Online Second Language Acquisition: Conversation Analysis of Online Chat

Online Second Language Acquisition Also available from Continuum Marking Past Tense in Second Language Acquisition, R...

Author: Vincenza Tudini

51 downloads 1150 Views 859KB 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

Online Second Language Acquisition

Also available from Continuum Marking Past Tense in Second Language Acquisition, Rafael Salaberry Parameter Setting in Language Acquisition, Dalila Ayoun

Online Second Language Acquisition Conversation Analysis of Online Chat

Vincenza Tudini

Continuum International Publishing Group The Tower Building 80 Maiden Lane 11 York Road Suite 704 London SE1 7NX New York, NY 10038 www.continuumbooks.com © Vincenza Tudini 2010 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. Author 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: 978-0-8264-4240-6 (hardcover) Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

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

Contents

Acknowledgements List of Abbreviations 1. Introduction: Online Intercultural Talk-in-Interaction Which Online Chat? Why and How CA? Insights from Previous Literature on Online Foreign Language Chat The Corpus Used in the Study Conclusion: Summary of Research Aims and Objectives 2. Towards a Definition of Online Intercultural Chat: Insights from SLA Introduction Motives of Native Speakers and Learners in Chat: A Pedagogical or Social Context? Chat Jargon and Regional Varieties of Italian in the Presence of Foreign Language Learners Previous Comparisons of Online Text and Audio/Video Conversations Visual Saliency and Noticing From Apperception to Output: Application of Interactionist SLA Models to Online Chat Teacher and Foreigner Talk in the Chat Room Triggers of Conversational Repair: What Do Native Speaker and Learner Participants Repair in Chat? Conclusion 3. Turn-Taking, Adjacency Pairs and Sequencing Introduction How Turn-Taking Works in Online One-to-One Text Chat Split Adjacency Pairs

viii ix 1 1 4 8 11 15 17 17 17 19 20 21 24 26 29 32 33 33 35 36

vi

Contents Lack of Contiguity Between Repairable and Correction Split Turn Constructional Units (TCUs) Conclusion

4. Conversational Repair in Online Intercultural Chat: Initiation and Resolution by Self or Other Introduction: Pursuing Understanding and SLA in the Foreign Language Chat Room Who Initiates and Resolves Repair Sequences in Intercultural Online Chat? Conclusion 5. Other-Repair in Online Intercultural Chat: When Native Speakers Do Correction Introduction Other-Initiated Other-Repair: Exposed and Embedded Correction How Correction is Organized The Interactional Relevance of Repetition after Exposed Correction in Online Intercultural Chat The Significance of Vocabulary: Native Speaker Ensuring Understanding of Social Status Through Extended Other-Repair Conclusion 6. Mitigation and Play in Repair Sequences: Native Speakers and Learners Constructing Intersubjectivity Introduction Preference Organization in Repair Sequences: Dealing with Dispreferredness of Repair Strategies to Set Up an Expert Novice Relationship Native Speakers Playing Tutor Mitigation through Accountings Learners’ Face Work around Other-Initiated Self-Repair (Clarification Requests) Mitigation through Correction-Apology and Correction-Appreciation Routines Native Speakers Explaining Grammar Native Speakers Orienting to Meaning and Disattending to Linguistic Expert Role The Role of Emoticons Conclusion

41 46 51 52 52 56 95 97 97 97 106 114 116 124 127 127 128 129 135 141 148 152 154 157 159 165

Contents

vii

7. Insights from Unsuccessful Repair Sequences Introduction When Mutual Understanding Fails Conclusion

167 167 168 175

8. Implications for SLA Research and Language Teaching Introduction Productive Repair Trajectories in Online Intercultural Chat Visual Saliency and Multimodality as Conversational Scaffold Intercultural Pragmatics in Online Chat Conclusion

177 177 177 189 193 197

9. Integrating Online Chat in Foreign Language Programs: Suggestions and Resources Introduction Setting Up Partnerships Online Conversation Topics Choosing Appropriate Chat Software Integration of Online Chat through Assessment In or Out of Class? Social Diversity of Native Speaker Interlocutors Encouraging Noticing through Learner Reports

201 201 201 202 202 203 204 204 205

Appendix 1 Full Extended Chat Session of One Native-SpeakerLearner Dyad Including Papaveri Sequence

207

Appendix 2 Complete Brief Multiple Chat Sessions of One Learner, Including Sono Andata Sopra Sequence

222

Appendix 3 Instructions on How to Access Facebook Chat

236

References Index

239 245

Acknowledgements

I am indebted to Tony Liddicoat for drawing my attention to potential applications of Conversation Analysis to online intercultural talk. I am also grateful for his guidance, comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of the manuscript, especially those which enriched the analysis with alternative interpretations of participants’ interactional intentions. Any errors and omissions in this text are entirely my own. Thank you to the students of Italian at the University of South Australia, who so enthusiastically participated in this study. I hope it does justice to their resourcefulness and initiative within a relatively new and unorthodox learning environment. I also wish to acknowledge my colleagues Giancarlo Chiro, Milena Ciroli and Isobel Grave, and the professional staff at the School of Communication, International Studies & Languages, for their support during the final stages of writing and submission of the manuscript. I wish to acknowledge my commissioning editor Gurdeep Mattu and assistant editor Colleen Coalter for their patience with my many delays. Angela Scarino and Kerry Green’s support was also essential to the successful completion of this study, as was the work of translator Rosanna Kelly. Finally, I wish to thank my husband Giuseppe for his moral support and for putting up with my absences. I am also grateful to my son Marco for impatiently urging me to finish the book.

List of Abbreviations

CA

= Conversation Analysis

SLA = Second Language Acquisition Chat = text chat, as opposed to face-to-face conversation or voice chat which refers to online audio communication; voice chat may or may not include face-to-face communication via a webcam. NS

= native speaker

L

= learner

NNS = non-native speaker (when citing other studies otherwise L is used)

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 1

Introduction: Online Intercultural Talk-in-Interaction

Which Online Chat? This book uses Conversation Analysis (CA) methodology to understand how foreign languages are used and learned in a naturalistic online setting, specifically in text chat. Text chat is widely available both in institutional and private settings, and is fast becoming a mainstream tool in the teaching and learning of foreign languages. It has been reported to provide many of the benefits of face-to-face conversation, despite the lack of kinesic and prosodic features which typify spoken face-to-face communication. Kinesic features include the various aspects of visual communication and space sharing such as gesture, posture, stance, facial expression, eye contact, gaze, haptics and proxemics. Prosodic elements of oral interaction include accent, stress, volume, pitch, intonation and rhythm. Furthermore, from a conversation analytic point of view, the absence of pauses and sound stretches in online text chat also reduces its prosodic richness when compared with spoken language. The reported pedagogical benefits of online chat can however be attributed to the real-time (synchronous) nature of chat communication which obliges participants to ‘think on their feet’ and co-construct online talk, as occurs in face-to-face conversation. The real-time nature of online chat also permits negotiation of meaning, a visible language learning behaviour, on which most text chat research has focused so far, mainly within an interactionist theoretical framework. However, online text chat has many manifestations and cannot be analysed as a monolithic whole. Research in this area needs to be aware of contextual issues, despite interactional commonalities, as talk is context-shaped at the same time as it is context-renewing. As summarized by Liddicoat (2007), external context may shape interaction ‘in the form of social categories, social relationships and institutional and cultural settings’ (p. 7). It needs

2


however to be invoked in interaction as something which is relevant to the participants (p. 8). Hence, research needs to investigate whether the procedural structure of online chat interaction has different characteristics according to whether the interactions are monolingual (native speaker (NS) only) or intercultural (NS-foreign language learner), group or dyad, acquainted or unacquainted participants, internationally dispersed or in the same room, similar or different professional backgrounds. Online chat between non-native speakers (NNSs) is also likely to be structured differently from NS-learner chat. For example, Tudini (2005) indicated that selfinitiated self-repair sequences are as frequent as other types of repairs in ab initio NNS chat conversations. This contrasts with data discussed in this text (Chapter 4), based on NS-learner interactions, where self-repairs are uncommon and mainly of a typographical nature. Research on online intercultural talk also needs to distinguish between chat interactions which are task-based or open-ended, as it appears that, based on interactionist definitions, negotiations are more frequent in task-based chat (31 per cent in Pellettieri, 2000, and 34 per cent in Smith, 2003) than in open-ended chat (between 9 per cent and 11 per cent in Tudini, 2003, 2004, 2007). These differences may impact on conversational structure and learning behaviours both in online and face-to-face contexts. On the issue of participant familiarity, Plough and Gass’ (1993) study of face-to-face interactions between NNS pairs found a higher incidence of overlaps, sentence completions, confirmation checks and clarification requests where participants knew one other than where they did not. At the same time, unfamiliar dyads were more keen to pursue completion of set tasks than familiar ones. Though based on NNS dyads and face-to-face task-based learning rather than NS-learner, open-ended online conversation, Plough and Gass’ (1993) study signals that participant familiarity may have some bearing on discourse functions. Although little comparative work has been carried out along the lines of the Plough and Gass (1993) study, CA for Second Language Acquisition (SLA) analyses in face-to-face contexts also suggest that different types of social relationships are likely to impact differently on the promotion of pedagogical activity in NS-learner interactions. A study of interest is Hosoda (2006), who analysed informal social interactions between NSs and learners of Japanese who were friends rather than the classroom interactions between NNSs or between NNSs and instructors, on which a great deal of CA for SLA work is based (e.g., Markee, 2000; Seedhouse, 2004). In this study, differential language expertise was only made relevant when repair was invited by the learner, or when there were problems in achieving mutual understanding. The NSs also frequently provided learners with opportunities to self-correct.

Introduction

3

The distinction between acquainted and unacquainted participants is also important to ascertain which types of relationships are more likely to lead to form and accuracy contexts rather than expression of personal meanings contexts (Seedhouse, 1999). For example, is exposed correction (recasts) a feature of the former and embedded (implicit) correction of the latter, as might be expected due to issues of politeness? On the other hand, is it possible for form and accuracy concerns to be embedded in personal meanings activities, as suggested by Schegloff et al. (1977), who saw pedagogical activity, particularly other-correction, as one vehicle for socialization (p. 380)? It is important to provide such differentiations to be able to draw conclusions on which types of relationships and tasks are most conducive to SLA. This will provide researchers, instructors and learners with the best models for authentic online interaction in the target language. This study is a first step in this direction. Data used in the current study draws principally from new online relationships within unfamiliar dyads, where participants have only recently met. These include interactions where recently acquainted unfamiliar participants have met through websites dedicated to learners with a mutual language learning focus. In summary, this study deals with online chat which has been accomplished as follows: z

z z z

z

by internationally dispersed NSs and learners of Italian (intermediate level) who are studying either by distance education or by regularly attending formal classes; in unfamiliar dyads (who have only just met during the project period either in the same semester or year); out-of-class either in university computer pools, workplaces or at home; in open-ended conversation, with the option for learners using set topics on Italian customs, lifestyle, politics and cultural stereotypes regarding Italians, Australians and Italo-Australians; between language learners and NSs of various professional backgrounds, with predominantly NS males and learner females.

Group interactions have been excluded from this study as the multiple conversation threads which are typical of group chat were considered more difficult to manage by language learners, as well as providing fewer opportunities for individual interaction and relationship building. Virtual community behaviour also tends to be more strongly prescribed in group chat than in private chat and could potentially lead to exclusion of language learners from the community (cf. Hanna & de Nooy, 2003).

4


Regarding gender of participants, most students enrolled in Italian at the participating university tended to be female. These students claim in their reports that they found it easier to establish communication with male NSs rather than female. Despite the more orderly dyadic structure when compared to group conversations, overlaps, interruptions, anticipated and collaborative completions and other aspects of face-to-face conversation appear not to be present, because they are not doable or expressed differently in online text chat. For example, the simultaneous typing of text chat turns by participants chatting one-to-one is described by Crystal (2006) as occurring in an ‘overlapping mode’ (p.152), in a departure from principles underlying turn-taking in face-to-face conversation. Description of these features is however based on chat softwares, such as those used in this study, which do not always permit conversationalists to see the production of interlocutors’ messages, which appear on screen only after the ‘send’ button is clicked (softwares which allow interlocutors to view messages as they are composed rather than after they have been sent are described in Crystal, 2006, p. 157 & Pellettieri, 2000, p. 60). However, this technological constraint contributes to making the language of this medium a new linguistic variety in its own right (Crystal, 2006; Garcia & Jacobs, 1999), as well as providing pedagogical advantages for language learners. It is therefore unsurprising that sequence organization, or the way participants organize turns-at-talk, is one key area where online conversational structure diverges from face-to-face and will be discussed in Chapter 3 on adjacency pairs, turn-taking and sequencing.

Why and How CA? As pointed out by Firth and Wagner’s (1997) seminal article, researchers working with Second Language Acquisition (SLA) theory which has been reconceptualized through CA ‘will be better able to understand and explicate how language is used as it is being acquired through interaction’ (p. 768). In seeing language as predominantly a cognitive phenomenon which is the product of an individual’s brain, SLA has overlooked the role of language and conversation as a social phenomenon which both NSs and learners construct collaboratively (Liddicoat, 1997). Furthermore, rather than seeing learners as deficient communicators, CA provides evidence of foreign language learners successfully deploying communicative resources which they have in common with NSs through conversational structure. This is

Introduction

5

possible because talk is organized on a turn-by-turn basis. This provides both NS and learner participants in conversations with a resource which Schegloff (1992) terms a ‘procedural infrastructure of interaction’ (p. 1338) which is common to all languages. While considerable work has been conducted in this area on face-to-face conversation, online intercultural conversation has been neglected and will be the focus of this book. Though developed and applied within face-to-face contexts, CA is particularly relevant to online chat interaction because it is a textual form of socially oriented, naturally occurring talk which lends itself to the same types of fine grained analyses which have been applied to face-to-face talk. In summary, though it is a written form of communication, chat shares many features with spoken interaction, such as synchronous communication, and turn-by-turn co-construction of interactions and repair sequences. However, in face-to-face CA conversations need to be recorded and subsequently transcribed using the appropriate conventions. In analysing chat, no transcription of conversations is required, as participants collaborate and control their own written production of conversations. The emic perspective which guides this online chat research builds on previous CA for SLA work in face-to-face contexts in documenting micromoments of learning which regularly orient conversation to a specific outcome (Hosoda, 2006; Kasper, 1985; Markee, 2000; Mori, 2003). Most research on CA for SLA has focused on classroom-based interactions between instructors and learners, or learners working in a group, with the exception of Hosoda (2006), who has analysed informal social interactions between NSs and learners of Japanese who are friends, and Kasper’s (2004) analysis of dyadic conversation between a beginner learner and an NS of German. Seedhouse (2005) signals online text chat as a possible future application for CA (p. 181). The current study of online conversation focuses on out-of-class social interactions between NSs and learners, chatting in dyads, with CA permitting a more detailed examination of how co-participants participate equally in initiating repair work described in the author’s previous work (Tudini, 2007). Initiation of negotiation sequences by NSs and learners has been documented statistically but is ripe for a CA perspective. Some of the central issues which concern conversation analysts and are relevant to intercultural online talk include the following: a. preference organization (the way in which speakers organize talk); b. adjacency pairs (the clustering of sequences in pairs); c. turn-taking (the way in which speakers change and allocate turns);

6


d. repair (similar but broader than negotiation of meaning, conversation is repaired when it is interrupted and sometimes reformulated by speakers to achieve mutual understanding); e. roles and politeness (how conversation establishes roles and communicates politeness). These issues will be attended to in this text; however, repair and roles (d and e) are particularly important in foreign language learning. Repair sequences are revealing of language learning processes, as they provide analysts and untrained readers with the opportunity to observe single moments of learning being negotiated by participants. Analysis of key aspects of online SLA will therefore be based mainly on repair sequences as this is where SLA behaviours are most evident. Repair Repair is a central aspect of CA and is seen as a normal feature of conversation between NSs, NSs and learners, or between learners. It refers to the process by which speakers deal with problems arising in talk (Schegloff et al., 1977) and is a broader phenomenon than correction (Jefferson, 1987). Repair is hence only partially covered by interactionist definitions (Varonis & Gass, 1985) which use the term negotiation of meaning to describe when conversation is interrupted and sometimes reformulated by speakers to achieve mutual understanding. According to interactionist research, negotiation is seen to promote SLA in face-to-face conversation due to the opportunities that social interaction offers learners to obtain and produce ‘comprehensible input’ when negotiating with NS interlocutors (Krashen, 1985; Swain, 1985, 1995) through conversational adjustments. Conversational adjustments initiated by learners include the initiation of repairs such as comprehension checks, verifications of meaning, definition requests, and expressions of lexical uncertainty (Porter, 1986, p. 207). Repair sequences initiated by NSs include correction of learners’ language. All of these actions are manifestations of repair in CA for SLA research, which differentiates between who initiates and completes repair sequences (Markee, 2000). CA for SLA research also considers how intersubjectivity and face are maintained in spite of the need for conversational repair. The distinction between general conversational repair, or problems of talk common to both L1 and L2 conversations, and didactic (or mediumoriented) repair, which defines problems which characterize foreign

Introduction

7

language learning (Van Lier, 1988, p. 188), will be critical in this analysis. This differentiation is discussed and illustrated in Chapter 2 (triggers of conversational repair: what do NS and learner participants repair in chat?) and contributes to the identification of pedagogically relevant online tasks, relationships and behaviours.

Intersubjectivity Intersubjectivity underpins all conversational activity, including conversations between NSs and learners who tend to respectively orient to expert and novice roles in the use of the target language within an unequal speech exchange system. The linguistic inequality is likely to put more pressure on the construction and maintenance of intersubjectivity, which involves the mutual constitution of social relationships. According to Markee (2000), repair is fundamental to the constitution and maintenance of intersubjectivity: From a CA perspective, repair is the principal resource that conversationalists have at their disposal to maintain intersubjectivity, that is, to construct shared meanings (Schegloff, 1992b). Thus, far from marring the flow of talk-in-interaction, repair is what ultimately enables speakers to maintain their social relationships; but the accomplishment of this intersubjectivity is a supremely delicate matter, which may have complicated consequences for language learning. (p. 101) Hence, participants involved in intercultural conversations tend to interweave social and pedagogical actions in an effort to maintain intersubjectivity while at the same time engaging in repair work relating to form as well as content (Tudini, 2007). This study proposes more precise definitions of the conversational mechanisms by which learners and NSs negotiate or repair online talk than are possible within interactionist paradigms. This is achieved through an inductive approach to analysis of prototypical repair sequences between NSs and learners, with a focus on observable, successful and unsuccessful (or interactionally unresolved) learning episodes. While the online setting is influenced by the medium of communication, it may nonetheless shed some light on language learning processes and the maintenance of intersubjectivity in both online and face-to-face naturalistic conversations.

