textbook. (Ex.) T: Kono kono densha Artamon de tomaru hazu datta This this train was supposed to stop at Artamon ➙ C: °Kono densha Shinjyuku eki ni tomaru hazu da° ((reading an example sentence in the textbook)) °This train is supposed to stop at Shinjyuku Station° Self-answer occurs when the learner answers task questions on his/her own without interacting with the other members of the group. (Ex.) ((During group work, Erwin is answering a question on his own)) E: Kanshin ga aru kankyoo mondai wa nan deshoo (..) yuugai haikibutsu kana What is the environmental problem that is concerned about? (..) I think it’s hazardous waste Question occurs when the learner asks a question to him or herself. (Ex.) T: Hai, tabe sugiru to onaka ga itaku narimasu yo, hai Yes, if you eat too much, your stomach becomes painful, OK ➙ L: °Nani o tabe sugiru?° °What do you eat too much?° Wordplay occurs when the learner says something that does not have a particular meaning in order to entertain him or herself. (Ex.) ((During the teacher’s instruction, someone hits something under the desk)) E: °Koon° °Koon° Multiple occurs when the learner uses multiple types in one turn6 of private speech. (Ex.) T: Probably you would say ((writes ‘ike soo desu’ (seems to be able to go) on the board)) ➙ L: Ike soo desu, ahh able to ((reading aloud and finding)) Looks like (I) am going to be able to go, ahh able to

Functions of the learners’ private speech sometimes overlapped. The learners sometimes repeated their own previous utterances after the teachers’ questions. In these cases, when the learners’ repetitions were answers to the teachers’ questions, they were categorized as vicarious responses. The learners also repeated


143

the teachers’ or other learners’ previous utterances after the teachers’ questions. When the learners mentioned that they did not hear the teachers’ or classmates’ previous utterances and said their own answers, their repetitions were categorized as vicarious responses. When the learners manipulated sounds or forms in their responses to the teachers’ questions to other learners or the classes, the learners’ responses were categorized as manipulation. When the learners repeated the teachers’ or other learners’ utterances with expressions such as ‘oh’ and commented in their SR interviews that they found new forms or vocabulary or their own errors, their utterances were categorized as findings not repetitions. When the learners repeated the teachers’ utterances which were the expressions written in the textbooks, the learners’ utterances were categorized as repetitions, unless they mentioned in their SR interviews that they read aloud the expressions in their textbooks. The learners’ words or expressions, which were formally or semantically related to the teachers’ previous utterances, were categorized as manipulation, while the learners’ utterances, which were the expressions of their opinions or feelings about the teachers’ utterances, were regarded as comments. The learners sometimes used multiple categories in one turn of their private speech. For example, they repeated others or their own utterances before answering the teachers’ questions to the classes or other learners or before manipulating sounds or forms. They also made comments after repetitions, vicarious responses or manipulation.

4.4. Frequency of Private Speech Before examining excerpts of learners’ private speech with previous or following utterances of teachers or the learners and their perceptions of the learners’ private speech, it is useful to discuss how often and what types of private speech the learners use in the classrooms, in order to understand overall tendency of the learners’ use of private speech. Therefore, in this section, first, the frequency of private speech for each class and each type is examined. Then the difference in the use of private speech between individual learners is discussed. Private speech occurrences in peer-learning settings and in languages other than Japanese are also indicated. Finally, private speech is discussed in relation to the learners’ target-language ability, their preferred learning strategies and their Japanese-speaking experience outside the classrooms.

4.4.1. Difference in the Frequency of Private Speech between the Learners and the Weeks of the Classes Tables 4.1 and 4.2 indicate the numbers of private speech used by each learner for each class in Semesters 1 and 2.


144

Table 4.1

Frequency of private speech for each class (Semester 1) 14 Mar.

4 Apr.

2 May

23 May

30 May

Total

Lily Jessica Erwin Kiki Wendy Catherine

67 33 42 31 21 N/A

9 6 36 19 4 67

42 12 36 24 21 27

47 N/A 26 23 20 42

100 65 26 46 9 71

265 116 166 143 75 207

Total

194

141

162

158

317

972

*N/A means that the recording of the learner was missed due to a technical problem.

Table 4.2

Lily Jessica Erwin Kiki Wendy Catherine Total

Frequency of private speech for each class (Semester 2) 8/9 Aug.

22/23 Aug.

5/6 Sept.

10/11 Oct.

24/25 Oct.

Total

14 27 25 20 5 17

59 32 36 21 11 40

44 9 18 20 0 27

62 15 23 N/A 4 15

48 7 6 15 5 25

227 90 108 76 25 124

108

199

118

119

106

650

*N/A means that the recording of the learner was missed due to a technical problem.

Individual differences in the frequency of private speech were found to be the same as in Ohta (2001). Lily used private speech most frequently in both Semesters 1 and 2 (265 in Table 4.1, and 227 in Table 4.2). The number of Catherine’s private speech occurrences is the second highest (207 in Table 4.1, and 124 in Table 4.2), despite the first recording being missed. Erwin also used private speech frequently in Semesters 1 and 2 (166 in Table 4.1, and 108 in Table 4.2). Wendy’s use of private speech is the least frequent in both semesters (75 in Table 4.1, and 25 in Table 4.2). The frequency of the learners’ private speech also varies between classes. Lily used private speech less frequently in the second recording (4 Apr.), because she was sick. Jessica was also sick during the tenth recording (25 Oct.). Erwin commented in his interview that he was very tired in the tenth recording (24 Oct.). The numbers of private speech that they used in the last recording are small. Kiki arrived at the class 30 minutes late in the tenth recording (24 Oct.). She used less private speech in the class compared to the other classes. Four learners (except for Erwin and Wendy) used their private speech most frequently in the fi fth recording (30 May). In the other classes, after the introduction of new kanji, the learners practised grammatical items by answering three or four tasks. However, in the tenth recording, they answered one


145

extra task, and this may have contributed to the frequent use of their private speech. All the learners used private speech less frequently in Semester 2 than in Semester 1. This cannot be directly related to the learners’ cognitive development, as Vygotsky (1986) suggests. One reason for the different frequencies may be the difference of the class structures between Semesters 1 and 2. Basically, all the classes were carried out in the same procedure with practice of new kanji followed by the tasks for new grammatical items. However, as mentioned in Section 2.4.2, in the sixth recording (8 and 9 Aug.), the learners took a composition-writing exam for the last 30 minutes of the classes. In the ninth recording (10 and 11 Oct.), two classes were completed approximately 30 minutes early. In the tenth recording (24 Oct.), a dictation test was conducted for approximately 20 minutes in one of the classes. No learners used private speech during their composition and dictation tests. Another reason could be the reading exercises. In the three recordings of Semester 1, reading exercises were carried out for the last 10 to 15 minutes of the classes, and most of the learners read aloud the sentences in their textbooks or from an OHT with reduced volume, although the teacher did not instruct them to do so. This may be another reason for their frequent use of private speech in Semester 1. There is still a possibility that the learners’ development of the Japanese language may have led them to the less frequent use of private speech, because most of their private speech in both semesters was in Japanese. However, this is not clear in this study due to the uncontrollable factors in the class schedules.

4.4.2. Difference of the Frequency between the Types of Private Speech Individual differences were also found in the types of private speech that the learners used. Table 4.3 shows the number of each type of private speech used by all learners in both semesters. The rate of repetition is the highest (37%) followed by vicarious response (23%). The total of these two types is 60% of the whole private speech used by the learners. The learners used repetition much more frequently than vicarious response in Semester 1. In Semester 1, McCartney often told the class to repeat a part of or whole sentences after him, while he did it less frequently in Semester 2. When the learners repeated with the class after the teacher, their voices were not usually soft, and the learners commented in their interviews that they followed the teacher’s instructions and responded to the teacher by following his instructions. Therefore, these choral repetitions were not counted as private speech; however, this may also have encouraged the learners to repeat expressions or sentences in their private speech.


146

Table 4.3

Frequency of private speech for each type

Types of PS

S1

S2

Total

%

Repetition Vicarious response Manipulation Rehearsal Comment Finding Reading aloud Self-answer Question Wordplay Multiple

412 199 108 27 36 34 112 4 3 0 37

181 168 85 25 38 45 63 4 5 3 33

593 367 193 52 74 79 175 8 8 3 70

37 23 12 3 5 5 11 0 0 0 4

Total

972

650

1622

100

Note: Numbers in bold in the table are discussed in the text.

4.4.3. Difference of the Use of Private Speech between the Learners Tables 4.4–4.9 indicate the frequency of private speech for each learner in Semesters 1 and 2. Each learner’s total number of private speech decreased in Semester 2. As stated in Section 4.4.1, the frequency of private speech was influenced by the classroom contents such as implementation of a dictation test. Repetition was used most frequently by Catherine in Semester 1 and by Lily in Semester 2. Lily used vicarious response most frequently in both Semesters 1 and 2. Erwin was the most frequent user of manipulation in Semester 1, while Lily used it most frequently in Semester 2. Erwin’s use of rehearsal decreased from 10 in Semester 1 to 2 in Semester 2, while Lily’s use of it increased from 1 in Semester 1 to 12 in Semester 2. Comment was used most frequently by Erwin and Lily in Semester 1 and by Erwin in Semester 2. Lily used finding most frequently in Semester 1, while Lily, Jessica and Wendy used the same number of findings in Semester 2. Reading aloud was used most frequently by Erwin in Semester 1 and by Lily in Semester 2. Although the frequency of Lily’s private speech decreased in Semester 2 as did the other learners, the total number of her private speech in Semester 2 is still large compared to the others’. Her use of manipulation, rehearsal and reading aloud increased in Semester 2, although the frequencies of repetition and vicarious response decreased. This indicates that Lily is still covertly active in Semester 2. The frequencies of Erwin’s comment and reading aloud are high, while the frequency of repetition is relatively low, compared to the other learners except Wendy in Semester 2. This suggests that Erwin prefers expressing his ideas or opinions and reading texts aloud rather than repeating

Private Speech and Quantitative Analysis Table 4.4

147

Frequency of private speech for Catherine

Types of private speech

S1

S2

Total

%


116 35 19 8 2 3 23 0 0 0 1

45 32 19 9 1 4 7 2 1 0 4

161 67 38 17 3 7 30 2 1 0 5

49 20 11 5 1 2 9 1 0 0 2

Total

207

124

331

100

Table 4.5 Frequency of private speech for Erwin Types of private speech

S1

S2

Total

%


23 34 35 10 13 8 36 0 1 0 6

13 17 16 2 20 8 18 2 1 3 8

36 51 51 12 33 16 54 2 2 3 14

13 18.5 18.5 4 12 6 20 1 1 1 5

166

108

274

Total

Table 4.6

100

Frequency of private speech for Jessica


S1

S2

Total

%


58 27 3 1 2 5 13 0 1 0 6

28 39 3 1 1 11 4 0 0 0 3

86 66 6 2 3 16 17 0 1 0 9

42 32 3 1 1 8 8 0 1 0 4

116

90

206

100

Total


148

Table 4.7

Frequency of private speech for Kiki


S1

S2

Total

%


62 24 13 7 5 1 17 2 0 0 12

25 22 14 1 5 0 5 0 0 0 4

87 46 27 8 10 1 22 2 0 0 16

40 21 12 4 5 0 10 1 0 0 7

143

76

219

100

Total

Table 4.8

Frequency of private speech for Lily


S1


104 74 29 1 13 14 21 0 1 0 8

Total

265

Table 4.9

S2

Total

%

69 50 32 12 10 11 28 0 2 0 13

173 124 61 13 23 25 49 0 3 0 21

35 25 12 3 5 5 10 0 1 0 4

227

492

100

Frequency of private speech for Wendy


S1

S2

Total

%


49 5 9 0 1 3 2 2 0 0 4

1 8 1 0 1 11 1 0 1 0 1

50 13 10 0 2 14 3 2 1 0 5

50 13 10 0 2 14 3 2 1 0 5

Total

75

25

100

100


149

the teacher’s or other learners’ utterances, by using his private speech. Jessica used vicarious response more frequently in Semester 2, while the other learners, except Wendy,7 used it less frequently. This means that Jessica spontaneously answered her teacher’s questions more often in her private speech in Semester 2. Wendy used finding much more frequently in Semester 2 than in Semester 1. This may mean that she noticed errors or new expressions more frequently in Semester 2 compared to Semester 1. However, Wendy did not use rehearsal either in Semester 1 or 2. Her use of reading aloud is much less than the other learners in Semesters 1 and 2. This shows that she does not use vocalization often for practising the target language in the classes. All the learners, except Erwin, used repetition more frequently than the other types of private speech. The use of repetition by Catherine and Wendy occupied around half of their private speech. Jessica and Kiki used repetition for 40% or more of their private speech, and Lily used repetition for 35% of her private speech. Erwin used repetition (13%) less frequently than the other learners, and used reading aloud most frequently (20%), followed by vicarious response and manipulation (18.5% respectively). His use of comment (12%) is more frequent than the other learners.

4.4.4. Private Speech in Peer-Learning Setting Small numbers of private speech were used in the peer-learning setting. Table 4.10 indicates the private speech used during peer work. The learners sometimes changed the forms of verbs or adjectives to work out correct forms, while answering task questions on their own without interacting with the other members during peer work. This was included in manipulation. The learners also made comments such as ‘muzukashii!’ (difficult!) or ‘komatta naa’ (I have a problem) while working with tasks in peer work. Centeno-Cortés and Jiménez Jiménez (2004) called the same type of speech ‘self-criticizing comment’ in individual problem-solving tasks. This type of speech was categorized as comment in my study. When the learners were answering task questions on Table 4.10

Frequency of private speech in the peer-learning setting

Type of private speech Repetition Manipulation Rehearsal Comment Finding Self-answer Question Multiple Total

Semester 1

Semester 2

Total

1 3 0 4 2 4 0 3

6 10 0 0 1 2 1 7

7 13 0 4 3 6 1 10

17

27

44

150


their own without interacting with their classmates and their speech did not include manipulation, it was categorized as self-answer. The learners tended to answer task questions on their own, when their partners were not active or could not answer the task questions as they did. Lily, Erwin and Kiki used this type of private speech. Wendy also answered particular questions on her own in one of the lessons. In her SR interview following the class, Wendy commented that she knew the answers to those questions, because she had already done the task with her private tutor before the class. Catherine used private speech least frequently in the peer-learning setting. She always worked with her friend, who was an advanced learner, in pair or group work. Therefore, she was likely to interact with him rather than work on her own. The learners repeated their teacher’s utterances as well as their classmates’ utterances in the peer-learning setting. This occurred when they overheard the teachers speaking to other pairs or groups. Kiki imitated the utterances of Ito who was talking to other groups. Jessica also repeated the expressions used by Ito who was speaking to another pair. The rate of private speech in the peer-learning setting was 2% in Semester 1 and 4% in Semester 2 of the total numbers of private speech for each semester.

4.4.5. Private Speech in Languages other than Japanese Small numbers of English private speech were found in each learner’s private speech. English private speech occurred when the learners repeated the teachers’ English utterances, when they vicariously answered the teachers’ English questions to the class or other learners, or when the teachers asked for the translations of Japanese words to the class. The learners also expressed their feelings, such as ‘I don’t get it’ or ‘I’m hungry’ in English private speech. The learners sometimes used English with Japanese in their private speech. For example, they said Japanese expressions and translated them into English and vice versa. Chinese private speech was used only twice. When McCartney was talking about a part of a kanji, Erwin read the part in Chinese in his private speech, because the part of the kanji was same as the Chinese character. Kiki also mimicked Ito’s pronunciation of a word in Chinese, because the teacher’s pronunciation was close to the pronunciation of the Chinese character. The rate of English (including private speech that included both English and Japanese) or Chinese private speech of each learner was approximately 11% in Semester 1 and 14% in Semester 2.8

4.4.6. Frequency of Private Speech and Learners’ Target-Language Ability Ramsay (1980) reported on the frequent use of private speech by successful FL learners compared to unsuccessful learners. At the university where


151

the data were collected, a grade system which consists of High Distinction, Distinction, Credit, Pass and Fail was used to assess the learners’ ability of Japanese language in the semesters. Catherine and Erwin who frequently used private speech received Distinctions in their assessments of the course in Semesters 1 and 2. Lily who used private speech most frequently also received a Distinction in Semester 1. Kiki, who used private speech less frequently than Lily, Catherine and Erwin and more frequently than Jessica and Wendy, received a Pass in Semester 1 and a Credit in Semester 2. Jessica used private speech less frequently and received Passes in both semesters. The results for Wendy, who used private speech least frequently, were a Pass in Semester 1 and a Credit in Semester 2. These results generally match their frequency of private speech. However, it is not appropriate to discuss the learners’ development in the target language only from their academic results, although the academic results are one way of measuring the learners’ general Japanese language ability at that stage. As Frawley and Lantolf (1986) pointed out, it is more crucial to examine the quality of private speech than its quantity. This will be done in Chapter 5.

4.4.7. Frequency of Private Speech and the Learners’ Preference of Learning Strategies and Their Japanese-Speaking Experience outside the Classrooms The differences in the frequency of use of private speech between the learners seem to be related to their preferred learning strategies. In their SR interviews, I asked the learners about their strategies to prepare for exams. Kiki and Catherine showed their preference of vocalizing to writing. Kiki commented that ‘saying’ was more useful for memorization than writing. Catherine, who mentioned that she usually vocalized words or sentences while she was writing, also stated that ‘saying a lot’ helped her memory, although writing did not help as much. According to Catherine, to prepare for exams, she writes English explanations of grammatical structures and Japanese example sentences in her notebook. While writing the example sentences, she vocalizes them a few times to memorize them. Similar to Catherine, Lily also expressed the use of vocalizing as a strategy. She writes down important points in her notebook, vocalizing them in order to memorize them before exams. She mentioned that both writing and vocalization are useful for her memorization. Catherine, Kiki and Lily mentioned their use of visualization during vocalization in Japanese as their learning strategy. Catherine commented that she sometimes visualized the actual image of the Japanese words that she was saying. For example, she explained that when she was saying inu (dog), she visualized a dog in her mind. Lily reported that she sometimes visualized the image of Japanese characters in her mind when she was saying the words that

152


included the characters. According to Kiki, she sometimes imagined a particular situation, such as meeting a teacher at university, and practised Japanese greetings and expressions in a brief conversation at home, while visualizing the situation in her mind. De Guerrerro (2004) stated that ‘visual and other sensory images, specific events, and concrete referents build rich associations’ with words in a target language (p. 107). Lily’s strategy of ‘spelling words in mind while hearing it’ was actually used by ESL learners in de Guerrerro (2004). Erwin also pointed out the importance of both writing and vocalization for memorization, mentioning that writing was necessary for memorizing how the characters looked. Visualizing the image of characters in the mind, which Lily mentioned, may be useful to stabilize the characters that the learners already knew in their memory, while writing the characters is necessary to memorize new kanji. Erwin commented that he did not do anything particular to prepare for exams. He believed that memorizing forms or sentences for exams is not an appropriate strategy, because they can be easily forgotten after the exams. He vocalized or wrote down the forms or sentences that he attended in the classes, or while reading Japanese comics or watching Japanese videos. Jessica mentioned that before examinations, she read aloud important parts of the textbook and wrote them down, although she did not make much effort in preparation for the examinations. Wendy was the only learner who preferred writing to vocalizing as a strategy for preparation of exams. She expressed her strong preference for writing to speaking, and also mentioned that reading was easier than speaking. According to Wendy, she writes down grammatical structures, example sentences and kanji in her notebook without reading them aloud to memorize them before exams. She commented that this strategy promoted her understanding and memorization, and that although vocalization should be useful to practice speaking, she would continue using the writing strategy for memorizing the sentences with new grammatical structures. Wendy was the learner who used private speech least frequently in the classes, while the learners who expressed the effectiveness of vocalization for their understanding and memorization, such as Catherine or Lily, used private speech much more frequently. Therefore, the learners seem to use their preferred learning strategies in the classrooms as well as at home, although they may not use the strategies consciously in the classrooms. The learners’ use of private speech may also be related to their experiences of speaking Japanese outside classrooms. Catherine regularly had a chat in Japanese with her Japanese friends at the church where she went on weekends. Kiki exchanged e-mails for chatting with her Japanese friend in Japan once a month. Lily spoke with her Japanese friend who stayed in Australia when she was at high school. Although Erwin had not had any Japanese friends, he sometimes expressed his feelings or opinions to himself in Japanese while he


153

watched Japanese videos at home. On the other hand, Jessica and Wendy did not have any chances to speak in Japanese outside the classroom. They did not have any Japanese friends to speak to in Japanese. Wendy had a Japanese private tutor who was a native Japanese speaker. However, as the tutor taught Japanese grammar in English, they did not use Japanese in the lesson. Wendy mentioned that although she tried to speak to the tutor in Japanese to have a chat with her, she soon found problems after saying a few words and gave up. Jessica’s co-workers were native Japanese speakers at a souvenir shop where she used to work part-time. However, as she was not confident enough with her Japanese pronunciation, she did not speak with them in Japanese. In this study, the learners used much more Japanese than English in their private speech. Therefore, getting used to speaking Japanese may increase the number of the learners’ private speech occurrences in Japanese.

4.5. Summary of the Chapter Previous studies of children’s private speech suggested Vygotsky’s theory that private speech appears and decreases at certain ages, and that it resurfaces when children face cognitively difficult tasks. Previous studies about SL/FL learners’ private speech indicated that private speech functions as learners’ self-regulation during tasks. Some studies about FL learners’ private speech in classrooms revealed that the learners repeat or manipulate what others said or vicariously answer teachers’ questions by using private speech. As previous studies found that learners’ cultural backgrounds, goals of language learning and task types influenced the learners’ private speech, contextual factors seem to be related to private speech. Especially, in classroom which is a social context, learners’ private speech should be related to social speech (speech directed to others not themselves), as learners’ vicarious responses in private speech to teachers’ questions did (Ohta, 2001). The frequency of private speech varied according to the learners, as Ohta (2001) found. My study also found that the frequency of individual learners’ private speech was different between the lessons. Moreover, the frequency of the types of private speech that were used by the learners varied between Semester 1 and Semester 2. The frequency of the learners’ use of private speech was influenced by the contents of the classes and their physical conditions in the classes. The preferred learning strategies of the learners when they studied Japanese at home contributed to individual differences in the frequency of their use of private speech. The learners who preferred vocalization to writing as their learning strategy tended to use private speech more frequently than the one learner who preferred writing. The learners’ more frequent use of ‘repetition’ in Semester 1 than Semester 2 seemed to be related to the teachers’ frequent use of the learners’ choral responses as his teaching strategy in

154


Semester 1. One of the learners’ frequent use of ‘finding’ in Semester 2, compared to Semester 1, suggested the development of her ability to notice targetlanguage forms or expressions. The quantitative analysis indicated that the learners’ private speech was associated with the classroom contexts and the learners’ background such as their preference of learning strategies. However, in order to investigate functions of the learners’ private speech in the classrooms and the learners’ and the teachers’ perceptions of their private speech, it is essential to examine what is actually occurring in the classes when the learners use private speech and whether the teachers and the learners are aware of the learners’ use of private speech in the classes. This will be done in the following chapter.

Notes 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Lantolf (1997) suggested that ‘one of the functions of private speech includes the phenomenon of language play’, which is ‘to use speech as a powerful tool for regulating their own mental activity’ (p. 4). De Guerrero does not distinguish subvocal private speech from inner speech, categorizing all subvocal speech as inner speech. Therefore, in her study, subvocal private speech is mentioned as inner speech. In Broner and Tarone (2001) and Cekaite and Aronsson (2005), the learners interacted with each other by using language play. Therefore, their language play may not be included in private speech, which is defined as the speech for self not others, although their data included some examples of private speech. This definition includes both ‘language as rehearsal’ and ‘language play as fun’ in Broner and Tarone (2001). It is noteworthy that some of the learners’ private speech in the peer-learning setting was produced in a similar volume to social speech used to communicate with their classmates. One turn includes both short and long turns. After making an utterance in their private speech, when the learners listened to their teachers or classmates and made the other utterances in their private speech, their private speech was counted as two different private turns. When their private speech was totally overlapped by the utterances of their teachers or classmates and there was no long pause, it was counted as one private turn. Wendy’s use of vicarious response in Semester 2 is slightly more frequent than in Semester 1. Tables 4.1–4.10 include the private speech in English or Chinese.

Chapter 5

Private Speech: Learners’ and Teachers’ Perceptions

In Chapter 3, the private speech of JFL learners, such as vicarious response, was introduced in the excerpts. In this chapter, the learners’ private speech that did not occur within CF episodes is examined in relation to their comments in their SR interviews. First, I analyse the data in association with cognitive/metacognitive, affective/social and self-regulatory functions of private speech.1 Secondly, I discuss how private speech is related to the roles of the teachers and the learners in the classroom, presenting perceptions of the learners’ private speech by the teachers and the learners. Thirdly, I examine the relationship between private speech and non-verbal behaviours, and how learners are self-regulatory or not according to their private speech data. Fourthly, I discuss the learners’ development of Japanese language learning, based on the data of their CF episodes and private speech. Finally, I indicate answers of the research questions.

5.1. Cognitive and Metacognitive Functions of Private Speech This section examines cognitive and metacognitive functions of private speech (McCafferty, 1994a), which Ohta (2001) focused on. As stated in Chapter 4, Broner and Tarone (2001) categorized children’s speech in a Spanish immersion classroom into ‘language play as rehearsal’ and ‘language play as fun’. The ‘language play as rehearsal’ generally has cognitive and metacognitve functions. ‘Repetition’, the most frequently used type of private speech in my study, has cognitive and metacognitive functions. The learners commented in their SR interviews that repeating is useful for memorizing what their teachers had said. In the following excerpts, Jessica repeated page numbers after McCartney and Ito: Excerpt 1 1

T:

Take a look at page, [page page


156

➙

2 3

J: T:

➙

4

J:

[°Page what?° Uh three o six, san zero roku Uh three o six, three zero six °Umm san zero roku° °Umm three zero six° (Jessica, 30 May)

Excerpt 2

➙

1

T:

2

J:

Jya kore wa sanbyaku gojyuu go peeji o akete, sono tsugi no peeji o mite kudasai Well for this one, Please open page 355 and look at the next page °Gojyuu go peeji° °Page 55° (Jessica, 9 Aug.)

In Excerpt 1, Jessica asked a question in her private speech after the teacher’s utterance in the first line, and repeated the page number after the teacher said it in Japanese. In Excerpt 2, she repeated the latter part of the page number after the teacher’s instruction. In her SR interview after each recording, Jessica mentioned that she was flipping through the pages of her textbook to look for the correct pages while saying the numbers. According to Jessica, although she was not aware of saying the numbers, she considered that it was useful to keep the numbers in her memory while looking for the pages. These are examples where vocalization promotes the memorization of the forms or expressions for a short period of time. As de Guerrero (2004) found that ESL learners repeated difficult or unfamiliar words in their subvocal private speech, the learners often repeated new or unfamiliar words or expressions in their private speech. In the following example, Wendy repeats new kanji and the word which included the kanji after McCartney: Excerpt 3 ((The teacher writes kanji ‘kita’ (north) and ‘hoo’ (direction) on the board))

➙

1

T:

2

W:

And the next one is ‘hoo’ And the next one is ‘direction’ °Hoo° ((some other students are also repeating)) °Direction° ((some other students are also repeating))

((omitted)) 3

T:

Hoppoo, hoppoo Northern direction, northern direction

Private Speech: Perceptions ➙

4

W:

157

°°°Hoppoo°°° °°°Northern direction°°° (Wendy, 14 Mar.)

According to Wendy’s comment in her SR interview, she repeated the reading of the kanji ‘hoo’ (direction) and the word hoppoo (northern direction), because they were new to her and she considered that they were important. While Lightbrown and Spada (1993) informed that a child repeats new words and sentence structures of the utterances of others in his first language until they become solidly grounded in his language system (p. 3), adult FL learners also repeated the new words that they considered as important in their private speech. Repetition may function to make the words or expressions salient and keep them in the learners’ memories. O’Malley et al. (1985) reported that high-school ESL students use repetition and note-taking most frequently as their learning strategies. Lantolf (1997) stated that note-taking activity is an interesting type of private speech. Lantolf described the characteristics of writing as follows: For Vygotsky, writing represents a more powerful form of mental mediation than does speaking, because, for one thing, it distances the language from the individual and in so doing enhances the individual’s ability to observe and attend more carefully to his or her thinking. (p. 9) Thus, Lantolf explained that note-taking, which needs no audience, is a type of language play that adults produce in social contexts. In the following example, Catherine used note-taking simultaneously with the repetition of the words or expressions in her private speech: Excerpt 4 ((The teacher is talking about a task question for practice of the humble form))

➙

1

T:

2

C:

3

T:

It’s uh ‘haiken shimashita’, «haiken» shimashita, «haiken» ((writing ‘haiken shimashita’ (I saw) on OHT)) It’s uh ‘I saw’ ((HUM)), I saw ((HUM)), ((the first part of ‘haiken shimashita’)) ((writing ‘haiken shimashita’ (I saw) on OHT)) (.) °°Haiken, haiken shimashita°° (.) °° I saw°° ((HUM)) Or îtashimashitaˆ ((writing ‘itashimashita’ under ‘shimashita’ on OHT)) Haiken itashimashita2 is used for viewing, reading or seeing something (.) like a photograph or a book, [or a beautiful object in a museum, here it is ((points out ‘haiken’ on OHT)) haiken


158

➙

➙

➙

4

C:

5

T:

6

C:

7

T:

8

C:

Or HUM ((writing HUM under POL on OHT)) ‘I saw’ ((HUM)) is used for viewing, reading or seeing something (.) like a photograph or a book, [or a beautiful object in a museum, here it is ((points out ‘haiken’ on OHT)) haiken [°°Itashimashita°° [°°((the last part of ‘haiken itashimashita’ (I saw), HUM)) Or those of you who are interested in kanji the ‘hai’, it’s the ‘hai’ in ‘haikei’ in letter writing, haikei, so haiken in this case Or those of you who are interested in kanji ((the first part of ‘haiken’ (seeing))), it’s the ‘hai’ in ((greeting at the beginning of a letter)) in letter writing, ((greeting at the beginning of a letter)) so ‘seeing’ in this case °°Haiken shimashita°° ((writing in her notebook)) °°I saw°° ((HUM)) [[Goban [[Number five [[°°Haiken shimashita°° ((writing in her notebook)) [[°° I saw°° ((HUM)) (Catherine, 5 Sep.)

Catherine repeated haiken shimashita (I saw) and itashimashita (a humble form of shimashita) in lines 2, 4, 6 and 8. In her SR interview, Catherine commented that the humble expression haiken shimashita was new to her, and that she was writing haiken shimashita in her notebook to memorize it while she was saying it in lines 6 and 8. A few other learners also wrote words, expressions or sentences while they were saying them in their private speech. Catherine did this most frequently compared to the other learners. As Kuczaj (1983) pointed out, the learners may have repeated the forms or expressions within their ZPD and compared their new knowledge with their old knowledge through the use of repetitions. Note-taking, which promotes the learners to attend to their own thinking, may also enhance their understanding and memorization of the forms that they repeat. The learners sometimes repeated the words or expressions that they knew or had heard before. In the following examples, Wendy and Kiki repeated after McCartney the words and sentence that they knew: Excerpt 5 ((The teacher introduces new kanji ‘yuki’ (snow) to the class)) 1

T:

At the bottom, yuki, yuki At the bottom, snow, snow


2

W:

159

°°Yuki°° °°Snow°° (Wendy, 14 Mar.)

Excerpt 6 ((The teacher introduces new kanji ‘kuro’ (black) to the class))

➙

1

T:

2

K:

Kuro or kuroi, kuroi neko (.) kuroi neko ga imasu Black ((noun)) or black ((ADJ)), black cat (.) there is a black cat °Kuroi neko ga imasu° °°kuroi neko ga imasu°° °There is a black cat° °°there is a black cat°° (Kiki, 23 May)

In Excerpt 5, Wendy repeated the word yuki (snow) after the teacher. In Excerpt 6, Kiki repeated the sentence Kuroi neko ga imasu (There is a black cat) after the teacher. Both Wendy and Kiki mentioned in their SR interviews that they knew the meaning of the word or the sentence that they repeated. Kiki commented that the reason for her repetition was that the sentence was familiar to her and she liked cats. Kuczaj (1983) suggested that the repetition of their own utterances by children may function to consolidate and/or restructure earlier acquisition. The repetition of familiar items by the FL learners may have a similar function. As Stevick (1989) reported that five out of seven successful SL/FL learners repeated the utterances of others in the target languages, all the learners practised saying words or sentences in Japanese and/or monitored their Japanese utterances by repeating their utterances or those of others in their private speech. Five of the six learners commented that repetition of what they had heard was effective for the improvement of not only their memorization, but also their pronunciation and understanding of both meanings or structures of the words or sentences. According to Murphey (2001), while repeating, EFL learners are producing the sounds and meanings of what they are repeating as their own as well as identifying the sounds and meanings. Murphey, therefore, explained that repeating what one hears ‘involves a deeper level of processing in the act of appropriation’ than just listening (p. 149). JFL learners in my study seemed to be aware of this effect of repetition for their Japanese learning. Repetition also enables SL/FL learners to keep focusing on what one is saying and to link between what they have said and still want to say (Roebuck and Wagner, 2004). In a study by Roebuck and Wagner (2004), a Spanish language learner repeated his partner’s question in a task of dramatization, when he was not certain about his answer. By repeating the question, he took the time to focus on the meaning and think about the answer. This type of repetition was used by one of the teachers, McCartney, as well as the learners. The following


160

Excerpt is an example of a CF episode between Catherine and McCartney. The teacher showed a photo to the class and asked them to make a sentence with the conditional form tara (if/when): Excerpt 7

➙

➙

➙

1

T:

2

C:

3 4

T: C:

5 6 7

T: C: T:

8

C:

9

T:

10

C:

11

T:

((shows a photo of a woman in a dress to the class)) Suteki na doresu, ii desu ka? a lady (.) with the microphone on (.) suteki na doresu ((speaking to Catherine who is wearing a small microphone to record her speech)) ((shows a photo of a woman in a dress to the class)) Nice dress, OK? a lady (.) with the microphone on (.) nice dress ((speaking to Catherine who is wearing a small microphone to record her speech)) Uhh suteki na doresu o kattara, umm oneesan ni kuremasu? Uhh if I buy a nice dress, umm my elder sister DAT give ((error)) Umm, is that your consequence? Um? Um? Or would that naturally follow on from buying the dress? If I buy it, I will give it to my sister? Oh is that what you said? Could you say that again? [Suteki na doresu o Oh is that what you said? Could you say that again? [Nice dress ACC [Uhn suteki na doresu o kattara, oneesan ni [Uhn if I buy a nice dress, my elder sister DAT Oneesan [[«ni» My elder sister [[«DAT» [[«Ni» uh kuremasu? (.) uh age: [agemasu? [[DAT uh give? ((error)) (.) uh STE [give? [Agemasu, yes she is older than you, so [Give, yes, she is older than you, so (Catherine, 22 Aug.)

In Japanese, the verb kuremasu means ‘someone gives something to me/my in-group person (e.g. a family member)’. To express ‘I give something to someone’, it is necessary to use the verb agemasu. Catherine confused these two verbs and used the inappropriate verb kuremasu in line 2. McCartney commented in his SR interview that he was not certain whether Catherine’s answer in line 2 was correct or not. After Catherine presented the English translation of what

Private Speech: Perceptions

161

she wanted to say in line 6, McCartney repeated parts of the sentences that Catherine had said in lines 7 and 9. Catherine said the first part of the correct verb age in line 10 and McCartney repeated and completed it with masu, which was overlapped with Catherine’s utterance. McCartney mentioned that he was still not certain about the appropriateness of the use of the verb agemasu in that sentence, even after he and Catherine had said it. As McCartney commented, he was searching for an appropriate verb and checking the appropriateness of the verb agemasu while he was repeating Catherine’s sentence. The teacher’s repetitions functioned as thinking and searching as well as eliciting answers from Catherine. In this sense, his repetitions are closer to private speech.3 This is an example to show that a teacher uses repetition in a cognitively difficult situation as well as learners. According to Murphey (2001), repeating interactively or repeating with intention to respond or summarize involve greater degree of mental processing than simple repetitions. The learners sometimes used repetition with the other types of private speech such as comment or manipulation, as found in the following excerpts: Excerpt 8 ((The teacher asks S what he thinks about ‘Hard Rock Café’ in a map of Tokyo))

➙

1

S:

2

E:

3

T:

Omoshiroi to omoimasu I think it’s interesting. ((laugh)) °Omoshiroi, [[mata omoshiroi° ((laugh)) ° Interesting, [[again interesting° [[Omoshiroi «to» omoimasu. [[I think it’s interesting (Erwin, 4 Apr.)

Excerpt 9 ((The teacher introduces an example sentence for ‘dake’ (only)))

➙

1

T:

2

K:

((writes the sentence on the board)) Chokoreito [dake o kaimashita. ((writes the sentence on the board)) I bought only chocolate [°Chokoreito, chokoreito keeki, tabetai n desu yo, chokoreito keeki o tabetai n desu yo° [°Chocolate, chocolate cake, I would like to eat, I would like to eat chocolate cake° (Kiki, 30 May)

In Excerpt 8, Erwin repeated the expression of his classmate omoshiroi (interesting) and added his comment in line 2. In Excerpt 9, Kiki repeated the word that her teacher said, chokoreito (chocolate), and made her own sentence with the word in line 2. These repetitions may be closer to the ones used in


162

interactive situations, because the learners seemed to repeat the words to express their own opinion or sentence rather than to only memorize them or understand the meaning. Their comment or sentence after their repetitions indicates their ability to understand what is happening in the class and to use the expressions appropriately. Lantolf and Yáñez (2003) asserted that ‘imitation’ is a uniquely human activity that implies agency and intentionality with transformative potential, while ‘repetition’ usually misses the feature. They cite children’s repetitions of the utterances of their parents in Lightbrown and Spada (1993) as examples of ‘imitation’. The children change the words or forms in the utterances of their parents while repeating them (Lightbrown and Spada, 1993). This type of repetition is categorized as manipulation in my study. DiCamilla and Antón (2004) reported that one Spanish language learner manipulated the forms of Spanish expression that her partner said by using her private speech during pair work. DiCamilla and Antón described her private speech as the externalization of the forms in order to test them. The JFL learners manipulated the sounds or forms of the utterances of their teachers, classmates or themselves or in their textbook, as indicated in the following examples in which Catherine and Kiki manipulated the sounds and forms of verbs: Excerpt 10 ((The teacher mentions vocabulary in a task question))

➙

1

T:

2

C:

Rokuban (. . .) Anyone recognized, you might have a problem with the verb Number six (. . .) Anyone recognized, you might have a problem with the verb (.) °Ka•ri•ra•reru° ((writing in her notebook)) (.) °Can rent° (Catherine, 30 May)

Excerpt 11 ((During pair work)) 1

K:

°°Ome ni kakaru, kakarimasu, kakarimashoo, kakarimashoo°° °°Meet ((HUM, PLA)) meet ((HUM, POL)) let’s meet (HUM, POL)) let’s meet ((HUM, POL))°° (Kiki, 5 Sep.)

In Excerpt 10, Catherine pronounced each syllable of the verb karirareru (can rent) separately. Catherine commented in her interview that she was writing the word in her notebook while saying it. According to Catherine, she usually vocalized words or sentences that she has produced in order to check the


163

pronunciation, forms or structures, because she sometimes found that her words or sentences did not sound proper when she actually said them. This is one of the functions of private speech that Burdelski (2001) described as ‘testing’. In Excerpt 11, Kiki changed one of the verbs au (meet) in the task to the plain humble form Ome ni kakaru, to the polite humble form ome ni kakarimasu, and to a suggestion ome ni kakari mashoo (let’s meet) to suit the answer of the task question.4 Kiki commented in her interview that she found Ome ni kakaru, the plain humble form of au in a table of the textbook and changed the forms. She mentioned that she was searching for the appropriate form for the task answer. As Excerpts 10 and 11 show, the learners were checking their pronunciation or correctness of the forms when searching for correct forms, while manipulating sounds or forms of the expressions. This indicates that manipulation has a function of self-monitoring and hypothesis testing. The learners sometimes translated the teachers’ utterances into English or Japanese in their private speech. Translation has cognitive and metacognitive functions to promote understanding of SL/FL items. The translation was included in the manipulation. In the following examples, Kiki and Erwin translated McCartney’s expressions: Excerpt 12 ((The teacher shows a photo of chocolate to the class))

➙

1

T:

2

K:

Oishii Tasty ((incomprehensible)) °yummy° (Kiki, 14 Mar.)

Excerpt 13 ((The teacher is doing a task to fill in blank spaces with appropriate particles with the class)) ➙

1 2

T: E:

Let’s do number nine, we have two lines °Kyuu ban° °Number nine° (Erwin, 23 May)

In Excerpt 12, Kiki translated the teacher’s expression oishii (tasty) into English in the subsequent line. In Excerpt 13, Erwin translated the number of a task question in English in the teacher’s utterance into Japanese. Kiki manipulated the teacher’s utterance by translating his Japanese expression into English, while Erwin tested and practised his Japanese by translating the teacher’s English expression into Japanese. The learners also practised saying the answers of task questions and monitored their own answers through their vicarious responses. In the following


164

example, Lily’s awareness of her answer changed while hearing the utterances of McCartney and her classmate and using her private speech: Excerpt 14 ((The teacher asks one of the students a task question))

➙

➙

➙

➙

1

T:

2

L:

3

S1:

4

L:

5

T:

6

L:

7

T:

8

L:

Sanban, atarashii konpyuutaa o katta node, atarashii konpyuutaa o katta node (..) [S1-san Number three, as I bought a new computer, as I bought a new computer (..) [S1 [°Tsukatte mitai desu° [°I would like to use it° Tsukaite mitai desu I would like to use it ((error)) °°Tsukaite mita°° °°I would like to use it°° ((error, incomplete)) She is chasing to the use of the verb ‘tsukau’? She is chasing to the use of the verb ‘use’ °Tsukatte° °((te-form of the verb ‘tsukau’ (use)))° (.) Tsukatte mitai, hai, tsukatte mitai, tsukau, tsukatte mitai, ee denshi meeru o tsukatta koto ga nai kara, electronic mail, yonban, electronic mail, denshi meeru o tsukatta koto ga nai kara, S2-san, [[yonban (.) I would like to use it, yes, I would like to use it, use, would like to use, well, as I have not used electronic mail, electronic mail, number four, electronic mail, as I have not used electronic mail, S2, [[number four [[°Tsukatte mitai desu° [[°I would like to use it° (Lily, 22 Aug.)

Lily said her answer with the correct te-from of tsukau (use) in line 2. However, after S1 used the incorrect te-form in line 3, Lily repeated a part of the error in the next line. Lily commented in her SR interview that she was wondering whether her answer was wrong after hearing S1’s answer. After the teacher’s comment in line 5, Lily repeated the correct te-form. She mentioned that she became confident with her answer after the teacher’s comment. The teacher showed the correct form in line 7 and Lily repeated it in the last line. This example shows Lily’s cognitive process of being confident with the verb te-form that she had produced. She monitored the te-form that she produced, comparing it with the other form made by S1, and confirmed the correctness of her form. In Japanese, when the plain form of a verb ends with the mora, /u/, the te-form of the verb includes the mora /tte/, as found in Table 5.1.

Private Speech: Perceptions Table 5.1

Formation of verb te-form

Plain form

Te-form

kau (buy) warau (laugh) tsukau (use)

katte waratte tsukatte

165

Therefore, the teacher’s indication of tsukau, the plain form of the verb in line 5 supported her confirmation. When learners vicariously answer the teachers’ questions in their private speech, they can also hear the answers of the teacher or classmates and confirm or correct their answers without losing face. This is one of the benefits of using vicarious responses. In Burdelski (2001), a primary school learner of Japanese said a Japanese word in his private speech and then presented it to his teacher. In the following example, Catherine presented her answer to McCartney after saying it in her private speech. The task required the learners to respond to the teacher’s utterance, ‘jyaa ato de mata aimashoo’ (well, I will see you later) with a humble expression as a student: Excerpt 15 ((The teacher asks one of the students a task question)) ➙

➙

1 2

T: C:

3

T:

4 5

S2: T:

6

C:

7

S3:

8

T:

9

S3:

10 11

T: C:

Number seven °Ome ni kakari•masu° °I will meet you ((HUM))° (..) And if you are clued up with what comes on the previous page, you will know this one (. . .) S1 would I be able to ask you (.) No, perhaps I’d better not Sorry, I was just asking him a question Yeah uhh S3-san Yeah uhh S3 °°°Kakaru°°° °°°((a part of ‘ome ni kakaru’ (meet, HUM)))°°° Ato de ai shimashoo? Let’s see you later ((HUM, error)) Umm oai shimashoo Umm let’s see you later ((HUM)) Oai shimashoo Let’s see you ((HUM)) OK, yes, there is another one possible5 Ome ni kakarimasu I will meet you (HUM))


166

12

T:

13

C:

I heard it down the front. Could you say it again ((talking to Catherine)) Ome ni kakarimasu I will meet you ((HUM)) (Catherine, 5 Sep.)

Catherine suggested Ome ni kakarimasu (I will meet you) in her private speech in line 2. The teacher called on S1 who was talking with S2 in line 3. After S2’s excuse in line 4, the teacher asked S3 the question. Catherine changed the verb from the polite to the plain form in line 6. After the teacher showed the correct humble form of the verb au (meet), he mentioned in line 10 that there was an alternative expression. He heard Catherine’s suggestion in line 11 and asked her to present it to the class. In her interview, Catherine commented that she had looked for the humble form of the verb au in a table of her textbook and found ome ni kakaru (meet). She changed it to the polite form for the answer to the teacher in line 11. She mentioned that she said her suggestion to the teacher in line 11. Catherine tested the form in her private speech, confirmed its correctness and then presented it to the teacher. As Ohta (2001) suggested, the use of private speech in this way and the final presentation of the form in social speech can be effective for SL/FL language learning. The learners monitored their language in the peer-learning setting as well as the teacher-fronted setting. In the following example, Erwin used private speech for checking his expression while talking to his partner during pair work. The task required the learners to make the first clause with sugiru (too much) to suit the second clause, such as netsu ga deru (have a fever) or kibun ga waruku naru (feel sick): Excerpt 16 ((During pair work)) 1

E:

Shigoto o: shi sugiru, shi sugiru to, I think, netsu ga deru (.) kibun ga waruku naru (..) Fukoo na koto o (.) °oko sugiru um to°, kibun ga waruku naru Work too much, if you work too much, I think, you will get fever (.) feel sick (..) if too many unlucky things happen ((error)), you will feel sick. (Erwin, 8 Aug.)

In his SR interview, Erwin reported that although he said the first sentence Shigoto o shi sugiru to netsu ga deru (If you work too much, you will have a fever) to his partner, he said a part of the second sentence oko sugiru to [sic] (if it happens too often) to himself. To explain this, he mentioned that he was not confident with this expression and was trying to check its correctness while


167

saying it. The reduced volume of his speech where he made an error oko sugiru (should be okori sugiru) indicated his uncertainty about the form. This is an example of how Erwin shifted from social to private speech. After monitoring his expression oko sugiru to, he shifted back to social speech. The learners used the different types of private speech such as repetition, manipulation, vicarious response to monitor their pronunciations or correctness of their expressions, to focus their attention on the forms or expressions, or to understand the structures or meanings of sentences. They often used new forms or expressions and sometimes vocalized familiar expressions in these types of private speech. Actually, all SL/FL private speech may more or less have these cognitive/metacognitive functions. In the examples introduced in this section, the learners particularly concentrated on forms of the language while practising, memorizing or monitoring the target language in their private speech.

5.2. Affective and Social Functions of Private Speech Analysis of the recorded data revealed that private speech has affective and social functions in McCafferty’s (1994a) categorization of private speech, such as self-expression or emotional release and covert responses to the teachers or classmates. ‘Language play as fun’ in Broner and Tarone (2001) has these functions. Cook (1997, 2000) stated that adults engage in language play as fun as well as children and that when language learners become more advanced, they are more capable of participating in language play as fun. Repetition not only has cognitive and metacognitive functions, but also affective and social functions. The use of repetition in a conversation builds rapport between interlocutors and the users’ sense of involvement in the conversation increases (Tannen, 1989). Repeating the words of one’s interlocutor in a conversation promotes an EFL learner’s participation in the conversation and can have significant impact on motivation and identity (Murphey, 2001). Repetition was a type of private speech, which JFL learners used most frequently, and all the learners used repetition. Lily, who used repetition very frequently, mentioned in her SR interview that she would still like to be involved in the class, although she seldom tried to interact with her teacher directly. By simply repeating the utterances of their teachers or classmates, learners can be involved in the class activity and feel that they are participating in the class. This may be a reason why the learners used repetition so frequently in their private speech, and this indicates the affective and social functions of private speech. Kiki used language play as fun frequently by mimicking her teachers’ intonation and a conversation on the tape during a listening exercise. This type of language play is often found in children’s speech. Kiki’s examples show that


168

adult FL learners also use this. The following excerpts indicate examples: Excerpt 17 ((The teacher shows three photos to the class))

➙

1

T:

2

K:

I want you to make sentences with ‘nakereba naranai’ and to make short ‘nakereba’ is ‘nakya naranai’ I want you to make sentences with ‘have to’ and to make short ‘have to’ is ‘have to’ °Nakyaa nannai:° ((with a strange intonation)) °Have to° ((with a strange intonation)) (Kiki, 2 May)

Excerpt 18 ((The teacher is talking about how to write a Japanese résumé))

➙

1

T:

2

K:

You have to make a contrast, so gakureki, da da da da da, shokureki, da da da da da You have to make a contrast, so ‘academic history’, da da da da da, ‘work history’ da da da da da °Da da da da da, da da da da° ((laugh)) °Da da da da da, da da da da° ((laugh)) (Kiki, 5 Sep.)

Excerpt 19 ((During pair work)) ➙

➙

1

K:

2

T:

3

K:

Ka to omoi masu (..) °hai! to narimasu° I think (..) °yes! like this° ((imitating the expression that the teacher often uses in the class)) Deki mashita ka? Have you finished? ((incomprehensible))°hai, to narimasu!° ((incomprehensible)) °yes, like this!° (Kiki, 24 Oct.)

In Excerpt 17, Kiki said the grammatical form nakya nannai (have to) in a strange intonation after McCartney’s utterance. In Excerpt 18, Kiki repeated the sound that Ito expressed to describe writing things. In Excerpt 19, during pair work, Kiki said the expression that Ito often used in the class. Kiki commented in her SR interview that she enjoyed the sounds and rhythms of the expressions by copying and exaggerating the teachers’ expressions and that her private speech in these excerpts was for fun.


169

Kiki also mimicked the speech on the tape of a listening exercise. On the tape, Michiko and Brown decide to meet in Shinjyuku in Tokyo. Brown travels by train, and they meet at a hotel in Shinjyuku. In the following example, Kiki repeats after the tape: Excerpt 20

➙

1

B:

2

K:

3 Man: ➙

➙

4

K:

5

B:

6

K:

Anoo sumimasen, [[Chuuoo sen no Shinjyuku iki wa nanban sen desu ka? Excuse me, [[which platform does Chuoo line bound for Shinjyuku depart from? [[°Anoo° [[°((expression for ‘hesitation’ before starting to talk))° Ichiban sen desu yo It’s platform number one °Ichiban sen desu yo° ((imitating the man’s speech)) °It’s platform number one° ((imitating the man’s speech)) A doomo arigatoo gozaimashita Thank you very much °Doomo arigatoo gozaimashita° ((imitating Brown’s speech)) °Thank you very much° ((imitating Brown’s speech))

((omitted)) 7

➙

➙

M:

A Buraun-san, koko yo, michi wakatta:? Oh, Miss Brown, here, have you found the route? 8 K: °°Wakatta:?°° ((imitating Michiko’s speech)) °°Have you found?°° ((imitating Michiko’s speech)) 9 B: Michiko-san, ee sugu wakatta Michiko, yes, it was easy 10 M: Aa yokatta:! Oh good! 11 K: °Aa yokatta: (.) aan yokatta:n° ((exaggerating the way of Michiko’s speech)) °Oh good! (.) Oh good!° ((exaggerating the way of Michiko’s speech)) *B: Brown, M: Michiko (Kiki, 23 May)

In her SR interview, Kiki mentioned that she was repeating after the tape without looking at the script of the conversation in her textbook, and that mimicking what people said in Japanese was more enjoyable than just listening.


170

While Kiki repeated after her teachers and the tape to entertain herself, she also used repetition for learning as well as for fun. In the following example, Kiki repeated Ito’s instruction to the class: Excerpt 21

➙

1

T:

2

K:

Hai! Minasan! Tekisuto mite kudasai Yes! Everyone! Please look at the textbook °Tekisuto mite kudasai° ((imitating the intonation of the teacher)) °Please look at the textbook° ((imitating the intonation of the teacher)) (Kiki, 22 Aug.)

Kiki repeated the sentence with the same intonation as the teacher’s in line 2. According to Kiki, she repeated the sentence not only because mimicking the teacher’s utterance was fun, but also because she thought that the expression should be useful. This shows how language play as rehearsal and language play as fun sometimes overlap, as Broner and Tarone (2001) found. The learners sometimes commented that they were simply having fun while saying things in their private speech. Many of these types of private speech were accompanied with laughter. The following excerpts are examples of Lily’s language play as fun: Excerpt 22 ((The teacher writes a sentence ‘Tabe suginai de kudasai’ (Please do not eat too much) on the board)) 1 L: °Tabe sugi nai (.) de kudasai ((reading the sentence on the board)) (.) Ishi o tabe sugi nai (.) de kudasai° ((laugh)) °Please do not eat too much ((reading the sentence on the board)) (.) Please do not eat stones too much° ((laugh)) (Lily, 8 Aug.) Excerpt 23 ((The teacher is asking the class on how a doctor suggests wearing a sweater and a coat so that one would not catch a cold))

➙

1

S1:

2

T:

3

L:

Kite kudasai Please wear Kite kudasai or anything else? (..) S2 Please wear or anything else? (..) S2 °Kite, kite kure?° ((laugh)) °((te-form of ‘kiru’ (wear))) Wear?° ((laugh)) (Lily, 10 Oct.)


171

In Excerpt 22, the teacher introduced a sentence with the grammatical form sugiru (too much) with the verb taberu (eat). Before this excerpt, the student sitting next to Lily said ‘ishi o tabe sugiru’ (eat stones too much) to her. Lily read aloud the sentence on the board and then made a sentence by using ishi (stone) in her private speech. She commented in her SR interview that she made a funny sentence for fun and said it to herself. In Excerpt 23, after the teacher asked how a doctor would suggest wearing a sweater and a coat, Lily used the te-form of the verb with kure, which expressed a casual style of asking a person to do something, in line 3. A doctor does not usually use this expression to make a suggestion to his/her patient. Lily mentioned in her SR interview that she was joking to entertain herself. Expressing jokes that are related to task answers or classroom events in private speech can be an affective expression such as ‘self-expression’. The following Excerpt shows Catherine’s language play as fun: Excerpt 24

➙

((The teacher tells the class that he is moving on to the next grammatical form that should be practised in the class)) 1 T: Jyaa uhn I have to push on, so move on to the next item on the agenda, which is (.) rashii (.) gohyaku ni peeji Well, uhn I have to push on, so move on to the next item on the agenda, which is (.) ‘seem to’ (.) page 502 2 C: (..)°Subarashii°((laugh)) (..)°Wonderful° ((laugh)) 3 E: °Sore wa chigau n jya nai? ° °Isn’t it different?° 4 C: ((laugh)) °Soo kamo° ((laugh)) °Maybe° (Catherine, 24 Oct.)