8


Insights from Previous Literature on Online Foreign Language Chat Though many studies have been conducted on negotiation and repair during online foreign language chat interaction, only two of them have been guided by CA (Negretti, 1999; Tudini, 2002), through a data-driven microanalytic approach. This is surprising, as chat has much in common with face-to-face conversation. The paucity of online chat studies using CA is probably because both intercultural online chat and CA for SLA are relatively new areas of enquiry. Nonetheless, Tudini (2002, 2004) found that learner chat discourse displays features which, according to selected indicators of spoken discourse, bring it closer to the oral than written medium. These indicators include repairs and incorporation of target forms, discourse markers and feedback tokens. The ‘orality’ described in these studies suggests that there are potential insights into SLA to be gained through microanalysis of conversational repair sequences within NS-learner chatline interactions. Despite the CA perspective, Negretti’s (1999) study of social and interactional aspects of online foreign language chat was based on a group setting, including interactions between NSs and learners, as well as between learners. Observed differences between online and face-to-face conversation might have been less marked in a chat restricted to two participants, as in the current study, where learner postings tend to be more orderly than in group sessions. Research by Tudini (2004) indicates that group chat is inappropriate for foreign language learners as it contains multiple conversation threads, with NS participants regularly displaying non-standard language as part of the virtual community socialization process. While such language is used in one-to-one chat, it is somewhat moderated, especially in the presence of language learners. Negretti’s (1999) study also discusses learner-learner and NS-learner interactions as a whole rather than as separate settings. As discussed earlier, discourse features may be different according to type of relationship and linguistic proficiency of the learner. Though Tudini’s (2007) study of chat interactions between NSs and learners focused mainly on negotiation of cultural content and intercultural pragmatics, it presented statistical evidence that the negotiation sequences were triggered mainly by lexical (35.3 per cent) and syntactic (35.3 per cent) issues, with 15.9 per cent of sequences triggered by intercultural issues (p. 588). It also found that learners were more likely to negotiate vocabulary than discuss grammar, while the NSs were more likely to intervene on learners’ grammar than on their use of target language vocabulary

Introduction

9

(Tudini, 2007). Notably, this study found that learners were equally likely to initiate negotiations as NSs. This evidence of learner initiative in out-ofclass settings suggests that chat promotes language learners’ confidence as intercultural speakers in real-life contexts, as also suggested by conversation analysts who emphasize language learner resourcefulness rather than deficiencies. Byram and Fleming (1998) also describe the ‘intercultural speaker’ as ‘someone who is learning to become independent of the teacher and the limits of what can be achieved in the classroom’ (p. 9). Learner resourcefulness may in fact be enhanced by text chat, which has been described as an equalizer (Kern, 1995; Warschauer, 1996). This is because it prevents confident speakers from ‘talking over’ shy learners, an important consideration when conversing with NSs in an otherwise unequal speech exchange system. While this aspect differentiates text chat from face-to-face, this likely pedagogical advantage of online chat requires further investigation from a CA perspective. The current study therefore approaches this issue through a treatment of online turn-taking, adjacency pairs and preference organization (Chapter 3). It also explores the potential for NS chat environments to promote development of learners’ negotiation/repair strategies outside the classroom by examining prototypical examples of NS and learner management of problems of communication and understanding (repair) during chat interaction and how this is productive for language acquisition (Chapters 4, 5, 6 and 7).

Negotiation of meaning While some CA work has been conducted on online monolingual chat (Garcia & Jacobs, 1999; Golato & Taleghani-Nikazm, 2006; Schönfeldt & Golato, 2003), previous research on online intercultural chat has been informed mainly by an interactionist theoretical framework (SLA theory). It has provided some evidence that real-time online chatting with other learners or NSs provides learners with opportunities for SLA through negotiation of meaning (Pellettieri, 2000; Smith, 2003; Tudini, 2003). However, most of these studies are not based on open-ended naturalistic conversation discussed in this study, but on specific instructional tasks. Similar to definitions of conversational repair, negotiation of meaning is recognizable when the conversation is interrupted and sometimes reformulated by either the NS or the learner. For example, Varonis and Gass (1985) refer to negotiations in face-to-face conversations as interruptions to the conversational flow to question particular utterances and request conversational help. Online chat provides a ‘real-life’ context and NS expert in the

10


target language for learners to (a) negotiate ‘comprehensible input’ (Krashen, 1985) by requesting explanations and asking questions of the NS; (b) engage in hypothesis testing (Elliott, 1981) about the target language through linguistic experimentation and (c) produce ‘pushed output’ (Swain, 1985) by using new vocabulary, improving grammar and pragmatic competence. Furthermore, it appears that form-focused instruction occurs spontaneously, without explicit teaching, in NS-learner chat interactions (Tudini, 2003). Further evidence is therefore needed that NS chat rooms provide meaningful contexts for drawing learners’ attention to form. Though referring to a classroom setting, Michael Long points out that: Focus on form . . . overtly draws students’ attention to linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning or communication. (Long, 1991, pp. 45–46) One-to-one rather than group Computer-Mediated discussion is identified by Doughty and Long (2003) as resembling interaction observed in Second Language research on negotiated interaction (p. 13). Negative feedback, including recasts, has in fact been shown to be a feature of chat interaction according to Pellettieri (2000) and Tudini (2003). Excerpt 1 presents an NS recast (interactionist theory) or other-repair/exposed correction (Jefferson, 1987: CA theory) which highlights two non-target forms, that is, the learner’s incorrect use of cose (‘things’) after qualche (‘some’) which should be followed by a singular noun in Italian, and the need for an article before università, omitted by the learner in keeping with English syntax: EXCERPT 1: EXPOSED CORRECTION/RECAST L: mi dispiace se non rispondo cosi veloce, cerco qualche cose sul web per universita’ I’m sorry if I don’t answer so quickly, I’m looking for something(s) on the web for university NS: cerco qualche cosa sul web per l’universita’ I’m looking for something on the web for (the) university (Tudini, 2003, p. 153) However, focus on form is not a normal feature of social interaction and is considered a socially ‘dispreferred action’ by conversation analysts, both in monolingual and foreign language settings. Research on how and why it

Introduction

11

occurs in socially oriented online chat will provide researchers and educators with guidelines on how to set up form-focused contexts and relevant relationships for language learners.

The Corpus Used in the Study Selection of sequences The corpus of NS-learner interactions provides ample substantiation of claims in regard to interactional features of online intercultural conversations, with approximately 133 learners and 584 NSs participating in the study. However, large quantities of data are not central to CA, which prefers adjectival rather than numerical means of quantification (Liddicoat, 2007, p. 11). Typically, a number of prototypical examples of the conversational feature under examination documents ‘regularity of behaviour’ (Gardner & Wagner, 2004, p. 7) in the foreign language chat room. Hence, in most cases a collection of single sequences displaying similar actions and patterns is analysed, though it is necessary to bear in mind that in CA the study of collections is the study of ‘multiple single-case examples, in which each next case demonstrates the systematic commonalities which exist across participants and contexts’ (Liddicoat, 2007, p. 11). In Chapter 7, a detailed single-case analysis of a lengthy episode of failed understanding is preferred to document how language learners and NSs are sometimes unable to collaboratively resolve repair sequences. The impresa sequence in Chapter 5 also benefits from single-case analysis to illustrate participants’ extended and persistent orientation to the social significance of a single lexical trouble source. Analysis of a single case, rather than multiple fragments of online conversations, is appropriate to a. track in detail the variety of interactional devices deployed by both NSs and learners to achieve understanding within an extended repair sequence on a single target language trouble source; b. start a collection of unresolved online repair sequences which document instances where understanding is not achievable or requires extended attention and repeated attempts at repair by participants.

The tasks and participants The excerpts examined in this study are extracted from chat transcripts of interactions between NSs and intermediate-level students of Italian with

12


various degrees of fluency at an Australian university. Intermediate classes (Italian 3A and 3B) include two cohorts of students. One group is in the second year of university study, after completing one year of university study at 2A and 2B level and the high school certificate in Italian. Another cohort of students enrolled in Italian 3A and 3B had started university study of Italian as beginners and were in their third year after entering 2A and 2B in their second year. Only the chat sessions of learners who consented to participate in this project and completed either Italian 3A or Italian 3B are included in this study. These learners were asked to interact with NSs based in Italy in one-toone chat in their own time, outside the classroom, as part of their assessment requirements and as part of a project investigating the potential of foreign language chatlines as a language learning tool. It was expected that this activity would better prepare learners for pragmatic and conversational Italian used in real-life contexts while promoting the establishment of online relationships with epals in Italy. Many students were enrolled by distance education and in some cases would attend some classes on a regular basis. Many external students did not attend class at all, hence they were provided with alternative opportunities for interaction in Italian, including online chat. While conversation topics on Italian lifestyle and politics were provided to assist learners with their interactions, learners and NSs often spent their first encounters establishing a relationship through exchange of personal information and phatic conversation, especially if they had only recently met online. As is evident in many of the extracts discussed in this text, rather than discussing set topics, occupations therefore became a regular theme in the conversations, especially in repair sequences within ‘categorization sequences’ (Maynard & Zimmerman, 1984, p. 305) which invited interactants to categorize themselves as members of a particular social group. During these sequences, learners sometimes initiated repair or requests for clarification since NSs’ occupations were unfamiliar. These new relationships will form an interesting comparison with relationships where there is a mutual language learning focus, where many NSs were learners of English. Regardless of their interest in learning English, the socio-economic background revealed by NSs was in fact extremely varied, and included disc jockeys, detectives, architects, lawyers, factory workers and students, unlike other Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) studies based on interaction between students only. Most of the NSs were apparently male

Introduction

13

though female NSs also participated and will be indicated during analyses where participants make this relevant. However, one can never be absolutely sure of the exact gender of chatters given that they chat under the cover of a nickname and profile. Both on-campus and off-campus students participated in chat interactions with NSs as part of their assessment requirements, and were required to write a report about their experience to promote reflection on their learning.

Data Most of the data are conversations between NSs and learners of Italian who have only just met. However, participants sometimes establish relationships with a mutual pedagogical focus, when NSs indicate that they are learners of English requiring linguistic assistance. These online partnerships provide important insights into how best to use chatlines for both form-focused and meaning-oriented interactions. Some conversations occur within partnerships which have been established through sharedtalk at http://www. sharedtalk.com and etandem at http://www.slf.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/etandem/ etindex-en.html, which have guidelines on the uses of the websites. Each one of these sessions varied in length, from brief 5 turn exchanges, usually due to one of the participants’ lack of interest in continuing, to lengthy interactions over numerous sessions, where a regular dialogue was established. Appendix 1 presents an example of one of the longer chat sessions between an NS and a learner, and Appendix 2 of multiple chat sessions between one learner and numerous NS participants. Learner reports on chat sessions are also considered in the analysis where these provide additional evidence of SLA which has been identified in specific learning episodes.

Transcription The production of text chat transcripts is determined by participants, hence no transcription is required by the researcher. Transcripts are thus reproduced as they appear on screen apart from any identifying material, and are presented verbatim, including any imperfections and highlighting by learners subsequent to interaction. Highlighting provides evidence of learners reviewing and noticing micromoments of learning subsequent to online interaction. Square brackets include author’s comments when required.

14


Translations seek to convey the original style and meaning as closely as possible, though linguistic imperfections are mostly not translatable. To promote readability of the analysis, turns are also identified and coded as they are arranged on the participant produced transcript, with numbering recommencing from the beginning of each new session, as this sometimes provides information about familiarity of participants. Details about new or established relationships will be provided during analysis where this is relevant. The term ‘native speaker’ (NS) was adopted in this text for the sake of readability of chat interactions and clarity in determining participant roles within an unequal speech exchange system. These roles are however inverted where learners of Italian provide NSs with pedagogical feedback on their English. NS status is a complex issue (cf. Kramsch, 1998), especially in the chat environment, where nicknames are used and one cannot be sure who the Italian NS participants really are without further probing. For the sake of consistency, conversations which indicated that a learner’s partner, an NS participant, was in fact an NNS of Italian were excluded from the data. Again for the sake of readability and clarity, the term ‘learner’ (L) rather than NNS or intercultural speaker has been used when reproducing chat conversations. While ‘intercultural speaker’ would have been a preferred designation of foreign language learners involved in this study, this could potentially have caused issues as some of the NS participants could also be classified as intercultural speakers where they were engaged in the learning of English as a foreign language or other foreign languages. Gender of participants is not indicated in the excerpts unless made relevant by the participants in the excerpt under analysis. Also, where participants use one another’s names in the talk rather than nicknames, fictitious alternative names are used throughout to protect participants’ anonymity. In particular, Italian male participants are referred to as Giovanni and female participants, whether Italian or Australian, as Monica, a name which is used across cultures.

Terminology used in the analysis In order to increase readability and precision of analyses, both CA and SLA descriptors are sometimes used where these add clarity to descriptions of features of the architecture and pedagogical purpose of online intercultural conversation. For example, the structural CA descriptor ‘repair

Introduction

15

initiation’ may also be described in functional SLA terms, ‘clarification request’, where pedagogical actions are at play. This reflects the book’s intention to promote a more nuanced understanding of co-constructed pedagogical behaviours, given CA’s important distinction between who initiates and completes repair sequences.

Conclusion: Summary of Research Aims and Objectives In summary, CA of online talk in this study is of interest to conversation analysts with an interest in SLA, foreign language teachers and SLA researchers, because it explores learning behaviours of NS-learner dyads, and how these promote SLA. In particular, it considers 1. how learners who interact independently of the language teacher, long distance with NSs in an online social setting, manage problems of communication and understanding (repair), and orient conversation to form-focused learning, within an unequal speech exchange system; 2. the various roles and behaviours of NSs in promoting ‘focus on form’ and SLA in an online setting; 3. how the overt and covert adoption of expert and novice roles in the chat context orients the conversation to language learning by both NSs and learners; 4. how participants’ organization of preference, turn-taking and repair allows social and pedagogical actions to coexist in the online intercultural chat context, even though chat is fundamentally social in nature; 5. how both acquainted and unacquainted NS-learner dyads engage in pedagogical activity while maintaining intersubjectivity during online interaction. This text provides insights into each of these aspects of online intercultural talk, focusing on repair sequences in particular. While each chapter has a different focus, it is often not possible to talk about one aspect of conversational structure without there being overlap with another. For example, though Chapters 4 and 5 approach online SLA from the perspective of repair, it also includes references to preference organization and mitigation, which are the focus of later chapters. Appendices include a selection of entire chat sessions by two learners of Italian which have only been partly reproduced in analyses. These have

16


been chosen to provide the CA for SLA researcher with a sample of dyadic intercultural online conversation by participants who engage in lengthy chat sessions with the same interlocutor (Appendix 1) and those who chat only briefly, usually only on one occasion with different interlocutors (Appendix 2).

Chapter 2

Towards a Definition of Online Intercultural Chat: Insights from SLA

Introduction This chapter identifies key features of online dyadic intercultural chat which may have a bearing on participants’ management of pedagogical repair sequences and impact on SLA. It also introduces interactionist models of SLA which are relevant to CA of online repair sequences coconstructed by NSs and learners. The Gass (1997) model, as adapted by Markee (2000) to CA of foreign language classroom talk, guides the identification of observable interlanguage development and ‘micromoments of learning’ in the online environment discussed in subsequent chapters.

Motives of Native Speakers and Learners in Chat: A Pedagogical or Social Context? As occurs in most chat rooms, the majority of NS participants in this study are chatting to socialize, build relationships and construct identities (Lam, 2004). However, while learners are keen to socialize with NSs of Italian in chat and orient to conventions of ordinary conversation, their motives are also pedagogical, given that the conversational activity is a course requirement and they are seeking to learn Italian through authentic interaction. This conflict of conversational intentions occasionally makes it difficult for learners to find an NS partner in NS chat rooms, which are not necessarily set up for the purpose of foreign language conversation practice, especially when learners declare their learner status from the outset. The social rather than pedagogical-institutional focus of the context described in this study nonetheless provides an authentic forum for examination of naturalistic form-focused social interaction between NSs and learners. While features of the electronic medium distinguish it from


18

face-to-face talk (Negretti, 1999; Smith, 2003; Tudini, 2004), this study identifies and examines prototypical examples of NSs of various social backgrounds offering feedback to learners about their language, particularly grammar and vocabulary. Unlike previous studies in this area, which are often conducted in laboratories between learners, these interactions take place during long-distance open-ended conversation between NSs and individual learners working out of class, in their own time. This requires considerable autonomy on the part of the learner, who needs to deploy linguistic resources, technical skills and interactional strategies to carry out a textual conversation. The main pedagogical benefits of online chat interaction according to previous studies are that it provides a bridge to face-to-face interaction (Beauvois, 1992; Kern, 1995; Negretti, 1999) and an optimal environment for second language acquisition (Pellettieri, 2000; Smith, 2003; Tudini, 2003, 2007). The use of one-to-one rather than group chat in particular has been found to be conducive to the learning of foreign languages because it provides learners with private and exclusive access to an expert in the target language. It has thus been described as a bridge to conversation as it provides learners with the opportunity to practice and develop conversational language in a less threatening environment than the classroom. The following other-repair sequence from a chat session between an NS (NS) and learner illustrates the pedagogical orientation of an otherwise social chat: EXCERPT 1: OTHER-INITIATED OTHER-REPAIR 223 L: che ha successo [with incorrect auxiliary verb ‘ha’] what happened 224 NS: che è successo [with correct auxiliary ‘è’] what happened 225 NS: era caduta la linea the line had gone dead 226 NS: nn lo so perche˙ [with chat abbreviation of non] I don’t know why 227 L: 䄗

䄗

228 L:

sai forse devo venire piu spesso qui sopra a parlare con te cosi mi imparo per bene you know I have to come here more often to talk to you so I learn properly

Definition of Online Intercultural Chat

19

Interestingly, the talk here initially revolves around a technical problem as it is successfully resumed after connection had been lost. Hence, the need to occasionally attend to technical problems indicates that online social interaction is technologically situated (Liddicoat, 2010). Then in turn 224, the conversation takes on a ‘form and accuracy’ (Seedhouse, 1999) orientation, when the learner receives unsolicited corrective feedback from the NS, on her incorrect auxiliary verb in the previous turn (223). At this point, the talk here switches from social or technical issues, to provide a learning opportunity for the learner, should the correction be noticed. The learner in fact visibly notices the problem, as evidenced by turns 227–228, and the NS’s linguistic knowledge provides corrective new input. Specifically, in turns 227 and 228, rather than seeing the correction as rude, the learner produces an approving, affiliative smiley face and explicitly acknowledges the learning opportunities offered by her interaction with the NS of Italian. As occurs in this sequence, the management of dual conversational trajectories, both pedagogical and social, is typical of online intercultural talk. From a CA perspective, the intercultural text chat environment can therefore be described as a co-constructed technologically situated hybrid form of communication that reflects informal social conversation as well as a potential venue for language practice. Given that interactants are NSs and learners of Italian, linguistic knowledge is asymmetrically distributed in an unequal power speech exchange system, though learners often have the advantage or ‘privilege’ (Kramsch, 1998) of being plurilingual and intercultural speakers when dealing with monolingual NSs.

Chat Jargon and Regional Varieties of Italian in the Presence of Foreign Language Learners As previously noted, NSs tend to ‘tone down’ chat jargon in dyadic chat with language learners, and use mainly informal colloquial Italian. If language learners are novices to the target language chat environment, this linguistic variety (see Crystal, 2006) occasionally causes problems of understanding which trigger repair sequences, usually initiated by learners and resolved by NSs. EXCERPT 2: CMQ 138 NS: cmq [comunque] anyway

20


139 NS: vedi sotto? see below? 140 L: cose cmq? what’s cmq 141 NS: abbreviazione per comunque abbreviation for comunque 142 NS: cmq=comunque cmq = comunque (anyhow) 143 L: grazie thanks In their reports on the online chat experience, learners frequently note the usefulness of learning episodes relating to chat abbreviations and acronyms as they also prepare them for SMS exchanges which are a central aspect of everyday communication in Italy (Cosenza, 2002). The use of regional varieties of Italian which have been previously identified as typical of group chat (Tudini, 2004) is rare in my data, probably as a type of accommodation to the language learner, who is exposed mainly to standard Italian in the classroom, unless he/she is a background speaker of Italian. The language used in online chat is an informal spoken variety of colloquial Italian, which Italian linguists distinguish from regional Italian, the variety of Italian spoken in a particular region or area of Italy. Dialects in the Italian context are separate languages, not just varieties of Italian, and have developed a global presence via the Internet, especially through online chat rooms, where social interaction in various Italian dialects is possible for NSs (Grimaldi, 2004). However, participants in this study only rarely orient to their regional backgrounds.

Previous Comparisons of Online Text and Audio/Video Conversations Jepson’s (2005) comparative study of negotiated interaction in text and voice chat found that the number of repair moves in voice chat rooms was significantly higher than in the text chat rooms, with frequent repairs driven by pronunciation. This suggests that voice chat is a useful tool for learners to practise pronunciation in a meaningful way, though further research is needed on how loss of face is managed during pronunciation repair sequences. In fact, anxiety was identified as a more prominent feature of voice chat than text chat in a study which compared speaking proficiency


21

and anxiety levels of participants in both mediums (Satar & Özdener, 2008). Both text and voice chat appeared to contribute to improved speaking proficiency of secondary school learners of English though voice chat was considered more appropriate to higher proficiency learners (p. 606). Ease of use also appears to be an advantage of text chat when online video technology has technological issues. Liddicoat’s (2010) study of NS online video conversations in French found that participants eventually reverted to the use of online text chat to continue their conversations, with text chat supplementing the video chat throughout the conversations.