After the teacher introduced the grammatical form rashii (seem to) that the class would practise next, Catherine expressed subarashii (wonderful), the word that included rashii in her private speech. Erwin sitting next to her responded to it and they had a brief interaction. Catherine commented in her SR interview that she was joking by saying the word that sounded similar, but was not relevant with the grammatical form rashii. In Excerpts 22, 23 and 24, Lily and Catherine manipulated their teacher’s utterances or the sentence written on the board by changing the forms or adding some expressions. The learners made jokes and monitored their expressions by manipulating forms. This shows an affective function of manipulation. The expressions that are relevant or sound similar to what the teachers said and had an affective function were included in the manipulation. In the following


172

examples, Lily and Erwin use these types of manipulation: Excerpt 25

➙

((The teacher reads a kanji ‘aka’ (red) on the board)) 1 T: Aka, aka Red, red 2 L: °Akachan° °Baby° (Lily, 23 May)

Excerpt 26 ((The teacher suggests that the student who presented an answer of a task question repeat the correct form of the verb after him))

➙

1

T:

2

S:

3

T:

4

S:

5

T:

6

S:

7

E:

Hai, um, kaze o hikanai yoo ni, S, hi«ka» Yes, um so that I won’t catch a cold, S, ((the first part of ‘hikanai’ that means ‘not catch’ (a cold))) Hika ((the first part of ‘hikanai’ that means ‘not catch’ (a cold))) Hi«ka» ((the first part of ‘hikanai’ that means ‘not catch’ (a cold))) Hika ((the first part of ‘hikanai’ that means ‘not catch’ (a cold))) Hi«ka»nai Not to catch (a cold) Hikanai? Not to catch (a cold)? °Hikaru ((laugh)) hikatteru° ((laugh)) °Shine ((laugh)) shining° ((laugh)) (Erwin, 10 Oct.)

Excerpt 27 ((One of the students asks a question about the word ‘ane’ (elder sister) in a letter task in the workbook)) 1

S:

2

T:

When you say ‘ane’ and when you say ‘oneesan’ When do you say ‘elder sister’ and when do you say ‘elder sister?’ ((sigh)) Ane ni agemasu, sometimes within families, you can (.) get away with saying ‘oneesan’, [particularly if you are, if you are using the term in public? Am I right there? ((to the researcher sitting in front of the class)) ((sigh)) I will give it to my elder sister, sometimes within families, you can (.) get away with saying ‘elder sister’, [particularly if you


➙

3

E:

173

are, if you are using the term in public? Am I right there? ((to the researcher sitting in front of the class)) [°Aneki° [°My elder sister° (Erwin, 22 Aug.)

In Excerpt 25, Lily produced a word that includes the kanji ‘aka’ (red) that McCartney introduced. In Excerpt 26, McCartney corrected S’s pronunciation of hika, the first part of hikanai (do not catch (a cold)), and this interaction between the teacher and S reminded Erwin of the other verb hikaru (shine) which includes the same pronunciation. Then he changed the verb to the progressive form hikatteru (shining). In his SR interview, Erwin described his manipulation as ‘deviation’ from the answer of the task question in the class. In Excerpt 27, Erwin’s utterance aneki in the third line also means ‘elder sister’ as in McCartney’s utterance in the previous line. However, aneki is a colloquial expression. Erwin mentioned in his SR interview that he used the colloquial expression for fun, because he knew it. The learners expressed and enjoyed themselves by saying the expressions that they knew and sounded similar to the teachers’ utterances. This shows an affective function of their private speech. At the same time, the pronunciations and meanings of the words, which the teacher introduced, may have become salient in their memory by learners connecting them with the expressions that they already knew. According to Cook (1997), language play as fun can be classified into two different types: (1) play with language form, sounds, rhythm or song, and (2) semantic play, ‘play with units of meaning, combining them in ways which create worlds which do not exist: fictions’ (p. 228). Kiki’s ‘language play as fun’ in Excerpts 17, 18 and 19 can belong to the first category. The following example of Erwin’s ‘language play as fun’ seems to be semantic play: Excerpt 28 ((The teacher is explaining the expression ‘Ikemasen!’ (Don’t!) to the class))

➙

1

T:

2 3

E: T:

4

E:

Maybe a child is about to do something terribly lifethreatening, dangerous ((laugh)) And the adult will simply go ‘ikemasen!’ without any explanation because there is no time for explanation (.) the train is coming and the child is going to be killed or [[uh it’s going to fall into the swimming pool can’t swim ((laugh)) [[°Korosareta:!° ((laugh)) [[°Killed!° (Erwin, 2 May)


174

The teacher described situations where a child is trying to do something very dangerous as examples of when the expression ‘Ikemasen!’ (Don’t!) might be used by its mother. Erwin mentioned in his SR interview that he used the expression ‘Korosareta:!’ (Killed!), imagining that the child was actually killed. This is a fiction that he made to use the expression. While SL/FL learners use ‘language play as rehearsal’ to master new forms of target languages (Lantolf, 1997), they use well-mastered forms in ‘language play as fun’ (Broner and Tarone, 2001). JFL learners used the words or expressions that they already knew in their ‘manipulations’. They also made comments in their private speech by using well-mastered forms. The following excerpts are Lily’s examples: Excerpt 29

➙

((One of the students answers a task question)) 1 S: Kootsuu jiko ni aimashita I had a traffic accident 2 T: Kootsuu jiko Traffic accident 3 S: Kootsuu jiko ni aimashita I had a traffic accident 4 T: A hai Oh yes 5 L: °Wakarimasen° °I don’t understand° (Lily, 2 May)

Excerpt 30

➙

➙

➙

((The teacher is showing an example sentence with ‘nagara’ (while))) 1 T: Sensei no hanashi o [(.) kiki nagara While listening to a teacher’s talk 2 L: [°Kiki na, kiki nagara° [°((the first part of ‘kiki nagara’ (while listening))), while listening° 3 T: Tonari no hito to With a person sitting next 4 L: ((laugh)) [[°Hanashimasu° ((laugh)) [[°I talk° 5 T: [[Hanashimasu [[I talk 6 L: °Dame desu° °It’s not good° 7 T: Yoku nai desu It’s not good (Lily, 2 May)


175

In Excerpt 29, Lily’s expression in line 5 shows that she did not understand what her classmate had said. In Excerpt 30, she commented on McCartney’s example sentence in line 6. Erwin often made comments by using the expressions that he knew. The following excerpts are his examples: Excerpt 31 ((The teacher asks Catherine a task question))

➙

1

C:

2

E:

Uhh eigo wa hanashi yasui desuga, chuugokugo wa uh hanashi nikui desu Uhh English is easy to speak, but Chinese is hard to speak (.) °°Soo su ka°° (.) °°I see°° ((colloquial expression)) (Erwin, 8 Aug.)

Excerpt 32 ((The teacher has a classroom survey about environmental problems that the students are most concerned about. He reads out each problem in the textbook and asks the class to hold their hands up for their most concerned problems))

➙

1

T:

2

E:

3

T:

4

E:

5 6

T: E:

7

T:

8

E:

Hai ichiban ooi no wa? Where was the most? Where was the most? OK, Which got the most number? Where was the most? Where was the most? Um Um Niban deshoo? Niban, niban wa? Te o agete kudasai ((a few students hold their hands up)) E? It’s number two, isn’t it? Number two? Please hold your hand up ((a few students hold their hands up)) What? ((laugh)) Rokuban desu ne ((laugh)) It’s number six, isn’t it? Global warming, global warming °Rokuban kana:° °Isn’t it number six?° Hai jyaa mimashita ka, did you have a look? OK, did you have a look? Did you have a look? ((laugh)) (Erwin, 24 Oct.)

In Excerpt 31, Erwin covertly responded to Catherine’s answer by using a colloquial expression. In Excerpt 32, after the classroom survey, McCartney


176

mentioned that number two gained the largest number of students and checked the number of the students who were most concerned about the environmental problem for number two. After checking the number of the students, Erwin suggested that number six gained the largest number in line 4. However, the teacher did not hear him. Erwin made a comment by still suggesting number six in his private speech in line 6. Kana: at the end of his sentence is often used when a person is wondering, and his use of the expression implies that the utterance is a question to himself. Kiki also made comments by using the Japanese expressions that she knew. The examples are found below: Excerpt 33 ((The teacher asks the class whether they remember how to make te-form)) 1

T:

➙

2

K:

➙

3 4

T: K:

Minasan, do you know how to make the te-form? Everyone, do you know how to make the te-form? °No° °No° Is that confusing, too? ((laugh)) °Zenzen wakaranai desu yo:° ((laugh)) °I don’t know it at all° (Kiki, 22 Aug.)

Excerpt 34 ((The teacher is talking about her childhood experience about keíki (economic situation) and kéiki (cake)))

➙

1

T:

2 3

Ss: T:

4 5

K: T:

6

K:

7

T:

Demo ne, kodomo no koro, when I was a child, I didn’t understand the difference, so when adults were talking about keíki But when I was a child, when I was a child, I didn’t understand the difference, so when adults were talking about economic situation ((laugh)) I thought oishi soo I thought ‘sounds tasty’ ((laugh)) Hai, sono tsugi wa [((writes kanji ‘uma’ (horse) on the board)) Then, next one is [((writes kanji ‘uma’ (horse) on the board)) [°°Tsumannai jyooku°° [°°Boring joke°° Moo sugu Meruborun Kappu ne: ((writes hiragana for reading of the kanji on the board)) Ba ma uma, [[ne, hai stroke order ni ki o tsukete ne


➙

8

K:

177

Melbourne Cup is coming soon ((writes hiragana for reading of the kanji on the board)) ((readings of the kanji ‘horse’)) [[OK? Be careful about the stroke order [[°°Sensei no tame ni, minasan laugh°° [[°°For the teacher, everybody, laugh°° (Kiki, 24 Oct.)

In Excerpt 33, Kiki covertly responded to Ito’s question to the class in line 4. In Excerpt 34, Ito told the class that, when she was a child, she confused the words, keíki (economic situation) and kéiki (cake), which have similar sounds but have different accents. Kiki made comments in lines 6 and 8. She commented in her SR interview that she forgot the Japanese expression for ‘laugh’ and used the English expression in line 8. Excerpt 34 shows that Kiki was covertly making fun of the teacher. This is a characteristic of ‘language play as fun’. Broner and Tarone (2001) stated that children made fun of each other in their language play as fun. Kiki’s example shows that adult FL learners sometimes make fun of their teachers covertly by using their private speech to entertain themselves. In Excerpts 29–34, the learners used simple Japanese expressions, some of which are a kind of formulaic expressions. These expressions seem to be already internalized and automatized in their language system. They used these Japanese expressions to express their opinions or feelings rather than to practise or monitor the language. Some of the learners’ private speech had affective and social functions. The learners used private speech such as repetition or manipulation for ‘language as fun’, which had an affective function. Repeating what their teacher had said seemed to enhance their feelings of involvement in the class. In Excerpts 29, 30, 31 and 33, the learners covertly responded to their teacher or classmates.6 This shows a social function of private speech. They used ‘comment’ to express their opinions or feelings by using well-mastered forms. The majority of the private speech that the learners used belongs to ‘language play as rehearsal’. The learners repeated their teachers’ utterances, manipulated sounds or forms, or vicariously answered the teachers’ questions to practise the target language and monitor their language. Intermediate Spanish language learners in USA, compared to the advanced ones, especially focused on the form of the language, such as grammatical features, in their process of thinking during a problem-solving task (Centeno-Cortés and Jiménez Jiménez, 2004). JFL learners at upper beginner level indicated similar characteristics. The number of language play as rehearsal decreases or is eliminated when the learners become advanced (Lantolf, 1997). Erwin did not use repetition frequently, compared to the other learners. He sometimes did

178


not participate in choral repetitions after his teacher. When he used Japanese both overtly and covertly in the class, he sounded very fluent. Therefore, he may not have needed to practise or monitor his pronunciation or intonation as frequently as the other learners did. Moreover, some words and expressions seemed to have already been internalized in his language system during his self-study of Japanese preceding the course. More proficient learners use language play as fun more often than less proficient learners (Broner and Tarone, 2001). Language play as fun needs skills and is performance-oriented, while language play as rehearsal focuses on the language form (Broner and Tarone, 2001). Jessica and Wendy did not use language play as fun. They may have very few internalized and automatized Japanese expressions that they can use for language play as fun and needed to concentrate on the language form more than the other learners. Broner and Tarone (2001) reported that language play as fun and as rehearsal overlapped when the children used language play as fun while working on their schoolwork. In the examples introduced in this section, the learners entertained or expressed themselves rather than concentrated on the forms by using their private speech. However, the learners sometimes used the forms or expressions that the teachers had just introduced in the class to make funny comments. In these cases, they were probably practising the forms or expressions as well as having fun. Broner and Tarone stated that SL discourse becomes more noticeable and memorable with emotional excitement that is brought about by playing with language. The result of my study suggests that this may occur with adult FL learners as well as with children.

5.3. Self-Regulatory Function of Private Speech Private speech has the function to regulate and control human activity (Wertsch, 1985). This is the main function of private speech, according to Vygotsky, as referred by Wertsch (1985). As shown in Sections 5.1 and 5.2, SL/ FL learners practise and monitor their language to search for correct forms or check the appropriateness of their language, or to make jokes and express their opinions or feelings in order to have fun and keep concentrating on classroom events. All these behaviours can be learners’ means of controlling themselves to solve their problems or keep participating in the class. From this viewpoint, all private speech used by JFL learners seems to have the function to regulate and control themselves, as Frawley and Lantolf (1986) pointed out. In this section, examples of private speech which especially indicate the characteristics of the self-regulatory function are discussed. DiCamilla and Antón (2004) found that Spanish language learners asked themselves questions (self-addressed questions) and made comments to evaluate themselves by using their private speech during a collaborative task. Centeno-Cortés and Jiménez Jiménez (2004) also reported that Spanish


179

language learners in USA used ‘self-encouraging and self-criticizing comments’ in individual problem-solving tasks. Private speech like this shows learners’ self-regulation by controlling and guiding themselves during the tasks. The learners used self-addressed questions in their private speech during pair work,7 as found in the following Excerpt of Lily: Excerpt 35 ((During pair work))

➙

1

L:

2 3

S: L:

Um? this one, saru? zoo? uh this one, ima? kyoo Um? this one, monkey? elephant? uh this one, now? today ((inaudible)) I think it’s ‘ima zoo no kazu wa fuete i’, kazu? kazu wa nan desu ka? fuete iru to omoi masu ka? kazu? I think it’s ‘now the number of elephants TOP ((a part of “fuete iru” (increasing)))’ number? what is ‘number’? Do you think (it is) increasing? number? (Lily, 24 Oct.)

Lily asked her partner questions in the first line. However, he could not give her an appropriate answer. Then she asked another question about the meaning of kazu (number) in line 3. According to Lily, she did not ask her partner the question in line 3, because she considered that he would not be able to give her an answer, as he could not do so previously. She was trying to find the meaning while answering the question and repeating the word to herself. In the following example, Lily found an answer after asking herself a question: Excerpt 36 ((During pair work)) 1

L:

Kekkon jya nakereba (. . .) kekkon kekkon, kenkoo? e? kenkoo jya nakereba, kenkoo? kenkoo wa nan desu ka (.) ((incomprehensible)) °°kenkoo jya nai°° uh kenkoo wa nan desu ka ((checking the vocabulary list in the back of her textbook)) Ohhh it’s health If not marriage ((error)) (. . .) marriage, marriage ((error)), health? what? if not healthy, health? what is ‘health’? (.) ((incomprehensible)) °°not healthy°° uh what is ‘health’? ((checking the vocabulary list in the back of her textbook)) Ohhh it’s health (Lily, 8 Aug.)

Lily mispronounced the word kenkoo (health) and her pronunciation kekkon meant ‘marriage’. Although she realized this and corrected her pronunciation, she still did not understand the meaning of the word. She checked a


180

vocabulary list in her textbook while asking herself a question, and expressed that she found the meaning. Her expression ‘ohhh’, a change-of-state token (Heritage, 1984), is equivalent with ‘expression of relief’ used by the learners in Centeno-Cortés and Jiménez Jiménez (2004) at the end of the task when they finished it successfully. Lily controlled and guided herself and solved her problem successfully. DiCamilla and Antón explained that a self-addressed question is used to ‘guide one’s self in a cognitively difficult situation’ (2004, p. 54). JFL learners used self-addressed questions in the teacher-fronted setting as well as the peer-learning setting to guide themselves when they did not understand their teachers’ utterances. The following Excerpt shows Catherine’s example: Excerpt 37 ((The teacher talks about a question asked in a job interview))

➙

➙

1

T:

2

C:

3

T:

4

C:

Shusshin wa Where are you from? °What’s shusshin° °What’s ‘origins’?° (..) There are a couple of, several variations here, shusshin wa (..) There are a couple of, several variations here, where are you from? (.)°Shusshin° (.) °Origins°

((Catherine asks the meaning of ‘shusshin’ (origins) to the student, A,8 sitting next to her and finds out the meaning))

➙

5

T:

6

C:

S-san wa? Ha S-san desu ka, haa! shusshin wa? (.) Shusshin, uh the kanji for (.) coming out and body ((writes kanji ‘shusshin’ (origin) on OHT)) How about S? Oh you are S! Where are you from? (.) Origins, uh the kanji for (.) coming out and body ((writes kanji ‘shusshin’ (origins) on OHT)) °Uh shusshin° °Uh origins° (Catherine, 5 Sep.)

Catherine did not understand the word shusshin (origins) in the teacher’s utterance in line 1 and asked herself a question in line 2. Catherine commented in her SR interview that she had heard the word, but could not remember the meaning, and that she was thinking about it while asking herself the question. Although she repeated the word to remember the meaning in line 4, she could not find the meaning and decided to ask her friend, A, sitting next to


181

her. After she found the meaning, the teacher wrote the kanji for shusshin on the OHT, in line 5. According to Catherine, the kanji that McCartney wrote on the OHT reminded her of the word with its meaning, because she knew the kanji. Her repetition of the word in line 6 indicates that she remembered the word. In Excerpts 36 and 37, both Lily and Catherine used affective markers ‘ohhh’ and ‘uh’ when they found the meaning of a word or remembered a word. These affective markers show their relief at the successful ending of their searching. The learners used brief expressions such as ‘oh’ when they noticed their errors or correct expressions, as found in Excerpts 36 and 37. These expressions were categorized as ‘finding’. This shows the learners’ relief at solving their problems or discovering new information, as ‘expressions of relief’ do. Wendy often used ‘finding’ in Semester 2. In the following examples, Wendy indicates her finding with brief expressions: Excerpt 38 ((While explaining the answer of task questions for the practise of ‘te iku’ and ‘te kuru’ which mean the directions of behaviour, the teacher mentions a formulaic expression))

➙

1

T:

2

W:

3

T:

Do you remember that uh I’m going ne, before you depart every day, you say ‘itte kimasu’ ne? Remember? Do you remember that uh I’m going, OK?, before you depart every day, you say ‘I’m going (and coming back)’ OK? Remember? [°A° [°Oh° [«Itte» kimasu [I’m going (and coming back) (Wendy, 23 Aug.)

Excerpt 39 ((The teacher asks one of the students a task question))

➙

1

S:

2

T:

3

W:

Uh atsui noni kanojyo wa kooto o uhn kite imasu Uh although it is hot, she wears a coat. Ne, atsui noni, kanojyo, maa onna no hito wa, onna no hito wa kooto o kite imasu, ne. Kanojyo wa ne, kanojyo means ‘my girl friend’, ki o tsukemashoo OK, although it is hot, she, well the woman, the woman wears a coat. ‘She’ means ‘my girl friend’, so be careful. °Ha° °Ha° (Wendy, 11 Oct.)


182

In Excerpt 38, during the exercise for te iku and te kuru, which are the forms expressing directions of behaviours, Ito said itte kimasu, a greeting used when a person leaves home. Wendy expressed her ‘finding’ with a very short utterance a in line 2. According to Wendy, she was thinking about the greeting immediately before the teacher mentioned it, and confirmed that the expression was related to itte kuru (go and come back) after the teacher’s comment. In Excerpt 39, Ito mentioned that kanojyo meant ‘my girl friend’ after S’s answer in the first line. Wendy showed her finding with a very brief expression ha again in her private speech. In her SR interview, Wendy commented that she found new information that kanojyo meant ‘my girl friend’. Wendy’s frequent use of ‘finding’ in Semester 2 compared to Semester 1 may be evidence of the development of her ability to notice the target-language forms or expressions. The learners also made self-encouraging comments. The following example is Catherine’s private speech in a teacher-fronted setting: Excerpt 40 ((The teacher is talking about a task question which requires fi lling in a blank space with an appropriate particle))

➙

➙

1

T:

2

C:

3

T:

4

C:

Well, ‘asobu’ is ‘to play’, it’s ‘to play’, so ‘to play on the river’, ‘on the river’ in Japanese? ‘at the river’? Well, ‘play’ is ‘to play’, it’s ‘to play’, so ‘to play on the river’, ‘on the river’ in Japanese, ‘at the river’. (.) °De° (.)°At° ((PAR)) Kawa de asobu Play at the river °°°I got this°°° (Catherine, 23 May)

Catherine vicariously answered McCartney’s question in line 2. After McCartney said the answer in line 3, Catherine made a self-encouraging comment by showing that her answer was correct in line 4. Lily used self-encouraging comments during pair work in the following example: Excerpt 41 ((During pair work)) 1

L:

Tokkyuu What? Oh yeah, all right, express train, express something (.) yeah limited express, tokkyuu ressha, °tokkyuu ressha° noru? to ride


183

Limited express What? Oh, yeah, all right, express train, express something (.) yeah limited express, limited express train, °limited express train° ride, to ride (Lily, 23 May) Lily asked herself for the meaning of tokkyuu by saying ‘what?’ and expressed that she found the meaning with ‘oh yeah, all right’. After translating tokkyuu as ‘express train’ in English, she realized that tokkyuu was not just an express train. She searched another translation of tokkyuu and found it after a brief pause. Her expression ‘yeah’ before the translation ‘limited express’ indicates her finding of the meaning. Centeno-Cortés and Jiménez Jiménez (2004) stated that self-encouraging comments ‘gives them confidence to keep following the same line of reasoning’ (p. 18). Lily’s expressions ‘oh yeah, all right’ and ‘yeah’ has this function. In the following example, Lily is struggling to find an appropriate form during pair work. The task required to make a sentence by using the particle mo, which expresses frequency, with affirmative or negative verbs, while looking at a table of the frequency of Mr/Ms Aoki’s and Mr/Ms Chon’s actions, such as ringing their parents or watching TV: Excerpt 42 1

L:

Ryooshin ni denwa o kakeru, ichido mo nai, Aoki Aoki-san wa ryooshin ni denwa o? ichido? mo nai o kakerimashita, jya nai (.) kake haa Chon-san wa ryooshin ni? yonkai mo denwa o kakete kakete kite, oh yeah, Aoki-san wa? (.) ichido mo nai, denwa o kakete kita nai, kakete nai (. . .) haa ((incomprehensible)) terebi o miru, nijyuu jikan (.) terebi, Chonsan wa terebi o mimashita ka (.) Chon-san wa zero jikan mo terebi o mimasen (..) Chon-san wa inu no sanpo ni ikimashita ka? Aoki-san wa doo desu ka (.) Aoki-san wa ichido mo nai, inu no sanpo ni ikimashita, iku nai, iku nakatta, iku nakatta Ring parents, not even once, Mr/Ms Aoki TOP parents PAR telephone ACC not even once ACC rung ((error)), not that one (.) ((the first part of the verb ‘kakeru’ (ring))) haa Mr/Ms Chon TOP parents ACC even four times rung, oh yeah, Mr/Ms Aoki (.) not even once, has not rung ((error)), has not rung (. . .) haa ((incomprehensible)) watch TV, 20 hours (.) TV, did Mr/Ms Chon watch TV? (.) Mr/Ms Chon TOP even zero hour, does not watch TV (..) Did Mr/ Ms Chon go for a walk with his dog? How about Mr/Ms Aoki? (.) Mr/Ms Aoki not even once, went for a walk with his dog, does not go ((error)) did not go ((error)) did not go ((error)) (Lily, 10 Oct.)


184

Lily needed to make a sentence such as Aoki-san wa ichido mo ryooshin ni denwa o kakemasen deshita (Mr/Ms Aoki did not ring his/her parents even once) or Chon-san wa yonkai mo ryooshin ni denwa o kakemashtia (Mr/Ms Chon rang his/ her parents four times). At the beginning of her utterance, Lily was trying to change the form of the verb kakeru (make a call). After expressing the form kakeri mashita, she denied it by saying jya nai (not that one). Then she manipulated the form in the other sentence, made the form kakete kite and expressed that she found it correct by saying ‘oh yeah’, which is a self-encouraging comment. According to DiCamilla and Antón (2004), learners’ private speech shows their awareness of a gap between what they have produced and the standard form. Lily’s comment jya nai indicated her awareness of a discrepancy between her expression kakeri mashita and the correct form. After finding the form kakete kite, she confirmed the correctness of the expression. However, after saying kakete nai (has not rung), she again became unsure about the form that she had used. Her expression haa after a pause shows that she was having difficulty with the task questions. The polite past form of the verb kakeru (ring) is kake mashita. Lily was searching the form and could not find it. Then she remembered te kuru, the form to express the directions of behaviours, which she learned in the same semester, and changed the verb to kakete kite with the te-form of kakeru. In the next sentence, she changed the verb to the negative present perfect form kakete kita nai with the incorrect te-form of kuru. Immediately after this, she changed it to kakete nai (has not rung) without the form te kuru. Her frequent manipulation of the forms and sentence structures indicates that she was searching correct forms and structures. DiCamilla and Antón (2004) described private speech as ‘language for thought’. Excerpt 42 shows a good example of Lily’s thinking process during answering the task questions. Self-criticizing comments are found in some of the learners’ private speech. The following excerpts are Lily’s examples: Excerpt 43 ((The teacher is talking about a kanji ‘koo’ for ‘senkoo’ (major))) 1

T:

Senkoo no koo wa left-hand side is a ruler actually, a ruler?, something to measure a distance, something straight to measure a distance (..) and the right-hand side, to one two three four ((writes the right part of the kanji ‘koo’ on the board)) pronunciation is ‘koo’, to attack ‘Koo’ for ‘senkoo’ (major) TOP left-hand side is a ruler actually, a ruler?, something to measure a distance, something straight to measure a distance (..) and the right-hand side, to one two three four ((writes the right part of the kanji ‘koo’ on the board)) pronunciation is ‘koo’, to attack


2

L:

185

((incomprehensible)) °I don’t know that° (Lily, 5 Sep.)

Excerpt 44 ((At the end of the class, the teacher is talking about résumé writing))

➙

1

T:

2

L:

So really you have some time to go home, go home and work it out yourselves, use your dictionary, [choose wisely from your dictionary [°I don’t get it° (Lily, 5 Sep.)

In Excerpt 43, Lily expressed in her private speech that she did not know McCartney’s explanation of the kanji ‘koo’. In Excerpt 44, after explaining how to write a résumé in Japanese, McCartney was telling the class to write their own résumés in Japanese by using their dictionaries. Lily commented in her SR interview that she was trying to understand the Japanese year system, which is different from the Western year system, in order to write her résumé, but that she could not understand it. Her expression ‘I don’t get it’ means that she failed to understand the system. In the following excerpt, Erwin made a self-criticizing comment after finding that his answer was incorrect: Excerpt 45 ((The teacher is talking about a task answer))

➙

1

T:

2

E:

Hai, uhn I perhaps would point it out uh in the first example of back on the previous page, you notice uh originally the, the ending of the verbs are the polite forms, but uh when you use them before ‘shi’, you can simplify them back down to the plain forms, and you can keep the last final verb as a masu-form if you like, so S, it could be ‘kinoo wa shiken o uketa shi: «uketa» shi, sakubun mo kaita shi’ OK, uhn I perhaps would point it out uh in the first example of back on the previous page, you notice uh originally the, the ending of the verbs are the polite forms, but uh when you use them before ‘shi’, you can simplify them back down to the plain forms, and you can keep the last final verb as a masu-form if you like, so S, it could be ‘yesterday I had an exam and also wrote a composition’ °Oh not [‘kaki’ uh damn° °Oh not [((the first part of ‘kakita’ ((meant ‘wrote’, error)) uh damn° (Erwin, 2 May)


186

After explaining that the plain past forms of verbs are used before a grammatical form shi, McCartney showed the answer to the task question with kaita (wrote), the plain past form of the verb kaku (write) at the end of his utterance in line 1. In the pair work preceding the above excerpt, Erwin changed the verb kaku to kakita and added shi. Erwin expressed that his answer was wrong by a self-criticizing comment in line 2. The comments by Lily and Erwin in Excerpts 43, 44 and 45 show their understanding of the situation and control of themselves by evaluating the self. When learners could not understand what their teachers had said or could not find the appropriate answer to task questions, they seemed to become frustrated. DiCamilla and Antón (2004) suggested a self-regulatory potential of learners’ affective utterances when they are frustrated in a cognitively difficult situation. In the following examples, Catherine and Lily showed their frustration by using the same expression: Excerpt 46 ((The teacher is explaining the difference between two task questions)) 1

C:

°I don’t get it ((laugh)) uhhhh! muzukashii° °I don’t get it ((laugh)) uhhhh! difficult° (Catherine, 4 Apr.)