Visual Saliency and Noticing The ‘visual saliency’ (Pellettieri, 2000, p. 81) of real-time textual conversations has advantages over voice communication for foreign language learning due to the opportunity to ‘read’ conversations as they are produced, thus promoting ‘noticing’ by the learner (Schmidt, 1995, 2001). ‘Noticing’ is an important principle of SLA research which is described by Swain and Lapkin (1995): In producing the L2, a learner will on occasion become aware of (i.e., notice) a linguistic problem (brought to his/her attention either by external feedback (e.g., clarification requests) or internal feedback). Noticing a problem ‘pushes’ the learner to modify his/her output. In doing so, the learner may sometimes be forced into a more syntactic processing mode than might occur in comprehension. (p. 373) Swain and Lapkin’s (1995) collaborative notion of ‘noticing’, is evident in Excerpt 1, when the NS draws an incorrect auxiliary verb to the attention of the learner by providing the correct version (recast). This problem might have gone unnoticed during the rapid fade of voice or face-to-face conversation. After all, it does not interfere with understanding but rather is strictly a ‘form and accuracy’ (Seedhouse, 1999) concern. In the chat room, visual saliency may contribute to learners noticing and seeking clarification on new lexicon used by the NS interlocutor, while both learners and NSs are more likely to pay attention to non-target grammar which would otherwise be ignored if unlikely to cause communication problems in social face-to-face conversation. Doughty and Long (2003) stress the importance of providing learners with negative feedback to induce ‘noticing’. Pellettieri (2000) notes that chat offers the advantage of ‘visual saliency of the model

22


form’ (p. 81). This supposedly facilitates learners’ comparison of corrected forms with the original utterance. It may also explain Yamada’s (2009) finding that text chat encourages learners to be conscious of grammatical and lexical accuracy (p. 832), while voice and image communication tends to enhance understanding through non-verbal cues and fillers (p. 831). Attention to detail by both NSs and learners is evident in Excerpt 3, where both NS and learner discuss a minor typographical error which stands out due to its written format. The learner here specifically rejects the correction trajectory (negative feedback) initiated by the NS, on the grounds that she had already noticed the problem after posting the turn: EXCERPT 3 1 L: Ciao .. come stai? Hi .. how are you? 2 NS: ciao hi 3 NS: tutto bene all good 4 NS: e tu? and you? 5 L: si sto benisssimi un po stanca pero perche e mezzanotte qui in Australia yes, I’m very well a little tired because it’s midnight here in Australia 6 NS: (can I correct you? you have to say benissimo :) ) 7 NS: here it’s 15:45 8 L: sure .. i realised! grazie ho visto l’errore dopo che l’ho inviato · sure .. I realised! thank you I saw the error after I sent it to you In Excerpt 4, a word search/comprehension check sequence, the learner’s exclamation oops (turn 216) suggests that she has noticed her own incorrect expression of the target word sapientone, and attempts self-repair in the following turn. EXCERPT 4: OOPS 215 L: non fare lo spinione? don’t be a ‘spinione’[non-existent term]? 216 L: oops oops 217 L: sapinione [non-existent term]


23

218 L:

tu mi hai imparata quella parola you learned [Southern Italian] me that word 219 L: ti ricordi? do you remember? 220 NS: SAPIENTONE KNOW-IT-ALL 221 NS: SI KE MI RICORDO OF COURSE I REMEMBER 222 L: ma non so se ho scritto bene but I don’t know whether I’ve written it correctly 223 L: ahh gia ahh that’s right 224 L: hehehehe [laughter] This sequence is triggered by a lexical issue, with the learner using a question mark to indicate hesitation about her initial attempt at using the recently learned term sapientone (know-it-all). She then realizes it is not target-like and reformulates it, possibly after seeing it written on the screen, as suggested by oops in turn 216. This learning episode is initiated by the learner, not the NS, and conforms more closely to Schmidt’s (1995, 2001) model of noticing, where learners’ attention is crucial. It is also likely that ‘noticing’ and linguistic collaboration between NSs and learners is aided by the ‘slowing down’ of conversation which is a feature of text chat (Beauvois, 1992). The visual saliency and slow pace of textual conversation may thus promote focus on form and participants’ orientation to an NS-learner relationship during chat. Such a relationship contributes to learning when participants make these roles salient during the conversation. Warschauer (1998) notes the benefits of chat conversation in helping him to notice new words which he had never before ‘caught’ in oral conversation. Shekary and Tahririan (2006) conducted a study specifically on negotiation and noticing in chat between NNSs of EFL and found that three quarters of specific linguistic items noticed during chat interaction by learners were subsequently remembered in post-tests. Hence, it is possible that the readability and visual saliency of online chat trigger both NSs’ ‘noticing’ of a gap in learners’ current knowledge of the target language and learners’ conscious noticing of this gap when they compare the original form with the input they are reading in the chat talk. As in excerpts 3 and 4 above, learners are also likely to notice non-target forms without NS intervention.

24


This noticing of a gap may trigger conversational repair initiated by both learners and NSs, despite their concomitant orientation to socialize. While literature on noticing focuses principally on learners’ role, in interactive co-constructed dyadic talk, NSs are also likely to take on an active role in making the learner notice gaps through negative feedback, as observed in Excerpts 1 and 3 earlier. Face-to-face interaction does not permit conversation to be scrutinized in the same manner, as summed up by the Latin expression verba volant scripta manent (the spoken word flies away, the written remains). SLA models which differentiate between ‘apperception’, comprehended input and intake clearly have applications to online chat, given this medium’s potential to promote noticing in both NSs and learners.

From Apperception to Output: Application of Interactionist SLA Models to Online Chat Markee (2000) applies Gass’ (1997) longitudinal model of L2 learning to cross-sectional data to account for ‘learning on a moment-by-basis’ (p. 135) in a classroom context. Gass’ model attempts to account for ‘conversion of input to output’ (Gass, 1997, p. 3). According to this interactionist model of second language acquisition, learning occurs according to the following stages: 1. Input/apperceived input → 2. comprehended input → 3. intake → 4. integration → 5. output. Stage 1 of the SLA process distinguishes between input in general and apperceived input. This reflects Schmidt’s (1995, 2001) notion that learners must first apperceive or consciously notice a gap in their knowledge of the target language and the input they are reading or hearing before they can integrate it into their repertoire and subsequently use it. Gass (1997) suggests that this is a ‘priming device that prepares the input for further analysis’ (p. 4). This stage of the language learning process is therefore of particular relevance to online chat, which has been reported to be visually salient. Analysis of episodes of linguistic repair may shed light on what triggers this first stage of the process. Stage 2 of the learning process relates to comprehended input, which Gass (1997) differentiates from Krashen’s (1980) notion of comprehensible input. The role of negotiation and/or NS modification is crucial at this stage of the model. Given that Gass (1997) sees comprehended input as


25

representing the hearer’s rather than the speaker’s perspective on intake, Markee (2000) considers this notion of input to be of greater relevance to CA than comprehensible input (p. 18), which implies speaker control. It also covers a range of learning possibilities, as summarized by Markee (2000): from a comparatively shallow, semantically based process, during which learners are able to get the general gist of a message, to a deeper, syntactically based analysis of the structure of the language contained in the input. (Markee, 2000, pp. 18–19) Markee (2000) notes the ‘messiness’ of the SLA models which describe the transition from comprehended input to intake, which is the third stage of the process described by Gass (1997). This is where learners assimilate linguistic material and is also referred to as ‘selective processing’ (Gass, 1997, p. 5) where information is matched against prior knowledge and where, in general, processing takes place against the backdrop of the existing internalized grammatical rules. (p. 5) Comprehended input may in fact lead to either intake or integration (Stage 4). So, at Stages 3 and 4 the learner either incorporates the new knowledge or stores it for integration at a later stage. Specifically, as summarized by Markee (2000, pp. 21–22), at these two stages the learner may either: z

z

z z

Confirm or reject a hypothesis about how the target language works during intake and incorporate this new knowledge in his or her grammar in the subsequent step of integration; Not seem to use the input at all as it had previously been integrated into the learner’s grammar (this stage allows for confirming prior hypotheses); Store incompletely processed input until there is an opportunity for further clarification; Not use the new input at all, which ‘exits the system’, possibly due to lack of meaningful understanding.

Stage 5 (output) is where the learner tests newly acquired linguistic knowledge and moves from a semantic to a more valuable syntactic processing of the target language. It is at this stage that learning would appear to be most clearly observable in CA terms because, as noted by Markee (2000),

26


CA’s focus is on socially distributed learning behaviours rather than psycholinguistic learning constructs. However, Markee’s (2000) application of this model to cross-sectional, moment-by-moment descriptions of the ‘coral’ sequence indicates that the various stages of learning described by Gass (1997) are visible in group conversations between teacher and learners in classroom settings (pp. 135–136), though ‘intake’ and ‘integration’ are not distinguishable. This model has not yet been applied through microanalysis to the online one-to-one social context of this study, which is based on complete collections of interactions between NSs and learners of Italian. This study will thus consider whether the same processes occur in online chat, and how they compare to findings on face-to-face institutional or naturalistic contexts described in previous CA for SLA literature.

Teacher and Foreigner Talk in the Chat Room NSs and teachers sometimes engage in a type of simplified talk when speaking with NNSs and learners of foreign languages (Ferguson, 1971; Yule, 2006). Despite the reduced authenticity of input, this usually involves slower speech, repetition and simplification of grammar and vocabulary, which is deemed by the NS to be more comprehensible to the NNS, as in ‘How are you getting on in your studies?’ switched to ‘English class, you like it?’ (Yule, 2006. p. 158) where the definite article and the verb ‘to do’ are omitted in the second version. The pace of chat interaction is generally slower than in speech as utterances need to be typed. The deliberate slowing down of conversation is also unnecessary as NS utterances can be read and analysed by learners. So, is there evidence that NSs simplify their language in order to communicate with learners? And, how do they accommodate to the learner when there is an issue in understanding? First of all, there is no evidence in my data of unsolicited grammatical and lexical simplification by NS. NSs generally ‘talk’ to learners as they talk to other NSs, except perhaps with the reduction of some of the chat jargon and dialect which characterizes group chat (Tudini, 2004). For example, NSs successfully adopt the simplified verbless syntax which they use with other NSs in chat rooms, as in the following example, where the NS successfully uses the single word ‘anni?’ (literally ‘years?’ or ‘age?’) with a question mark to ascertain the learner’s age instead of the complete textbook expression ‘quanti anni hai?’ (how old are you?)


27

EXCERPT 5 9 NS: anni? years? 10 L: perche’ - mi dici primo why-tell me first 11 NS: Cosa..? What? 12 NS: cosa vuoi dire’ what do you mean 13 L: Voglio che mi dici quanti anni hai I want you to tell me how old you are

(Adapted from Tudini, 2004, pp. 75–76) In this case, the learner understands the NS’ question but is reluctant to divulge her age first, as becomes evident in her reformulation in turn 13. Another typical opening question by NSs regards the gender of learner participants. Again, the verb is omitted and the following abbreviated form of maschio(‘male’) or femmina (‘female’) is used without causing interactional difficulties, given that learners are NSs of English: EXCERPT 6 NS: M o F? M or F? So in a sense, online chat talk is already simplified, as occurs in SMS communication. However, when learners do express non-understanding, NSs launch into reformulation of original utterances, mainly through paraphrase, explanation or exemplification. In Excerpt 7, the learner indicates that she hasn’t understood ‘mica’ through simple repetition of the repairable item and use of a question mark. In response, in turn 102, the NS provides the synonym non (‘not’) next to mica (‘not at all’), with a dividing slash to indicate equivalence. While this appears to be understood by the learner in turn 4 okies, he paraphrases his original statement by using non (‘not’) instead of mica (‘not at all’) in turn 104, juxtaposed to the original candidate word in turn 105 to be sure that he has been clear. Participants alternate the use of English with Italian in this conversation, as the NS of Italian is also a learner of English and there is a mutual language learning focus in the relationship.

28


EXCERPT 7 100 NS: impari in fretta! mica come me you learn quickly! not at all like me 101 L: mica? 102 NS: mica/non mica /not 103 L: okies 104 NS: it’s another mode to say ‘non come me’ it’s another mode to say ‘not like me’ 105 NS: ‘mica come me’ ‘not at all like me’ 106 L: cool! grazie cool! thank you NS: eh eh! Almeno sono utile a qualcosa Huh! At least I’m useful for something In Excerpt 8, in turn 38 the NS paraphrases his original statement in turn 35, as indicated by the arrows, in order to assist the learner who initiates this repair sequence at turn 37: EXCERPT 8 33 L: ma dimmi cosa fai nella vita? now tell me what do you do for a living? 34 NS: lavoro I work →35 NS: ho un’impresa edile I own a building company 36 NS: te! how’s that! 37 L: non capisco I don’t understand →38 NS: mi occupo di edilizia I’m in the building industry Microanalysis of repair sequences in Chapters 4 and 5 will provide further insights into how NSs support the language learner without using ‘foreigner talk’, suggesting that the chat environment may provide an authentic environment for SLA and a form of virtual immersion which is scaffolded by visual saliency.


29

Triggers of Conversational Repair: What Do Native Speaker and Learner Participants Repair in Chat? Microanalysis of foreign language learners’ management of general interactional repair requires attention in a separate study, as this text is concerned principally with pedagogical repair, particularly those problems which co-participants identify as relating to use of the target language. In identifying the type of repair work which occurs in the L2 classroom, Van Lier (1988) starts by distinguishing between didactic repair work and conversational repair work, which is ‘common to all face-to-face interaction and . . . addresses problems of the talk’ (p. 188, author’s emphasis). He also makes some important distinctions in relation to the face-threatening nature of correction, which implies lack of competence, when there is an error of fact (e.g. stating that which is not the case); reasoning (defects of logic, argumentation, appraisals of cause-effect) or language (syntactic, phonological, stylistic, discoursal). (p. 183, author’s emphasis) Conversational as opposed to pedagogical repair has been researched exhaustively in face-to-face monolingual environments from a CA perspective, and is the starting point for this study of pedagogical L2 repair. According to Schegloff (2000), ‘The study of non-native-speaker participation in interaction is not separable from the study of talk-in-interaction more generally’(p. 234). He also recognizes that non-native speakers bring a special set of characteristics, capacities, vulnerabilities, and practices of speaking, hearing, and understanding to a socio-interactional site already shaped by a range of structures of practice which seem to transcend cultural and linguistic boundaries in a relatively robust way. (p. 234) Further unique characteristics are likely to be superimposed on intercultural conversational structures when NSs and learners chat online rather than face-to-face. Analysis of repair sequences between such co-participants in this study will indicate that various types of repair are used according to the nature of the problematic talk, which revolves mainly around understanding of the target language and achievement of target-like utterances, even though trouble sources which trigger repair may not necessarily interfere with understanding. In particular, there is evidence that in the vast majority of cases learners tend to initiate repairs when they identify unknown

30


words or expressions used by NSs (Tudini, 2007). NSs on the other hand appear more likely to initiate and complete a repair sequence through exposed correction when learners use incorrect grammar, even though the utterance is unlikely to interfere with understanding. If they genuinely don’t understand the trouble source, they may allow the learner to resolve the repair sequence, leading to observable episodes of interlanguage development, from apperceived input to output (Gass, 1997; Markee, 2000). This confirms Van Lier’s (1988) conclusion that ‘we must bear in mind that certain types of activity naturally lead to certain types of repair, and that therefore the issue of how to repair is closely related to the context of what is being done’ (p. 211). In summary, as far as triggers of repair are concerned, the trouble sources which cause learners and NSs to initiate a repair sequence are predominantly in response to issues relating to grammar in the case of NSs, while learners initiate repair mainly in relation to lexicon. Throughout the data, there are also recurrent examples of pragmalinguistic (Kasper & Rose 2001, p. 2) corrections, in particular where the learner uses formal address terms towards the NS, when online chat requires the use of familiar ‘tu’. In Excerpt 9, the NS provides a prototypical, though bracketed, accounting (Jefferson, 1987) format si dice (‘you’re meant to say’) as part of her correction of an opening routine come sta (‘how are you’). However there is no acknowledgement on the part of the learner and the conversation returns to the social trajectory, as the NS subsequently provides the second pair part of the adjacency pair io sto bene (‘I’m well’), and launches a new trajectory tu?(‘you’?). EXCERPT 9 1 NS: hi 2 L: Ciao Hi 3 L: come sta? how are you? 4 NS: come stai (si dice) how are you (you’re meant to say) 5 NS: io sto bene I am well 6 NS: tu? you? 7 L: si sto bene, pero mi sento molto stanca oggi perche ieri seri sono andata a una festa di una amica yes I’m well, but I feel very tired today because last night I went to a friend’s party


31

In Excerpt 10, other-repair of the learner’s use of the formal register quanti anni ha? (‘how old are you’?) is mitigated by the NS through use of a conversational routine which allows co-participants in face-to-face conversation to switch to a familiar register in Italian, ci diamo del tu (‘let’s address each other as tu’). The use of the term of endearment bella (‘dear’) mitigates his correction of the learner regarding terms of address. He then answers her question in the same turn. EXCERPT 10 12 L: quanti anni ha? how old are you? 13 NS: ci diamo del tu bella . . . 48 let’s address each other as ‘tu’ dear . . . 48 Trouble sources or triggers may also be interpreted and oriented to differently by co-participants, and may be categorized in more than one way. For example, grammatical problems may sometimes trigger repairs and problems of understanding which relate to social identity in opening sequences, as in Excerpt 11. EXCERPT 11 13 NS: non sei italiana? you’re not Italian? 14 NS: o si or are you 15 L: no, sono un australiano in Australia ma studio italiano al’universita no, I’m an australian [m] in Australia but I study Italian at university 16 NS: uomo? man? 17 NS: se non lo sei avestri [meaning ‘avresti’] dovuto dire australiana if you’re not you should have said australian [f] 18 L: che cosa ‘avrest’? what’s ‘avrest’ [should have] 19 NS: verbo avere verb to have 20 NS: in passato in the past [sic] 21 NS: do you are woman or men? [are you a woman or a man]


32

22 L:

si si, so avere in passato, sono la donna yes, I know avere in the past, I’m the woman

23 NS: 㩷

䄗䄗

The learner’s use of sono un australiano with a masculine rather than feminine ending triggers a repair sequence initiated by the NS to ascertain the learner’s gender, most probably a more important issue to him at this stage of the conversation than that of grammar. He thus provides a grammatical correction in turn 17 se non lo sei avestri [meaning ‘avresti’] dovuto dire australiana (‘if you’re not you should have said australian (f)’), which at the same time continues to express doubt about her gender. He reverts to English in turn 21 to be sure. This is one of many examples in the data, where identification of trigger types depends on how these are oriented to by participants.

Conclusion This chapter discussed some issues, definitions and preliminary observations which will guide analysis of pedagogical repair and the identification of online SLA in Chapters 4–7. Gass’ (1997) model of SLA, as adapted by Markee (2000), will be of particular value in ascertaining whether apperceived input and pushed output follow from specific micromoments of learning. In Chapter 3, the book examines how turn-taking unfolds in online conversation where there is differential language expertise, and how the interweaving of pedagogical and interpersonal trajectories contributes to learning, equality of participation and the uniqueness of dyadic intercultural chat.

Chapter 3

Turn-Taking, Adjacency Pairs and Sequencing

Introduction Online chat has been described as an equalizer (Chun, 1994; Kern, 1995; Warschauer, 1996), as it appears to prevent confident speakers from ‘talking over’ shy learners. This is an important consideration when language learners converse with NSs, in an otherwise unequal speech exchange system, where language learners are generally less proficient than NSs, and NSs are therefore advantaged linguistically. Such differential access to resources and power is particularly evident in the language classroom, where turn-taking organization is constrained by participants’ orientation to their institutional identities (Heritage, 2004). The apparently more equal turn-taking organization of online chat may thus impact on equality of participation, particularly in one-to-one chat. However, Crystal (2001) has suggested that differences in sequencing and turn-taking organization of online chat interaction interfere with the achievement of understanding even between participants speaking the same language (pp. 32–33). Conversation analysis may shed light on these apparently contradictory perspectives, through line-by-line analysis of prototypical online repair sequences involving NSs and learners of Italian, focusing in particular on the interrelated aspects of turn-taking, adjacency pairs and sequencing. As noted by Markee (2008): In CA terms, turn taking is a fundamental building block for the social construction of sequences. And repair is omnipresent in all talk (Schegloff et al., 1977). Although repair is a distinct practice from turn taking, it can only be understood in terms of turn taking and sequential position. Thus, models of interactional competence that do not treat turn taking, repair, and sequence organization as integrated practices are flawed. (p. 405) Sequencing is shaped by adjacency pairs and preference organization, which are affected by online chat’s unique turn-taking system. According to

34


Schegloff and Sacks (1973), an adjacency pair is identified when one interactionally relevant utterance immediately follows another: ‘Given the recognizable production of a first pair part, at its first possible completion its speaker should stop, a next speaker should start, and should produce a second pair part of the same pair type’. This process is evident in Excerpt 1, where NS and learner introduce themselves. EXCERPT 1: INTRODUCTIONS 24 L: Si sono qui come ti chiami? Yes I’m here what’s your name? 25 NS: Giovanni Giovanni 26 L: Monica Monica 27 NS: piacere Monica pleased to meet you Monica 28 L: Altretanto Giovanni cosa fai per lavoro Same here Giovanni what do you do for a living As in Excerpt 1, when one participant introduces himself/herself (first pair part) Giovanni (turn 25), the expected, preferred response is the coparticipant’s introduction (second pair part) Monica (turn 26). Questionanswer is another example of an adjacency pair, whereby on asking a question, an answer is expected by the speaker of the first pair part of the adjacency pair. This pattern is also visible in Excerpt 1, where the NS provides his name in response to the learner’s request (turns 24 and 25). Two further adjacency pairs are evident in turns 27–28, though a further trajectory is launched by the learner within the same turn, with the question cosa fai per lavoro (what do you do for a living). In his study of NNS-NS interactions in a synchronous text-based environment, Schwienhorst (2004) notes the importance of questions to clearly signal to the NNSs that ‘a new topic has been introduced’ (p. 36). He also finds that there is almost equal participation by NSs and NNSs in topic initiation (p. 48). Tudini (2007) comes to a similar conclusion in her study of dyadic online chat which indicates that 60.6 per cent of negotiations were learner-initiated and 39.4 per cent were NS-initiated (p. 593). Also, according to Tudini (2004), questions appear to be more frequent in one-to-one online chat than in group chat sessions. Statistical analysis of L1 chat sessions indicated that in the group sessions there were 174 questions in a total of 1246 turns (14 per cent), whereas in the one-to-one sessions 27 of the 89 turns are questions (34 per cent),


35

distributed fairly equally between the two participants. These studies suggest that the question-answer adjacency pair constitutes the basic building block of dyadic intercultural text chat and contributes to the equality of participation noted in previous CMC studies. But, what happens in online intercultural chat when the adjacency pairs and related normally contiguous actions, such as error and correction, are interrupted due to turntaking issues imposed by the software? The following sections explore how NS and learner participants strive for contiguity and understanding within the unique turn-taking system of online chat.

How Turn-Taking Works in Online One-to-One Text Chat While online text chat is usually referred to as ‘synchronous’, especially when compared to asynchronous forms of electronic communication such as email, Garcia and Jacobs (1999) speak of ‘quasi-synchronous’ CMC when discussing differences between the turn-taking systems of L1 online text chat between three persons and oral conversation. This is due to the delay between production (writing) and posting of turns by participants, who also read rather than hear each other’s utterances. There is no such intrinsically delayed communication process in aural or face-to-face communication, unless turns are delayed by technical issues in phone and videoconference communication. In online text chat, variability in typing speed therefore also impacts on the length of delays between the three-tiered process of production, posting and reading (reception) by co-participants. Unlike face-to-face and telephone conversations, online text chat participants are unable to use intonation and gaze to monitor whether coparticipants’ ‘utterances are possibly complete’ (Sacks et al., 1974), so that turn-allocation may occur. This is because chat participants are unable to monitor utterances-in-progress to determine turn-allocation, unless appropriate software is used. The ‘writer’s’ turns are completed and posted without the co-participant being able to observe the other’s writing process, so that turn-allocation is generally activated after utterances and postings have been read. Chat participants are able to see and monitor their own writing process, and view posted messages in an electronic transcript of the co-constructed conversation, which can be scrolled for reviewing. This is important for participants’ active reconstruction of adjacency pairs, which may not appear in the correct order (i.e. contiguously) on screen. The notion of ‘current speaker’ which impacts on turn allocation in oral conversation is therefore slightly modified in online chat, as while there may be

36


a ‘current writer’, the ‘reader’ is unable to see that process and respond until after the utterance has been posted. Adjacency pairs are in fact crucial determiners of turn allocation, where obvious first pair parts have been posted, and transition relevance places are posted clearly for the co-participant. This could explain the abundance of question-answer adjacency pairs in online intercultural chat, as this is a clear pattern that assists in the coordination of turn allocation, especially in dyadic chat where there is only one interlocutor, and no confusion as to who the other speaker is. Questions in their various manifestations, especially tag questions, are considered a fundamental turn-taking device in conversation (cf. Sacks et al., 1974, pp. 717–718). Sacks et al. (1974) identified two types of turn allocation techniques in oral conversation: 1. current speaker selects next speaker and 2. current or other speaker self selects The latter technique is commonly used by current speakers to ‘hold the floor’ or by other speakers to interrupt current speakers’ utterance-in-progress. Self-selection by other speakers occurs mostly at transition-relevance places of turn-constructional units, which vary in their composition from words, phrases, laughter tokens to complete sentences. In online text chat, emoticons are considered turn-constructional units which may signal a point at which speakership may be transferred (transition-relevance place), should the ‘other’ participant decide to self-select. ‘Completeness’ of utterances is mostly determined by the writer, who cannot be interrupted by the ‘other’ writer, but he/she has no control over how utterances appear on screen, as the interlocutor may self-select to write and post a turn which launches a new trajectory, and the first pair part of a new adjacency pair, at the same time as the ‘other writer’ is composing a response to a previous utterance. This leads to the appearance of ‘split’ adjacency pairs, which are a feature of online intercultural text chat.

Split Adjacency Pairs The phenomenon of split adjacency pairs described by Smith (2003) is visible in my data, despite the more manageable dyadic format of conversation, when compared to online chat between multiple participants. The turn-taking system and lack of adjacency do not regularly generate repair


37

sequences in the same way as vocabulary gap and grammar issues do (see Chapters 4 and 5). Participants appear to have different expectations in chat, and allow themselves a longer space to respond to first pair parts, or repair non-target language. Excerpt 2 is an opening sequence which mirrors overlapping false starts in oral conversation (Liddicoat, 2007, p. 73), except that there is no repair initiation. Repair only initiates in turn 12 when the NS other-repairs the learner’s grammatical mistake. Participants have already met in a prior session. EXCERPT 2 1 L: Giovanni!! 2 NS: ciao hi 3 L: ciao! hi! →4 L: come vai? [come va? intended] how are you →5 NS: come stai? how are you →6 NS: bene well →7 L: bene! sto bene anch’io well! I’m well too 8 L: cosa hai fatto di bello oggi? what did you get up to today? 9 NS: niente nothing 10 NS: tu? you? 11 L: sono andata all’universita` poi ho fatto un bel camminato e poi, ho fatto un po’ dei compiti! Molto divertente!!!lol I went to university then I had a nice walk and then, I did some homework! Really good fun!!! lol 12 NS: poi ho fatto una bella passeggiata e poi . . . then I had a nice walk and then . . . 13 L: ah, grazie! oh, thanks! 14 NS: prego you’re welcome

38


This chat session opens with a greeting sequence, with each response in turns 1 to 3 being relevant to the previous utterance. However, adjacency pairs are split from turns 4 to 7, indicated by arrows, when the NS posts his come stai? first pair part, after the learner’s come vai?, also a first pair part. On the screen, responses to these first pair parts are not contiguous, as would be expected, as they occur two turns later. The learner’s come vai? in line 4 is responded to in turn 6, and the NS’ come stai? in turn 5 is responded to in turn 7. The screen therefore displays two contiguous first pair parts and two contiguous second pair parts. These may occur in online chat because both question and answer are written and posted more or less simultaneously by participants. The lack of contiguity in this instance causes no repair initiation, as adjacency pairs are constructed by participants when they respond as soon as possible to the first pair part. They then proceed with the conversation undeterred, with the learner posting a new question/ first pair part cosa hai fatto di bello oggi? in turn 8, which is responded to contiguously by the NS in turn 9 niente. The NS’ question in turn 10 tu? is followed by a relevant response by the learner in turn 11, which however contains non-target Italian language un bel camminato. This provokes a grammatical and lexical other-repair of un bel camminato by the NS in turn 12, adjacent to the repairable item, which is recast as una bella passeggiata. It should be noted that the term camminata is not technically incorrect, though it may suggest a long walk. A mere correction of gender from masculine to feminine ending would have sufficed here. However, the NS replaces the entire word rather than just the ending. The learner’s highlighting of both the repairable item ‘un bel camminato’ and the NS’ correction ‘una bella passeggiata’ has been reproduced here as chat transcripts are presented verbatim. As in many other instances in these data, the learner appears to have highlighted her chat transcripts prior to submission for assessment, showing evidence of ‘noticing’ subsequent to episodes of learning (cf. Schmidt, 1990). Analysis so far indicates that participants’ writing and posting of turns may overlap, with consequent disruption of normally contiguous adjacency pairs (split adjacency), but also the posting of two contiguous first or second pair parts on screen (e.g. Excerpt 2 come stai? and come vai?). These do not appear to interfere with online conversation, as they are not repaired, and appear to be part of the process of reconstruction of adjacency pairs in the same way that split adjacency pairs are. However, Excerpt 3 presents an instance where a type of online false start is recognized and repaired by one of the participants (the NS) when they both post the first pair part of a


39

leave-taking routine at approximately the same time, as evidenced by the two contiguous first pair parts in turns 244 and 245. EXCERPT 3 244 NS: Monica devo andare Monica I’ve got to go 245 L: Senti Giovanni, devo scappare. I figli vanno a letto. Ma una buon’idea . . . Hey Giovanni, I’ve got to run. The children are going to bed. But a good idea . . . 246 NS: ahahahaha 247 NS: insieme!!!! Together!!!! Two contiguous first pair parts are launched in turns 244 and 245 by the NS and learner respectively. The NS’ leave-taking devo andare (‘I’ve got to go’) is followed by the learner’s Senti Giovanni, devo scappare (‘Hey Giovanni, I’ve got to run’), followed by a justification for leave-taking I figli vanno a letto (‘The children are going to bed’), which promotes affiliation during the delicate business of closing the conversation. The learner’s next component of the leave-taking turn Ma una buon’idea . . . (‘But a good idea . . . ’) is cut off by the learner, including a dotted line to indicate pausing. This is possibly because the learner notices the NS’ previous leave-taking turn, but may be an attempted ‘back-reference’ (Liddicoat, p. 265), to previously discussed arrangements, in this case, a proposal by the NS for her to send him photos of her house (see Appendix 1 for remainder of this closing sequence). The NS’ two utterances in the subsequent turns 246 to 247, which follow the two contiguous first pair parts, include laughter and recognition of the fact that he and his interlocutor both initiated leave-taking routines at the same time, in a type of delayed false start, which is noted openly and repaired in the talk, rather than being ignored, as might occur in other circumstances. Participants’ orientation to contiguity in closing this particular sequence may be worthy of further attention in a systematic focus on conversational routines such as openings and closings. The principle of contiguity may acquire greater interactional significance in routines which occur at crucial junctures of conversation, such as the examined excerpt, where participants are attempting to disengage from the turn-taking system (Schegloff & Sacks, 1973) as well as each other. Despite the greater freedom

40


available to participants in online dyadic chat, it is possible that formulaic routines are more fixed in their turn-taking and sequential possibilities. In Excerpt 4, from a conversation between unfamiliar participants, adjacency pairs are split in the frenzy of questions which are dedicated to getting to know one another. Only two answers or second pair parts are provided here. EXCERPT 4 52 NS: tu cosa fai nella vita? what do you do in life? 53 L: hai una vespa? do you have a vespa? 54 NS: perchè questa domanda? why this question? 55 L: studentessa student 56 NS: 6 fidanzata [6=sei] are you engaged 57 NS: t piacerebbe descriverti??? [italics in original transcript] would you like to describe yourself??? 58 L: perche volevo una vespa per tanti anni, ma in Australia e pericoloso, perche i stade sono grande e i macchine non stanno attente. because I wanted a vespa for many years, but in Australia it’s dangerous because the roads are big and cars are not careful In this sequence, as is typical of my data, lack of contiguity (split adjacency) does not appear to cause problems in participants’ co-construction of online conversation. In particular, the first pair part in turn 52 is not responded to until three turns later by the learner, in turn 55. This is because the learner posts a new trajectory in turn 53, with the question hai una vespa? (‘do you have a vespa?’), which is attended to first by the NS. His response to the learner’s question is contiguous and relevant but in the form of a counter question perché questa domanda? (‘why this question?’) (turn 54) which queries the relevance of her question on the vespa in this sequence. It is responded to by the learner four turns later in turn 58. The fact that second pair parts are posted three to four turns after the first pair parts does not appear to cause problems of understanding for either the NS or the learner. To conclude, lack of contiguity of adjacency pairs does not appear to generate problems of understanding in online dyadic chat between NSs


41

and learners in my data, as is likely to occur in online multiparty conversations between NSs speaking the same language. Both NSs and learners recognize adjacency pairs which are non-contiguous as they co-construct and read their conversations, and they may even become a topic of conversation, when face-to-face processes are reflected, as in Excerpt 3. While split adjacency pairs are a feature of my data, learners do not frequently encounter what Garcia and Jacobs (1999) describe as ‘phantom’ adjacency pairs, ‘pairs of utterances that look like adjacency pairs in the posting box but are actually not adjacency pairs’ (p. 354), as they ‘give the impression that they were intended to be placed there’ (p. 354), when in fact they are coincidental. Such coincidental adjacency pairs, apparently common in multiparty online chat conversations, are infrequent in my data, because one-to-one chat only has one addressee, unlike the three-way chat described in the Garcia and Jacobs (1999) study. Dyadic chat is more likely to promote SLA than multiparty chat, which could make it more difficult for learners to reconstruct adjacency pairs. Learners generally use the dyadic chat turntaking system to their advantage, often waiting for their interlocutors to post their message before composing and posting their own. They also orient the conversation to learning when required, through co-construction and reconstruction of adjacency pairs, even when they are split or inappropriately paired. This indicates that preference organization in dyadic online chat is more flexible than in speech, with greater distance between adjacency pairs possible. This is also evident in other-repair sequences, which are the focus of the following section.

Lack of Contiguity Between Repairable and Correction Trouble sources combined with repair initiation do not constitute adjacency pairs, because correction is not expected by current speaker, as occurs with first pair parts of adjacency pairs, which project second pair parts. However, the principle of contiguity governs repair in the same way as adjacency pairs, because repair initiated by the ‘other’ speaker is normally initiated in the turn following the trouble-source turn (Schegloff et al., 1977), or as close as possible to the trouble source in oral conversation. Schegloff (2000) however notes that there are occasions when repair initiation by other speaker may be delayed. His study addresses the question: When an OI [other-initiation] is not in NT (next turn), where is it, and why? How does it come to be ‘displaced’ from its natural position, and as we shall see, within it? (p. 211)

42


He provides systematic analysis of other-initiated repair ‘past next-turn position’ (p. 212), which I am unable to fully expound here due to lack of space. However, one environment discussed by Schegloff (2000) is possibly relevant to the actions of participants in online intercultural chat, which are both social and pedagogical. Schegloff’s ‘larger unit in progress’ (p. 213), exemplified as lists or instructions, is possibly related to the social actions of NS-learner participants, who are orienting to interpersonal conversation and conversational routines which are occasionally also oriented to learning. Trajectories of socialization often take priority over the pedagogical work which may be initiated by the NS or the learner. Furthermore, the competing social and pedagogical trajectories are exacerbated by the turn-taking system of chat, which allows two trajectories to be initiated simultaneously, as the software does not provide ‘current writers’ access to ‘utterances-inprogress’ of ‘other’ writers, who may in fact occasionally both be writing at the same time, with timing of posting determining which utterance is displayed first. Hence, while other-initiation of repair is frequently in next turn, displacement of other-initiation of repair is also frequently observed in my data, due to the turn-taking system of chat, which permits posting of contiguous first pair parts and new trajectories which participants attend to prior to addressing microlinguistic or other issues which may or may not interfere with understanding. This has been discussed previously in the analysis of split adjacency pairs which are frequent in my data. I would suggest that the adjacency pair, as a fundamental building block for relationship building and the pursuit of affiliation, is often likely to take precedence over pedagogical trajectories, hence the phenomenon of non-contiguous trouble-source and repair initiation. As the scrolling and review feature of online chat permits reconstruction of split adjacency pairs, so too does this promote delayed attention to errors or trouble sources. As noted by Schegloff (2000), in oral conversation other initiation of repair may be delayed due to organization of preferred and dispreferred next turns, when ‘(recipients of turns embody the preference for alignment and agreement by accepting or complying with prior turns before registering that they have not yet – or correctly – analysed and grasped them)’ (p. 233). This is likely to occur in socially oriented chat, when pedagogical matters are oriented to as secondary by participants, rather than the primary matter of talk. In the same study, Schegloff suggests that such instances ‘emerge as the most apt exemplars of “delayed NTRIs [next turn repair initiations],” and they appear to involve not-yet-fully-achieved understandings of the turns to which their speakers are responding. (p. 233)’. He considers these


43

matters to be specially relevant to the participation of NNSs or ‘not-yetfluent speakers – of the language being used in the interaction’. He also concludes that ‘so-called N/NN conversation seems an apt environment in which to examine it’ (p. 233). This is particularly relevant to otherinitiation of repair by the learner, where there is a problem of understanding of a new word or expression used by the NS. Or vice versa, when the learner uses non-target language which the NS is unable to understand (see section on other-initiated self-repair in Chapter 4). In the case of NS correction of learners’ grammatical errors, the delay in other-initiation (and resolution) is frequently not due to ‘not-yet-fully achieved understandings’ of learner talk, as it is mostly comprehensible, but to participants’ orientation to the pedagogical project of NS-learner online talk, which is usually previously agreed to by both participants in my data. This gives the NS permission to orient the conversation to learning with the assistance of scrolling and reviewing options provided by chat software. Readability of online text chat is likely to make microlinguistic errors visually salient and allow for delayed analysis by participants, even though these errors do not necessarily interfere with understanding. A more apt term for these items is therefore ‘repairables’ rather than ‘trouble sources’, though they have the potential to shift the conversation from social to pedagogical trajectories. Corrections are therefore often contiguous to repairables, as in Excerpt 2 earlier, or separated from repairable items, as in Excerpt 6, where social trajectories embodied by conversational routines and adjacency pairs are often visibly preferred by participants over dispreferred correction trajectories. Where NS participants are not learners of English, it is often up to the learner to ensure that pedagogical orientations are included in chat, as will become clearer in Chapter 6. Before examining the phenomenon of delayed correction in the same conversation, Excerpt 5 illustrates the ‘setting up’ of pedagogical conversation on the part of the learner, despite the ‘larger unit in progress’ (Schegloff, 2000, p. 213), which is the pursuit of affiliation and friendship through social trajectories. Participants in Excerpt 5 (and 6) have only just met, and from the outset, the NS assures the learner that he is available to chat, while the learner clarifies that she is only in the chat room to practise her Italian. EXCERPT 5: LEARNER ORIENTS CONVERSATION TO LEARNING 19 L: ALLORA NIENTE FOTO Vuoi chattare SO NO PHOTOS Do you want to chat 20 NS: sicuro scusa non volevo offenderti sure sorry I didn’t want to offend you