Excerpt 47 ((During pair work))

➙

1

L:

2

S:

3

L:

Uh Rosan zerusu wa atataka atataka Uh Los Angeles TOP ((a part of ‘atatakai’ (warm))) Soo desu nee Well Yeah, atatakai kamo shire masen (.) ne, uhhh muzukashii Yeah, it may be warm, uhhh difficult (Lily, 14 Mar.)

In Excerpt 46, Catherine showed that she did not understand the teacher’s explanation. In Excerpt 47, Lily manipulated the form of the adjective atatakai (warm) to answer a task question in line 1. She finally found the correct form ‘atatakai kamo shire masen’ (it may be warm) in line 3. Her expression ‘yeah’ means that she found the right answer. However, she still expressed her difficulty with answering the task questions after saying the answer in the same line. Both Catherine and Lily used the word muzukashii (difficult) with the affective marker ‘uhhh’. DiCamilla and Antón (2004) explained that learners control themselves in a cognitively difficult situation by releasing their affective loads. This suggests that the learners’ expressions of their own opinions or feelings


187

other than frustration in their private speech may also have a self-regulatory function. In Barnard (2003), a Korean Year 7 student, who was an immigrant to New Zealand with very limited English ability, used his first-language private speech to express the difficulty of tasks in the mainstream classroom. In Centeno-Cortés and Jiménez Jiménez (2004), Spanish language learners used simple automatized Spanish expressions, such as the one that means ‘difficult’, when they had problems during the tasks. JFL learners’ expression muzukashii seems to have been already internalized and automatized in the language system of Catherine and Lily. Reading aloud is a type of private speech that was frequently used by the learners. DiCamilla and Antón (2004) stated that learners ‘externalise the macrostructure of a task’ for oneself by reading the task aloud (p. 44). According to DiCamilla and Antón, by using private speech, learners create psychological distance between their own mind and problems so that they can control their performance. JFL learners read aloud task questions, or sentences in their textbooks or on the board/OHT. Lily and Erwin often read aloud task questions or example sentences in tasks immediately after the teacher told the class to look at particular questions. In the following example, Lily read aloud the example sentences in a task after McCartney told the class to look at the task: Excerpt 48 ((The teacher tells the class the page number of their textbooks where there is a task)) 1

T:

➙

2

L:

➙

3 4

T: L:

Hyaku rokujyuu hachi peeji Page 168 °Donna koto o yatte mitai to omoimasu ka° ((reading an example sentence in one of the exercises on the page)) °What kind of things do you think you would like to try?° ((reading an example sentence in one of the exercises on the page)) A, look at A °Nihon e itta koto ga nai kara, itte mitai desu° ((reading the example sentence in the task A)) Because I have never been to Japan, I would like to go ((reading the example sentence in the task A)) (Lily, 22 Aug.)

Lily mentioned in her SR interview that she often read aloud example sentences or task questions when she started doing tasks, and that reading aloud the sentences helped her understanding of the tasks. The learners sometimes read aloud the task questions that the teachers had not told them to look at. In the following example, Erwin read aloud a task


188

question that the class had not done yet, while McCartney was talking about the answer to another task question: Excerpt 49 ((The teacher is talking to S who answered a task question))

➙

1

T:

2

S:

3

T:

4

S:

5

T:

6

E:

Soo desu ne, or might be the past tense Yes, that’s right, or might be the past tense Tanaka-san dake Only Mr/Ms Tanaka Tanaka-san dake Only Mr/Ms Tanaka Datta COP Datta, hai, um, [or Tanaka-san shika nakatta COP, yes, um [or it was only Mr/Ms Tanaka. [°Kono hen ni sakana ya (.) ga arimasu ka? arimasen ka?° ((reading another question in the task)) [°Is there a fish shop around here? Isn’t there?° ((reading another question in the task)) (Erwin, 30 May)

Erwin commented in his SR interview that he started reading the task question, which he had not answered during the previous pair work, in order to think about the answer, because he knew the answer to the question that the teacher and S were working on. All the learners started reading aloud some sentences from the reading exercises when the teacher told the class to do the exercise. The following Excerpt is Lily’s example: Excerpt 50 ((The teacher shows paragraphs of a reading exercise on the OHT)) 1

L:

°Puraibashii wa eigo kara haitte kita kotoba da. Mukashi no Nihonjin niwa amari puraibashii to iu kangae, oh kangae kata ga nakatta shi, ima demo Amerikajin ga kangaeru puraiba puraibashii° °‘Privacy’ is the word that came from English. Japanese people did not have an idea of ‘privacy’ in the old days, and even now ‘privacy’ that American people think of° (Lily, 2 May)

According to Lily’s comment in her interview, she did not understand the meaning of the katakana word puraibashii (privacy) and was thinking about the meaning while reading the sentences aloud.


189

Reading aloud the sentences written on the board or in the textbooks seems to provide learners auditory support as well as a visual one. Especially when sentences are long and their structures are complicated, such as the ones in the reading exercise, the learners tried to create psychological distance between their minds and the sentences by externalizing them to solve their problems and to understand the structures and meanings of the sentences. In Centeno-Cortés and Jiménez Jiménez (2004), more than 60% of the selfguiding private speech by the intermediate Spanish language learners was expressed in their first language, while they used the SL for repetition or reading aloud. JFL learners used English relatively often for self-addressed questions, self-encouraging or self-criticizing comments except reading aloud sentences. As Centeno-Cortés and Jiménez Jiménez suggested, the learners’ first language or the language that they use very often outside the classroom (English in my study) seems to play a crucial role in their verbal thinking. The self-addressed questions, or self-encouraging and self-criticizing comments, were used by the learners during individual problem-solving tasks in a laboratory in Centeno-Cortés and Jiménez Jiménez (2004), and during a dyadic task in DiCamilla and Antón (2004). The learners used these in the JFL classes, which could be considered as a kind of natural setting, compared to an experimental task setting, and they used them in the teacher-fronted setting as well as the peer-learning setting.

5.4. Affective and Social Functions of Private Speech and the Roles of Teachers and Learners in Classrooms This section discusses the reason for the learners’ use of private speech in the classroom, focusing on the relationship between the affective and social functions of private speech and the roles of the teachers and learners in the classroom. Private speech with affective and social functions is associated with Shimazu’s (2003) viewpoint of the classroom interactions between a teacher and his/her learners according to the ‘act’ and ‘stance’ of the teacher and the learners in Ochs (1993). Shimazu (2003) stated that the learners are not expected to extend the interactions beyond particular patterns such as Initiation-ResponseEvaluation/Feedback (I-R-E/F) in the classrooms, because this does not match the learners’ ‘act’, such as the acceptance of the teacher’s evaluations, and does not support a teacher’s ‘act’, such as controlling learners’ participation in interactions.9 Shimazu examined cases where the learners made unexpected responses to the teacher’s questions in the provided turns to extend the interactions, and cases where the learners created their own turns to start interactions with the teacher. The data analysis revealed that the ‘acts’ of the teacher and the learners were restricted within their roles in the classroom, and that this affected the occurrence of the learners’ voluntary speech beyond


190

the particular interaction patterns. However, a few cases were found where the learners developed the interactions with the teacher. The following conversation between the teacher (T) and one of the students (HM) is an example: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

T: Uiikuendo wa doo deshita ka? Chon-san? How was your weekend, Chon? HM: Samukatta desu It was cold T: Soo desu ka? Samukatta desu ka? Was it? Was it cold? HM: Hai. Kaze? Kaze o moraimashita Yes. Cold? I caught a cold T: Ara, Chon-san wa kaze o hikimashita ((to the class)) Oh, Chon caught a cold ((to the class)) Kawaisoo. Odaiji ni ne I feel sorry. Take care HM: Kyoo wa benkyoo shimasen. Kurasu wa owari desu I do not study today. The class is finished Ss: ((laugh)) T: Iie, kurasu wa yarimasu yo, Chon-san No, we will have the class, Chon (Shimazu, 2003, pp. 16–17; translations mine)

Shimazu (2003) pointed out that the teacher took ‘a speaker’s act’ in line 6 by showing her sympathy for HM, and this is different from the ‘act’ in the teacher’s role, such as instructions, questions or evaluations, and that the learner’s utterance in line 7 indicates the act and stance of ‘a speaker’, and not one restricted to the role of learners. In Shimazu’s study, the cases when the learners took ‘a speaker’s act’ and extended the interactions were not developed further after one or two exchanges, because the teacher usually returned to the teacher’s role and started using the act and stance from the teacher’s point of view in order to control the classroom. Yoshida (2007) also investigated a JFL learners’ voluntary speech beyond I-R-E/F, such as jokes, unique answers to task questions, or an argument about a particular grammatical form, and his teacher’s responses to them, using a classroom audio-recording and an SR interview. The teacher negatively evaluated the learner’s voluntary speech as distracting for his teaching in the class. Cases when JFL learners developed their interactions with the teachers beyond I-R-E/F by using their overt speech were not found in the teacherfronted settings.10 All the learners commented that they usually did not try to answer or express their opinions directly to the teachers, unless the teachers called on them individually. They also mentioned that they did not speak out to the teachers’ questions directed to the other students, even when they knew


191

correct answers. To explain this, they stated that they did not want to disturb the interactions between the teachers and the students who were being called on. The learners seemed to be very aware of the teachers’ expectations of the classroom speech and the behaviours of their learners and therefore avoided unexpected speech and behaviours. However, the learners frequently took the act and stance of the speakers, and not learners, in their private speech. By taking ‘private turns’ (van Lier, 1988), the learners expressed themselves without being restricted to a learner’s role. For example, in language play as fun, they made jokes or made fun of one of the teachers. In this section, the examples of the learners’ private speech are examined from the viewpoint of the act and stance of the teachers and the learners in relation to their roles. The learners expressed their stances of the speakers in ‘comment’ most frequently. The following excerpts of Lily and Kiki show their expressions of their feelings without being restricted by the learners’ roles in the classes: Excerpt 51 ((The teacher shows a photo of a man who is standing in front of the beach))

➙

1

T:

2 3

L: T:

4

L:

Watashi: wa I TOP ((laugh)) Fuyu demo, fuyu demo, ma fuyu wa samui desho? Demo Bondai biichi de, watashi: wa oyogu koto ga dekiru. Even in winter, even in winter, it’s cold in winter, isn’t it? But in Bondi Beach I can swim. °Waa sugoi° °Oh great° (Lily, 30 May)

Excerpt 52 ((The teacher is talking about a guest session))

➙

1

T:

2

K:

((omitted)) But you have to get as much information from them as possible to impress the likes of me unfortunately A sensei wandering around, making little remarks and listening in. ((omitted)) But you have to get as much information from them as possible to impress the likes of me, unfortunately the teacher A, wandering around, making little remarks and listening in. ((laugh)) °Kowa:i° ((laugh)) °Scary° (Kiki, 4 Apr.)


192

In Excerpt 51, Lily expressed her surprise at McCartney’s comment that he could swim at Bondi Beach in winter. In Excerpt 52, Kiki expressed her feeling about the assessment process for the guest session in McCartney’s utterance. These expressions are not within the learners’ roles, such as practising the items that they learned or answering the teacher’s questions. They made comments or expressed their feelings from the stance of the speakers rather than the learners in their private speech. Erwin often expressed his own opinions, jokes, or criticism of his classmates or teacher in private speech beyond the learners’ ‘act’. In the following examples, he expressed his opinions in private speech: Excerpt 53 ((The class is coming to the end)) ➙

1 2

T: E:

Please look at page 75. ((laugh)) °Moo jikan nai desu nee° ((laugh)) °There is no time° (Erwin, 14 Mar.)

Excerpt 54 ((The teacher shows a photo of a watch to the class))

➙

1

T:

2

E:

My Christian Dior watch My Christian Dior watch °Um nisemono° ((laugh)) °Um fake° ((laugh)) (Erwin, 2 May)

Excerpt 55 ((The teacher tells his story to show an example sentence for ‘shika’ (only) with a photo of a red sports car))

➙

1

T:

2

E:

Hontoo wa ee shiroi supootsukaa ga hoshii to omoimashita ga, kono akai kuruma shika nakatta kara (.) katta n desu. Wakarimasu? Hontoo wa, actually, really, shiroi kuruma ga hoshikatta, [akai kuruma shika nakatta To tell the truth, I thought I wanted a white sports car, but there was only this red car (.) so I bought this. Do you understand? To tell the truth, actually, really, I wanted a white car, [there was only a red car [°Kuroi yatsu hoo ga ii na°11 [°I prefer a black one° ((error)) (Erwin, 30 May)


193

Erwin’s utterances in Excerpts 53, 54 and 55 are very different from the ones in particular interaction patterns, such as I-R-E/F in classrooms. His ‘act’ of making jokes (Excerpts 53 and 54) and expressing his opinion (Excerpt 55) are from the stance of a ‘speaker’ rather than a learner. He commented in his SR interviews that he did not like to disturb his teacher, McCartney, and his classmates by speaking up. His awareness that the teacher would not expect learners to disturb the flow of his classroom teaching by making comments like the above made him express the utterances in his private speech. Erwin preferred making jokes in private speech. In the following example, Erwin answered McCartney’s question in his private speech: Excerpt 56 ((The class repeats sentences with ‘nakya naranai/nannai’ (have to) after the teacher several times))

➙

1

T:

2

E:

Any question Any question? °°Nai°° ((laugh)) °°Nothing°° ((laugh)) (Erwin, 2 May)

Erwin’s response in line 2 to the teacher’s question is very short and blunt, and he knew the polite and appropriate expression such as ‘Iie, arimasen’ (No, I do not). Previously in the class, the teacher introduced the form nakereba naranai (have to) and the learners had a few exercises to practise the form. In his SR interview following the classroom recording, Erwin commented that he was making a joke, because they vocalized nai (the last part of the form nakereba naranai) very frequently before the above example. His laughter after the utterance also shows that he was making fun. His response is similar to the one in a casual conversation with his friends. Therefore, he was acting in a speaker’s role rather than a learner’s role, although he was responding to the teacher indirectly. Erwin also showed his criticisms of the utterances of his teacher or classmates in his comments. The next Excerpt includes Erwin’s criticism of the utterances of the other learners. The teacher asked one of the students the task question ‘Nihon ni ittara, nani o shite mitai desu ka’ (If you go to Japan, what would you like to do?): Excerpt 57 1

S:

2

T:

Sushi o tabetai desu I would like to eat sushi Aa hai, Nihon ni ittara oishii sushi o tabetai, tabete mitai desu, hai. [Can I go to page 169, hyaku roku jyuu kyuu


194

➙

3 4 5

E: L: E:

Oh yes, if I go to Japan, I would like to eat tasty sushi, yes, [Can I go to page 169, 169 [((laugh)) °Why is it sushi ((laugh)) Why is it always sushi° °Because we are hungry° °Onigiri° °Rice ball° (Erwin, 22 Aug.)

Erwin criticized the lack of varieties in the other learner’s answers in line 3. Lily, sitting next to him, heard him and responded. In his SR interview, Erwin mentioned that he had heard answers, which included the word sushi, to the task question from a few other learners sitting around him during the previous pair work. The learners including Erwin had sympathetic and supportive attitudes to their classmates, commenting that they would help their classmates by showing their answers to the classmates who were called on, and that they would not disturb the interactions between them and the teachers. From their comments and classroom behaviours, the learners’ role towards their classmates seems to be to support them without criticizing them. Therefore, Erwin’s criticism of his classmates’ answers does not match learners’ act and stance in the classroom. He used private speech to criticize his classmates, because he was aware of this distinction. In the following examples, Erwin made critical comments on McCartney’s utterances. The teacher showed his example answer to a task question which required changing the expression ‘tesuto no ten ga ii’ (my exam mark is good) by using the conditional form tara (if) with an appropriate second clause: Excerpt 58

➙

1

T:

2

E:

Tesuto no ten ga yokattara, ee tengoku ni ikimasu If my exam is a good mark, well, I will go to heaven °You go to ten ((laugh)) sore wa nai deshoo° °You go to ((the first part of ‘tengoku’ (heaven))) ((laugh)) you can’t° (Erwin, 22 Aug.)

In Japanese, the situation when a person is extremely happy is not usually described as tengoku ni ikimasu (I will go to heaven).12 Therefore, the teacher’s sentence sounded like the person would die when he/she got a good mark for an exam. According to Erwin, although he understood what the teacher meant with the expression, he found it ‘odd’ and considered that the expression was not usually used in that situation. Erwin’s expression sore wa nai deshoo (you can’t) is natural in a casual conversation with friends. However, criticizing or making a joke of what the teacher had said is far from the learners’ perception of their roles in the classrooms and do not match learners’ ‘act’,


195

such as following teachers’ instructions or accepting teachers’ evaluations, and ‘stance’, such as being cooperative with teachers. Therefore, he expressed it in his private speech. Kiki also expressed a negative comment on Ito’s suggestions to make Kiki’s answer better during pair work. The task required the learners to make a sentence using rashii (it seems/I hear) after reading a conversation between A and B in their textbooks. The textbook conversation is as follows: A: B:

En ga yasuku nachatta ne. Yen became cheap, didn’t it? Dakara kaigai ni asobi ni iku hito ga sukunai n da ne. That’s why few people go overseas for holidays.

In the following example, in line 1, Kiki is talking to her partner about the answer to the question: Excerpt 59 ((During pair work)) 1

K:

2

T:

3 4

K: T:

Ee saikin en ga yasuku nachatta rashii (.) or you can say, kaigai ni asobi ni iku hito ga sukoshi ni na•chatta rashii ((the teacher is standing behind Kiki and listening to her utterance)) Well, yen seemed to become cheap recently (.) or you can say, the number of the people who go overseas for holidays seemed to become few ((error)) ((the teacher is standing behind Kiki and listening to her utterance)) Rather than changing each sentence to ‘rashii’ form, you actually ((incomprehensible)) and you create a totally different sentence, OK? So for example, en ga yasuku nachatta nee, the yen became really cheap, OK? Then B-san says that is why few people go overseas nowaday, so you can say that’s the reason for uhn few people go overseas, because, seems to be, because yen became cheap, OK? Rather than changing each sentence to ‘rashii’ form, you actually ((incomprehensible)) and you create a totally different sentence, OK? So for example, ‘yen became cheap, didn’t it?’, the yen became really cheap, OK? Then B-san says that is why few people go overseas nowaday, so you can say that’s the reason for uhn few people go overseas, because, seems to be, because yen became cheap, OK? Yeah So, kaigai ni asobi ni iku hito ga sukunaku natta no wa, en ga yasuku natta kara rashii, OK? So, cheap yen seemed to be the reason why the number of people who go overseas decreased, OK?


196

5 6 7 8

K: T: K: T:

9

K:

Yeah Rather than making two sentences Yes Ne? But this is a bit difficult, [ne? OK? But this is a bit difficult, [OK? [Yeah

((The teacher leaves)) ➙

10

K:

°Dakara nani?° °So what?° (Kiki, 24 Oct.)

Kiki used rashii for both the sentences of A and B and made two separate sentences in line 1. The teacher, who was listening to Kiki’s utterance, suggested combining the two sentences, because A’s sentence could be the reason for B’s in line 2. She showed how to combine them in line 4 and commented that the question was slightly difficult in line 8. Kiki responded to the teacher, showing her agreements in lines 3, 5 and 7. After the teacher left, Kiki made a negative comment in her private speech in line 10. According to the teacher’s comment in her SR interview, she considered that Kiki understood her explanation, although she was not sure whether Kiki would be able to apply the explanation to the other sentences. However, Kiki mentioned in her SR interview that she did not understand the teacher’s explanation, but that she pretended to agree with the teacher to make the teacher leave her. Learners sometimes use a classroom strategy of ‘pretending to have understood what a teacher said’, as McCartney mentioned to explain the responses of the Asian-background students to his CF. Kiki used this strategy to make her teacher leave. This strategy is related to the learners’ awareness of their role of showing understanding of what a teacher has said in the classrooms. Her comment in the last line after the teacher left shows that she did not understand the teacher’s explanation. She commented that she was satisfied with her own answers and did not want to discuss the answers further. Her private speech, which shows that Kiki was not interested in the teacher’s explanation, is not from the stance of a learner, such as being ‘motivated for learning the target language’. Kiki expressed her feeling beyond the learner’s role in the classroom.13 Making jokes of what teachers say, criticizing or making negative comments on teachers and classmates tend to be considered as disturbing and inappropriate behaviour in the classroom. However, as shown in the examples in this section, the learners expressed themselves appropriately, often by using the target language. Their spontaneous use of Japanese to express their opinions and feelings indicates their self-regulation, and self-expression and emotional release are important for learners to control themselves and concentrate on


197

the class. The learners were involved in the class by expressing their feelings or opinions in private speech. As shown in many excerpts in this section, the learners often used casual or colloquial Japanese expressions to make comments in private speech. When the learners communicate with Japanese friends whose ages are similar to theirs, a casual style of speech is more appropriate than a polite style. In their interviews, Lily, Catherine and Kiki mentioned their experiences of communicating with Japanese friends of their generation aurally or by e-mail. Erwin commented that he often watched videos of Japanese dramas, which usually include many colloquial expressions. Therefore, the learners may want to use the expressions that they encountered in videos or the speech of their Japanese friends in the classroom. They did not use those expressions in their direct interactions with their teachers, because they knew that using casual or colloquial expressions with the teachers was not sufficiently polite. Instead, they used them in private speech. These expressions in private speech exemplify their self-expressions. Erwin preferred to use these casual expressions rather than polite expressions that are usually used in textbooks or classroom interactions. The following example indicates his preference for using a casual style: Excerpt 60

➙

((The teacher shows a photo of a wrist watch to the class and asks a question to practice ‘soo’ (look like))) 1 T: Takai desu ka, yasui desu ka? Is this expensive or cheap? 2 Ss: Takai [desu. It is expensive. 3 E: [Mochiron takai desu. [Of course, it is expensive. ((The teacher asks a few students if it is expensive and they all answer that it is expensive)) 4 T: Anone: anone: hontoo wa yasui desu. Well, well, actually it is cheap. 5 E: ((laugh)) 6 T: Soo desu, yasui desu. Yes, it is, it is cheap. 7 E: °Taka soo:° °Looks expensive° ((omitted)) 8 T: Jyuu doru de kaimashita. Oosutoraria doru, Jyuu doru de kaimashita. Ii desu ka? Takaku nai n desu ne. [[Dakedo, however


198

➙

9

E:

10

T:

11

Ss:

12

E:

I bought it with ten dollars. I bought it with ten dollars in Australian dollar. Do you understand? Not expensive [[However, however [[°Takaku nai kedo° °°taka soo°° [[°Although it is not expensive°° °° looks expensive°° Taka soo desu It looks expensive Taka soo [desu It looks expensive [Taka soo: [Looks expensive (Erwin, 14 Mar.)

Erwin answered the teacher’s question to the class in line 3 by using the polite form. After the teacher said that the watch was cheap in line 6, Erwin described it as Taka soo (Looks expensive) in line 7. He also said Takaku nai kedo, taka soo (Although it is not expensive, it looks expensive) in line 9 following the teacher’s utterance that the watch was not expensive. After the teacher presented the form Taka soo desu (It looks expensive) in line 10, Erwin repeated Taka soo again. The plain form of taka soo desu is taka soo da. Taka soo is a colloquial expression that is often used in casual conversation. Erwin extended the end of his sentence in lines 7 and 12, and this is used for exaggeration or to express surprise. Erwin commented in his interview that he preferred to use casual or colloquial expressions, which he found in Japanese comics or on Japanese videos, in the classroom. To explain his preference, he mentioned that using only the polite style of speech is boring, and that more variations are necessary to be introduced to the language style in the class. This may explain why Erwin often expressed alternative expressions in his private speech to the ones that the teacher or the textbook introduced. Erwin actually used a colloquial expression once in his answer to McCartney’s question after using it in his private speech. Excerpt 61 ((The teacher is talking about a task question))

➙

1

T:

2

E:

3

T:

Hai jyaa (.) sanban, sanban, number three looks interesting OK, well (.) number three, number three, number three looks interesting °Saru wa niku o taberu deshoo ka° ((laugh)) °Does a monkey eat meat?° ((laugh)) Doo desu ka? Saru wa niku o taberu deshoo ka, saru wa monkey desu, monkey


➙

199

How do you think? Does a monkey eat meat? ‘Monkey’ is monkey, monkey 4 E: °Tabenai jyan° ((laugh)) Doesn’t eat ((The teacher asks a few students the question)) 5

T:

6

E:

7

T:

8 9

E: T:

Aawin-san ni kikimasu, doo omoi masu ka, Aawin-san I will ask Erwin. Erwin, how do you think? Tabenai jyan Doesn’t eat Tabenai? Does not eat? ((laugh)) Hai ((laugh)) kare wa hakkiri shita iken ga arimasu, he’s got a «clear» opinion, ‘tabenai deshoo’, hai OK ((laugh)) He has a clear opinion, he’s got a clear opinion, ‘I think it doesn’t eat (meat)’, yes (Erwin, 24 Oct.)

The learners needed to answer the question with ‘jya nai ka to omoimasu’ (I think), a form to express one’s own opinion indirectly. The answer should be ‘Saru wa niku o tabenai n jya nai ka to omoimasu’ (I think that a monkey does not eat meat). On the contrary, Erwin’s answer in line 4 was very short and casual. Jyan is a colloquial expression used among friends. Erwin was aware of the use of ‘jya nai ka to omoimasu’ that the task required, because he used the form correctly for the answers to a few previous questions in the same task during the previous pair work. After the teacher asked him the question, Erwin presented his answer Tabenai jyan (doesn’t eat) in line 6. The teacher told the class that Erwin had a clear opinion, showing more polite expression tabenai deshoo (I think it doesn’t eat). According to Erwin, he wanted to use the casual expressions that he was familiar with in the classes. He considered that the teacher changed his expression tabenai jyan to tabenai deshoo, because the teacher regarded Erwin’s expression as inappropriate for the classroom speech. He was disappointed to find that the teacher did not repeat his expression to the class. He also reported that he wanted a strong expression to express his opinion rather than the neutral one such as tabenai deshoo. According to McCartney, he expected Erwin to present a correct answer with ‘jya nai ka to omoimasu’ after the inappropriate answers of the students who were asked the question first, because he considered that Erwin was an advanced student. Therefore, McCartney found Erwin’s answer a little bit disappointing for the other students. Actually, McCartney did not hear Erwin’s answer correctly. He thought that Erwin had said tabenai deshoo. He did not realize Erwin’s use of tabenai jyan until I pointed it out after listening to the


200

tape in his interview. He did not evaluate Erwin’s use of the casual expression in the class positively, mentioning that Erwin should be more careful about the speech style, because he was a competent student. The teacher’s expectation of the learners’ use of polite forms may have affected his perception of the learners’ private speech. When the learners said casual forms in their private speech, the teacher may have tended not to hear them. In Shimazu’s (2003) study, after a teacher changed her role from that of a teacher to a speaker to show an individual stance, a learner also took a speaker’s role from that of a learner to develop the conversation. A similar example is found in the following excerpts, in which McCartney pretended to be a man whose girlfriend rejected his proposal in order to introduce an example sentence with noni (although) to the class. The following Excerpt of Catherine indicates how she and Erwin, who was sitting next to her, reacted to McCartney’s example sentence: Excerpt 62

➙

➙

➙ ➙

((The teacher writes an example sentence with ‘noni’ (although) on the board)) 1 T: Yomemasu ka? (.) Gaarufurendo, Gaarufurendo ni daiamondo o ageru to itta noni, watashi to kekkon shite kurenakatta Can you read? (.) Although I told my girl friend that I would give her a diamond, she did not marry me. 2 C: °Ahhn° ((laugh)) °Ahhn° ((laugh)) 3 T: Daiamondo o ageru, [daiamondo o ageru to [[itta noni, watashi to kekkon shite kurenakatta Give (her) a diamond, although I said I would give her a diamond, she did not marry me. 4 C: [°Daiamondo o [[to° [°Diamond ACC [[CMP° 5 T: What’s happening (.) why was I upset 6 C: ((laugh)) 7 T: Why was I so sad (.) S? 8 S: Yeah, uhn like, like, you said you would give her a diamond but she didn’t marry you 9 T: Yeah, she didn’t marry me, umm 10 C: ((laugh)) 11 E: °Dame deshita nee° °It wasn’t good, was it?° 12 C: ((laugh)) °Kawai soo° ((laugh))° I feel sorry° (Catherine, 10 Oct.)


201

In the first line, the teacher introduced his example sentence that meant ‘although I said I would give her a diamond, she did not marry me’ in order to show how the form noni is used in the sentence. Catherine repeated parts of the sentence in line 4. After the teacher asked one of the students for the meaning of the sentence, Erwin and Catherine made comments on the teacher’s sentence in lines 11 and 12. Although the sentence was not his real experience, this elicited the comments of Erwin and Catherine in Japanese. In the following example, Lily also reacted to the same example sentence given by the teacher: Excerpt 63 ((The teacher writes an example sentence with ‘noni’ (although) on the board)) ➙

➙

1

L:

2

T:

3

L:

°Kekkon shite kure (.) nakatta (.) daiamondo o ageru to i:tta noni, watashi to kekkon shite kurenakatta° ((reading a sentence that the teacher has written on the board)) °ah happy° °She did not marry me (.) although I said I would give her a diamond, she did not marry me° ((reading a sentence that the teacher has written on the board)) °ah happy° Yomemasu ka? (.) Gaarufurendo ni daiamondo o ageru to itta noni, watashi to kekkon shite kurenakatta Can you read? (.) Although I told my girlfriend that I would give her a diamond, she did not marry me. °Good luck° °Good luck° (Lily, 10 Oct.)

Lily read the sentence that the teacher wrote on the board and made a comment ‘ah happy’ in line 1. After the teacher read the sentence in line 2, she made another comment of ‘good luck’ in the following line. According to Lily, she confused the form nakatta, which is the negative ending of the sentence, with natta (became) and understood it as an affirmative form. As a result, she translated the sentence as ‘as I told her I would give her a diamond, she married me’. Lily noticed her misunderstanding when the other learner presented the translation of the example sentence after Excerpt 63. In Excerpts 62 and 63, the teacher’s role still remained in his act of introducing an example sentence with the new form that he introduced; however, he added the implication of the speaker’s stance to his utterance. As a result, Catherine, Erwin and Lily made comments in private speech by showing their sympathy beyond the learners’ role in the classroom, although Lily misunderstood the meaning of the sentence.

202


The learners’ awareness of their role in the classroom based on the learner’s act and stance seemed to contribute to their use of private speech to express the speaker’s act. They expressed their feelings, opinions or criticisms in their private speech from the stance of ‘speaker’, and used casual or colloquial FL expressions in their private speech. One of the learners’ preferences for using a colloquial style conflicted with his teacher’s preference for his learners to use a polite style as classroom language. One of the teachers’ utterances from a speaker’s stance elicited his learners’ sympathetic comments in the target language. The data analysis also showed that both the teacher and the learners had multiple identities other than ‘teacher’ and ‘learner’, that is, as ‘speaker’ to express their feelings, experiences or opinions, or as ‘communicator’.

5.5. Perceptions of Private Speech by the Teachers and the Learners The learners were generally aware of their use of private speech in the classroom, commenting in their SR interviews that they were practising new expressions or monitoring their utterances. The teachers sometimes noticed the learners’ private speech and presented their utterances or asked the learners to present them to the class. Therefore, this section examines the learners’ awareness of their own private speech and the teachers’ perception of the learners’ use of private speech in the classroom. The learners tended to avoid speaking up to answer the teachers’ questions to the classes and holding their hands up to ask teachers questions in the classes, unless it was definitely necessary. These are the learners’ classroom strategies to avoid taking risks and to maintain relationships with the teachers and classmates by not disturbing the flow of the teaching and not standing out in the classes. The following comments of the learners reflect their perceptions: I don’t say anything (overtly) when another student is answering (the teacher). I don’t want to stand out. When one student stands out in the class, it’s not nice. (Erwin, 6 Apr.) When the other students are answering as well, I speak up. Otherwise, I just say answers softly. (Lily, 16 Mar.) Even when another student can’t answer the teacher’s question and I know a correct answer, I don’t speak up, because it may not be correct. (Wendy, 16 Mar.) I want to show off my knowledge in the class. But I don’t want to speak up or hold my hand up to say answers. If I do that, the teacher and the other students will think I want to show off. I want them to think she doesn’t show off but she is smart. (Kiki, 11 Aug.)


203

Karp and Yoels (1976) stated that in university classrooms in USA, learners who are too much involved in verbal interactions with their teachers are considered an annoyance by the other learners in the classes. This may be one of the reasons for the learners’ perceptions found in the above comments. Moreover, these perceptions led to the learners avoiding answering or asking the teachers questions directly and increased their use of private speech in the classes. According to Senior (1999), teachers of adult language classes perceive that ‘a good class’ should be socially cohesive, and that the presence of cohesion is shown by external indicators such as the learners’ body language or responsiveness. Senior found that learners also tried to maintain social cohesion in the classes, and that once the cohesion developed, it is difficult for the learners to express dissatisfaction with the teachers. Senior explained, thus, that there is a gap between the teachers’ and the learners’ views, although both perceive social cohesion as important. The learners in my study seemed to be keen to maintain the classes’ cohesiveness by avoiding speaking up unless they were required to do so by the teachers. A few learners were sometimes uncertain about who they really answered, when the teachers asked the class or other learners questions. Their perceptions are found in the following comments: When the teacher asks questions to the class, I just answer. I don’t care if he hears or not. (Catherine, 8 Apr.) I probably answer half to self and half to the teacher. I am not sure. (Jessica, 16 Mar.) A few other learners commented on situations where they directly answered the teachers after the teachers’ questions to the classes. Their comments are shown below: (When the teacher asks questions to the class) If I am very confident about my answer, I speak up. (Lily, 16 Mar.) When the teacher looks at me and no other students answer, I speak up. (Erwin, 16 Mar.) When I am confident, I answer to the teacher or the class. When I am not very confident, I just answer to self or the students around me. (Kiki, 27 Oct.) All the learners mentioned that vocalization of their answers was useful for them, even when the teachers did not hear them. All the learners, except Kiki, commented that presenting their answers to the class made them nervous, even when they were relatively confident with their answers. Kiki expressed her preference for being called on by her teacher and presenting her answers to the class in order to show off her knowledge. To prepare for these opportunities,

204


she often rehearsed her answers in private speech or with her friends in the classes. In one of her interviews, she complained that the teachers did not call on the students very often in the classes. On the other hand, the other learners preferred saying their answers to themselves rather than presenting them to the class. Lily and Kiki expressed that they felt happy when their teachers heard their private speech and presented them to the class as correct answers. Kiki sometimes expected that the students sitting close to her may hear her private speech such as vicarious responses and be impressed, according to her comments in her SR interviews. The learners seemed to have some awareness of being heard by their teachers or classmates while using private speech, although the degree of their awareness was different, according to the individuals. Broner and Tarone (2001) distinguished learners’ awareness of overhearers in language play as fun from that in language play as rehearsal: If the utterance seems addressed to self, with no speaker awareness of overhearers, it is likely to be an instance of rehearsal or private speech. If the utterance appears to be public, that is, a kind of performance for the amusement of others, the utterance is probably language play in the sense of fun. (p. 367) According to this definition, the objective of language play as fun is to entertain others; therefore it cannot be private speech. However, JFL learners repeated their teachers’ strange intonations, manipulated language sounds or forms for fun, or made funny comments, and they mentioned in their SR interviews that they did this only for their amusement, and not to entertain others. The learners also showed a different degree of awareness of overhearers in their language play as fun. Erwin always commented that he was having fun just to entertain himself and did not care whether his classmates sitting close to him heard him or not. On the other hand, according to Kiki, she sometimes considered that the learners sitting next to her might hear her and laugh while she was amusing herself. In this sense, Kiki’s language play as fun in her private speech may be closer to performance. When the learners were repeating the utterances of their teachers or classmates, manipulating the language sounds or forms to monitor them, preparing task answers in case they were called on, or reading aloud words or sentences, they tended not to be aware of overhearers. The learners usually reported that they were concentrating on what they were saying and did not care whether they were being overheard by others or not. The learners generally seemed to be more aware of overhearers while they were vicariously answering their teachers’ questions, compared to when repeating, manipulating the language or rehearsing. They sometimes reported that they were aware of the possibility of being overheard by their teachers or classmates


205

while answering their teachers’ questions to the class in their private speech. Again, the frequency and degree of their awareness of overhearers varied between the individuals. As explained earlier in this section, Kiki was more aware of the overhearers than the other learners. The teachers’ perceptions of the learners’ private speech varied between the two. Ito was more likely to notice the private speech of her learners compared to McCartney. McCartney heard the learners’ private speech in Japanese and presented them to the class a few times. However, when some learners sitting close to him said answers in their private speech, he often did not notice them, and commented in his SR interviews that he did not hear any answers. On the contrary, in her interviews, Ito often expressed her awareness of vicarious responses by the learners sitting close to her. Ishii (1997) investigated teachers’ and learners’ perceptions of classroom speech in a Japanese language class at a primary school in Japan and found a gap between a teacher’s and his/her learners’ viewpoints. One of the learners responded to his teacher covertly several times while the teacher was talking to some other learners. The teacher picked up on one of his utterances, when the contents of the learners’ utterances matched the intentions of the teachers’ classroom teaching. There were a few cases when McCartney heard the learners’ private speech and presented it to the class or asked the learners to present them to the class. The teachers made some comments on their perceptions of the learners’ private speech. According to McCartney, when he found major errors in the learners’ repetitions of what he had said or their answers while giving his instructions or while asking another student a question, he corrected them. He commented that he was ‘neutral’ about the learners’ use of their private speech, not mentioning that it was good or disturbing. Ito positively evaluated the learners’ practice of vocalizing the items that were introduced in the classes and their voluntary answers to her questions in their private speech. In the following example, McCartney presented Lily’s utterance in her private speech to the class: Excerpt 64 ((The teacher shows a photo of lions to practice ‘koto ga dekiru’ (can)))

➙

1 2 3

T: L: T:

4

L:

5

T:

Last year ((laugh)) Kyonen, [kyonen Last year, [last year [°Kyonen° ((laugh)) [°Last year° ((laugh)) Afurika ni ikimashita (.) Iroiro na doobutsu [[ga I went to Africa (.) Various animals [[NOM


206

➙

➙

6

L:

7

T:

8

L:

9

T:

10

L:

11

T:

[[°O° [[°ACC° O, iroiro na doobutsu o miru koto ga dekimashsita. Iroiro na ACC I could see various animals. Various °Doobutsu o° °Animals ACC° [[Omoshiroi doobutsu o [[Interesting animals ACC [[°Abunai ((laugh)) dangerous° [[°Dangerous° ((laugh)) dangerous° Miru koto ga dekimashita I could see (Lily, 30 May)

The teacher was talking to the class about the photo of lions to show an example sentence with koto ga dekiru (can). Lily suggested the particle o, which is an object marker, in line 6 after iroiro na doobutsu (various animals) in the teacher’s utterance for the following verb miru, and this overlapped the teacher’s use of another particle ga, which is a subject marker. Although Lily mentioned in her SR interview that she did not say it to the teacher, he heard her utterance and changed the particle from ga to o to add miru koto ga dekimashita (I could see) in line 7. Lily continued the sentence that the teacher started with iroiro na (various) in line 7 in the following line. After the teacher’s utterance in line 9, Lily made a comment with the English translation. In his SR interview, McCartney mentioned that he started the sentence with iroiro na doobutsu ga without thinking about the following part in line 5 and positively evaluated Lily’s use of the correct particle for koto ga dekiru. According to Lily, a few other students also suggested o when she said it, and she was happy to find her use of the particle was correct when the teacher changed the particles. Ito also heard Jessica’s private speech and presented it to the class in the next excerpt: Excerpt 65 ((The teacher asks the class what kinds of suggestions could be made when someone says ‘kono heya wa samui desu ne’ (this room is cold, isn’t it?))) ➙

1 2 3

T: J: T:

4

J:

Any other suggestion? Any other offer? °°Turn on°° Turn the heater [on, ne Turn the heater [on, OK? [On [On (Jessica, 23 Aug.)


207

The teacher presented Jessica’s vicarious response in line 2 to the class in the subsequent line. As Jessica sat in front of the classroom, the teacher heard her answer given in a soft voice. In her SR interview, Ito positively evaluated Jessica’s answer in her private speech. As McCartney mentioned in his SR interview, he heard Catherine’s utterance in her private speech and corrected it in the following example, which is one of Catherine’s CF episodes: Excerpt 66 ((One of the students asks a question about the adjective ‘nigiyaka’ (busy)))

➙

➙

1 2

S: T:

3

C:

4

T:

5

C:

Is that a good adjective or bad? Uh it’s OK. It depends. Honkon wa nigiyaka desu. Harajyuku wa nigiyaka desu. Uh it’s OK. It depends. Hong Kong is busy. Harajyuku is busy. °Harajyuku wa° °Harajyuku TOP° Crowded, noisy, I suppose if you like [that sort of things, then it’s a positive, there’s a positive nuance. [°ˆNigiyaka (.) to omoimasuˆ° [°ˆ I think it’s busyˆ° ((error))

((The teacher warns the student who was talking with his neighbour))

➙

6

T:

7

C:

8

T:

9

C:

What happens to ‘nigiyaka’? The point is that it’s uh it’s a na-adjective. Harajyuku wa nigiyaka [[«da» to omoimasu ((writes ‘da to omoimasu’ (I think) after ‘nigiyaka’ (busy) on the board)) What happens to ‘busy’? The point is that it’s uh it’s a na-adjective. I think Harajyuku is busy. ((writes ‘I think’ after ‘busy’ on the board)) [[°Da (.) da° [[°COP (.) COP° Harajyku wa nigiyaka da to omoimasu. Ashita wa iku tsumori desu, ashita wa iku tsumori desu. I think that Harajyuku is busy. I intend to go there tomorrow. I intend to go there tomorrow. (..) °Omoimasu, nigiyaka da to omoimasu° (..) ° I think, I think it’s busy° (Catherine, 4 Apr.)

The teacher wrote the adjective nigiyaka (busy or exciting) on the board and one of the students asked a question about the adjective in line 1. Then Catherine made a sentence with to omoimasu in lines 3 and 5. Although the last part of her utterance overlapped the teacher’s explanation in 4, he heard it.

208


After this, the teacher warned a student who was talking about something else with his neighbour and confirmed his understanding of the teacher’s explanation. Following this brief interaction, the teacher showed the necessity of a copula da after nigiyaka with a metalinguistic explanation in line 6. The teacher also wrote da to omoimasu after nigiyaka on the board. Catherine repeated da in line 7 and nigiyaka da to omoimasu (I think (Harajyuku is) busy) in line 9. Catherine was sitting at the back of the classroom, and she mentioned in her SR interview that she was trying to work out the sentence on her own and did not have the intention to say it to the teacher. However, her utterance was slightly louder compared to her other private speech; therefore, the teacher heard it. The teacher’s explanation in line 6 reminded Catherine of the necessity of da and she commented that she had added da in the answer she had written in her notebook while repeating da in line 7. According to McCartney, when he heard Catherine’s utterance, he decided to clarify to the class how to change the na-adjective with to omoimasu, because he considered that her error might be common among the students. He commented that he probably heard her repetition of da in line 7 and confirmed her understanding. In the above examples, the learners’ utterances that were picked up by the teachers were expressions in relation to the teachers’ example sentences or a vicarious response to the teacher’s question to the class. The teachers did not pick up and present the learners’ private speech that functioned as their selfexpressions or emotional release. As Ishii (1997) stated, the teachers picked up the learners’ private speech when they matched their teaching intentions at that particular moment in the classes. The learners tended to avoid speaking out their answers unless they were called on by their teachers. This seemed to contribute to the frequent use of their private speech in the classroom. The learners’ awareness of being overheard while using private speech varied between the individuals. When they were repeating, manipulating forms or sounds, or reading aloud words or sentences, they were likely to be unaware of being overheard. When they were vicariously answering their teachers’ questions, they tended to be more aware of being overheard. One of the learners had a stronger awareness of the existence of overhearers compared to the other learners. The teachers’ perceptions of their learners’ use of private speech depended on the individuals. They were likely to notice their learners’ private speech when the contents of the private speech matched the intentions of their teaching at a particular moment in the class.

5.6. Private Speech and Non-Verbal Aspects As mentioned in Chapter 1, the video-recordings did not include all the participants’ classroom behaviours or their facial expressions in each recorded


209

class. In spite of this limitation, there were some findings about the learners’ non-verbal behaviours while using private speech in relation to the teachers’ awareness of their private speech. For instance, Lily and Catherine stayed in McCartney’s class throughout the course. The teacher’s perception of their private speech changed between the first and second semesters. At the beginning of Semester 1, McCartney sometimes noticed Lily’s private speech and positively evaluated her answers and participation in the classroom events. However, in Semester 2, McCartney did not even remember her name and face. On the other hand, although he was uncertain about Catherine’s name and face in Semester 1, he evaluated her good language ability in Semester 2, noticed her private speech, and also asked her task questions very often. Lily tended to sit at the front of the classroom in Semester 1, while Catherine sat at the back with her friends, but sat at the front for most of the classes in Semester 2. However, even when both Lily and Catherine were sitting in the front and actively using their private speech for vicarious responses, the teacher did not notice Lily’s private speech, but heard Catherine’s. No obvious changes were found in their private speech between the first and second semesters. The difference between Lily and Catherine in the use of their private speech was found in their non-verbal behaviours while they were using private speech. Lily often looked down when she was using her private speech, while Catherine was looking at the front. This is related to their perception of being heard by their teacher. Lily mentioned in her interviews that she did not want the teacher to hear her incorrect answers, while Catherine stated in her interview that being heard and corrected by her teacher would be good for her learning, although it was embarrassing. This may also be relevant to the learners’ confidence. In the class in which Lily commented that she was very confident, her teacher picked up both Lily’s overt and covert speech, and Lily mentioned in her SR interview that she felt good when the teacher noticed her correct answer. Erwin also stayed in McCartney’s class in both semesters, as Lily and Catherine did. Although the teacher did not notice most of Erwin’s private speech, he commented in his interview that he was ‘scared of’ Erwin, because Erwin ‘sometimes knew better than a teacher’. According to McCartney, he sometimes considered from Erwin’s facial expressions that he might be criticizing the teacher’s utterances. Actually, some of Erwin’s private speech indicated his criticism of the teacher’s method of teaching or inappropriate expressions. The teacher noticed his criticism not from his verbal expressions, but from non-verbal facial ones. McCafferty (1998) investigated the relationship between gestures and private speech. In his study, most of the gestures used by the learners expressed their object-regulation. Jessica frequently used nodding during Ito’s instructions in Semester 2. However, her nodding did not always indicate her understanding of the teacher’s instructions. In her SR interviews, Jessica commented that she used nodding just as she did while listening to the talks of her interlocutors

210


in ordinary conversations outside the classroom, and that she was not always attending to the contents of the instructions while she was nodding. Therefore, her nodding during the teacher’s instructions could be her classroom strategy to overtly maintain her relationship with the teacher. Furthermore, this showed Jessica’s object-regulation; responding to the teacher’s utterances without understanding them, rather than self-regulation; controlling her understanding and concentrating on the instructions. Overall, the learners who used private speech frequently, that is, Lily, Catherine and Erwin, were active in their non-verbal expressions such as smiling or nodding. Lily often used nodding with findings in her private speech. However, Wendy did not change her facial expression very often. She used smiling and nodding less frequently than the other learners. This suggests the relationship between private speech and non-verbal behaviours.

5.7. Private Speech and Regulation Private speech has been examined in relation to learners’ regulation (selfregulation, other-regulation and object-regulation) in previous studies (Lantolf and Frawley, 1984; McCafferty, 1992, 1994b), based on Wertsch’s (1979) concept. As mentioned earlier, all private speech of the learners had more or less a self-regulatory function. However, according to the type of private speech or how the private speech was being used, some may be more self-regulatory, while the others may be closer to object-regulatory or other-regulatory. Expressing their own answers or opinions in vicarious responses and comments seem to be more self-regulatory compared to simply repeating the utterances of the teachers or classmates. Among vicarious responses, making complicated sentences would be more self-regulatory than simply changing some words in example sentences. Erwin was self-regulated by trying to use the forms and expressions that he had learned outside the classes, using his own unique expressions that were different from the others, appreciating variations of the forms, and expressing his opinions in his private speech. He controlled his learning in the classroom through his use of private speech as he did in his self-study before taking the course. Lily and Catherine were self-regulated in that they actively participated in the classes by using their private speech. They tested, monitored and practised by repeating, manipulating words, forms, sentences and responding to the utterances of their teacher and classmates in their private speech. Kiki was a strategic learner with a strong awareness of how she was being perceived by her teachers and classmates (as being a strong student or not). She also preferred to have fun in the class and mimicked her teachers and the speech on the tape given as a listening exercise in her private speech. This use of private


211

speech can be self-regulatory by Kiki controlling herself in the class and concentrating on the classroom events. Although she mentioned that she imitated the tape and the teachers for fun, Kiki was also aware of learning in the classes. Jessica repeated the teachers’ utterances and vicariously answered the teachers’ questions to the class or the other students, while she sometimes spoke directly to the teachers. Her vicarious responses often started slightly after the other learners who were also answering the teachers’ questions, overlapping partly with their answers. Jessica reported in her interviews that she heard the first parts of their answers before starting her answers. This means that the other learners’ answers gave her the clues to the answers. Jessica also tended to respond in English to English questions or instructions given by her teachers. She usually read aloud words or short expressions, while the other learners read aloud sentences. Regarding these points, Jessica may not be self-regulated compared to the other learners, such as Erwin, Lily, Catherine or Kiki. It is difficult to discuss Wendy’s regulation, as the data of her private speech were small compared to the other learners. She was not very active in participating in the classes, did not voluntarily answer the teacher’s questions to the class or express her opinions to the teacher or the class, both overly and covertly. She sometimes did not participate in choral repetitions. When she participated in them, she repeated clauses or sentences very softly. According to Wendy, she did not repeat items when she found the expressions too easy or too difficult. It is possible that she was engaging in her subvocal private speech in the classes. However, when I asked her in her interviews whether she had answers in her mind while the teachers were asking the other students questions, Wendy usually mentioned that she could not think about the answers or that she was just listening. She participated in peer work and answered when she was called on by the teachers. Ito, who taught Wendy in Semester 2, commented that she was uncertain about Wendy’s speaking ability, because she was quiet in the class, although she showed a good ability with her writing. Ito emphasized that the learners who relied heavily on writing cannot develop their speaking skills, pointing out that there are a few learners who could not understand what they listened to unless they wrote everything down. Therefore, Wendy can be other-regulated in her speaking, as her participation in the classes was not active, either overtly or covertly, while she may be selfregulated in her writing.

5.8. Learners’ Private Interactions other than Private Speech in the Teacher-Fronted Setting The learners used private speech as a cognitive tool for practising, memorizing, or monitoring target-language forms or expressions and as a tool for self-expression and emotional release by making jokes or comments. They also


212

used the target language to communicate with their classmates, not only in the peer-learning setting, but also in the teacher-fronted setting. In this section, some of those examples are examined, because these examples can be a kind of the learners’ covert verbal participation in the classes, although they interacted with their classmates directly. These examples also show that the learners used the target language as a communicative tool beyond the task exercises. In the next excerpt, Kiki spoke to her friend in one of the classes: Excerpt 67 ((At the end of pair work)) 1

K:

S-san, number two, jya S-san, hai doozo! ((talking to her friend sitting next to her)) S, number two, well S, please do that! ((talking to her friend sitting next to her))

((a little later)) 2

T:

3

K:

Ii desu ka? Kore chotto muzukashii desu yo ne:? Ano: (.) jya chotto yatte miru yo, second one, [Yamada-san no ie no chikaku de kaji ga atta soo desu ne: Are you ready? This is a bit difficult, isn’t it? Well (.) then, let’s try, second one, [I heard that there was a fire near Mr/Ms Yamada’s house [°S-san!° ((talking to her friend sitting next to her)) [°S!° ((talking to her friend sitting next to her)) (Kiki, 24 Oct.)

During the pair work, Kiki pretended to be a teacher and called on S who was sitting next to her to ask a task question in line 1. After the teacher started reading a task question in line 2, Kiki called on S, pretending to be a teacher again. She said S-san, hai doozo (S, please do that) a few times following the above excerpt while the teacher was talking to the class or the other students. In her SR interview, Kiki mentioned that she was making fun of her friend, S, to entertain him and herself, and that she needed fun, because there were usually many items to learn and very little fun in the classes. Kiki’s utterances were not related to the linguistic items that the class was learning. However, she expressed herself in Japanese appropriately while speaking to her friend. The following Excerpt shows Lily’s example when she was talking to the student sitting next to her during her teacher’s instruction: Excerpt 68 ((The teacher writes a sentence ‘Tabesugi wa dame yo!’ (Eating too much is no good!) on the board))

Private Speech: Perceptions 1

T:

2

L:

3

T:

4

L:

213

Tabesugi wa dame da yo! dame yo! Eating too much is no good! No good! °Hai hai hai° ((talking to the student sitting next to her)) °Yes, yes, yes° ((talking to the student sitting next to her)) Nomisugi wa dame, [don’t overdrink, it’s not good Drinking too much is no good, [don’t overdrink, it’s not good [°Tabe sugi, hai dame yo:!° ((laugh)) ((talking to the student sitting next to her)) [°Eating too much, yes, no good!° ((laugh)) ((talking to the student sitting next to her)) (Lily, 8 Aug.)

After the class practised the form sugiru (doing something too much), the teacher introduced the expression tabesugi (eating too much) and wrote the sentence ‘Tabesugi wa dame yo!’ (Eating too much is no good!) on the board. Lily pointed to the student sitting next to her with her finger and moved it while she was saying Hai, hai, hai (Yes, yes, yes) in line 2, and said the sentence ‘Tabesugi wa dame yo!’ to him in line 4. In her SR interview, Lily mentioned that she was making fun with her classmate by using the expression introduced by the teacher. Catherine also spoke to her friend, A, by using a similar expression in the same class: Excerpt 69 ((After introducing the expression ‘Tabesugi wa dame’ (Eating too much is no good), the teacher introduced a similar expression)) 1

T:

2

C:

Nomisugi wa dame, don’t overdrink, it’s not good Drinking too much is no good, don’t overdrink, it’s not good °Yeah, osake o nomisugi wa dame yo, dame yo° ((talking to the student, A, sitting next to her)) °Yeah, drinking too much alcohol is no good, no good° ((talking to the student sitting next to her)) (Catherine, 8 Aug.)