44


21 NS: sono qui per chattare I’m here to chat 22 L: Non sono offesa solo per spiegare che studio I’m not offended just to explain that I study 23 L: E voglio praticare la lingua italiana And that I want to practice the Italian language Turns 20 and 21 are the NS’ response to the learner’s refusal to engage in the common affiliative practice of photograph exchange in chat rooms. She declares her refusal emphatically through the use of capital letters in turn 19. The learner’s pedagogical project is made salient in turns 22 and 23, though she occasionally expresses her appreciation of the NS as a person, rather than as potential informal language tutor, later in the sequence in turn 35 . . . sono molto contenta di avere trovato una persona simpatica and line 39 Sei molto gentile . . . in Excerpt 6. In turn 33, she assigns a specific pedagogical task to the NS in the same turn that provides personal information Sono Australiana genitori Italiani sposata figli 43 anni Grazie ma mi puoi correggere se sbaglio. The NS appears to pursue the learner’s request in a diligent manner, as is evident in Excerpt 6, a continuation of the conversation in Excerpt 5. This excerpt exemplifies the phenomenon of delayed correction of the learner’s talk by the NS, with up to four corrections, indicated by arrows. EXCERPT 6 35 L: Per il mio corse [corso] d’italiano deve [devo] imparare a usare il computer e il internet sono molto contenta di avere trovato una persona simpatica for my Italian course I have to learn to use the computer and the Internet I’m really happy to have found a nice person 36 NS: se continui cosi gli esami li fait tu alla commissione if you go on like this you’ll be the one examining the board of examiners 37 L: non capisco commissione I don’t understand ‘commissione’ 38 NS: commissione sono le persone che ti faranno gli esami ‘commissione’ are the people who will examine you 39 L: Sei molto gentile ma per i miei compiti faccio dei sbagli di lessico Dimmi qualcose di te You’re very kind but for my assignments I make vocabulary errors. Tell me something about yourself


45

40 → NS: si dice CORSI d’italiano no corse you’re meant so say Italian ‘CORSI’ not ‘corse’ [races] 41 L: Grazie allora dimmi qualcose di te Thank you so tell me something [misspelt] about yourself 42 → NS: degli sbagli dimmi qualcosa di te some mistakes tell me something about yourself 43 NS: io ho 22 anni I’m 22 years old 44 NS: non sono sposato I’m not married 45 NS: lavoro I work 46 L: Lavori o studi? Do you work or study 47 NS: diciamo le solite cose I guess the usual things 48 L: Ti piace andare in cinema? Do you like going in the cinema? 49 NS: mi ero iscritto all’università ma poi ho lasciato I had enrolled in university but then I left 50 → NS: al cinema si dice to the cinema you’re meant to say 51 NS: si yes 52 L: A me piacciono le commedie e tu I like comedies and you 53 → NS: e a te [with required preposition ‘a’] and you The first correction occurs in turn 40, five turns subsequent to the repairable item corse. The intervening talk is dedicated to the NS complimenting the learner on her Italian (turn 36), which is sometimes a precursor to exposed correction. It is then ‘interrupted’ by an other-initiation by the learner, who seeks clarification on commissione. The commissione repair sequence is initiated and resolved contiguously, from turns 36 (the trouble source) to 38. In turn 39, the learner provides a response to the NS’ original compliment in turn 36, expressing appreciation but reiterating her learner status. In this same turn, the learner initiates the first pair part of an adjacency pair which is socially oriented dimmi qualcose di te. The NS does not respond to this request in the subsequent turn, but instead engages in

46


pedagogical talk with a correction of the learner’s grammar. Hence, in this case the correction is delayed mainly by the intervening repair initiation on commissione by the learner, which takes precedence as it is likely to interfere with mutual understanding. The pursuit of affiliation is also dealt with prior to correction. In turn 41, the learner thanks the NS for his correction, acknowledging his role as expert, and repeats her request for the NS to talk about himself. The NS response to the learner’s request is delayed as in turn 42 he orients to pedagogical talk again, this time correcting errors which occur not just in one but two previous turns. The original repairables occur in turn 39, three turns prior, and one of these is repeated in turn 41, adjacent to the correction. No further pedagogical talk is pursued, not even an acknowledgement from the learner, as the NS appears to ‘hold the floor’ in turns 43 to 45, obviously with the learner’s consent (the turn-taking system would have permitted interruption), by providing personal information about himself, as requested by the learner in turns 39 and 41. Further pre-topical talk occurs between the NS and learner, with split adjacency pairs, from turns 46 to 49, but then in turn 50, the NS provides a correction of a repairable item in cinema which occurs two turns earlier. He appears to return to the main social trajectory in turn 51, with the learner also continuing to orient to the social in turn 52. However, in turn 53 the NS returns to the pedagogical with a contiguous correction of the non-target final element of e tu, which should end with e a te due to the use of piacere, and required use of preposition a and an indirect object pronoun.

Split Turn Constructional Units (TCUs) Dyadic chat conversation provides greater freedom to split grammatically defined turn constructional units (TCUs) such as sentences or even phrases. While TCUs may be constituted by a variety of grammatical units in face-toface conversation and are determined according to context (see Liddicoat, 2007, pp. 54–57), stand-alone units such as sentences are often completed within one turn, unless interruptions, self-repairs or other interactional features prevent their completion. In dyadic chat, the apparently interactionally unmotivated splitting of sentence TCUs is necessary to keep up the appearance of co-presence and participation in the conversation, as the message needs to be typed (unseen by interlocutor) before it is sent. As only the printed word is available to participants, with no feedback available


47

from interlocutors as they ‘speak’, the regular posting of shorter conversational turns keeps up the appearance of attentiveness or online co-presence. It may also be a strategy for holding the floor. In Excerpt 7, turns 127 to 128 and 132 to 134 could each have been expressed in one turn. EXCERPT 7 125 L: grazie devo aiutare con la mia italiana thanks I [you intended] have to help with my Italian 126 NS: →127 NS: devi aiutarmi you have to help me →128 NS: con il mio italiano with my Italian 129 L: grazie thanks 130 NS: devi ancora capire il femminile e maskile you still have to understand feminine and masculine 131 L: si yes →132 NS: se parli di te if you’re talking about yourself →133 NS: gli aggettivi possessivi possessive adjectives →134 NS: sono sempre al maskile [sic!] are always masculine Turns 127 to 128 and 132 to 134 involve pedagogical talk. Specifically, turns 127 to 128 involve an other-initiated other-repair of the learner’s turn 125. The NS presents the correct alternate devi aiutarmi con il mio italiano over two turns rather than one, as would have been appropriate to reflect the learner’s original utterance. Turns 132 to 134 provide a didactic, though grammatically incorrect justification for the correction. Again, this could have occurred within one turn given that grammatically se parli di te gli aggettivi possessivi sono sempre al maskile form a complete sentence, whereas each of these turns is not complete without the other. The incompleteness of each turn does in a sense project further talk which may assist the NS in holding the floor. Hence, the splitting of TCUs to carry out other-repair and instructing may be worth exploring in future research. While Excerpt 8

48


does not entail microlinguistic repair, it is part of an ‘instructing’ sequence by the NS on the Italian high school system, in response to the learner’s question two turns prior Al liceo classico si studia le lingue la storia ecc . . . ? (‘At liceo classico do you study languages history etc . . . ?’) EXCERPT 8 55 NS: si si studia [grave accent missing on first ‘si’] yes you study 56 NS: il latino Latin 57 NS: il greco Greek 58 NS: la filosofia Philosophy The listing of subjects which Italians study at liceo classico is not presented in one turn, as in si si studia il latino il greco la filosofia, as would have been grammatically and interactionally possible in the second pair part of a questionanswer adjacency pair. The second pair part is instead distributed over four turns. Lack of space does not allow me to deal systematically with learners’ splitting of potential TCUs, or other pedagogical uses of this phenonemon by NSs; however, it appears that the regular posting of turns and splitting of potential TCUs may be an important interactional device in online text chat to ‘hold the floor’ during instructional sequences where the NS is presenting information to the learner. The splitting of potential TCUs which allows more frequent posting of turns may also be used to reinforce co-presence. This is evident from the dispreferredness of absence displayed by online chat participants. Pauses between an interlocutor’s responses may indicate that he/she (a) is engaged in conversation with another participant or (b) has temporarily left the workstation. Pauses are therefore avoided as they may be regarded as unaffiliative, unless permission is requested to take a break. In general, an apology for delayed response is required and regularly forthcoming in my data, as pointed out by the arrow in Excerpts 9 and 10. EXCERPT 9 121 L: allora, lo so che sei stato in Francia ma ti piacerebbe viaggiare ancora? so, I know you went to France but would you like to travel again? 122 L: ?


49

123 →NS: eccomi scusa here I am, sorry 124 NS: si mi piacerebbe yes, I’d like to In Excerpt 9, turn 121, the learner launches the first pair part of a questionanswer on the topic of travel, referring to the NS’ previous travel experience (lo so che sei stato in Francia . . . : ‘I know you went to France . . . ’). Her question mark in turn 122 suggests that she has not yet received the expected answer to her question. In the subsequent turn (turn 123), the NS indicates that he is copresent (eccomi), which suggests that he had attended to other matters, and apologizes for the delay. This is followed in turn 124 by the second pair part response (si mi piacerebbe) of the question-answer adjacency pair which had been launched by the learner. The apology for absence is also triggered by the NS’ lack of response to the learner’s question in Excerpt 10. Arrows indicate the NS’ two apologies for not attending to the talk: EXCERPT 10 193 L: Li che film ci sono al cinema ? What films are at the cinema? 194 NS: nn lo so, nn mi interessa tanto il cinema I don’t know, I’m not really interested in film 195 L: no? no? 196 L: e allora musica che cansona e populare? and so music what’s a popular song? 197 L: ? 198 L: che fai? what are you doing? →199 NS: scusa sorry 200 L: ch fai? what are you doing? 201 L: h [probable emoticon] 202 NS: parlavo al telefono . . . I was talking on the telephone 203 L: ahh scusa oh sorry →204 NS: no scusami tu no, I’m sorry

50

205 L: 206 NS:

Online Second Language Acquisition l [probable emoticon] ora ho finito pero’ but now I’m finished

As in Excerpt 9, in Excerpt 10 the NS’ absence is evident due to the lack of a response (second pair part) to the learner’s question (first pair part). In addition to the apologies which signal the termination of absences and silences (turns 199 and 204), the temporarily absent participant in Excerpt 10 is required by the learner to justify his absence, when he does not answer her question e allora musica che cansona e populare? (‘and so music what’s a popular song’). The need to answer a phone call appears to be a valid justification, prompting the learner’s apology for insisting that the NS explain his absence. The sequence concludes with the NS’ apology (counter apology) and expression of his availability to continue the conversation ora ho finito pero’ (‘but now I’m finished’). While co-presence is actively pursued through the staggering and splitting of potential TCUs, it has also previously been noted that the splitting of turns is playfully exaggerated in monolingual group chat, which appears to frown upon long sentences according to Tudini (2004, p. 71). Excerpt 11 from an NS-NS group chat session illustrates this feature: EXCERPT 11 1 U p. 2 U convinci r. (convince r.) 3 U a svelarci (to reveal) 4 U i segret (the secret) (from Tudini, 2004, p. 71) The four turns presented in Excerpt 11 could have been expressed in one turn P. convinci R. a svelarci i segret. Turn 1 names the interlocutor using an abbreviated nickname to gain his/her attention in this multiparty online conversation. Turn 2 presents the first part of a request for the addressee to ‘convince R. to reveal the secrets’, which is staggered over three turns. Crystal (2006) also observes the same phenomenon in English online chat, hence this feature of monolingual NS group chat is not restricted to one virtual community or culture. However, as noted earlier, the splitting of potential TCUs in dyadic intercultural chat appears to serve specific interactional


51

functions as well as being socially motivated. Though it is an excerpt from monolingual multiparty chat, Excerpt 11 may also exhibit the staggering of potential TCUs in order to gain and hold the floor, an even more difficult task in group than in dyadic chat.

Conclusion Online dyadic chat’s unique turn-taking system offers learners potential equality of participation, despite NSs’ linguistic advantage and the need to adapt to features which distinguish text chat from speech. These features include the disruption, splitting and mental reconstruction of adjacency pairs, including related pairs such as repairables and corrections. For example, the initiation of simultaneous adjacent first pair parts does not generally interfere with understanding, thanks to the participation of only one addressee and readability of online conversation. Nor does delayed correction of repairables create havoc, as might be expected. Reviewability and visual saliency may assist NSs and learners in identifying repairables and initiating repair, as this quality makes it easier for them to locate and talk about the trouble source. It also scaffolds learners linguistically, allowing them to use NSs’ linguistic expertise to their advantage and launch their own learning-oriented conversational trajectories within online social interaction patterns. This naturalistic online form of pedagogical talk-ininteraction offers language learners an alternative and naturalistic complement to the initiation-response-feedback (IRF) pattern, which characterizes classroom interaction. As summarized by Hall (2007), the task of the IRF is instructional and consists of ‘a specialized teacher-led sequence of three actions: a teacher-initiated known-answer question, a student response to that question, and teacher feedback on the sufficiency or correctness of the response’ (p. 516). While contiguity of adjacency pairs and repair sequences is often observed, as in voice conversation, in online text chat participants appear to have greater freedom to identify and reconstruct these fundamental building blocks of online intercultural text chat. This is a useful learning exercise in itself for the development of foreign language learners’ intercultural communicative competence both within and outside the online environment.

Chapter 4

Conversational Repair in Online Intercultural Chat: Initiation and Resolution by Self or Other

Introduction: Pursuing Understanding and SLA in the Foreign Language Chat Room This and the subsequent chapter consider how problems of communication and understanding (repair) are managed by NSs and learners in an online setting, by identifying and analysing prototypical repair trajectories, especially those which appear to be productive for language acquisition. In particular, this chapter discusses online repair sequences which are self-initiated and resolved by the same participant, or initiated and resolved by different participants, either the learner or the NS. Those which are both initiated and resolved by NSs are the focus of Chapter 5.

Questions in online intercultural chat Detailed microanalysis of repair sequences permits SLA researchers and foreign language teachers to observe the developing intercultural communicative competence (Byram, 1997) of learners, who deploy various conversational resources to initiate repair sequences with NSs, of which the most typical unsurprisingly include various manifestations of questioning techniques. These have been previously identified by Byram (1997) as indicators of skills of discovery and interaction (p. 62) which develop and demonstrate learners’ intercultural communicative competence. From a CA perspective, Chapter 3 observed the question-answer adjacency pair (Schegloff & Sacks, 1973) as a fundamental building block in online dyadic intercultural chat. In face-to-face settings, both L1 and L2 questions may be expressed verbally and non-verbally through interactional resources such as repetition of the problem item, intonation, gaze, facial expression, body language, silences

Conversational Repair in Online Intercultural Chat

53

and other means. The complete lack of physical proximity and absence of voice or non-verbal communication mean that chat participants need to find resources other than those commonly available to face-to-face conversationalists, to indicate problems in understanding. Therefore, non-verbal signals such as facial expression or rising intonation which are common in face-to-face interaction require verbalization and use of question marks to ensure an appropriate interactional response (an answer) from the recipient, in keeping with requirements of the question-answer adjacency pair. However, sometimes even question marks are omitted though intonation is intended. This occurs because of the speed required in typing and posting messages to interlocutors, exacerbated by the need to indicate co-presence during online turn-taking, which does not tolerate silences (see Chapter 3). This requires the recipient to recognize the question, with the assistance of interactional cues which signal a transition-relevant point in the conversation, which in chat is usually indicated by the posting of a turn, a signal of grammatical completeness, as turn constructional units under way are not visible in chat software. Questions are therefore frequently expressed by syntactic means. In the case of English, appropriate positioning of the verb ‘to do’, particularly syntactic inversion in the case of yes/no-questions, and question pronouns (‘wh’ words) are central to the creation of questions, which can thus be recognized even without the need for the question mark. Yes/no-questions however are dependent on intonational markers in faceto-face talk in Italian as they may omit the linguistic markers (inversion of subject + verb) available to English, as in are you at university? (question) or you are at university (statement). In Italian, no such inversion is possible and sei all’università could be interpreted in text chat as either a question or a statement, without the assistance of a question mark or contextual cues. In spoken Italian, the use of question pronouns such as quando (‘when’), come (‘how’), cosa (‘what’), perché (‘why’) and quanto (‘how much’) (interrogative adverbs and adjectives) signals ‘wh’ questions. The pleonastic particle ce, used only in spoken Italian, is also frequently a component of questions, as in ce l’hai una foto? (‘do you have a photo’?), where both ce and the pronoun l’ are redundant. In keeping with the need for brevity in online communication, both NSs and learners tend not to use this question format in online chat and adopt a written style as in hai una foto? (‘Do you have a photo?’) or hai un ragazzo? (‘Do you have a boyfriend?’). The tendency to repeat the direct object through use of a pronoun is however still quite common in online chat, as in che ci fai in Australia? (‘What do you do there, in Australia?’), even though the pronoun ci could be considered redundant as a proterm for in Australia.

54


This section has focused on how the question format transfers from face-to-face to the online textual context, with observations on some key syntactic characteristics of Italian questions as they are expressed online. The next section introduces the concept of repair for SLA, also described previously as pedagogical repair. The role of repair in SLA The question format is only one of many linguistic and interactional resources which is adapted to the online setting by NSs and learners in the pursuit of understanding. Further insights are provided by the distinctions and categorizations described by Schegloff et al. (1977) and Liddicoat (2007) in regard to face-to-face conversation, and which are applicable to online repair sequences. In particular, in CA, the initiator of the repair sequence is distinguished from the speaker who resolves the conversational problem. It is therefore important to identify (a) who initiates repairs, (b) who repairs and (c) when repair occurs in the conversational sequence. This analysis will focus on repair sequences which lead to observable processes and micromoments of learning. This will contribute to our understanding of how online intercultural chat supports SLA, as suggested in previous literature. Chapter 1 (Which Online Chat? ) argued that initiation and completion of repair sequences depend very much on the context and relationship between conversationalists. Hence, such variability needs to be taken into consideration when observing interaction patterns and trajectories in conversation within a very specific type of conversation such as the one which is the object of this study: online intercultural dyadic chat between relatively unfamiliar interlocutors, with differential language expertise, some of whom are chatting to learn a foreign language as well as to socialize or strike up a friendship with NSs. CA research shows that self-repair is preferred by conversation participants over other- repair, both in monolingual (Liddicoat, 2007; Schegloff et al., 1977) and foreign language settings (Brouwer et al., 2004, p. 76; Lauerbach, 1982; Liddicoat & Crozet, 2001; Markee, 2000). If other-repair is initiated by the recipient, it is most likely to be embedded correction, where correcting is not the interactional business of the talk, but a ‘by-the-way occurrence in some ongoing course of talk’ (Jefferson, 1987, p. 95), which may be incorporated, ignored or even resolved as an exposed correction sequence. This may also be the case in foreign language talk, as suggested by Brouwer et al. (2004), who identified embedded correction as typical in


55

second language talk. However, embedded correction sequences are rare in the dyadic online intercultural chat conversation described in this study. In fact, the current study documents how NS-learner dyads frequently orient chat conversation to the learning of grammar and lexicon through other-repair, including exposed correction (Jefferson, 1987), where correction does become the interactional business of the talk. The data also indicate that other-repair sequences are frequently accompanied by: a. learners’ invitations to repair, in various positions during the conversations; b. instances of NS ‘accounting’ (Jefferson, 1987), where NSs explain and justify their corrections within repair sequences. As will become evident in Chapters 5 and 6, these behaviours exhibit an orientation to the dispreferred status of other-initiated other-repair, whereas self-repair or repair which is initiated and resolved by different participants is more likely to promote intersubjectivity. How these various configurations of repair impact on learning requires further exploration. By distinguishing between who initiates and resolves repair sequences, this chapter will thus focus on the diverse roles played by NSs and learners in promoting SLA in an online context, and the various collaborative repair strategies which have also been identified in CA literature on monolingual NS chat and NS-learner face-to-face settings. This focus on learner initiative is likely to lead to further insights into negotiated interaction, comprehensible input and pushed output. In particular, this chapter will identify prototypical conversational trajectories used by learners for hypothesis testing (Elliott, 1981), which is said to promote interlanguage development through linguistic experimentation. It also provides evidence of various types of observable SLA behaviours used by learners in chat where there is evidence of ‘apperception’ when learners notice a gap in knowledge (Gass, 1997, p. 4) and ‘conversion of input to output’ (Gass, 1997, p. 3), where the display of output is conversationally appropriate. For example, this chapter provides evidence of learners engaging in ‘selective processing’ (Gass, 1997, p. 5) of grammatical rules where ‘information is matched against prior knowledge and where, in general, processing takes place against the backdrop of the existing internalized grammatical rules’ (p. 5). I will argue that this type of experimentation is more likely to occur in online dyadic than group talk, as there are more opportunities for turn-taking, exclusive access to an NS of the target language, and the talk is visible for participants to scrutinize on screen.