According to Catherine, she said the sentence ‘osake o nomisugi wa dame yo’ (drinking too much alcohol is no good) to A sitting next to her for fun, because she knew that he drank alcohol. In Excerpts 68 and 69, Lily and Catherine repeated the expressions that the teacher had introduced, to their classmates, in a real situation and not as classroom exercises. According to Catherine’s comment in one of her SR interviews, although it was embarrassing to make basic errors when she talked to native Japanese speakers, she did not feel very embarrassed when she did so with her classmates in the classes. Erwin also commented in his SR interview


214

that interacting with other students in Japanese was good for his learning, because he did not have the opportunity before taking the course, pointing out that using Japanese in real contexts promoted his memorization of the language. As Sato and Lyster (2007) found, the learners seemed to be more relaxed when they interact with other learners than when they interact with native speakers. Oxford (1990) stated that practising new language in natural and realistic settings is the most significant strategy among cognitive strategies. The learners’ spontaneous use of Japanese expressions in the above examples of Kiki, Lily and Catherine looks closer to a natural situation compared to their use of Japanese in the classroom exercises. In the following excerpt, Catherine and Erwin interacted in Japanese with each other. The topic of the class was a job interview, and the teacher was telling the class to look at an example of a Japanese résumé in the course notes: Excerpt 70 1

T:

2

C:

3

E:

4

C:

Please go back to page 68, ee rokujyuu hachi peeji desu Please go back to page 68, page 68 (.) °Otoko to onna no hito desu° ((laugh)) (.) °Man and woman° ((laugh)) (.) °Docchi demo?° (.) °Can be either?° ((laugh)) °Docchi demo, docchi demo ii desu° ((laugh)) °Can be either, does not matter° (Catherine, 5 Sep.)

According to Catherine, she circled between male and female in the place which indicated a candidate’s sex in the résumé, and Erwin found it and pointed to the place in her course notes with his finger. Catherine responded to his action by making an utterance in line 2. Her laughter shows that she was making a joke. Erwin asked her whether she did not mind not indicating either male or female in line 3. Catherine said that she did not mind this in the last line. Another example of a private interaction between Catherine and Erwin was introduced as Excerpt 24 in 5.2. The Excerpt is reproduced below again: Excerpt 24 ((The teacher tells the class that he is moving on to the next grammatical form that should be practised in the class)) 1 T: Jyaa uhn I have to push on, so move on to the next item on an agenda, which is (.) rashii (.) gohyaku ni peeji Well, uhn I have to push on, so move on to the next item on the agenda, which is (.) ‘seem to’ (.) page 502


C:

3

E:

4

C:

215

(..) °Subarashii° ((laugh)) (..) °Wonderful° ((laugh)) °Sore wa chigau n jya nai?° °Isn’t it different?° ((laugh)) °Soo kamo° ((laugh)) °Maybe° (Catherine, 24 Oct.)

The teacher told the class that they were moving on to the next form to learn rashii (I hear that) in the first line. In the following line, Catherine said subarashii (wonderful), the word that included rashii, but was not relevant with the form that the teacher was trying to introduce. Erwin pointed out the difference and Catherine agreed with him in the last line. In her SR interview, Catherine commented that she knew that subarashii was not related to the form that the class was practising, and that she was making a joke in line 2. Erwin also mentioned that ‘she was probably joking’. Erwin responded to Catherine’s joke appropriately and Catherine’s response to Erwin’s utterance was also appropriate. In Excerpts 70 and 24, the Japanese interactions between Catherine and Erwin were very natural. The purpose of their interactions was not to solve problems in relation to linguistic items that were introduced in the classes. However, they interacted with each other appropriately using the target language in real situations. In Excerpts 67–70 and Excerpt 24, the learners make jokes with their classmates by using the target language, as children in Cekaite and Aronsson (2005) did in their language play. As Cekaite and Aronsson stated, making jokes in a target language may be the process of not only practising the language, but also being qualified as participants in the classroom community. The interactions between learners in teacher-fronted settings tend to be regarded as distractions and negatively evaluated, as Bunno (2004) stated. Teachers sometimes give warnings to the learners who make such utterances, as McCartney actually did a few times in his class. However, when learners interact with their classmates in the target language outside task activities, they are expressing themselves or communicating with their classmates in the languages in situations close to natural ones where the languages are used. As Cekaite and Aronsson (2005) described, ‘the authenticity or “naturalness” ’ (p. 188) of the learners’ language in that type of interaction cannot be questioned. This is important for the learners’ development of the skills needed to communicate with others in the target language. Even when learners’ interactions are not for solving problems, their interactions are still social opportunities to express themselves or communicate with their classmates by using the target language in the classroom.

216


5.9. Learners’ Development throughout the Course At the end of this chapter, the learners’ development throughout the course is examined in relation to their motivation and goals for taking the Japanese course. Although the development of Erwin’s metalinguistic awareness was found in his CF episodes, very few obvious changes were found in the language of the other learners in their CF episodes or private speech throughout the 1-year course. However, all the learners commented that they became more confident with speaking Japanese compared to the beginning of the course due to the increase of their knowledge of the Japanese language. Oxford (1990) stated that greater confidence can cause learners’ better attitudes and increase their motivation to continue using a new language. In this section, each learner’s development is described first, and then some common features are discussed. Jessica’s goal was to pass the subject to fulfil her course requirement. Her object-regulated and sometimes other-regulated behaviours in the classrooms or in learning Japanese seemed to be associated with her goal. She was not confident with her pronunciation and this made her hesitant to speak up. She was often satisfied with receiving correct answers to task questions from the teachers without analysing them compared to her own answers. However, Jessica participated in peer work more actively in Semester 2 compared to Semester 1, and this triggered the increase of CF that she received in the peer-work settings. At the end of the course, she passed the subject and mentioned that she was satisfied with the course. She reported progress in speaking Japanese in her last interview. According to Jessica, although she was scared of speaking Japanese in the class at the beginning of the course with a fear of making errors, she spoke Japanese without worrying about making errors very much in Semester 2. This may be the reason why she participated in the peer work more actively in Semester 2. Her more frequent use of vicarious responses in Semester 2 shows that Jessica became more active in answering her teacher’s question covertly. The development of her confidence also invited her change in preference for the types of CF received from her teachers, as she commented that she preferred being given time for self-correction before being provided correct answers in Semester 2. Erwin’s motivation for taking the course was to obtain the opportunity of formal learning of Japanese in order to develop his knowledge and skills from his self-study. At the beginning of the course, he commented in his SR interview that he usually judged the correctness of forms based on whether they sounded proper or not without thinking about the grammar, as mentioned in Chapter 3. However, at the end of the course, he started relying on his grammatical knowledge to explain the correctness of a particular form to his classmate in group work (see Excerpt 25 in Chapter 3). Erwin seemed to have some automatized forms or expressions in Japanese from his self-study before


217

starting the course at the university. In the process of this study, his way of mediating through Japanese language changed according to the development of his grammatical knowledge. He started relying on the grammatical knowledge rather than his intuition. Vygotsky (1986, 1987) stated that children’s everyday concepts and scientific concepts, which are introduced through verbal means at school, influence each other. Lantolf and Thorne (2006) interpret Vygotsky’s statement as follows: spontaneous knowledge being made visible and more systematic as a consequence of learners’ encountering scientific concepts in the educational setting. (p. 301) Erwin’s spontaneous knowledge of the Japanese language from his self-study may have become more visible and systematic by learning the grammar of the language in the course. The course created his ZPD in relation to Japanese grammar which led him to a more conceptual understanding of the Japanese language system. Some of the grammatical knowledge was internalized and he reached the stage where he could support his classmates by using his grammatical knowledge. Erwin mentioned in his last interview that he became more aware of grammar without relying only on whether the sentences sounded proper or not, which was his strategy in his self-study before starting the course and at the beginning of the course. Erwin also commented that he knew a lot of the vocabulary and expressions that were introduced in the course, but that he did not know their background grammatical theories. He considered that grammatical knowledge was also useful for his learning. Catherine had good learning strategies, often vocalizing words and sentences while writing them down. She reported that she used this strategy when she studied Japanese at home as well. She also read many Japanese comics, checked the vocabulary with her dictionary after writing them in her notebook, and asked her Japanese friends when she did not find the meanings in the dictionary. She was the only learner who regularly spoke Japanese with her Japanese friends. She was aware of the effects of her strategies, such as vocalization or speaking Japanese with native speakers. She perceived the classroom as a place for further understanding and practice of what she prepared before the classes. Catherine participated more actively in the class in Semester 2. She appeared to enjoy the classes, interacting with the teacher and her classmates. The teacher’s realization of her proficiency and paying more attention to her may have promoted her active participation in the class. Catherine may also have been stimulated by interacting with Erwin, who was very proficient in his Japanese and sat next to her in a few classes in Semester 2, as McCartney mentioned in his interview. She received more direct CF from the teacher in Semester 2, because he called on her very often. In terms of her goal of being

218


able to have appropriate conversations with Japanese people when she visits Japan, she mentioned that she had one problem when she stayed in Japan, because she could not ask, ‘Where is a toilet?’ in Japanese. Catherine reported in her last interview that she was able to use more appropriate forms in and outside the class in Semester 2 compared to Semester 1. Kiki was interested in developing her speaking skills, but not writing or reading academic sentences. She perceived the classroom as a place to show off her knowledge. However, she preferred doing it covertly rather than overtly. Therefore, she did not speak out often, but vicariously answered the teachers in her private speech. She commented that even if the teacher did not hear, she would still be able to impress the students around her with her answers. She enjoyed being called on by the teachers and presenting her answers to the class, and mentioned that she would like to have more opportunities to do so. It was Kiki’s strategy to present herself as a ‘smart student’ and to be comfortable in the classes. She did not listen to the teachers when she was preparing her answers in case she was called on by the teachers. She did not listen to the teachers or classmates, either, when she was not interested in the tasks. She pretended to have understood one of the teacher’s explanations, when she was not interested in continuing the tasks. Kiki’s attitudes in the classrooms can be explained from the perspective of activity theory. Kiki’s motive for learning Japanese is her interest in staying in Japan to go shopping or to meet good-looking Japanese guys. Therefore, she was not enthusiastic about obtaining complicated or academic sentence structures, but she was keen to develop her speaking skills. This attitude of Kiki sometimes conflicted with one of her teachers’ intention to provide further information in order to make the learners’ expressions more sophisticated. According to Kiki’s comment in her last interview, she became more confident in Semester 2, because she knew the structure of the class better than in Semester 1 and was familiar with some of the grammatical forms introduced in the course from her study of the Japanese language when she was in China. She was more relaxed and enjoyed herself, although she sometimes did not listen to her teacher’s instructions about the grammatical explanation, which she was not interested in, during Semester 2. This tendency was found in her private speech, during which she was engaging in language as fun more often in Semester 2. Lily was most active in her private speech compared to the other learners. This may be triggered by her perception of what is a ‘teacher’ and a ‘learner’ in the classroom. She commented in her interview that she accepted everything the teacher said, even when the teacher’s expressions or explanations did not sound proper to her. As Karp and Yoels (1976) informed that throughout school education learners are instilled with the strong belief that ‘teachers are “experts” who possess the “truth” ’ (p. 432), Lily seemed to perceive the role of the teacher as providing information and the role of the learners as accepting the information without discussing it with the teacher. She actively answered


219

the teacher’s questions, repeated the teacher’s utterances and expressed herself in private speech. She did not prefer to be obviously corrected by her teacher in the classes. This may also have contributed to her frequent use of private speech instead of overt speech in class. Lily commented in her last interview that she could not find enough time to study the Japanese language in Semester 2 because of the heavy workload of her major subject. Her reduced confidence from the lack of preparation or review showed in her non-verbal behaviours with her private speech in Semester 2, and this led to her teacher often not remembering her name and face during the teacher’s interviews. In spite of her reduced confidence in most of the classes in Semester 2, Lily reported that she became more confident about her knowledge of the Japanese language, although she did not achieve her goal of knowing the Japanese language and culture further to the extent that she wanted to achieve. According to Lily, she would continue taking the Japanese language course, because she took most of her major subjects during that year and would find more time to study Japanese in the following year. Wendy was least active in both overt and covert speech among the learners. Her strong preference of writing to speaking may have contributed to her less frequent speech in the Japanese language classroom. This is also related to her perception of the classroom. She commented that the classroom was a place to obtain further understanding of what she prepared before the classes. From her comments on her learning strategies, Wendy seemed to perceive the classroom as a place to obtain grammatical knowledge, and not the place to practice speaking. According to Wendy, she considered that vocalization would be necessary for speaking practice, but that writing was more effective for memorizing grammatical forms. She mentioned that she was not good at speaking, and that she would like to stay in Japan to learn speaking there after her graduation. She seemed to consider that she would not be able to practise her speaking in the language-focused class, while some other learners actually practised their speaking in the class by using both their overt and covert speech. She achieved her goal, filling the requirement as her second major. While she did not seem to improve her speaking skills, she seemed to develop her grammatical knowledge. She used ‘finding’ often in her private speech in Semester 2 compared to Semester 1. The increase of her knowledge of Japanese grammar contributed to the improvement of her noticing. Although the learners reported increased confidence with their knowledge of the Japanese language, all of them commented that their attitudes of not speaking to the teachers directly unless it was definitely necessary did not change throughout the course. This is probably related to their perception of the roles of teachers and learners in the classroom, as discussed in Chapters 3 and 5. However, some learners tended to speak up more often in Semester 2 compared to Semester 1, and they seemed to be unaware of speaking up, according to their comments in their SR interviews. Although their perception

220


of the learners’ role in the class did not change, the development of their confidence seemed to lead them to speak up without being aware of doing so. Lantolf and Thorne (2007) state the following: Development within the ZPD is not just about performance per se; it is also about where the locus of control for that performance resides – in someone else or in learners themselves. (p. 212) According to the learners’ development of confidence, they seemed to increase their self-regulation. More active participation by both Jessica and Catherine in the classes in Semester 2 shows an increase in their self-regulation. Erwin’s development of his metalinguistic awareness contributed to his increased participation in metatalk14 in peer work, indicating the development of his control of Japanese grammar. Kiki developed self-regulation in Semester 2 in her own style by having fun and entertaining herself. Wendy’s more frequent use of ‘finding’ in her private speech shows the increase of her self-regulation to notice various linguistic items in the class in Semester 2. Moreover, feeling more comfortable and confident in the classes can mean that the learners are in the process of developing their self-regulation in the classroom learning.

5.10. Summary of the Chapter In this section, I indicate the answers to the research questions to describe how the learners’ use of private speech and the teachers’ and the learners’ perceptions of private speech are associated with the classroom contexts and sociocultural factors. Research question 1: How does learners’ private speech function in JFL classrooms? The learners used private speech for some different functions, and the private speech proved to be an important method for learners to participate in classroom activities and is an integral part of the learners’ learning process. The learners used private speech to practise the language, test their hypotheses, and monitor their own utterances by repeating their own utterances or those of others, manipulating sounds or forms, or vicariously answering their teachers’ questions (cognitive and metacognitive functions). They also used private speech for self-expression, emotional release, and entertaining themselves by mimicking the teachers’ intonations or the conversation on a tape (a listening exercise), or making critical or funny comments (affective and social functions). The learners controlled and guided themselves by asking themselves


221

questions, and encouraging or criticizing themselves (self-regulatory function). These functions were not separate, but overlapped with each other. The affective and social functions of the private speech in this study were related to the learners’ perception of the roles of learners in the classrooms. They perceived that the teachers do not expect them to make utterances from a speaker’s stance instead of a learner’s stance by making jokes, critical comments, or expressing their own opinions or feelings beyond the I-R-E/F in the classroom. This awareness of the learners led them to only express such comments in their private speech. The speech of one of the teachers, which implied a speaker’s stance by indicating an example sentence about his own experience, elicited his learners’ private speech from a speakers’ stance. The diversity in functions of the private speech that occurred, that is, cognitive and metacognitive functions, affective and social functions, and self-regulatory functions, indicates that private speech is critically integrated into the learning process and learners’ experiences in classrooms. Furthermore, the learners’ use of private speech in the classroom is associated with their awareness of a learner’s act and stance. Research question 2: Are learners aware of their own private speech, and are teachers aware of the learners’ private speech in the classroom? If yes, how do they perceive the learners’ private speech? The learners were generally aware of their use of private speech in the classrooms. Comments made in their SR interviews indicated their awareness of the effectiveness of vocalization by private speech for memorizing words or sentences and checking their correctness, although they may not have used private speech consciously in the classes. They were sometimes aware of being overheard by their teachers or classmates while using private speech, and their awareness of the existence of overhearers varied between the individuals. One of the learners was more aware of being overheard by her classmates while talking to herself compared to the other learners. Her awareness of being overheard seemed to be related to her desire to show off her knowledge in a somewhat non-apparent way in the classroom. The learners were generally more aware of overhearers in language as fun than in language as rehearsal. One of the teachers tended to notice her learners’ use of vicarious response in their private speech more often than the other teacher. However, both teachers sometimes overheard the learners’ vicarious responses and presented them to the class or asked the learners to present them. The learners commented that they were proud when the teachers showed the correctness of their answers to the class. One of the teachers also corrected the error of one

222


of his learners’ private speech, because he considered that the error should be common among the learners. Both teachers seemed to perceive that learners’ private speech, which included target grammatical items or task answers, was useful for their learning, and tended to pick up the learners’ private speech when the speech matched the intention of their teaching. The learners and the teachers seemed to be aware of the effectiveness of the learners’ vocalization of the target language by using private speech.

Notes 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 9

10

11

12

As mentioned in Chapter 4, these functions do not clearly separate, but often overlap. Although most characteristic examples of the learners’ private speech are introduced for each function, these examples may also have other functions. Both haiken shimashita and haiken itashimashita are humble expressions, which mean ‘I saw’. Haiken itashimashita is more polite than haiken shimashita. In Excerpt 7, ➙ does not indicate the teacher’s private speech, because the volume of his utterances was not reduced. Although Kiki’s change of the verb was logical and grammatically correct, ‘ome ni kakari masu’ (I will meet you) or ‘oai shi mashoo’ (let’s meet) may be more natural expressions. ‘There is another possible one’ may be more natural expression; however, the teacher said ‘there is another one possible’. The learners commented in their SR interviews that their utterances were not directed to their teacher or classmates. The ‘self-encouraging comment’ and ‘self-addressed question’ which are used in a lower tone by experienced speakers during public lectures, such as ‘okay’ or ‘let’s see, where was I?’, are named ‘embedded private speech’ by John-Steiner (1992, p. 288). A is Catherine’s friend, who she sat with throughout the course. According to Wertsch (1998), I-R-E/F is a cultural tool to maintain the teacher’s power and authority in a classroom. This may be related to the learners’ cultural background. The learners other than the learner-participants seldom developed their interactions with the teachers beyond I-R-E/F, either. However, it is not clear whether the learners’ cultural backgrounds influence this attitude of the learners, as the majority of the students came from an Asian background, with the remainder being Caucasian. The language-focused nature (not the communication-focused nature) of the lessons may also have influenced the learners’ attitude. Erwin’s utterance misses the particle no between yatsu (thing) and hoo ga ii (prefer). It could be expressed as ten ni mo noboru yoona kibun deshoo (I would feel as if I were going to heaven) or tengoku ni iru yoona kibun deshoo (I would feel as if I were in heaven).


14

223

This example indicates that learners sometimes do not choose to use the assistance provided, as Litowitz (1993) pointed out. Although Kiki pretended to accept her teacher’s suggestion, she actually rejected to understand and use it, because she was satisfied with her own answer. Swain (2000) described ‘metatalk’ as ‘learners’ use of a language to reflect on their own or others’ language use’ (p. 202).

Chapter 6

Reinterpreting Learners’ Participation in JFL Classrooms

In this concluding chapter, I first discuss the findings that have not been sufficiently focused on in previous studies of CF and private speech, in order to show how learners’ verbal participation in the classes are related to various factors. Secondly, I introduce implications for promoting learners’ noticing and understanding, for enhancing learners’ participation, and for more flexible teaching. Finally, I discuss the limitations of the study and prospective studies.

6.1. Rethinking Corrective Feedback and Private Speech in Classrooms This study examined CF episodes and JFL learners’ private speech, in order to investigate their overt and covert verbal participation in the classrooms. A sociocultural approach by using SR interviews with both the learners and the teachers and a longitudinal data collection allowed me to find that the learners’ verbal participation in the classes was more dynamic and complex than it appears to be and what previous studies reported. CF episodes and the learners’ private speech were also related to the classroom contexts and sociocultural factors such as the learners’ motivation of taking the course or the teachers’ belief in terms of their teaching methods. In this section, I review the findings that have been overlooked or not been sufficiently addressed in previous studies. From a sociocultural perspective, the study has delineated the classroom learning process, which is much more complex than it appears to be, showing an interrelationship between direct CF and incidental CF as well as some different situations in which incidental CF occurs. Direct CF between the learners were sometimes embedded in direct or incidental CF between the learners and the teachers. These cases occurred when the learners were asked questions by the teachers or vicariously answered the teachers’ questions to other learners, and their classmates sitting close to them provided direct CF to them. Incidental

Reinterpreting Learners’ Participation

225

CF such as incidental metalinguistic feedback or incidental elicitation occurred as well as incidental recasts. The study found the occurrence of incidental CF other than incidental recasts, and situations in which these incidental CF moves occurred, except in situations in which the learners vicariously answered the teachers’ questions to the classes or other learners by using private speech, which were found by Ohta (2001). The study also found that the learners’ attention to the incidental CF varied between situations, and that the learners’ different degrees of attention tended to influence their noticing and understanding of the CF. The learners generally paid attention to incidental CF more often when they were indirectly participating in the CF episodes by using private speech or by helping their classmates who were asked questions than when they were only hearing the teachers or other learners in post-task activities. The emic approach, that is, the examination of both the teachers’ and the learners’ comments on each CF episode and examples of the learners’ private speech in their SR interviews, clarified their perceptions of CF and the learners’ private speech, of which little or no account was taken in previous studies. This is another benefit of the use of SR interviews as well as audio/videorecordings. The study shed new light on classroom studies of CF and learners’ private speech in classrooms by analysing the gap between the teachers’ and the learners’ perceptions of the learners’ CF understanding, and between the teachers’ CF choice and the learners’ preference of CF that are provided by their teachers, and the learners’ use of private speech in relation to social and pedagogical pressures in the classrooms. By investigating the teachers’ and the learners’ perceptions of CF, the study found how the teachers chose CF and how they understood the learners’ responses after the CF, and what the learners thought about in successful and unsuccessful CF episodes. The study also revealed that CF episodes, which looked successful, did not necessarily trigger the learners’ understanding of the CF, showing that learners’ uptake and noticing does not always indicate their understanding of CF. This suggests that CF studies should examine teachers’ and learners’ perceptions of CF as well as the languages that they use in the CF episodes in order to clarify whether the learners have understood the difference between the correct forms and their errors, and the nature of their errors. The data of the teachers’ and the learners’ perceptions of the CF allowed a deeper analysis of the effective/affective factors of the learners’ noticing or understanding of CF than has been shown in previous studies; the learners’ motivation of the target-language learning, which affected one of the learners’ CF understanding, and the learners’ classroom strategies, which affected another learner’s noticing of incidental CF. The teachers’ and learners’ perceptions of the learners’ private speech indicated more detailed features of private speech in the classrooms, which are social situations, than previous studies found. The study unveiled that both the teachers and the learners were sometimes aware of the learners’ use of private speech as well as the

226


effectiveness of vocalization in private speech for the learners’ target-language learning, and that learners were sometimes aware of the existence of overhearers while using private speech. This study suggests rethinking the definition of FL learners’ classroom participation, suggesting that both their overt and covert speech, including self-expressions or emotional release, has an important function for their participation and learning. In terms of the analysis of the learners’ private speech, the biggest contribution of the study is the examination of affective and social functions of classroom speech, especially the learners’ private speech, as well as cognitive and metacognitive functions, and the confirmed finding that not only child language learners, but also adult FL learners use language play as fun. The learners used Japanese and English not only to answer their teachers’ questions or practise linguistic forms, but also to express their opinions or feelings, make jokes or critical comments. All this speech of the learners facilitated their target-language development or functioned as their control and self-regulation in the classes. Their speech in both Japanese and English showed their thinking process of solving problems or self-regulation by controlling or guiding themselves. Their speech for self-expressions or emotional release, which has been regarded as distracting or disturbing in traditional classrooms, had a self-regulatory potential to contribute to their learning in the classrooms. The data analysis of the learners’ private speech and the teachers’ speech also indicated both the teachers’ and learners’ multiple identities as ‘speaker’ or ‘communicator’ other than that of ‘teacher’ and ‘learner’. The longitudinal design of the study contributed to finding the development of the learners’ perception of their own target-language use, such as one of the learners’ development of his metalinguistic awareness. The learners seemed to develop self-regulation in various styles and to different degrees according to the development of their confidence based on an increased knowledge of the Japanese language. Their developed confidence influenced some of the learners’ increased number of CF moves that they received, the particular types of private speech such as vicarious response or finding, or their preference of being provided opportunities to self-correct their errors before being given correct answers by their teachers. Even though obvious changes in the language that the learners used in the classes were not found very frequently, their perceptions in relation to the target-language learning changed, suggesting the development of their self-regulation. This indicates the importance of the examination of teachers’ and learners’ perceptions as well as their language that are used in classrooms. This study insists that surface interactions in classrooms do not always show learners’ understanding of particular linguistic items or their development in the target-language learning. The investigation of not only teachers’ and learners’ speech, but also their perceptions with a methodology such as SR interviews, as well as audio/videorecordings, is predicted to be normative in future classroom studies, which


227

examine the learning processes of SL/FL learners, from the viewpoint of the sociocultural approach. The analysis of both the quantitative and qualitative data unveiled that CF episodes and learners’ private speech were more closely and complicatedly related to each other than Ohta (2001) found. The frequent occurrence of incidental CF can be associated with the learners’ frequent use of private speech. In many incidental CF episodes, the learners used private speech several times, while listening to the direct interactions between the teachers and the other learners or their neighbours’ softly spoken speech to them. By using private speech, the learners repeated, manipulated, or commented on the other learners’ responses to the teachers’ questions or the teachers’ feedback to the learners’ responses, as well as vicariously answered the teachers’ questions to other learners. By doing so, the learners monitored their own utterances or the teachers’ or other learners’ utterances, sometimes found or confirmed correct forms, and expressed their findings with the expressions such as ‘uh’ or ‘yes’ in private speech. The learners also made self-criticizing comments after responding to incidental CF and reformulating their errors in private speech. Moreover, incidental CF not only occurred immediately after the learners’ vicarious responses but also occurred in post-task activities to the learners’ answers in private speech during previous peer work. The learners’ private speech, especially the one with a self-regulatory function such as self-addressed questions, may function as the learners’ CF to themselves. As indicated in Excerpt 36 in Section 5.3, during pair work, the learners sometimes found correct answers after asking questions to themselves in private speech. In this case, the learners’ self-addressed questions may have triggered their correct answers. While the learners’ private speech often occurred in a way which supported or was involved in CF episodes, the learners sometimes used private speech to reject the teachers’ CF (Excerpt 59 in Section 5.4), or to work with different tasks on their own when they were not interested in CF episodes (Excerpt 49 in Section 5.3). These types of use of private speech were still associated with CF episodes in negative ways. One of the teachers’ CF had a similar function to private speech, when he repeated what the learner, who was a receiver of his CF, had said, in order to monitor the accuracy of the utterance which he was uncertain about (Excerpt 7 in Section 5.1). This example indicates that CF and private speech may overlap, when teachers use this type of repetition. The teachers sometimes overtly responded and provided feedback to the learners’ private speech. For example, one of the learners’ private speech incidentally had a similar function as CF to one of the teachers’ utterance, and the teacher incorporated the learners’ private speech into his speech to the class (Excerpt 64 in Section 5.5). The teacher provided CF after finding an error in one of the learners’ private speech (Excerpt 66 in Section 5.5). The other

228


teacher responded to one of the learners’ vicarious responses (Excerpt 65 in Section 5.5). Thus, the learners’ private speech triggered CF or was embedded in CF episodes in various ways. All this overt and covert speech consisted of classroom speech. Furthermore, CF episodes and the learners’ private speech, which occurred in FL classrooms, were complicatedly associated with many factors, including the learners’ motivation for the target-language learning and learning strategies, the teachers’ teaching policy, and the teachers’ and the learners’ awareness of their own roles, which triggered social and pedagogical pressures in the classrooms. Gaps were found between the teachers’ and the learners’ perceptions of the learners’ understanding of the teachers’ CF, and between the teachers’ provision of CF and the learners’ preference of CF. The reason for these gaps could be explained in relation to factors such as pedagogical and social pressures, time limitation of classroom teaching, and the teachers’ teaching policy. The learners’ use of private speech, especially that with an affective function, was relevant with learners’ ‘act’ and ‘stance’ to support the teachers’ ‘act’. Even though ‘acts’ and ‘stances’ of teachers and learners and social pressure in the classrooms sometimes restricted the learners’ overt participation in the classes, the learners participated in the classes both directly and indirectly by using both overt and private speech, and the degree of their participation varied according to individuals, the CF episodes and the examples of their private speech. By using private speech, the learners controlled themselves for their classroom learning and developed their self-regulation in some different styles. Moreover, the learners sought both explicit and implicit supports for their learning, such as written materials including their textbooks, scaffoldings of the teachers and peers, and incidental CF. The learners used every opportunity for learning with the affordance of the classroom setting by using their speech both as a communicative tool and a tool for their thinking. This study suggests that SL/FL learners participate in the classes overtly and covertly in both teacher-fronted and peer-learning settings, and the ways of their participation are far more various than they appear to be.

6.2. Implications for Promoting Learners’ Noticing and Understanding The study found some implications for promoting learners’ noticing and understanding of CF in classrooms. A caution should be taken for generalization of the implications, because they are solely based on the particular classroom settings which were studied. The first is in regards to types of feedback. Both teachers in the study considered that recasts were not always effective for learners’ noticing or understanding of their CF, although they used recasts most frequently. The teachers sometimes commented in their SR interviews


229

that they should have given explanations other than simply giving correct answers by recasts. Recasts were not effective when the difference between correct forms and the learners’ errors was subtle, as the learners did not interpret them as ‘corrections’. In these cases, recast alone does not provide enough assistance for the learners to reconstruct their language. They need additional assistance. Teachers should give an explanation as well as clarify the difference between the errors and correct forms by emphasizing the difference. Visual support such as written expressions on the board or OHT also helped the learners’ noticing and understanding of CF. Teachers should not only provide CF aurally, but should also use these visual resources as much as possible. The second implication is in regards to the perception of errors. The teachers commented that they did not give explanations when the learners’ errors were minor or basic. However, the errors that teachers consider as basic are sometimes not basic for learners, and even advanced learners can make ‘basic’ errors. Therefore, teachers should be careful when judging learners’ errors as basic, because learners may still need explanations about some of the ‘basic’ errors. The third implication is in regards to the focus of feedback. Although one of the teachers indicated how to make a correct grammatical form in his CF, he did not explain the difference of the meanings between the form and a similar one that caused confusion for a few learners. Textbooks and teachers are likely to focus on the structures of grammatical forms. However, for learners’ appropriate understanding of both forms and meanings, it is important for teachers to explain the semantic difference between the correct forms and confusing forms which are similar to them. The fourth implication is in regards to eliciting learners’ self-corrections by gradual assistance. The learners preferred being given opportunities for self-corrections. Dynamic assessment (Lantolf and Thorne, 2006) provides learners with opportunities to self-correct their errors in tasks by systematically changing from implicit feedback to more explicit ones. The provision of feedback from implicit to gradually explicit may be useful to elicit learners’ self-corrections in the classroom. The fi fth implication is in regards to the connection between classroom learning and learning outside the class. Reviewing the classes at home also promoted the learners’ understanding of CF, although the learners were not likely to review the class until the weekends or exam periods. Teachers should encourage learners to review the class as soon as possible while their memories of the class are still fresh. In summary, teachers can be careful about judging learners’ error types and give learners opportunities for self-corrections with gradual assistance from implicit to explicit feedback. When the differences between correct forms and learners’ errors are subtle, teachers can make recasts more explicit with emphasis or provide explanations as well as recasts. It is also helpful for

230


teachers to use visual support, explain semantic differences between correct and other forms, which could be confused with the correct forms, and suggest to learners to review classes while their memories are still fresh in order to promote their noticing and understanding of CF.

6.3. Implications for Enhancing Learners’ Participation Some implications for enhancing learners’ overt and covert verbal participation are also found. The first implication is in regards to teachers’ attitudes towards learners’ private speech. Private speech in the classroom indicated the important functions for the learners to control themselves and contribute to their learning. Teachers should regard the learners’ private speech not as distracting or disturbing, but as an opportunity for the learners to practise the language, test hypotheses or express themselves by taking their ‘private turns’ without affecting the flow of classroom teaching, even though the private speech is not directly related to target grammatical items or task questions. The second implication concerns the way in which teachers can utilize learners’ private speech. One of the teachers found a grammatical error in a learner’s private speech and corrected it by giving the grammatical explanation to the class. This is an effective way to correct the learner’s error without embarrassing him/her. The explanation is useful for other learners who may have made the same errors as well as for those who used private speech. When the teachers in the study heard the learners’ vicarious responses and presented their correct answers or asked them to present their answers to the class, the learners were satisfied and encouraged, which is an affective benefit. Therefore, when teachers notice learners saying correct answers in their private speech, they should encourage the learners to present the answers so that the students realize achievement. Furthermore, by presenting them to the class, the correct answers may become more salient in the learners’ memories. This is also an effective way to involve the learners who seldom speak up in the class. The third implication is related to teachers’ strategy to elicit learners’ classroom speech including their private speech as their self-expressions to involve them in the class. One teacher’s example sentence about his own story triggered a few learners’ private speech in the target language. The teacher’s selfexpression from a ‘speaker’s stance’ elicited the learners’ self-expressions in their private speech. Teachers’ self-expressions may be effective to involve their learners more in the class and lead them to use target languages to express themselves in private speech. Moreover, when a learner overtly expresses his/ her opinion or feelings from a ‘speaker’s’ stance and not a ‘learner’s’ stance, it is useful for teachers to develop an interaction with him/her to elicit negotiations, which can lead the learner to learn from the interaction, although the


231

learners did not show this type of self-expression overtly in this study. As both the learners and the teachers were generally aware of the relationship between vocalization by private speech and the language learning, it may be useful for teachers to encourage learners to not only participate in choral responses, but to also vocalize what they are thinking about in their private speech in the classes. In summary, teachers’ understanding of the learners’ private speech which contributes to their learning and use of their private speech would assist error corrections or the presentations of correct answers to the class, and involve the learners in the class. Eliciting learners’ private speech by teachers’ self- expressions or suggesting vocalizations of learners’ thoughts may be also effective to develop their learning.

6.4. Implications for More Flexible Teaching The study suggests that teachers avoid the following stereotypical viewpoints of classroom teaching: errors of grammatical forms that were introduced at lower levels are always basic; or that learners’ speech that is not directly related to tasks or problem-solving, or learners’ speech with their neighbours during teachers’ instructions, is always a sign of the learners’ lack of attention or concentration, is a deviation from classroom practice, and affects their learning. These stereotypical ideas can negatively affect the provision of effective feedback or learners’ precious learning opportunities in the classes. It is useful for teachers to give learners more opportunities for controlling their participation in classroom interactions without always controlling timing or length of the interactions with learners. Teachers’ gradual assistance by making their CF from implicit to more explicit can elicit learners’ selfcorrections more often. Developing learners’ autonomy is necessary to lead them to be self-regulated, because the study found that the learners’ increased self-regulation was likely to lead them to notice or understand CF, which triggered their learning. Teachers’ flexible attitudes towards sharing their experiences with learners, and not to view themselves as the sole expert in classes, can facilitate the learners’ use of private speech, as one teacher’s example sentence about his experience elicited a few learners’ private speech. Learners’ self-expressions by using private speech can be their covert participation in the classes and self-control to keep their concentration on the classes, which can lead them to learning. For example, teachers can include more tasks where learners can express their ideas or opinions using the target-language expressions that they know, rather than only practising patterns of grammatical forms. When teachers interact with learners more flexibly without stereotypical viewpoints by giving learners opportunities to develop their self-regulation,

232


by expressing themselves and by sharing their experiences with learners in classes, they can facilitate learners’ learning. It will also be necessary to create lesson plans to make SL/FL classrooms more facilitative for learning, based on sociocultural viewpoints.

6.5. Limitations and the Possibility of Further Studies The study has limitations in relation to technical issues, the process of data collection and research design. Technical issues presented the following limitations. As mentioned in Chapter 1, a few recordings were missing because of technical problems with the audio recorders. As only one video camera was available, it did not always cover all the participants in Semester 1. Recording the precise facial expressions of the learners was sometimes difficult due to the classroom structure or the learners’ sitting positions in the classrooms. As a result, although useful in many situations, it had its limitation on the analysis of the learners’ non-verbal behaviours. One of the learners reported in her SR interview that she overheard her teacher’s suggestion to a neighbouring group during peer work. There may have been more examples where the teacher’s suggestions to neighbouring pairs/groups functioned as incidental CF to the learners sitting close to the groups, but the learners did not notice the suggestions. However, it was almost impossible to find these cases, because the teacher’s speech was recorded separately from the learners’ speech.1 A shortcoming in data collecting process resulted in another limitation. At the beginning of the SR interviews, I asked the learners the task questions which arose from the CF episodes. However, this was not carried out in the first three interviews in Semester 1, and the learners’ interviews were implemented on different days in the same weeks. Therefore, the data could not be compared systematically. As mentioned in Methodology, I needed to listen to the recorded tapes of each learner’s speech in the classrooms before stimulated recall interviews; therefore, it was not possible to carry out the interviews immediately after the recordings. According to this research design and the participants’ schedule, some interviews had to be conducted several days after the classroom recordings. Due to the long interval between the recordings and stimulated recalls, the participants sometimes did not remember what they had been thinking about during CF episodes. The research design which targeted certain learners in given classrooms placed a limitation on data collection. When the learners worked with their classmates who were not participants in this study, interviews with the classmates could not be carried out. As a result, in the cases when the classmates gave CF to the learners, the perception of the providers of the CF could not be examined.


233

Furthermore, the learners may have produced subvocal private speech as well as vocal ones. To investigate subvocal private speech, it would have been necessary to ask the learners additional questions in their interviews about their use of subvocal private speech in the classes, or to use additional methodology such as the learners’ written reports about their use of subvocal private speech in the classes. However, this was not investigated because of the restriction of the interview times and the learners’ busy schedules. Although the study investigated direct CF episodes, which are typical overt interactions in SL/FL classrooms, the learners’ overt speech not within CF episodes also needs to be examined. Lastly, as CF episodes and learners’ private speech are related to the classroom context and sociocultural factors, results cannot be the same with different participants in different classrooms. The study unavoidably includes the limitation of the generalization of the results. Therefore, in the future, more studies about CF and SL/FL learners’ private speech in different classrooms are necessary. Specifically, studies of the relationship between learners’ gestures and facial expressions combined with their private speech and explored by video-recordings with multiple cameras, as well as studies about subvocal private speech of JFL learners in the classroom, will provide further understanding of SL/FL learning in classes. Despite the above limitations, the study found some important factors in terms of learning and teaching in SL/FL classrooms. I hope this book makes some contribution towards a better understanding of learners’ participation in SL/FL classrooms.

Note 1

As the other teacher spoke more clearly, her suggestions to neighbouring pairs/ groups were usually recorded on the learners’ tapes.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Questionnaire Please answer the following questions about your personal details, if you do not mind. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Name: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Years at university: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Major: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Age: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What is your first language? Do you speak any other languages? Where were you born? If you were not born in Australia, when did you come to Australia? How long have you been learning Japanese? Where have you learned Japanese before your current course? Have you stayed or studied in Japan? If yes, how long and when? What is your motivation to learn Japanese? What have you found easiest and most difficult in Japanese and why? Please write any comments on your Japanese learning and your tutorial class.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Appendix 2: Observations Noted in the Classroom Teacher-Fronted Situation 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Learners’ sitting position. Teacher’s standing position. Items written on the whiteboard. Teacher’s non-verbal behaviour. Learners’ non-verbal behaviour. Tasks used a. Page numbers where the tasks are in the textbook or workbook. b. Outline of the task. 7. Teacher’s instructions and questions to the class or particular learners.

Appendices

235

8. Learners’ answers to the teacher’s questions, learners’ questions to the teachers, comments on the utterances of the teachers or other learners (notes were taken of the utterances of the learners other than the learner-participants). 9. My comments.

Peer-Work Situation 1. Organization of pair or group in which the learner-participants were participating. 2. Teacher’s non-verbal behaviour. 3. Learners’ non-verbal behaviour. 4. Items written on the whiteboard. 5. Tasks used a. Page numbers where the tasks are in the textbook or workbook. b. Outline of the task. 6. Teacher’s instructions and questions to the class or particular learners. 7. Learners’ answers to the teacher’s questions, learners’ questions to the teachers, or comments on the utterances of the teachers or other learners (notes were taken of the utterances of the learners other than the learner-participants). 8. My comments. Note: The teacher walked around in the classroom to interact with each pair or group during the peer work, and the conversations between the teacher and the learners were not audible for me unless they sat or stood close to me. Therefore, in terms of 7 and 8 in peer-work situations, I took notes of the utterances of the teacher and/or learners that I heard.

Appendix 3: Interview Questions Before listening to the tapes of the classroom recordings: 1. How was the class this week? 2. Did you find anything particularly interesting or difficult during the class? The questions asked to the learners about the CF episodes are as follows: 1. What were you thinking then in the class? 2. Do you remember what you were thinking when the teacher/classmate said this in the class? 3. Did you notice anything when the teacher/classmate said this in the class? When the learners mentioned that they noticed the teacher’s/classmate’s CF to them: 4. What did you find about that?

236

Appendices

When the learners commented that they noticed the teacher’s/classmate’s CF to them, but did not understand the CF: 5. What were you doing when the teacher’s/classmate’s said that? 6. How did you feel when the teacher’s/classmate’s said that?

The questions asked to the teachers about CF episodes were as follows: 1. What were you thinking when you said this to the learner in the class? 2. Do you remember what you were thinking when the learner said this in the class? 3. Did you notice anything when the learner said this in the class? 4. Did you think the learner noticed your correction/suggestion/elicitation when you said that in the class? 5. Why did you think the learner did not notice your correction/suggestion/ elicitation? 6. Did you think the learner understood your correction/suggestion/elicitation when you said that in the class? 7. Why did you think the learner did not understand your correction/suggestion/ elicitation? The following questions were asked to the learners about their speech without interacting with someone else: 1. What were you thinking/doing then in the class? When it was not clear whether the learner was saying it to someone else or not: 2 Were you saying this to the teacher or your classmate? The following questions were asked to the teachers about the learners’ private speech: 1. What were you thinking then in the class? 2. Did you notice the learner saying anything then in the class? Questions about the learners’ preferred CF types to receive from their teachers: 1 What kind of feedback would you like to receive from your teacher when your answer is incorrect? 2 Do you prefer receiving the correct answer immediately after your answer when it was not correct, or do you prefer receiving a hint or clue to think about the correct answer? Questions asked to the learners about their learning strategies: 1. What do you do when you review the class or prepare for exams? 2. Do you prefer writing or saying what you need to memorize?

Appendices

237

Questions asked to the learners about the learners’ awareness of the change of their own target language ability and classroom behaviour throughout the course (in the interviews after the last classroom recordings): 1. Do you think your ability of Japanese changed compared to the beginning of the course? If yes, how did it change? 2. Do you think your behaviour in the class changed compared to the beginning of the course? If yes, how did it change and why? If, no, why did it not change?

Appendix 4: Transcription Markers Transcription Conventions [ [[

➙

__ «» ? (( )) : ... (.) (..) (. . .) (. . . .) °° °° °° °°° °°° T: S:, S1:, S2:, S3: C: E: J: K: L: W: A: M: Ss:

Overlap with a portion in the next turn that is similarly bracketed. Overlap with a portion in the next turn that is similarly bracketed. Placed when the single bracket is used in the previous line/turn so that there will be no confusion regarding which brackets correspond to which portion. Corrective feedback, private speech (in Chapter 1 and in categorization in Chapter 2, it also indicates learners’ errors or their responses after CF). Portion of special note to the current analysis is underlined. The speaker’s emphasis for the portion. Rising intonation. Comments enclosed in double parentheses. Elongation of a syllable. Incomplete. Brief pause. Longer pause. Reduced volume – soft voice. Reduced voice – whispered. Reduced volume – very soft whisper. The teacher in the particular excerpt; the identity of ‘T’ may differ across excerpts. Unidentified student. Catherine. Erwin. Jessica. Kiki. Lily. Wendy. Catherine’s friend. Kiki’s friend. More than one unidentified student.

Appendices

238

>< ˆˆ •

Spoken more quickly. Spoken more slowly. Morae or syllables pronounced separately before and after this marker.

Abbreviations Used to Gloss Japanese ACC

Accusative case marker.

ADJ ADV AUX CMP CONJ COP DAT GEN HUM NOM PAR PLA POL PRE STE TOP

Adjective. Adverb. Auxiliary verb. Complementizer. Conjunction. Copula. Dative marker. Genitive marker. Humble form. Nominative marker. Particles other than the above markers. Plain form of a verb. Polite form of a verb. Prefi x. Verb or adjective stem. Topic marker.

References

Allwright, D. (1989). Interaction in the language classroom: social problems and pedagogic possibilities. In Actes des Etats Generaux des Langues (Proceedings of the International Symposium on Language Teaching and Learning) (pp. 26–29). Paris: Association Pour Les Etats Genreaux des Langues. Allwright, D. (1996). Social and pedagogic pressures in the language classroom: the role of socialisation. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the Language Classroom (pp. 209–228). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Antón, M., and DiCamilla, F. J. (1999). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 83(2), 233–247. Appel, G., and Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Speaking as meditation: a study of L1 and L2 text recall tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 437–452. Aston, G. (1986). Trouble-shooting in interaction with learners: the more the merrier? Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 128–143. Barnard, R. (2003). Private speech in the mainstream classroom: Jack, a Korean learner. In R. Barnard and T. Glynn (Eds), Bilingual Children’s Language and Literacy Development (pp. 166–193). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Behrend, D. A., Rosengren, K., and Perlmutter, M. (1989). A new look at children’s private speech: the effects of age, task difficulty, and parent presence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 12(3), 305–320. Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 13, 145–204. Berk, L. E. (1986). Relationship of elementary school children’s private speech to behavioral accompaniment to task, attention, and task performance. Developmental Psychology, 22(5), 671–680. Berk, L. E., and Garvin, R. A. (1984). Development of private speech among lowincome Appalachian children. Developmental Psychology, 20, 271–286. Boulima, J. (1999). Negotiated Interaction in Target Language Classroom Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Breen, M. P. (2001). Overt participation and covert acquisition in the language classroom. In M. P. Breen (Ed.), Learner Contributions to Language Learning (pp. 112–140). London: Longman. Broner, M. A., and Tarone, E. E. (2001). Is it fun? Language play in a fi fth-grade Spanish immersion classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 85(3), 363–379. Brooks, F. B., Donato, R., and McGlone, J. V. (1997). When are you going to say ‘it’ right? Understanding talk during pair-work activity. Foreign Language Annals, 30(4), 524–539.

240

References

Buckwalter, P. (2001). Repair sequence in Spanish L2 dyadic discourse: a descriptive study. The Modern Language Journal, 85(3), 380–397. Bunno, M. (2004). Jyugyoo sanka katei no shitsuteki kenkyuu – saido hatsuwa eno chuumoku (Learner participation in the classroom: investigation of the private interaction between learners). Nihongo Kyooiku (Journal of Japanese Language Teaching), 121, 103–108. Burdelski, M. (2001). Private speech: second language acquisition in an elementary 2nd grade Japanese immersion class in the U.S. Daini Gengo to shite no Nihongo no Shuutoku Kenkyuu (Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language), 4, 39–62. Cekaite, A., and Aronsson, K. (2005). Language play, a collaborative resource in children’s L2 learning. Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 169–191. Centeno-Cortés, B., and Jiménez Jiménez, A. F. (2004). Problem-solving tasks in a foreign language: the importance of the L1 in private verbal thinking. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 7–35. Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27(1), 29–46. Clancy, P. M. (1985). The acquisition of Japanese. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Volume I: The Data (pp. 373–524). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cook, G. (1997). Language play, language learning. ELT Journal, 51(3), 224–231. Cook, G. (2000). Language Play, Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Coughlan, P., and Duff, P. A. (1994). Same task, different activities: analysis of a SLA task from an activity theory perspective. In J. P. Lantolf and G. Appel (Eds), Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research (pp. 173–194). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. de Guerrero, M. C. M. (2004). Early stages of L2 inner speech development: what verbal reports suggest. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 90–112. DiCamilla, F. J., and Antón, M. (2004). Private speech: a study of language for thought in the collaborative interaction of language learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 36–69. Dobinson, T. (1996). The Recall and Retention of New Vocabulary from Second Language Classrooms. Unpublished MA dissertation, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf and G. Appel (Eds), Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Egi, T. (2007). Recasts, learners’ interpretations, and L2 development. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 249–267). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 339–360). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., and Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281–318. Ellis, R., and Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 575–600.

References

241

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., and Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368. Flavell, J. H. (1966). Le langage privé (Private language). Bulletin de Psycologie, 19, 698–701. Frauenglass, M. H., and Diaz, R. M. (1985). Self-regulatory functions of children’s private speech: a critical analysis of recent challenges to Vygotsky’s theory. Developmental Psychology, 21(2), 357–364. Frawley, W., and Lantolf, J. P. (1986). Private speech and self-regulation: a commentary on Frauenglass and Diaz. Developmental Psychology, 22(5), 706–708. Gass, S. M., and Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated Recall Methodology in Second Language Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gillette, B. (1994). The role of learner goals in L2 success. In J. P. Lantolf and G. Appel (Eds), Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research (pp. 195–214). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Goodman, S. H. (1981). The integration of verbal and motor behavior in preschool children. Child Development, 52, 280–289. Han, Z. (2001). Fine-tuning corrective feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 34(6), 582–599. Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 543–572. Hatano, G. (1993). Time to merge Vygotskian and constructivist conceptions of knowledge acquisition. In E. A. Forman, M. Norris and C. A. Stone (Eds), Contexts for Learning (pp. 153– 166). New York: Oxford University Press. Heap, J. L. (1988). On task in classroom discourse. Linguistics and Education, 1, 177–198. Heap, J. L. (1997). Conversation analysis methods in researching language and education. In N. H. Hornberger and D. Corson (Eds), Encyclopedia of Language and Education Volume 8: Research methods in Language and Education (pp. 217–225). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic publishers. Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds), Structures of Social Action (pp. 299–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Inagaki, S., and Long, M. H. (1999). Implicit negative feedback. In K. Kanno (Ed.), Studies on the Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language (pp. 9–30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ishii, M. (1997). Kyooshitsu danwa no fukusuu no bunmyaku (Multiple contexts of classroom discourse). Nihongogaku (Studies of Japanese Language), 16(3), 21–19. Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction, differential effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 1–36. John-Steiner, V. (1992). Private speech among adults. In R. M. Diaz and L. E. Berk (Eds), Private Speech: From Social Interaction to Self-Regulation (pp. 285–296). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. John-Steiner, V., and Tatter, P. (1983). An interactionist model of language development. In B. Bain (Ed.), The Sociogenesis of Language and Human Conduct (pp. 79–97). New York: Plenum Press.

242

References

Kanagy, R. (2001). Developmental sequences, second language acquisition, and Japanese language pedagogy. In H. Nara (Ed.), Advances in Japanese Language Pedagogy (pp. 47–92). Columbus, OH: National East Asian Language Resource Center, the Ohio State University. Karp, D. A., and Yoels, W. C. (1976). The college classrooms: some observations on the meaning of student participation. Sociology and Social Research, 60(4), 429–439. Kasper, G. (1985). Repair in foreign language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7(2), 200–215. Kim, J. H., and Han, Z. (2007). Recasts in communicative EFL classes: do teacher intent and learner interpretation overlap? In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 269–297). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kohlberg, L., Yaeger, J., and Hjertholm, E. (1968). Private speech: four studies and a review of theories. Child Development, 39, 671–690. Kuczaj, S. A., II. (1983). Crib Speech and Language Play. New York: Springer-Verlag. Lantolf, J. P. (1997). The function of language play in the acquisition of L2 Spanish. In W. R. Glass and A. T. Perez-Leroux (Eds), Contemporary Perspective on the Acquisition of Spanish (Vol. 2, pp. 3–24). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Lantolf, J. P. (2000a). Introducing sociocultural theory. In Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 1–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lantolf, J. P. (2000b). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lantolf, J. P., and Appel, G. (1994a). Theoretical framework: an introduction to Vygotskian perspectives on second language research. In J. P. Lantolf and G. Appel (Eds), Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research (pp. 1–32). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Lantolf, J. P., and Appel, G. (Eds). (1994b). Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Lantolf, J. P., and Frawley, W. (1984). Second language performance and Vygotskyan psycholinguistics: implications for L2 instruction. In A. Manning, P. Martin and K. McCalla (Eds), The Tenth LACUS Forum 1983: Laval University (pp. 425–440). Columbia, SC: Hornbeam Press. Lantolf, J. P., and Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lantolf, J. P., and Thorne, S. L. (2007). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (Eds), Theories in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 201–224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lantolf, J. P., and Yáñez, M. C. (2003). Talking yourself into Spanish: intrapersonal communication and second language learning. Hispanica, 86(1), 97–109. Lasagabaster, D., and Sierra, J. M. (2005). Error correction: students’ versus teachers’ perceptions. Language Awareness, 14(2 and 3), 112–127. Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development, beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63. Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology (pp. 37–71). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

References

243

Leow, R. P. (1997). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 47(3), 467–505. Lightbrown, P. M., and Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(4), 429–448. Lightbrown, P. M., and Spada, N. (1993). How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lin, Y. H., and Hedgcock, J. (1996). Negative feedback incorporation among highproficiency and low-proficiency Chinese-speaking learners of Spanish. Language Learning, 46(4), 567 – 611. Litowitz, B. E. (1993). Deconstruction in the zone of proximal development. In E. A. Forman, M. Norris and C. A. Stone (Eds), Contexts for Learning (pp. 184–196). New York: Oxford University Press. Loewen, S. (2004). Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons. Language Learning, 54(1), 153–188. Loewen, S., and Nabei, T. (2007). Measuring the effects of corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 361–377). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Loewen, S., and Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 536–556. Lompscher, J. (1999). Motivation and activity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(1), 11–22. Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: a design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. d. Bot, R. Ginsberg and C. Kramsch (Eds), Foreign Language Research in Cross-Cultural Perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Long, M. H., Inagaki, S., and Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 357–371. Lyczak, R. A. (1979). The effects of exposure to a language on subsequent learning. Language and Speech, 22, 81–88. Lyster, R. (1998a). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error type and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48(2), 183–218. Lyster, R. (1998b). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51–81. Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies of Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432. Lyster, R., and Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269–300. Lyster, R., and Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake, negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 36–66. McCafferty, S. G. (1992). The use of private speech by adult second language learners: a cross-cultural study. The Modern Language Journal, 76(2), 179–189.

244

References

McCafferty, S. G. (1994a). Adult second language learners’ use of private speech: a review of studies. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 421–436. McCafferty, S. G. (1994b). The use of private speech by adult ESL learners at different levels of proficiency. In J. P. Lantolf and G. Appel (Eds), Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research (pp. 117–134). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. McCafferty, S. G. (1998). Nonverbal expression and L2 private speech. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 73–96. McDonough, K. (2007). Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 323–338). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 405–430. Mackey, A., and Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: a meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mackey, A., and Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: recasts, responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 338–356. Mackey, A., Gass, S., and McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497. Mackey, A., Oliver, R., and Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: an exploration of NS-NNS and NNS-NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53(1), 35–66. Mackey, A., Al-Khalil, M., Atanassova, G., Hama, M., Logan-Terry, A., and Nakatsukasa, K. (2007). Teachers’ intentions and learners’ perceptions about corrective feedback in the L2 classroom. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 129–152. Markee, N. (2000). Conversation Analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Mehan, H. (1985). The structure of classroom discourse. In T. A. V. Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, vol. 3: Discourse and Dialogue (pp. 119–131). London: Academic Press. Mitchell, R., and Myles, F. (1998). Second Language Learning Theories. London: Arnold. Mori, J. (2004). Negotiating sequential boundaries and learning opportunities: a case from a Japanese language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 536–550. Moroishi, M. (2001). Nihongo kyooshi no iinaoshi no shiyoo no koosatsu (The use of recasts by teachers of Japanese). In M. Minami and Y. Alam-Sasaki (Eds), Gengogaku to Nihongo Kyooiku II (Linguistics and Japanese Education II), New directions in Applied Linguistics of Japanese (pp. 237–252). Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan. Moroishi, M. (2002). Recasts, noticing and error types: Japanese learners’ perception of corrective feedback. Daini Gengo to shite no Nihongo no Shuutoku Kenkyuu (Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language), 5, 24–41.