56


Who Initiates and Resolves Repair Sequences in Intercultural Online Chat? Self-initiated self-repair Findings from L1 analyses of conversational repair in face-to-face settings suggest that self-repair by the speaker who uttered the repairable item is preferred over other-repair. The position of repair is also important from a social point of view with a preference for initiation and completion of repair by the same person in the same turn: there is a preference for initiating, in current turn, repair on whatever is self-repairable there, before next-turn position arrives. In fact, selfinitiated, same-turn repair is, by far, the most common form of repair. (Schegloff, 1979, p. 268) Self-initiated self-repair is a regular feature of ab initio learners’ chat conversations according to a study by Tudini (2005), as these sequences are as frequent as collaborative types of repairs. However, unlike L1 face-to-face conversations where both initiation and completion occur mostly in the same single turn, self-repair tends to be staggered over two to three turns. In Excerpt 1 from the 2005 study, the learner completes the self-repair over three turns rather than in the same turn: EXCERPT 1 K. Vado ad abitare con gli amici I’m going to live with friends ......................... C. Quanti amici? How many friends? K. Uno amica, suo chiamo e` Eve One friend, her call is Eve K. Ignoro last response K. Uno amica, si chiama Eve One friend, her name is Eve. (p. 220) In this self-repair sequence, the learner manages to ‘hold the floor’ by posting a type of preparation for repair immediately after the turn which contains the identified trouble source Uno amica, suo chiamo e` Eve. She declares


57

Ignoro last response to signal to the interlocutor that she is rewriting the previous utterance, with a code-mixing which typifies learners’ online conversations in these data. By the third turn, without input from her interlocutor, she then adopts a correct alternate form si chiama Eve, which is only part of her original utterance, specifically suo chiamo e`Eve. The first part of her utterance, uno amica, remains unchanged though it too is repairable, as un’amica, feminine indefinite article rather than masculine. In NS-learner chat interactions, self-initiated self-repair is not as frequent as collaborative repair, where NSs are involved either in initiating or in resolving the repair. Self-initiated self-repair is most commonly visible in typographical and spelling errors, both in the case of NSs and learners. Given that the text of the conversation is visible to conversationalists, one might expect more correction of this type of error. Yet participants tend to tolerate non-standard forms of spelling, including abbreviations or acronyms which are also common to SMS communication, due to the informality, speed and culture of online chat. Spelling errors are thus also often overlooked, so long as they don’t interfere with understanding. The following sequence refers to the sending of a photo, and comprises a learner’s self-initiated self-repair of ceome, which occurs over two turns (46 and 48), as is typical of the NS-learner chat data: EXCERPT 2 45 NS: stai parlando con altre persone you’re talking to other people 46 L: non so ceome enviarla I don’t know how to send it 47 NS: / 48 L: (come) (how) The two turns may be necessary to give conversationalists the opportunity to see their typing mistake before correcting it. They include the repairable item in the first turn and initiation/completion in next turn. In Excerpt 2, there is also a second repairable item ‘enviarla’ (turn 46) instead of the target inviarla (‘to send it’), which possibly reflects a lexical error or pronunciation error transferred to script, but is ignored and not oriented to as repairable by the learner or NS, as they give priority to an ongoing social trajectory regarding co-presence and technical issues with the sending of photos. Between these two turns, an emoticon is posted by the NS and probably relates to the turn and conversational trajectory prior to the spelling

58


error stai parlando con altre persone (‘you’re talking to other people’: turn 45), not the repairables in the previous turn. While the emoticon appears to follow up and reinforce the NS’ displeasure at the learner’s silence, its positioning immediately after the spelling and lexical error does however allow for another interpretation. The sad emoticon could be interpreted as a non-specific repair initiator, similar to ‘huh’, though it provides no specific information about the repairable. The learner therefore only repairs the obvious typographical error rather than the lexical problem enviarla. Self-initiated self-repair is also confined to typographical errors in the case of NSs, as in Excerpt 3, which follows a similar trajectory as learnerinitiated self-repairs: EXCERPT 3: NATIVE SPEAKER SELF-REPAIR 33 NS: lacoro in una società che realizza impianti di depurazione I work in a company that builds purification plants 34 NS: lavoro scusa I work sorry In Excerpt 3, the partial repeat of the previous turn, lavoro scusa clearly identifies the repairable lacoro from turn 33. Such unambiguity is not always the case. For example, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish spelling, pronunciation, typographical or even grammatical errors as the textual format may sometimes reflect an error which can be expressed in either way. For example, a recurrent pronunciation error may be transferred to the chat context and appear as a spelling or lexical error which has given textual form to the conversationalist’s voice, as noted earlier in regard to enviarla: EXCERPT 4 45 NS: stai parlando con altre persone you’re talking to other people 46 L: non so ceome enviarla I don’t know how to send it 47 NS: / 48 L: (come) (how) Enviarla (turn 46) is not corrected by the learner, rather she attends to the typographical error ceome in the same turn. Hence, non-target pronunciation frequently transfers to online text chat and is unlikely to be repaired by


59

learners. Representing Italian double consonants in written form, in chat, thus sometimes reflects features of learners’ pronunciation, where single consonants are adopted by learners of English or Northern Italian background. In the turn presented in Excerpt 5, ‘altretanto’ should be spelt with a double ‘t’, altrettanto (‘same to you’) but is commonly pronounced as it is written here by anglophone or northern Italian background speakers who are unacquainted with the doubling of consonants which is typical of central southern and standard Italian (Maturi, 2006): EXCERPT 5: SINGLE INSTEAD OF DOUBLE CONSONANTS 28 L: Altretanto Giovanni cosa fai per lavoro Same to you Giovanni what do you do for a living In Excerpt 6, it is unclear whether the learner is aware of correcting a typographical error or a grammatical error. In this case, the learner vacillates between using solo (‘only’) in its invariable adverbial or variable adjectival form which requires agreement with the noun it qualifies. She initially uses a non-target plural adjectival form and then uses the correct form in the subsequent turn, possibly after seeing ‘soli’. EXCERPT 6: TYPOGRAPHICAL, SPELLING OR GRAMMATICAL ERROR? 81 NS: tua figlia non chatta mai? doesn’t your daughter ever chat? 82 NS: .. 83 L: non in italiano, soli in inglese o la francese not in Italian, only in English or French 84 L: solo . . . scusa only . . . sorry It is worth noting that the final i in soli might have gone unnoticed in speech as it would have elided with the i in in pronounced thus solinglese. This indicates that transcription of online conversation observes rules of writing, which require the use of spaces where appropriate, and elision is unable to hide grammatical uncertainties of language learners, as the spoken word can do. This feature of online text chat may however contribute to learners’ noticing and reflection on such uncertainties, as in this case, where the learner has provided a correct alternative.

60


While not common in the data, unambiguous grammatical (form & accuracy) self-repairs by learners have been identified, as in Excerpt 7, where again the correction occurs in the turn following the potential trouble source, which is an incorrect past participle nasciato: EXCERPT 7: FORM AND ACCURACY SELF REPAIR 1 1 L: sei nasciato a roma? were you born in rome? 2 L: sei nato a roma? were you born in Rome? As in Excerpt 7, Excerpt 8 also shows that learners may occasionally orient to self-repairing grammatical mistakes. In this instance, the learner realizes that an imperfect subjunctive rather than indicative verb is required after pensavo che and has the opportunity to correct herself in the subsequent turn, without receiving assistance from the NS: EXCERPT 8: FORM AND ACCURACY SELF REPAIR 2 281 L: pensavo che ridevi [imperfect indicative] perche ho detto ‘mi fanno male le spalle’ I thought you were laughing because I said, ‘my shoulders hurt’ 282 L: pensavo che ridessi [imperfect subjunctive] I thought you were laughing The learner repeats the entire turn though only part of it, that is, ridevi, requires production of a correct alternate ridessi. This reflects traditional text book views of the Italian subjunctive, though Schena et al. (2002) promote a more diverse approach to this issue. This self-repair occurs in the middle of a sequence in which the learner misunderstands the NS’ laughter tokens in regard to mi fanno male le spalle (see discussion of Excerpt 11, this chapter). In self-initiated self-repairs, it is unclear from the chat transcripts whether a transition space has been made available for repair, as timer details are lacking. However, it is clear that the learners in both Excerpts 7 and 8 have the opportunity to self-correct, as the NS does not intervene first, as is common in the data (see Chapters 5 and 6). The fact that selfinitiated self-repair related to form and accuracy is not as frequent as otherinitiated other-repair suggests that transition spaces are often not made available to learners, though this is unclear without further information about timing of writing and posting of turns which could be pursued in a separate study, with appropriate software.


61

Excerpt 9 suggests that NSs are sometimes more tolerant of non-target forms than learners themselves. In this instance, the NS plays down the significance of the learner’s mistake and orients the conversation to meaning. This sequence includes two self-repairs as the learner initiates and completes repair on a typographical error capisci within a lexical self-repair sequence on fidanzario. EXCERPT 9: LEARNER ORIENTING TO FORM AND ACCURACY VS. NATIVE SPEAKER ORIENTING TO MEANING 106 L: ma dopo aver inconrato il mio fidanzario mi paice tanto cucinare in questo stile but after meeting my fiancé I really like to cook in this way 107 L: capisi? do you understand? 108 L: capisci? do you understand? 109 NS: si! yes! 110 L: fidanzario!!! Che parola, non esiste fidanzario!!! What a word, it doesn’t exist 111 L: no? right? 112 L: fidanzato fiancé 113 NS: va be l’avevo capito ok I had understood 114 L: los o comunque trovo gli sbagli buffi I know anyhow I find mistakes funny 115 NS: 116 NS: sbagliando si impara [Italian proverb] you learn from your mistakes 117 NS: Unlike self-repairs discussed to this point, the self-repair of fidanzario extends over seven turns, possibly because the NS does not correct the learner; he only expresses understanding without orienting to the incorrect rendition of fidanzario. This sequence includes a typographical self-repair of capisi (turns 107–108), which is also a comprehension check (self-repair initiation) in regard to the utterance containing the trouble source in the previous turn (106). The NS’ affirmative answer sì, confirms that he understands

62


what the learner considers to be a problem utterance, and could hypothetically resolve and close this sequence, as the NS expresses understanding even though he has not other-repaired and corrected fidanzario. However, the learner initiates repair a second time, when she notices and mocks her own use of the non-target form in turn 110 fidanzario!!! Che parola, non esiste (‘fidanzario!!! What a word, it doesn’t exist’), in preparation for her later self-repair. Then, in the subsequent turn (111) she checks whether the NS agrees in a request for confirmation no?, which is an extension of the previous utterance. She does not wait for the NS’ response and provides the correct alternate form fidanzato (self-repairs) in the subsequent turn (112). The redundancy of the learner’s correction and the NS’ orientation to meaning is in this instance pointed out in turn 113 by the NS: va be l’avevo capito (‘ok I had understood’). The NS does not other-repair, despite the learner’s invitations to do so, because the contextual talk makes the nontarget form comprehensible though not accurate. This is atypical of online repair in the data, which is normally completed by the recipient (NS) or sometimes self-repaired in the turn/s immediately following the problem item. In this case, the learner sought the NS’ assistance unsuccessfully but had sufficient linguistic resources to eventually provide the correct term herself. Competing social and pedagogical trajectories are evident here as the NS orients to meaning by not participating in the learner’s self-corrective talk, and downplaying the significance of her mistake until he declares that sbagliando si impara (‘you learn from your mistakes’). With this Italian proverb, the NS orients to linguistic errors as useful for learning. The NS also accepts the learner’s invitation to observe the humorous side of mistakes in general trovo gli sbagli buffi (‘I find mistakes funny’), as is evident in his affiliative emoticons in turns 115 and 117. Even though the learner notices, selfinitiates and self-repairs fidanzario on her own, and the NS’ contribution to the sequence is limited to confirmation of understanding in turns 109 and 113, the learner invokes the NS’ target language expertise until she resolves the sequence. Excerpt 10 illustrates a trajectory where the NS self-initiates and self-repairs a chat/SMS abbreviation which she perceives may cause problems for the learner. EXCERPT 10 3 NS: mi sono appena messa al pc xkè oggi non lavoro, è festa! I’ve just set to work on my pc because today I’m not working, it’s a holiday! 4 NS: ho dormito di più . . . I slept more . . .


63

5 NS: xkè è una forma veloce tra noi giovani per scrivere ‘perchè’ xkè is a quick form amongst us young people for writing ‘because’ 6 L: bella . . . papa ha detto che nessuno lavori in italia oggi nice . . . dad said that nobody works in Italy today 7 NS: si è la festa dei lavoratori yes, it’s labour day 8 L: ok capisco ok I understand Two turns subsequent to her use of the abbreviation xkè in turn 3, the NS provides the full version ‘perchè’, as well as providing information about its use by Italian youth. In the same turn, she orients to her role of young Italian when she refers to noi giovani (‘us young people’; turn 5), suggesting that this language is typical of young people, a category in which she includes herself with the use of noi. As there is no intervening clarification request from the learner to indicate there is a problem in understanding, there appears to be an assumption by the NS that the learner is unfamiliar with the abbreviations of chat and SMS, with the NS orienting to her role as expert in this form of communication and young Italian, despite her requiring assistance with chat jargon later in the conversation (see Excerpt 26, this chapter). It is unclear whether the self-initiated self-repair on xkè is acknowledged by the learner, as a competing trajectory on Labour Day is under way. The candidate response in turn 6 bella (‘nice’) could be a response to the final component of either turn 3 è festa! (‘it’s a holiday’) or turn 4 ho dormito di più (‘I slept more’) or the previous turn on xkè. Turn 8, ok capisco (‘ok I understand’) could also hypothetically be a response to turn 5 on xkè, or the prior adjacent turn 7 si è la festa dei lavoratori (‘yes, it’s labour day’). It is unclear which if any of the learner’s turns following the self-repair/clarification is intended as a candidate response given the unique turn-taking properties of chat which generate delayed responses and split adjacency (Smith, 2003). Though they are infrequent in my data, ‘phantom’ adjacency pairs are a possibility for dyadic online chat. The potential second pair parts bella or ok capisco (‘ok I understand’) could well be parts of phantom adjacency pairs, described by Garcia and Jacobs (1999) as ‘pairs of utterances that look like adjacency pairs in the posting box but are actually not adjacency pairs’ (p. 354), as they ‘give the impression that they were intended to be placed there’ (p. 354), when in fact they are coincidental. It is also possible that neither of the learner responses referred to the NS’ self-initiated clarification on xkè, and that it was ignored.

64


In summary, even though the visual saliency of the textual form may promote the noticing and self-repair of mainly spelling or typographical errors, self-initiated self-repair is not as regular a feature of the data as collaborative repair, and is likely to be considered interactionally irrelevant in online chat. Where such repairs do exist, they are mainly typographical and are frequently ignored. They provide instances of NSs and learners engaging in a form of ‘editing’ of their own conversations, as occurs during writing tasks, or from an interactional point of view, a selective orientation by participants to avoid potential misunderstanding.

Same turn self-repair Given that chat participants have the opportunity to ‘repair’ utterances while typing, before sending the final version to their interlocutors, same turn self-repair turns are not a feature of intercultural chat talk, as they are in speech. Therefore, sound stretches and cut-offs (Schegloff, 1979) which often initiate same turn self-repairs in speech are not replicated in written chat, which is more likely to spread self-repairs over two turns. In chat, the problem item is likely to be repaired in the subsequent turn unless the interlocutor: 1. initiates an other-repair of the problem item, 2. starts a new trajectory or 3. continues a trajectory started in an earlier turn, prior to the trouble source (see case of emoticon in Excerpt 2 this chapter) Same turn self-repairs possibly mirror oral processes in written form, as the turn is being composed, but this requires attention in a project which focuses on online conversation between participants using a different chat software from that used in this study. Self-initiated other-repair While self-repair is preferred by participants over other-repair in face-toface social settings, preliminary analysis of online NS-learner interactions shows abundant evidence of other-repair, often encouraged and initiated by learners. This creates a hybrid social-pedagogical context, which is comparable to the classroom context where there is an unequal power speech exchange system (Kasper, 1985;Markee, 2000). However, the dyadic format


65

of the conversation, where the learner has exclusive access to the NS, may promote questioning and individualized feedback from the NS, unlike the classroom environment where opportunities to ask questions are more restricted, due to competition for the floor by other learners. Blake’s (2009) study speculates that the higher gain scores in the oral proficiency tests of learners using chat, compared with those engaged in face-to-face discussions, are due to the less restrictive turn-taking opportunities of chat, which allowed participants to contribute their ideas simultaneously, thus producing more turns than classroom based learners, whose participant rates averaged three to four turns per hour (p. 237). Analysis of chat sessions which include repair sequences indicates that repair invitation by learners promotes other-repair by NSs, who may otherwise avoid correcting learners without permission, except when understanding is compromised. This confirms Hosoda’s (2006) study of face-to-face repair within NS-learner conversations, where differential language expertise was only made relevant when repair was invited or when there were problems in achieving mutual understanding. Chapter 6 looks specifically at the issue of invitation to repair as a requirement for othercorrection. This section analyses various pedagogical trajectories which are possible when repair is initiated either by the learner or by the NS and resolved by the recipient of the talk. Self-initiated other-repair is identified when ‘the speaker of the repairable item indicates a problem in the talk, but the recipient resolves the problem’ (Liddicoat, 2007, p. 173). In my data, these types of repairs are identified in sequences where a. The learner seeks clarification or checks comprehension in regard to a candidate (problematic) word or expression in his/her own talk and the NS confirms, elaborates or corrects the item, depending on whether it is repairable or not (equivalent to either comprehension check or clarification request initiated by learner). b. Word search sequences where the learner seeks assistance of the NS in finding an item of vocabulary or less commonly grammar (in this case, the candidate word/expression may not yet have been used). c. In a similar pattern to (a) (comprehension check), though speaker and recipient are inverted, NS checks that the learner has understood a candidate word/expression/concept being used in his/her own talk which may be new/foreign/unclear to the learner (checks comprehension) and the learner confirms understanding.