References

245

Moroishi, M. (2003). The role of input and interaction in the acquisition of Japanese as a second/foreign language. In Y. Hatasa (Ed.), Daini Gengo Shuutoku Kenkyuu e no Shootai (An Invitation to Second Language Acquisition Research in Japanese: In Honor of Seiichi Makino) (pp. 131–144). Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan. Murphey, T. (2001). Exploring conversational shadowing. Language Teaching Research, 5(2), 128–155. Nabei, T., and Swain, M. (2002). Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction: a case study of an adult EFL student’s second language learning. Language Awareness, 11, 43–62. Nicholas, H., Lightbrown, P. M., and Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51(4), 719–758. Nishita, M. (2004). Recasts and repair in the teaching of small groups. ASAA E-Journal of Asian Linguistics and Language Teaching, 7, 1–13. Norrick, N. R. (1991). On the organization of corrective exchanges in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 16, 59–83. Nunan, D. (1992). Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, E. (1993). Constructing social identity: a language socialization perspective. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(3), 287–306. Ohta, A. S. (1999). Interactional routines and the socialization of interactional style in adult learners of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1493–1512. Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking recasts: a learner-centered examination of corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom. In J. K. Hall and L. Verplaeste (Eds), The Construction of Second and Foreign Language Learning through Classroom Interaction (pp. 47–71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second Language Acquisition Process in the Classroom, Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS-NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 459–481. Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork. Language Learning, 50(1), 119–151. Oliver, R., and Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL classrooms. The Modern Language Journal, 87(4), 519–533. O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Kupper, L., and Russo, R. P. (1985). Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students. Language Learning, 19, 21–46. Ortega, L., and Long, M. H. (1997). The effects of models and recasts on the acquisition of object topicalization and adverb placement in L2 Spanish. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 1, 65–86. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers. Panova, I., and Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573–595. Pechman, E. (1978). Spontaneous verbalization and motor accompaniment to children’s task, orientation in elementary classrooms. Dissertation Abstracts International, 39 (786A (University Microfilms No. DDK78–05964)). Piaget, J. (1932). The Language and Thought of the Child. London: Kegan Paul.

246

References

Pica, T. (1987). Second language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 8, 3–21. Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: what does it reveal about secondlanguage learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493–527. Platt, E., and Brooks, F. B. (1994). The ‘acquisition-rich environment’ revisited. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 497–511. Ramsay, R. M. G. (1980). Language-learning approach styles of adult multilinguals and successful language learners. Annal of the New York Academy of Sciences, 345, 73–96. Reiss, M. A. (1985). The good language learner: another look. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 41(3), 511–523. Roberts, M. A. (1995). Awareness and the efficacy of error correction. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning (pp. 163–182). Manoa: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii. Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the ‘noticing’ hypothesis. Language Learning, 45(2), 283–331. Roebuck, R. F., and Wagner, L. C. (2004). Teaching repetition as a communicative and cognitive tool: evidence from a Spanish conversation class. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 70–89. Rommetveit, R. (1979). On the architecture of intersubjectivity. In R. Rommetveit and R. M. Blakar (Eds), Studies of Language, Thought and Verbal Communication (pp. 93–107). London: Academic Press. Rosa, E., and O’Neil, M. D. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness – another piece to the puzzle. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 511–556. Sato, M., and Lyster, R. (2007). Modified output of Japanese EFL learners: variable effects of interlocutor versus feedback types. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 123–142). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., and Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for selfcorrection in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. 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. 1–64). Manoa: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii. Senior, R. (1999). The Good Language Class: Teachers’ Perceptions. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia. Sharpe, T. (2006). ‘Unpacking’ scaffolding: identifying discourse and multimodal strategies that support learning. Language and Education, 20(3), 211–231. Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 361–392. Shima, C. (2004). Learning strategies in a Japanese classroom context. Paper presented at the ALAA, Adelaide.

References

247

Shimazu, M. (2003). Kurasu ruumu aidentitii no kyoo koochiku – kyooshitsu intarakushon ni okeru kyooshi to gakusei no akuto to sutansu (Co-construction of classroom identity: acts and stances of teacher and students in classroom interaction). Nihongo Kyooiku (Journal of Japanese Language Teaching), 119, 11–20. Sinclair, J. M., and Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. London: Oxford University Press. Smolucha, F. (1992). Social origins of private speech in pretended play. In L. E. Berk and R. M. Diaz (Eds), Private Speech: From Social Interaction to Self-Regulation (pp. 123–141). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Spence-Brown, R. (2003). Learning from contact situations: individual differences in the framing of a performance activity. In S. Miyazaki and H. Marriott (Eds), Sesshoku Bamen to Nihongo Kyooiku, Neusutopunii no inpakuto (Contact Situation and Japanese Education: Impact of Neustupny) (pp. 271–290). Tokyo: Meiji Shoin. Stern, H. H. (1975). What can we learn from the good foreign language learner? Canadian Modern Language Review, 31(4), 304–318. Stevick, E. W. (1989). Success with Foreign Languages. New York: Prentice Hall. Stone, C. A. (1993). What is missing in the metaphor of scaffolding? In E. A. Forman, M. Norris and C. A. Stone (Eds), Contexts for Learning (pp. 169–183). New York: Oxford University Press. Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass and C. G. Madden (Eds), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 235–256). Cambridge: Newbury House Publishers. Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty and J. Williams (Eds), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition (pp. 64–82). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swain, M. (2000). French immersion research in Canada: recent contributions to SLA and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 199–212. Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced Language Learning: The Contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London: Continuum. Swain, M., and Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: a step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371–391. Swain, M., and Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320–337. Swain, M., Brooks, L., and Tocalli-Beller, A. (2002). Peer-peer dialogue as a means of second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 171–185. Tannen, D. (1989). Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tharp, R. G., and Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing Minds to Life, Teaching, Learning, and Schooling in Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

248

References

Tomlin, R., and Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(4), 183–204. Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., and Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 171–195). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tsujimura, N. (1996). An Introduction of Japanese Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc. van Lier, L. (1988). The Classroom and the Language Learner. London: Longman. van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sciocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 245–260). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1981a). The development of higher forms of attention in childhood. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology (pp. 189–240). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Vygotsky, L. S. (1981b). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology (pp. 143–184). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and Language. Cambridge: MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky, Volume 1. Problems of General Psychology. Including the Volume Thinking and Speech. In R. W. Rieber and A. S. Carton (Eds). New York: Plenum Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky. Volume 4. The History of the Development of Higher Mental Functions. In R. W. Reiber (Ed.). New York: Plenum Press. Wells, G. (1999). Using L1 to master L2: a response to Anton and DiCamilla’s ‘Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom’. The Modern Language Journal, 83(2), 248–254. Wertsch, J. V. (1979). The regulation of human action and the given-new organisation of private speech. In G. Zivin (Ed.), The Development of Self-Regulation through Private Speech (pp. 79–98). New York: Wiley. Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as Action. New York: Oxford University Press. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., and Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100. Yoshida, R. (2007). Perception of a learner’s ‘self-expressive’ speech by an instructor and the learner. Foreign Language Annals, 40(4), 622–634. Yoshida, R. (2008a). Learners’ perception of corrective feedback in pair work. Foreign Language Annals, 41(3), 525–541. Yoshida, R. (2008b). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of correctivefeedback types. Language Awareness, 17(1), 78–93. Yoshida, R. (in press). How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in Japanese language classrooms? The Modern Language Journal.

Author Index

Allwright, D. 77, 110, 126 Antón, M. 134, 138, 162, 178, 180, 184, 186, 187, 189 Appel, G. 6, 8, 133 Aronsson, K. 136, 154 n3, 215 Aston, G. 24 Barnard, R. 136, 138, 187 Behrend, D. A. 131 Bell, A. 27 Berk, L. E. 131, 132, 140 Boulima, J. 77 Breen, M. P. 138 Broner, M. A. 135, 136, 154 nn3, 4, 155, 167, 170, 174, 177, 178, 204 Brooks, F. B. 134 Buckwalter, P. 24 Bunno, M. 69, 215 Burdelski, M. 2, 5, 22, 136, 137, 138, 140, 163, 165 Cekaite, A. 136, 154 n3, 215 Centeno-Cortés, B. 133, 149, 177, 178, 180, 183, 187, 189 Chaudron, C. 24 Clancy, P. M. 104, 117 Cook, G. 135, 167, 173 Coughlan, P. 11 Coulthard, R. M. 2 de Guerrero, M. C. M. 135, 154 n2, 156 Diaz, R. M. 132 DiCamilla, F. J. 134, 138, 162, 178, 180, 184, 186, 187, 189 Dobinson, T. 125 Donato, R. 10, 94

Duff, P. A. 11 Egi, T. 30 Ellis, R. 27, 28, 54 n3, 110, 114, 121 Flavell, J. H. 23 n1, 131 Frauenglass, M. H. 132 Frawley, W. 84, 132, 134, 151, 178, 210 Gallimore, R. 23 n4 Garvin, R. A. 131 Gass, S. M. 20 Gillette, B. 11, 84 Goo, J. 27 Goodman, S. H. 131, 132 Han, Z. 30, 33, 53, 74, 84, 107, 109 Hatano, G. 91 Heap, J. L. 2, 23 n9 Hedgcock, J. 26 Heritage, J. 91, 180 Inagaki, S. 26, 53 Ishii, M. 205, 208 Iwashita, N. 26, 53 Jiménez Jiménez, A. F. 133, 149, 177, 178, 180, 183, 187, 189 John-Steiner, V. 22, 131, 222 n7 Kanagy, R. 104 Karp, D. A. 77, 78, 126, 203, 218 Kasper, G. 24 Kim, J. H. 30 Kohlberg, L. 131 Kuczaj, S. A., II. 132, 158, 159

250

Author Index

Lantolf, J. P. 4, 6, 7, 8, 22 n1, 23, 83, 84, 99, 103, 116, 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 151, 154 n1, 157, 162, 174, 177, 178, 210, 217, 220, 229 Lapkin, S. 4, 101, 102 Lasagabaster, D. 31, 99 Leeman, J. 27, 91 Leont’ev, A. N. 11 Leow, R. P. 25 Lightbrown, P. M. 2, 24, 157, 162 Lin, Y. H. 26 Litowitz, B. E. 9, 223 n13 Loewen, S. 27, 28, 32, 54 n3, 99, 107 Lompscher, J. 115 Long, M. H. 26, 32, 53 Lyczak, R. A. 135, 138 Lyster, R. 2, 3, 22, 24, 26, 28, 31, 32, 34, 37, 41, 53, 102, 107, 214 McCafferty, S. G. 133, 134, 137, 138, 155, 167, 209, 210 McDonough, K. 27, 33, 73 Mackey, A. 2, 20, 22, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 53, 69 Markee, N. 21 Mehan, H. 2, 21 Mitchell, R. 7 Mori, H. 32 Mori, J. 21 Moroishi, M. 2, 29, 32, 33, 53, 102 Murphey, T. 137, 159, 161, 167 Myles, F. 7 Nabei, T. 27, 29, 32, 73 Nicholas, H. 31 Nishita, M. 33 Norrick, N. R. 24 Nunan, D. 16, 19, 21–2 Ochs, E. 77, 189 Ohta, A. S. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 32, 34, 37, 43, 49, 53, 54 n2, 55, 58, 59, 69, 71, 73, 94, 102, 103–4, 109, 117, 125, 136–8, 139–41, 144, 153, 155, 166, 225, 227 Oliver, R. 2, 26, 31, 32, 102

O’Malley, J. M. 135, 157 O’Neil, M. D. 25 Ortega, L. 26, 53 Oxford, R. L. 118, 214, 216 Panova, I. 2, 3, 26 Pechman, E. 131 Philp, J. 27, 28, 33, 107 Piaget, J. 130–1 Pica, T. 19, 77 Platt, E. 134 Ramsay, R. M. G. 135, 150 Ranta, L. 2, 3, 22, 24, 26, 28, 32, 34, 37, 53, 102 Reiss, M. A. 83, 135, 138 Roberts, M. A. 29, 32, 73 Robinson, P. 25 Roebuck, R. F. 137, 159 Rommetveit, R. 10 Rosa, E. 25 Sato, M. 31, 214 Schegloff, E. A. 24 Schmidt, R. 25 Senior, R. 78, 203 Sharpe, T. 10 Sheen, Y. 28, 107 Shima, C. 87, 88 Shimazu, M. 77, 126, 189, 190, 200 Sierra, J. M. 31, 99 Sinclair, J. M. 2 Smolucha, F. 139 Spada, N. 2, 24, 157, 162 Spence-Brown, R. 11 Stern, H. H. 83 Stevick, E. W. 159 Stone, C. A. 10 Storch, N. 94 Swain, M. 4, 29, 32, 73, 94, 101, 102, 223 n14 Tannen, D. 137, 167 Tarone, E. E. 135, 136, 154 nn3, 4, 155, 167, 170, 174, 177, 178, 204 Tatter, P. 131 Tharp, R. G. 23 n4

Author Index Thorne, S. L. 4, 6, 7, 22 n1, 23, 99, 103, 116, 217, 220, 229 Tomlin, R. 25 Trofimovich, P. 27, 84 Tsujimura, N. 128 n5

Wagner, L. C. 137, 159 Wells, G. 11, 139 Wertsch, J. V. 6, 8, 10, 11, 131, 133, 178, 210, 222 n9 Wood, D. 9

van Lier, L. 24, 54 n1, 101, 138, 191 Villa, V. 25 Vygotsky, L. S. 2, 5–9, 11, 22 n1, 23 n3, 76, 116, 130–2, 133, 134, 136, 145, 153, 157, 178, 217

Yáñez, M. C. 137, 162 Yoels, W. C. 77, 78, 126, 203, 218 Yoshida, R. 28, 30, 31, 74, 110, 114, 190

251

This page intentionally left blank

Subject Index

acknowledgment 38 activity theory 7, 11–12, 84 addressee 3, 5, 69 affective factors 80–8 affective functions, of private speech 137–8, 167–78, 189–202 attention 2, 6, 27, 29, 52, 54 audience design 27–8 audio recording 17–18, 20–1 auditors 3 autonomy 9 avoiding strategies 87 casual expressions 197–200 Catherine 13–14, 16, 56–8, 62–6; development of, during course 217–18; language play by 171–2; pair work by 96–9; preferred learning strategies of 151–2; private interactions of 213, 214–15; private speech by 146, 147, 157–8, 165–6, 209; response to CF by 78–80; self-regulation by 180–2, 186–7, 210; teacher questions by 121–3; understanding of CF by 116–17; uptake rate 46, 50 child development 8, 130–2 children, studies of private speech in 130–2 clarification requests 24, 27, 36 class participation 1–5 classroom contexts: corrective feedback in 55–73; factors promoting noticing and understanding CF in 88–102; private speech in 135–7 classroom learning process 224–5 classroom observation 18–19 classroom participation 230–1

classrooms: communication-focused 32; language-focused 32 classroom strategies 54, 87, 88, 127, 196, 202, 210 coding: of corrective feedback 34–7; of errors 33–4; of learners’ responses 37–8 cognitive functions, of private speech 155–67 collective scaffolding 94–102 colloquial expressions 197–200 comment 141 communication-focused classrooms 32 conceptual understanding 76–7 confidence 219–20 consciousness 6 contextual factors, in JFL classrooms 52 conversation analysis 21–2 correct forms, development of 116–21 corrective feedback (CF) 2–5; affective factors of learners’ noticing or understanding 80–8; attention to 84; in classroom contexts 55–73; coding of 34–7; definitions of 24–5; differing study results on 31–2; direct 49–52; factors needing further study 32–3; factors promoting learners’ noticing and understanding 88–102; focus of 229; frequency of 42–4; identification and categorization of 38–40; incidental 49–52; learners’ preference for type of 109–16; learners’ responses to 73–80; learners’ understanding of 116–21; noticing and understanding 25–6; overview 24–33; perceptions of 29–31; rethinking 224–8; studies of existence

254

Subject Index

and effectiveness of 26–8; teachers’ choice of 109–16 culturally organized activities 4–5 data analysis 16–22 data collection methods 16–22 delayed recasts 35 delayed uptake 93, 118 developmental errors 104, 117 direct corrective feedback 49–52 discourse analysis 21–2 dynamic assessment 99, 103 eavesdroppers 33 effectiveness of CF 26–8 egocentric speech; see private speech elicitation 25, 36 embarrassment 77–8, 126 emic approach 225 errors: coding of 33–4; developmental 104, 117; frequency of 40–1; identification and categorization of 38–40; lexical 34; morphosyntactic 33; perception of 229; phonological 34; reading error of kanji 34; semantic 34 Erwin 14, 16, 57, 58; casual expressions by 197–8; colloquial expressions by 198–9; development of, during course 216–17; language play by 173–4, 175–6; pair work by 96–9; preferred learning strategies of 152; private interactions of 213–15; private speech by 144, 146–7, 149, 166–7, 192–5, 209; recasts and 107–9; selfcorrection by 102–3; self-regulation by 185–6, 187–8, 210; uptake rate 46–7, 50 ethnographic approach 16 ethnography 16 Euskera 135 evaluation 2 explicit correction 24, 35 face-threatening 138 feedback; see corrective feedback (CF) finding 141–2, 181

first language (FL) classrooms: definition of private speech in 139; private speech in 135–7 focus on form theory 2, 24, 26 formulaic expressions 177 frustration 186 gestures 134, 208–10 high-proficiency learners, corrective feedback and 26 home review 118–19 hypothesis testing 163 imitation 23 n3, 162 incidental clarification requests 36–7 incidental corrective feedback 49–52, 71, 86 incidental elicitation 36 incidental explicit correction 35 incidental metalinguistic feedback 36 incidental multiple feedback 37 incidental recasts 3–4, 35, 84 incidental repetition 36 individual differences 53, 113–14, 144, 145, 153 initiation 2, 28 inner speech 131–2, 134, 154 n2 interaction 6 internalization 7–8, 99 interpsychological plane 5, 8, 138 intersubjectivity 7, 10–11, 101 interviews, stimulated recall 19–20, 93 intransitive verbs 105 intrapsychological plane 5, 8, 138 IRE (initiation, response, evaluation) sequence 2, 189 Ito 15; choice of CF by 110; perceptions of private speech by 206–7 Japanese language learning (JFL) classrooms, contextual factors in 52 Japanese language program: data collection and analysis 16–22; limitations and possibilities of further studies 232–3; overview 12–13;

Subject Index participants in 13–15, 16; teachers in 15–16 Jessica 14, 16; affective factors influencing 80–4; development of, during course 216; errors by 112–13; pair work by 99–101; preference for type of CF by 114–15; private speech by 144, 147, 149; repetition by 155–6; response to CF by 75–6; selfregulation 211; uptake rate 47, 50–1 jokes 192–6 Kiki 14–16, 58–61, 66–71; affective factors influencing 86–8; development of, during course 218; factors promoting noticing and understanding CF by 92–4; language play by 167–70; pair work by 94–6; preferred learning strategies of 151–2; private speech by 144, 148, 195–6; recasts and 105–7; repetition by 158–9; self-regulation 210–11; uptake rate 47, 51 labour 11 language, internalization of 7 language classrooms, participation by learners in 1–5 language-focused classrooms 32 language play 136, 167–78, 204 languaging 4 learners: affective factors on understanding of 80–8; development of, during course 216–20; enhancing participation of 230–1; factors promoting noticing and understanding CF by 88–102; goals and motives of 84, 115; interactions between teachers and 1; participation by, in language classrooms 1–5; perceptions of corrective feedback by 29–31; perceptions of private speech by 202–8; preference for type of CF by 109–16; private interactions of 211–15; promotion of noticing and understanding in 228–30; roles of, in classrooms 189–202; self-correction

255

by 102–3; studies of private speech in 132–4; understanding of CF by 116–21 learners’ assessment, dynamic 99, 103 learners’ errors; see errors learners’ responses: coding of 37–8; to corrective feedback 73–80; frequency of 44–5; identification and categorization of 38–40 learning: as internalization 7–8; language 7 learning strategies: preferred, and private speech 151–3; private speech and 134–5 lexical errors 34 Lily 15, 16; development of, during course 218–19; factors promoting noticing and understanding CF by 89–92; language play by 170–3, 174–5; preferred learning strategies of 151–2; private interactions of 212–13; private speech by 144, 146, 148, 209; recasts and 104–5; self-regulation by 179–80, 182–5, 186–7, 210; understanding of CF by 119–21; uptake rate 47–8, 51–2 low-proficiency learners, corrective feedback and 26 manipulation 141, 170–3 McCartney 15–16, 51–2, 60–1, 76, 92; choice of CF by 110; perceptions of private speech by 205–8; repetition by 159–62; use of recasts by 102–3, 107–9 memory 5, 6, 27, 69, 151–3, 173 mental rehearsal 135, 141 metacognitive functions, of private speech 155–67 metalinguistic feedback 25, 35 microgenesis 7 microgenetic domain 7 mimicking 167–70 morphosyntactic errors 33, 41 motivation 84, 88, 115 multiple 34, 35, 37, 142 multiple feedback 37 negotiation 102, 116, 230–1

256

Subject Index

non-verbal behaviours 208–10 noticing 45–8 , 80–8, 88–102, 228–30 note-taking 157–8 no uptake and no acknowledgement 37, 38 object-regulation 134, 210 object-regulatory behavior 84 off-stage exchanges 69 on-stage exchanges 69 ontogenetic domain 6 other-regulation 134, 210 output hypothesis 4 outside classroom experiences 152–3, 229 overhearers/over-hearing 3, 204–5 participation 69, 77, 89, 102, 127, 138, 189 pedagogical pressure 77, 225, 228 peer work 2; asking teachers questions during 121–5; corrective feedback occurence during 71–3; private speech in 149–50, 166–7; scaffolding during 94–102 perception: of CF 29–31; of errors 229; of learners 29–31, 202–8; of private speech 202–8; of teachers 29–31, 202–8 phonological errors 34 phylogenetic domain 6 post-task activities 70–2, 89, 225, 227 private speech 2–5, 22 n1; affective and social functions of 137–8, 167–78, 189–202; categorization of 140–3; cognitive and metacognitive functions of 155–67; definition of, in FL classrooms 139; factors needing further study 137–9; in FL classrooms 135–7; frequency of 143–53; identification of 20, 140; learning strategies relating to 134–5; non-verbal aspects 208–10; in other languages 150; overview 130–9; in peer-learning settings 149–50; perceptions of 202–8; preferred learning strategies and 151–3;

regulation and 210–11; rethinking 224–8; self-regulatory function of 178–89; studies in adult SL/FL learners 132–4; studies in children 130–2; target-language ability and frequency of 150–1; types of, and frequency 145–6 pronunciation problems 80–3 questions 142 reading aloud 142, 187–9 reading error of kanji 34 recasts 2–4, 24, 35, 92; delayed 35; effectiveness of 26–8, 102–9; incidental 35; perceptions of 29–31 regulation 8–9; private speech and 210–11 rehearsal 136, 141 repair 24, 28, 225 repetition 25, 36, 93–4, 137, 140, 155, 167–70 review, at home 118–19 scaffolding 7, 9–10, 23 n4, 92; collective 94–102 schooling 11 second language acquisition (SLA) 2 self-addressed questions 178, 180 self-answer 142 self-correction 102–3, 116, 229 self-criticizing comments 184–5 self-monitoring 166–7 self-regulation 8–9, 125, 133–4; private speech and 210–11; using private speech 178–89 semantic errors 34 SL/FL learners, studies of private speech in 132–4 social acts 77 social functions, of private speech 137–8, 167–78, 189–202 social identity 77 social pressure 77, 225, 228 social speech 130, 134, 137, 139, 153, 166–7

Subject Index sociocultural domain 6 sociocultural theory 5–12; Activity Theory and 11–12; fundamental concepts 6–7; internalization 7–8; intersubjectivity 10–11; regulation 8–9; scaffolding 9–10; zone of proximal development (ZPD) 9 speech; see also private speech: in classroom contexts 5–12; covert 2; inner 131–2, 134, 154 n2; overt 2; social 130, 134, 137, 139, 153, 166–7 spontaneous knowledge 217 stimulated recall interview 19–20, 93–4 subvocal rehearsal 135 successful uptake 28, 107 teacher feedback; see corrective feedback (CF) teacher-fronted situations 27–9, 38, 41–5, 212, 215, 228 teachers: asking questions of, during peer work 121–5; choice of CF by 109–16; evaluation by 2; flexibility by 231–2; interactions between learners and 1; perceptions of corrective feedback by 29–31; perceptions of private speech by 202–8; roles of, in classrooms 189–202; in study 15–16; use of recasts by 102–9 time restrictions 110 tools 6

257

transcripts 20–1 transitive verbs 105 translation 163 understanding 25–6, 80–8, 88–102, 116–21, 228–30 unsuccessful uptake 38 uptake 3, 37–8, 45–8, 54 n7; frequency of 49–52 uptake and acknowledge 37, 38 vicarious response 141, 163–5, 182, 211 video recording 17–18 visualization 151–2 visual supports 89–92 vocabulary, retention of new 125 Wendy 15, 16, 59–60; development of, during course 219; preferred learning strategies of 152; private speech by 148, 149; regulation by 211; repetition by 156–7, 158–9; response to CF by 73–5; self-regulation by 181–2; teacher questions by 123–5; understanding of CF by 118; uptake rate 48, 52 wordplay 136, 142 writing 157 zone of proximal development (ZPD) 7, 9, 92

Learners in Japanese Language Classrooms: Overt and Covert Participation

Language, Classrooms and Computers

Dictionaries and Language Learners

Life in Language Immersion Classrooms

Language learners as ethnographers

Motivating Language Learners

Covert

Helping English Language Learners Succeed

Covert

Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms (Cambridge Language Education)

Assessing Young Language Learners (Cambridge Language Assessment)

Inside Japanese Classrooms: The Heart of Education

Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms (Cambridge Language Education)

Language Learners in Study Abroad Contexts (Second Language Acquisition)

Covert

Covert

Covert

Language Learners as Ethnographers (Modern Language in Practice)

Constructing inequality in multilingual classrooms (Language, Power and Social Process)

Learning Strategies in Foreign and Second Language Classrooms

Teaching and Researching Language in African Classrooms (Multilingual Matters)

Third Language Learners: Pragmatic Production And Awareness (Second Language Acquisition)

Corpora and Language Learners (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

Democracy and Participation in Athens

Instructional Strategies for Diverse Learners (Practical Strategies for Successful Classrooms)

Hugo Language Course: Japanese In Three Months

Second Language Attrition in Japanese Contexts

Effective Learning in Classrooms

Life in Classrooms

A Lao grammar for language learners

Covert Pursuit

Learners in Japanese Language Classrooms: Overt and Covert Participation

Language, Classrooms and Computers

Dictionaries and Language Learners

Life in Language Immersion Classrooms

Language learners as ethnographers

Motivating Language Learners

Covert

Helping English Language Learners Succeed

Covert

Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms (Cambridge Language Education)

Assessing Young Language Learners (Cambridge Language Assessment)

Inside Japanese Classrooms: The Heart of Education

Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms (Cambridge Language Education)

Language Learners in Study Abroad Contexts (Second Language Acquisition)

Covert

Covert

Covert

Language Learners as Ethnographers (Modern Language in Practice)

Constructing inequality in multilingual classrooms (Language, Power and Social Process)

Learning Strategies in Foreign and Second Language Classrooms

Teaching and Researching Language in African Classrooms (Multilingual Matters)

Third Language Learners: Pragmatic Production And Awareness (Second Language Acquisition)

Corpora and Language Learners (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

Democracy and Participation in Athens

Instructional Strategies for Diverse Learners (Practical Strategies for Successful Classrooms)

Hugo Language Course: Japanese In Three Months

Second Language Attrition in Japanese Contexts

Effective Learning in Classrooms

Life in Classrooms

A Lao grammar for language learners

Covert Pursuit

Recommend Documents