66


Learner seeks clarification and checks comprehension regarding own talk and native speaker resolves (A) In the following sequence, an example of (a), the learner self-initiates an other-repair sequence due to misinterpretation of the NS laughter tokens at her statement mi fanno male le spalle (‘my shoulders hurt’). The ensuing comprehension checks by the learner illustrate her pursuit of correct Italian with the assistance of the NS, who confirms that her statement mi fanno male le spalle (‘my shoulders hurt’) is actually correct. A competing trajectory on impresa is also under way here and will be discussed separately: EXCERPT 11: LEARNER SEEKS CLARIFICATION/SELF-INITIATES OTHER REPAIR 271 L: mi fanno male le spalle my shoulders hurt 272 NS: ahahahahah ahahahahah 273 L: parlo male no? I speak badly, don’t I? 274 NS: sinceramente non ti sento ahahahaha . . . forse frankly I can’t hear you ahahahaha . . . perhaps 275 NS: vuoi dire che lo scrivi bene italiano you mean that you write Italian well 276 NS: hai capito che significa impresa? did you understand what impresa means? 277 L: si yes 278 L: firm firm 279 L: forse in inglese probably in English 280 L: comunque anyway 281 L: pensavo che ridevi perche ho detto ‘mi fanno male le spalle’ I thought you were laughing because I said ‘my shoulders hurt’ 282 L: pensavo che ridessi I thought you were laughing 283 NS: no no 284 L: adesso capisc now I understand


67

285 L:

o [adds missing final ‘o’ to capisc] 286 L: haha haha 287 L: ma si dice cosi in italiano but is that how you say it in Italian 288 L: ? ? 289 NS: si yes 290 L: bene bene ok great 291 L: grazie thanks 292 NS: e sempre un piacere it’s always a pleasure In particular, the learner commences a topic change in turn 271 mi fanno male le spalle (‘my shoulders hurt’) which is followed by NS textual laughter tokens in turn 272 and the learner’s response, a repair initiation parlo male no? (turn 273: ‘I speak badly, don’t I?’). The learner incorrectly interprets the laughter in turn 272 as the NS laughing at an error in mi fanno male le spalle (‘my shoulders hurt’), in what is in fact a perfectly accurate expression. English syntax usually requires the use of possessive adjectives while Italian omits them when possession is obvious, as when referring to parts of the body. She thus orients to the NS as expert on Italian language even though she has an excellent command of a structure which is not easy for NSs of English to grasp in practice. In fact, the NS’ laughter token could either be an expression of relief at the end of a complex other-repair sequence preceding the topic change or feigned mock laughter directed at her shoulder pain. She explains her misunderstanding of the NS’ laughter in turn 281 pensavo che ridevi perche ho detto ‘mi fanno male le spalle’ (‘I thought you were laughing because I said “my shoulders hurt” ’) and initiates repair again at turn 287 ma si dice cosi in italiano (‘but is that how you say it in Italian’). The misinterpretation of the NS laughter tokens at turn 272 prolongs the topic change/new repair sequence from turns 280 to 292, when the sequence closes, once the learner has been reassured by the NS in turn 290 that her original expression was in fact correct. Turns 287 and 288 illustrate the importance of the use of a question mark in online chat, to ensure that the NS realizes a question has been asked, as the grammar is insufficient to convey an interrogative formulation. Without a question

68


mark, turn 287 could just as well be a statement in Italian, hence, a question mark is added in the subsequent turn. Possible delay in the NS’ response could also have contributed to the need for a question mark to prompt a reply. In Excerpt 12, the learner requests clarification and self-initiates other repair on the non-target form la pianeta (‘the planet’) which she has previously used in her own talk, five turns earlier (turn 40), and which displays an incorrect feminine rather than masculine definite article (la rather than il) as part of the composite article della. This is not corrected by the NS but is apparently noticed by the learner. The correct masculine form is used twenty-two turns later in turn 66, and includes an example of pushed output within the same chat session. EXCERPT 12: IL PIANETA 35 →NS: molto hanno l’aria condizionata . . . ormai è un must averla . . . il nostro pianeta si sta riscaldando 36 many (people) have air-conditioning . . . now it’s a must to have it . . . our planet is warming 37 L: A Roma eravamo in un appartamento al quinto piano 38 in Rome we were in an apartment on the fifth floor 39 NS: ma io sono fortunata non sento mai il caldo but I’m lucky to never feel the cold 40 →L: pero con lária condizionata diventa sempre peggio la condizione della pianeta but with air-conditioning the condition of the planet will become worse and worse 41 NS: gi anche questo è vero [intending già not gi] right, even this is true 42 L: sei fortunata davvero you are really lucky 43 NS: si yes 44 NS: quando vado al mare in estate passo le mie giornate al sole . . . sempre when I go to the beach in summer I spend my days in the sun . . . always 45 →L: e femminile pianeta? is ‘pianeta’ feminine? 46 NS: non dirmi anche tu che fa male don’t you too tell me that it’s bad for you


69

47 →NS: no maschile il pianeta no masculine the planet 48 L: cosa il sole? what the sun? 49 NS: si yes 50 →L: grazie per questa correzione thank you for this correction 51 NS: io sto così bene al sole . . . mi sembra di essere un pannello solare (sai cos’è?) I feel really good in the sun . . . I feel like I am a solar panel (do you know what it is?) 52 L: col sole devi prendere precauzione you have to take precautions with the sun 53 L: no cosé no what is it 54 NS: sono dei pannelli che mettono sopra i tetti e ricevono energia solare con [per intended] poter avere riscaldamento ed acqua calda nelle case they are panels that are put on roofs and receive solar energy to have heating and hot water in houses 55 NS: sarebbe una cosa giusta . . . il sone ne ha tanta di energia it would be the right thing . . . the sun has a lot of energy 56 L: qui tante gente prendono cancro alla pela here a lot of people get skin cancer 57 NS: un po’ in tutto il mondo a little all over the world 58 L: qui adesso si devono costruire le coase che usano meno enegie e usano piu energie naturale here now they must build houses that use less energy and use more natural energy 59 L: sarei molto contenta che sta per arrivare l ‘estate [sarai (future of probability) not sarei (first person sing. conditional) intended] you would be very happy that summer is on its way 60 NS: dovrebbero tutti farlo ma è difficile . . . sai ci sono le società che distribuiscono l’energia . . . ENEL . . . che non lo permette . . . ci perderebbero everyone would need to do it but it’s difficult . . . do you know that there are societies that distribute energy . . . ENEL . . . that doesn’t permit it . . . they would lose out

70

61 NS: 62 L:

63 NS: 64 L: 65 NS: 66 L: 67 NS: 68 →L:

Online Second Language Acquisition e così dobbiamo passare da loro per avere energia and then we have to go through them to get energy qui abbiamo certe dite pero adesso e una nuova legge dal governo here we have some companies but now there’s a new law from the government meno male thank goodness si proprio ci voleva yes, it was really needed immagino I can imagine siamo fortunati qui we are lucky here si yes prorio siamo arrivati a capire che il pianeta si deve prottegere we are really starting to understand that the planet needs to be protected

The repairable item occurs in the learner’s talk at turn 40 pero con lária condizionata diventa sempre peggio la condizione della pianeta (‘but with airconditioning the condition of the planet will become worse and worse’). Use of the non-target feminine composite article della before pianeta does not appear to cause problems in understanding. Yet, the learner initiates repair on what is evidently a form and accuracy concern, due to inappropriate generalization of the rule that nouns ending in a are feminine in Italian. However, even though the NS did not initiate repair and correct her, the learner may have compared the NS masculine formulation of il pianeta in turn 35 with her own subsequent non-target feminine form la pianeta in turn 40 and initiated a repair sequence. In this and previous examples of self-initiated other repair, Gass’ (1997) concept of selective processing is particularly observable through line-by-line analysis, where ‘information is matched against prior knowledge and where, in general, processing takes place against the backdrop of the existing internalized grammatical rules’ (p. 5). Visual saliency of the different definite articles (m. & f.) may have played a role in the learner’s noticing of the difference between the NS’ and her own version of pianeta, without the need for negative evidence (corrective feedback) from the interlocutor. At least three stages of Gass’ (1997) model for L2 learning would appear to be observable


71

here, in particular step 1, Input/apperceived input, step 2, comprehended input and step 5, output. Step 1 is evident in the learner’s question e femminile pianeta? (‘is ‘pianeta’ feminine?’) which suggests apperception is occurring in regard to gender of pianeta. Comprehended input is evident in her response to the NS observation that pianeta is masculine, when she thanks the NS for the ‘correction’ grazie per questa correzione in turn 50 but does not repeat the correct alternate. The reference to correzione suggests that even though the learner has self-initiated repair in this instance, she orients to the NS’ response as corrective feedback rather than a resolution of her own repair regarding the gender of pianeta. She uses pianeta in her talk correctly 18 turns later in the conversation, indicating that she has integrated the correct form, providing evidence of pushed output. This stage is not common in the data, because participants tend to return as quickly as possible to competing social and personal meanings (Seedhouse, 1999) trajectories rather than repeating correct alternate items which would delay the main business of interactions. However, in this instance, despite the brief introduction of metalinguistic issues by learner, the conversation continued to revolve around environmental issues and use of the corrected term il pianeta was relevant to the conversational trajectory under way, providing the learner with the opportunity to put her recently acquired knowledge into practice by embedding il pianeta into her talk, without needing to draw attention to it again. Sometimes, a combination of repair patterns is visible in repair sequences which are initiated by learners. In Excerpt 13, both word search and comprehension check trajectories are launched by the learner to ascertain whether her Italian is target-like and she has been understood by the NS. EXCERPT 13 24 L: se non era per il pazzo sul treno if it weren’t for the madman on the train 25 L: forse non avremmo neanche scambiato email maybe we wouldn’t have even exchanged emails 26 → L: non so come dire I don’t know how to say it 27 → L: ho sbagliato I made an error 28 → L: mi capisci? do you understand me? 29 → NS: si si yes yes

72


Even though there is nothing repairable in her utterances in turns 24 and 25, apart from possible semantic issues or uncertainty regarding the use of the Italian ‘if clause’, the learner orients to these turns or something in these turns as repairable when she initiates repair by launching a word search trajectory non so come dire (‘I don’t know how to say it’). The learner does not identify a specific trouble source, which is possibly located in either of the prior two turns. This trajectory is aborted after she claims to have made an error in turn 26 and repair is initiated again with the comprehension check mi capisci (‘do you understand me?’). Hence, this selfinitiated repair trajectory starts out as a word search (b) but is then modified into a comprehension check (a), without identifying a specific trouble source. The NS’ confirmation of understanding resolves this repair sequence. This section provides evidence of learners using repair as a resource for SLA, in particular, when they seek clarification and check comprehension in regard to their own talk, invoking NS expertise to assist them in self-initiated other-repair sequences, which may lead to observable pushed output if it is interactionally relevant. Word search sequences (B) In face-to-face conversation, word searches often give rise to forward-oriented repair sequences which are commonly self-initiated and self-repaired through the use of vowel-marking (Carroll, 2005), cut-off, pauses and other interactional resources (Schegloff, 1979). In online chat, these types of resources are unavailable due to the textual format and are resolved either prior to sending the message, with learners sometimes accessing dictionaries, or replaced by articulation of the word search problem through a textual request to the NS, as in Excerpt 14. In this sequence, the learner is unable to remember or does not know the Italian word for ‘can’ and initiates an elaborate word search sequence which is resolved by the NS recipient. EXCERPT 14: SCATOLETTA 51 L: ti piace cuocere? do you like to cook? 52 NS: si, mi piace yes, I like it 53 NS: a te? and you?


73

54 NS:

si dice cucinare you’re meant to say cucinare → 55 L: come si dice la cosa, che e un pacchetto di acciaio, e indentro c’e’ cibo how do you say that thing, that’s a packet of steel, and inside there’s food 56 L: grazie, cucinare thank you, to cook 57 L: mi piace tanto I like it a lot → 58 NS: che serve per cucinare? that you need to cook? → 59 L: no, la fabrica si mette le cose intorno no, the factory puts things around(them) → 60 L: come il tonno like tuna → 61 NS: scatoletta can → 62 L: anche si dice scatoletta se e’ non di carta? can you also say can if it’s not made of paper? → 63 NS: di carta si dice sacchetto o pacchetto for paper you’re meant to say bag or packet 64 L: devo andare I have to go 65 L: grazie, ciao thanks, bye 66 NS: ciao! bye! The word search sequence occurs immediately after an other-initiated other-repair sequence on cuocere-cucinare in turns 51 and 54. Rather than consult a dictionary, the learner requests assistance of the NS to find the Italian word for ‘can’ which she paraphrases in turn 55 come si dice la cosa, che e un pacchetto di acciaio, e indentro c’e’ cibo (‘how do you say that thing, that’s a packet of steel, and inside there’s food’). The NS requests further information about the item in question in turn 58 che serve per cucinare? (‘that you need to cook?’) and the learner elaborates further, providing an approximate description in the following turn no, la fabrica si mette le cose intorno (‘no, the factory puts things around [them]’), probably meaning

74


dentro (‘inside’) instead of intorno. In the subsequent turn (60) come il tonno (‘like tuna’), the learner provides a very specific common use for cans, so that the NS will be able to identify the candidate word scatoletta (‘can’) and complete the repair sequence. Despite this, in the following turn (62) the learner seeks further confirmation that the term provided by the NS is the correct one and does not refer to a paper container, as would be the case for scatola (‘box’) of which scatoletta is a derivative. The NS reassures her in turn 63 by providing two words which denote paper containers sacchetto o pacchetto (‘bag or packet’). No further talk on this item occurs apart from a generic expression of appreciation in turn 65, as the learner chooses to terminate the conversation. There is therefore no further opportunity for the learner to use scatoletta as occurred in the case of the pianeta sequence. There is however evidence of comprehended input in regard to scatoletta as this sequence is noted by the learner as an important learning episode in her report. This same learner had commenced a word search sequence on scatoletta with another NS (Excerpt 15) in a session prior to the one which has just been discussed. However, in this instance the sequence and selfinitiated repair remains unresolved as the NS closes the conversation abruptly, without engaging in any type of closing sequence: EXCERPT 15: PACCHETTO D’ACCIAIO 63 L: lo sai che in australia, si compre spaghetti in un . . . do you know that in Australia, you can buy spaghetti in a . . . 64 L: non mi ricordo la parola I don’t remember the word 65 L: una cosa che il cibo e preservato a thing which food is preserved 66 L: per tanti anni for many years 67 L: un pachetto di acciaio a packet of steel 68 L: oi, non vuoi parlare ancora? hey, don’t you want to talk anymore? A productive word search sequence is visible in Excerpt 16, with clear evidence of pushed output, prompted by the NS. As it is initiated and ultimately also resolved by the learner, it could be defined as a self-initiated self-repair. However, the NS’ expertise is invoked and in response he attempts other-repair on three occasions. He also responds appropriately to her final resolution and pushed output. The discussion here revolves


75

around the opium industry and occurs in the learner’s second session with the same NS. EXCERPT 16: RUBANO I PAPAVERI 221 L: Ma qui qualche volta But here sometimes 222 L: sono . . . non posso trovare la parola they are . . . I can’t find the word 223 L: un attimo . . . one moment . . . 224 NS: prova try 225 NS: si yes 226 L: sono rubato are stolen OR have stolen [with incorrect auxiliary in latter case] 227 NS: hai rubato? you stole? 228 L: No No 229 NS: hanno rubato they stole 230 NS: i semi? the seeds? 231 L: Rubano i papaveri per fpreparare un te` they steal poppies to prepare a tea 232 NS: ahahahahhaha [laughter tokens and/or expression of recognition of prior turn] 233 L: Sono pazzi. E pericoloso. They’re mad. It’s dangerous. The learner’s word search does not relate to the word papaveri as she has already used it previously in this conversation. The search seems to revolve around the word rubare (‘to steal’). The NS encourages the learner to pursue her search in turns 224 and 225, and she retrieves sono rubato in turn 226. This conveys either an attempt at a passive construction, though this would require agreement with the plural subject sono rubati or vengono rubati (‘are stolen’) or a past tense formation hanno rubato (‘they stole’). The NS assumes the learner intends the latter and proffers a second person singular hai rubato (‘you stole’) in turn 227, and when this is rejected by the

76


learner in turn 228, he suggests a third person plural hanno rubato (‘they stole’). He proposes i semi? (‘the seeds?’) in turn 230 in an attempt to assist the learner with vocabulary. However, by turn 231 it becomes apparent that the NS is off track in terms of the trouble source, which is both grammatical (passive vs. active construction) and lexical rubare. In her reformulation, the learner adopts an active construction Rubano i papaveri per fpreparare un te` (‘they steal poppies to prepare a tea’) rather than a likely passive construction which she initiates in turns 222 and 226. Clearly, the learner shows evidence of pushed output here, as she formulates a correct utterance which is understood by the NS, who responds to the content of her reformulation rather than the form, as the latter is no longer an issue. Participants then return to the main conversational trajectory, though the syntactically more complex passive construction has not been developed in this instance. Learner word searches such as those which have just been described occur especially when dealing with apparently monolingual NSs of Italian, who do not speak English. This may be seen as productive for SLA, as the learner is forced to use the target language at all times, and engages in repair work and reformulations which are often more complex syntactically than the candidate item which is the subject of the repair sequence. However, if the learner has ascertained that the NS of Italian also speaks English, as occurs in language learning partnerships, he/she may conduct a word search by providing the candidate item in English, as in Excerpt 17: EXCERPT 17: A CIASCUNO IL SUO 134 L: come si dice ‘everyone to their own’ how do you say ‘everyone to their own’ 135 NS: a ciascuno il suo each to their own 136 NS: poi la prossima volta parliamo anche in inglese next time, we’ll speak in English too then 137 L: grazie thank you In Excerpt 17, Italian is used throughout, apart from the candidate phrase ‘everyone to their own’ which is clearly framed by a word search format come si dice (‘how do you say’) and marked by inverted commas to distinguish it from the Italian conversation and avoid a switch to interaction in English. The NS does however suggest that English be used on another occasion. As in Excerpt 17, come si dice (‘how do you say’) most commonly


77

initiates word search sequences in these data, although in Excerpt 15, the learner commences her repair by stating non mi ricordo la parola. Analysis in this section has identified the word search sequence, one type of learner-initiated other-repair trajectory, which is productive for SLA, not just in pushing learners to acquire new target language vocabulary and structures which are the main objective of their efforts, but also in pushing them to resourcefully engage in ‘hypothesis testing’ (Elliott, 1981) and development of metalingual talk which surrounds their word search, especially when code-switching to English is kept to a minimum. Word searches (B): online try-marking? Some word search sequences constitute a form of online textual trymarking in online foreign language repair sequences, which often include the question mark to ensure an appropriate response from the recipient. Hosoda (2006) notes: In the L1 conversations, a similar kind of upward intonation contour was observed when the participants did ‘try-marking’, which is used when a speaker is uncertain whether for this recipient a certain recognitional form (usually a name) he/she used is appropriate to secure recognition (Sacks and Schegloff 1979; Schegloff 1996). In producing try-marking, a speaker produces a recognitional form with upward intonation and pauses momentarily. An online adaptation of try-marking is evident in my data. The infrequency of try-marking across the data is possibly due to ambiguity provoked by lack of upward intonation and unclear pausing tools in the chat software. Hence, the question mark and a word search strategy, such as come si dice (‘how do you say’) are normally used when initiating repair in this way. However, the question mark may be used on its own at times. In Excerpt 18, the learner seeks help in recalling a word which had previously been used by the NS, though the original utterance is unavailable in the data. The learner uses a question mark to check whether the NS has understood her first attempt at using the recently learned term sapientone (‘know-it-all’). She then realizes it is not target-like and reformulates it (self-repairs), possibly after seeing it written on the screen, as suggested by oops in turn 216. EXCERPT 18: WORD SEARCH THROUGH TRY-MARKING →215 L: non fare lo spinione? don’t be a [non-existent term]

78

216 L:


oops oops →217 L: sapinione [non-existent term] 218 L: tu mi hai imparata quella parola you learned [Southern Italian] me that word 219 L: ti ricordi? do you remember? →220 NS: SAPIENTONE KNOW-IT-ALL 221 NS: SI KE MI RICORDO OF COURSE, I REMEMBER 222 L: ma non so se ho scritto bene but I don’t know whether I’ve written it correctly →223 L: ahh gia ahh that’s right 224 L: hehehehe [laughter] 225 NS: ALMENO SU QUELLO CHE SO CERCO DI FARLO!!! AT LEAST ON WHAT I KNOW I’LL TRY TO BE ONE 226 NS: E’ MEGLIO CHE APPROFITTO IT’S BEST THAT I MAKE THE MOST OF IT 227 L: ma non solo tu – pense che sieti tutti cosi i Tarantini but not only you – I think that all of you Tarantini are like that 228 L: ma certo of course 229 NS: COSI COME? LIKE WHAT? 230 NS: SAPIENTONI? KNOW-IT-ALLS 231 L: meglio approfittare best to make the most of it 232 L: si si yes yes →233 L: sapientone know-it-all 234 NS: A SI??? AH YES? 235 NS: ABBIAMO QUESETA REPUTAZIONE? DO WE HAVE THIS REPUTATION?

Conversational Repair in Online Intercultural Chat 236 NS: 237 L: 238 L: 239 NS:

79

AHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHH ma vuol dire che siete piu svegli but it means that you are more alert piu alerti [non-target like Anglicism] more alert MENO MALE THANK GOODNESS

In this case, there is evidence that the learner has previously encountered the term sapientone and is attempting to retrieve it from memory and incorporate it into her discourse during this chat session. The learner produces two attempts at the candidate word in turns 215 and 217, with her first version spinione including a question mark to reflect rising intonation. She then produces sapinione (turn 217) without a question mark, as an attempted self-repair of her first variant of the candidate word. She subsequently reminds the NS that he has previously taught her this word and he is then able to retrieve it in turn 220. She displays recognition of this word in turn 223 with the utterance ahh gia (‘ahh that’s right’), after posting a further self-initiated repair ma non so se ho scritto bene (‘but I don’t know whether I’ve written it correctly’), probably before seeing and noticing the appearance of the candidate word on screen. From turn 225, participants return to the interpersonal trajectory and embed sapientone into their conversations at turns 230 (NS) and 233 (learner) in a playful discussion of the ‘knowledgeability’ of people from the city of Taranto, including the NS himself, as suggested by the learner in turn 227 by ma non solo tu – pense che sieti tutti cosi i Tarantini (‘but not only you – I think that all of you Tarantini are like that’). As in the case of il pianeta, the learner is able to use the candidate word sapientone in an embedded manner, by incorporating it into the interpersonal rather than pedagogical conversational trajectory. A similar instance of online try-marking is visible in Excerpt 19, where the learner is unable to find the word she is looking for, and the NS does not understand what she is trying to express. She is possibly looking for salita (‘climbed’) but finally opts for the target formulation sono andata sopra when the NS is unable to understand. EXCERPT 19: SONO ANDATA SOPRA 38 L: sono andata a parigi I went to Paris

80


39 L:

e bella it’s beautiful 40 NS: si è una città molto romantica yes, it’s a very romantic city 41 NS: torre eiffel Eiffel tower 42 NS: champ elise champ elise [Champs-Élysées] 43 NS: louvre louvre → 44 L: si, sono . . . come si dice yes, I . . . how do you say 45 NS: operà operà (Opéra) → 46 L: scalata? [used in relation to climbing mountains/walls rather than stairs] climbed? → 47 L: scendata? [non-existent term, attempted past participle, possibly adapted from scendere: to descend/go down] → 48 L: ascendata? [non-existent term; attempted past particple, possibly adapted from ascendere: to rise/ascend] → 49 NS: non capisco cosa vuoi dire I don’t understand what you want to say →50 NS: affascinata forse fascinated maybe → 51 L: sono andata sopra I went up 52 L: devo andare I have to go 53 L: ciao Bye Unlike the sapientone and scatoletta example where the NS understands the learner and resolves the self-initiated repair, in this case the combination of come si dice, provision of the auxiliary verb sono with a space for the past participle (turn 44) and online try-marking (turns 46, 47, 48) are unsuccessful as a word search strategy, as the NS is unable to assist. However, the persistent self-repair/try-marking actions force the learner to reformulate her


81

utterances (self-repair) so that the NS understands. This excerpt shows observable output by the learner, who is forced to make herself understood by the NS. The conversation is however cut off so that there is no further collaborative talk or NS acknowledgement of sono andata sopra. There is therefore no evidence that the learner is aware that her final alternate version is in fact correct. Her report does however note affascinata (‘fascinated’) as one of the new words she learned during her online interactions. This term is proffered by the NS in an inaccurate attempt at repair resolution in turn 50. It is an adjective rather than the verb the learner is probably seeking. The analyst has the advantage of retrospection and availability of the full transcript, hence the learner’s probable search for a verb is evident from the learner’s final attempt sono andata sopra (‘I went up’), a paraphrase of sono salita (‘I climbed up’). This is most likely difficult for the NS to understand from the non-target past participles proposed by the learner in turns 46 (from scalare), 47 (from scendere) and 48 (from ascendere), or the gap after sono . . . in turn 44, which is probably meant as an auxiliary verb for salire, but which could well have been interpreted by the NS as requiring an adjective such as affascinata if she were evaluating her experience in Paris. As in word search trajectories deployed by learners which were discussed in the previous section, online try-marking is an interactional format which is understood by participants despite lack of upward intonation which is typical of face-to-face talk. It appears to be productive for SLA not just in terms of the candidate items which are being sought by learners but also in terms of the process involved in searching and acquiring them. This requires considerable skill and resourcefulness on the part of the learner, and cooperation by the NS until mutual understanding is achieved. These may or may not lead to observable output, though Excerpt 18 (sapientone) indicates that such output may need to be embedded in social rather than pedagogical trajectories at a later stage of conversation, as occurs with the pianeta sequence (Excerpt 11).

Self-initiated other-repair: native speaker initiates, learner resolves (C) Instances of (c) self-initiated other repair (NS initiates, learner resolves) consist mainly of comprehension checks, to ensure that the learner has understood a concept, word or expression. They are in fact frequently intercultural-geographical (Tudini, 2007, p. 593) in nature, as often occurs in a long distance intercultural conversation where participants have only

82


just met, and the NSs sometimes choose to explain which area of Italy they are from. As far as linguistic matters are concerned, NSs sometimes engage in comprehension checks to ensure that vocabulary is understood by the learner, as in Excerpt 20, which is intended to check understanding of the word impresa (‘firm’), an important issue if the learner is to understand the NS’ social position. This excerpt concludes a lengthy repair sequence where the NS has provided extended explanations and corrections (other-initiated other-repairs) to ensure appropriate understanding. EXCERPT 20: EXAMPLE OF (C) SELF-INITIATED (NATIVE SPEAKER) OTHER-REPAIR (LEARNER RESOLVES) 276 NS: hai capito che significa impresa? did you understand what impresa means? 277 L: si yes 278 L: firm firm 279 L: forse in inglese probably in English In turn 276, the NS checks that the learner has understood impresa when he launches the first pair part of a question-answer adjacency pair hai capito che significa impresa (‘did you understand what impresa means?’). The learner responds affirmatively to his question in the subsequent turn, with an appropriate second pair part answer si. She then proposes an accurate English translation of impresa, as firm in turn 278, to indicate that she has understood. However, she displays uncertainty about her response in turn 279, when she expands on turn 278, using forse (‘probably’) as part of the response to the NS’ question. Hence, this comprehension check by the NS on impresa and an appropriate response by the learner appears to achieve understanding initially, as the learners’ code-switching to English indicates, though she expresses some doubts in the subsequent turn. In Excerpt 21, the NS initiates a comprehension check regarding a typical chat abbreviation which allows the ‘ch’ consonantal cluster to be expressed phonetically and more briefly as ‘k’. EXCERPT 21: CHAT ABBREVIATION: CH = K 34 L: dove lavori where do you work?


83

35 NS: in hospedale e tu ke studi? in a hospital and what do you study? 36 NS: capsici il ch = k? do you understand that ch = k? 37 L: si ho capito quello yes, I understood that 38 NS: bene . . . ke fai di bello? Good . . . what are you up to? The timing of this self-initiated repair/comprehension check is significant as it occurs after the NS discovers his interlocutor is a student of Italian (segment not reproduced). While the comprehension check is not required, as the learner indicates she understands this chat abbreviation, this sequence provides evidence of NSs adjusting their language to ensure comprehensible input on the part of the learner. In turn 36, the NS is able to succinctly do a comprehension check and provide an explanation of the ch/k abbreviation in the same turn. This is an infrequent type of online same turn self-repair prior to learner’s acknowledgement of understanding and repair resolution. In this case, the orientation to expert-novice relationship is not in relation to Italian as a foreign language but the language of chat and SMS. Excerpt 22 deals with the Italian folk tradition of the sbandieratori (flag waving performers), when the NS checks understanding and introduces a link to a photograph to assist her. This sequence starts as a self-initiated other-repair (NS self-initiates learner resolves), but develops into an otherinitiated self-repair (learner initiates NS resolves), as the learner does not fully understand the sbandieratore activity, as first appears. EXCERPT 22: SBANDIERATORI 92 NS: faccio parte di un gruppo di sbandieratori non so se sai cosa sono I am part of a group of flag wavers I don’t know if you know what they are 93 NS: lo facevamo noi lo spettacolo in un festival del folklore we were the ones doing the performance in a folk festival 94 L: ah che bello! ah how wonderful! 95 NS: si yes 96 L: che cosa dovresti fare come un sbandieratore? what do you need to do as a flag waver?

84


97 NS: [Link to photograph of group of sbandieratori] 98 L: ah bene! ah good! While the learner’s response to the NS at turn 94 ah che bello! seems to indicate that she understands the NS’ comprehension check, she then asks the NS what he actually does as a sbandieratore (‘flag waver’) in her subsequent turn. So either in response to this question or as an elaboration of his own comprehension check in turn 92 non so se sai cosa sono (‘I don’t know if you know what they are’), the NS provides a link to a photograph in the subsequent turn (and later to a relevant YouTube film clip). The photo elicits an expression of approval and understanding ah bene’(‘ah good’). The multimodality of chat permits visual illustration and contextualization of many terms which would otherwise need to be explained through written text. Most chat softwares nowadays allow participants to introduce visual media such as film clips, hyperlinks and illustrations to support the conversation. Even in this area, NS participants in my data orient to expert status as users of the multimodal capacities of the software, as they appear to be the principal users of these tools. This is however likely to vary if learners are regular users of the software, and may be of assistance in the development of collaborative online tasks where language may be contextualized and the target culture experienced through photos or film. The NSs’ self-initiated other-repair (comprehension check) trajectories discussed in this section display participants’ orientation to expert-novice status and evidence of NSs promoting comprehended input, which is usually acknowledged by learners.

Other-initiated self-repair According to CA definitions, other-initiated self-repair occurs when ‘the recipient of the repairable item indicates a problem in the talk and the speaker resolves the problem’ (Liddicoat, 2007, p. 173). This is one of the most frequent types of repair in the data, with the most common types of other-initiated self-repair sequences occurring when a. the learner (recipient) requests clarification of a new word or expression used by the NS and the NS reformulates the candidate item to achieve understanding or b. the NS does not understand non-target expressions used by the learner and requests clarification, which leads to learner self-repair


85

(both successful and unsuccessful) through reformulation and collaborative reconstruction. In Excerpt 23, an example of (a), the learner other-initiates repair (seeks clarification) repeatedly as she does not comprehend the NS’ occupation of building surveyor specializing in purification plants. The NS responds by self-repairing to achieve mutual understanding. The learner here uses clarification requests to encourage her interlocutor to explain clearly what he does for a living. The NS uses mainly paraphrase to self-repair and explain his occupation, at the learner’s insistence: EXCERPT 23: EXAMPLE OF OTHER-INITIATED SELF-REPAIR: INITIATED BY LEARNER AND COMPLETED BY NATIVE SPEAKER (A) 28 L: Altretanto Giovanni cosa fai per lavoro Same here, Giovanni what do you do for a living 29 NS: geometra disegnatore building surveyor 30 NS: impianti di depurazione purification plants →31 L: Non capisco I don’t understand 32 NS: tu hai già cenato? have you already had dinner? 33 NS: lacoro in una società che realizza impianti di depurazione I work in a company that builds purification plants 34 NS: lavoro scusa I work sorry 35 NS: diciamo che curo l’ambiente let’s say that I look after the environment →36 L: SI ore fa. Spiega depurazione per favore YES hours ago. Explain purification please 37 NS: acque di scarico delle industrie industry waste waters 38 NS: noi le depuriamo in modo tale ke se vengono scaricate nel terreno nn creano guai all’ambiente we purify them so that if they are discharged into the ground they don’t cause environmental problems →39 L: Si ma cosa devi fare solo controllare? Yes, but what do you have to do just check? 40 NS: disegno le vasche I design the tanks [also translated as tubs]

86


→41 L: Da bagno? Forse ti sembro stupida Bath? You must think I’m stupid 42 NS: no vasche in cemento armato no tanks made of reinforced concrete 43 NS: le acque di scarico della tua cucina dove vanno? where does the drainwater from your kitchen go? 44 NS: in una fognatura che le porta ad un impianto di depurazione into a sewer which takes it to a purification plant 45 NS: io disegno l’impianto I design the plant The learner initiates repair four times, as indicated by the arrows. The trouble sources appear to be mainly lexical: impianti di depurazione (‘purification plants’; turn 30), depurazione (‘purification’; turn 33) and vasche (‘tanks’; turn 40). The professional role of the NS in the purification of wastewater is also queried, suggesting that geometra disegnatore (‘building surveyor’) is not understood, as well as the function of purification plants. As the conversation does not continue beyond turn 45, it is unclear whether the NS’ reformulations achieve understanding for the learner. However, her four repair initiations force the co-participant to adapt to the learner’s needs to explain what may seem obvious to an NS, though even an NS may be unacquainted with the technical language which characterizes this sequence. In Excerpt 24, the candidate word commissione (‘board of examiners’) is new to the learner, so she initiates repair to achieve understanding. EXCERPT 24: EXAMPLE OF OTHER-INITIATED SELF-REPAIR: INITIATED BY LEARNER COMPLETED BY NATIVE SPEAKER (A) 36 NS: se continui cosi gli esami li fai tu alla commissione if you go on like this, you’ll be the one examining the board of examiners 37 L: non capisco commissione I don’t understand ‘commissione’ 38 NS: commissione sono le persone che ti faranno gli esami ‘commissione’ are the people who will examine you 39 L: Sei molto gentile ma per i miei compiti faccio dei sbagli di lessico Dimmi qualcose di te You’re very kind but for my assignments I make vocabulary errors. Tell me something about yourself The NS is in fact complimenting the learner on her Italian in the turn which contains the trouble source commissione (turn 36), as he is suggesting


87

that she is as proficient as the examiners. The learner does not respond to the compliment immediately and other-initiates repair on commissione in the subsequent turn. The NS then self-repairs successfully in turn 38, as evidenced by the learner’s delayed response to the NS’ compliment in turn 39. This turn displays two actions: 1. the learner expresses weak appreciation of NS praise as it is qualified by her self-evaluation after ma (‘but’) (sei molto gentile ma per i miei compiti faccio dei sbagli di lessico) 2. she then changes topic and returns to an interpersonal conversational trajectory, which also shifts attention away from herself and back to the NS. In Excerpt 25, participants are playfully orienting to a tutor-student role, when the learner initiates repair on the NS’ talk. EXCERPT 25: MI PAGHI? 168 NS: mi paghi? will you pay me? 169 L: non ho capito mi paghi? I don’t understand ‘mi paghi’? 170 NS: se ti insegno mi devi pagare la lezione if I teach you, you have to pay for the lesson 171 NS: 䄗 172 NS: sono un bravo professore I’m a good teacher 173 L: il mio ragazzo fa body building come te my boyfriend does body building like you The repairable item is the entire construction mi paghi? (turn 168) which is identified by the learner as a trouble source. She initiates repair in turn 169 by explicitly expressing non understanding (non ho capito mi paghi: ‘I don’t understand mi paghi’) and the NS self-repairs by providing a more extensive reformulation and explanation of the original candidate expression, which invites the learner to pay him for his services as tutor: se ti insegno mi devi pagare la lezione (‘if I teach you you have to pay for the lesson’). This is followed by a smiley face (turn 171), suggesting that the NS’ proposal is in jest and a positive self-appraisal of his teaching abilities sono un bravo professore (‘I’m a good teacher’; turn 172). The learner does not acknowledge the NS’ proposal and changes topic in turn 173.

88


In Excerpt 26, the NS of Italian queries and initiates repair on the English abbreviation LOL which is used universally in online chat rooms, including Italian chat rooms, suggesting that the NS is not a regular ‘chatter’. EXCERPT 26: LOL 12 L: l-o-l l-o-l 13 NS: LOL LOL 14 NS: nn so cosa significa I don’t know what it means 15 L: era solo 1 risata it was only a laugh 16 L: LOL significa = Laugh Out Loud . . . risata forte LOL means = Laugh Out Loud . . . loud laughter 17 NS: ah grazie non lo sapevo, cosa significa loud? ah thank you I didn’t know, what does ‘loud’ mean? 18 L: Loud e . . . ulto [alto intended; spelling/typing + translation error: high instead of loud] Loud is . . . ‘high’ 19 NS: cosa nn capisco what I don’t understand 20 L: ok aspetto . . . domando a papa ok wait . . . I’ll ask dad 21 NS: vabbè non ti preOCCupare non fa niente ok don’t worry, it doesn’t matter 22 L: significa-ridere forte . . . o sgargiante [usually referred to colours] it means laugh loud . . . or showily 23 NS: ah ok ah ok NS-learner roles are reversed as the learner provides an explanation in Italian, possibly with the assistance of a bystander, as she alludes to seeking help from her father in turn 20 ok aspetto . . . domando a papa (‘ok wait . . . I’ll ask dad’). The learner of Italian orients to her role as expert both of English and chat jargon. This sequence illustrates an excellent learning opportunity as the learner needs to use Italian to explain the problem item, and carries out multiple self-repairs on the same item, prompted (otherinitiated) by the NS, who by turn 17 focuses on the adjective loud rather than the entire abbreviation ‘LOL’ as the trouble source. In particular,


89

there is evidence of interlanguage development on the part of the learner who starts out with risata forte, which is correct, but then incorrectly translates ‘loud’ into ulto (‘high’) and eventually provides an almost exact translation of ‘LOL’ ridere forte o sgargiante in turn 22, apart from sgargiante which usually relates to colours not sounds. It is unclear whether the learner has used a dictionary or received assistance from her father at this point. This sequence suggests that NSs of Italian are able to promote SLA by initiating repair on trouble sources in which the learners of Italian have some form of expertise, especially when they are forced to reformulate or explain in the target language. There may be potential here for research on the potential for SLA where trouble sources are generated by the learner and give rise to general rather than pedagogical repair sequences which are resolved in the target language by the learner. Unlike prototypical repair trajectories described so far, NSs are sometimes unable to satisfy learners’ clarification requests, thus thwarting expectations and SLA processes. In Excerpt 27, the NS decides that his utterance uno lo fa di proposito is too difficult to explain though the learner initiates the repair sequence and expects resolution by the NS. However, there is neither a reformulation nor a pedagogical explanation as part of the resolution. EXCERPT 27: DI PROPOSITO 20 NS: di che parliamo? what do we talk about? 21 L: non su solo una cosa in particolare, ci parliamo come abbiamo fatto precedentemente not about something in particular, we can talk like we’ve done previously 22 NS: ah bene ah ok →23 NS: è strano parlare perchè uno lo fa di proposito it’s strange to talk because one does it purposely 24 NS: che clima c’è in Australia? what’s the climate like in Australia? 25 L: uno lo fa di proposito? uno lo fa di proposito? 26 NS: no nulla no nothing 27 L: cose significa? what does it mean?

90

28 NS: 29 NS: 30 L: 31 NS: 32 NS: 33 L:

Online Second Language Acquisition è difficile spiegarlo anche in italiano cosa volevo dire it’s hard to explain what I meant to say, even in Italian lascia stare let it go va bene . . . ma la prossima volta forse! ok . . . but maybe next time! cosa? what? forse? maybe? forse puoi spiegare la prossima volta! maybe you can explain next time!

In this case, the learner first chooses to simply repeat the problem expression used by the NS in turn 23 and tag a question mark at the end of it (turn 25) to other-initiate repair. The NS response no nulla (‘no nothing’) in the subsequent turn indicates that her question is understood as a clarification request, but he refuses to reformulate or explain the problem utterance. It can also be seen interactionally as an attempt to withdraw his comment. This interpretation is supported by the fact that he changes topic in the subsequent turn che clima c’è in Australia? (‘what’s the climate like in Australia?’). A clearer interrogative format for a clarification request cosa significa (‘what does it mean?’) is however used subsequently in turn 27 by the learner. The NS again refuses the learner’s request though he also provides a justification in turn 28 è difficile spiegarlo anche in italiano cosa volevo dire (‘it’s hard to explain what I meant to say, even in Italian’) and reiterates his refusal in turn 29 lascia stare (‘let it go’), assisted by a smiling emoticon to express affiliation towards the learner, probably to compensate for his unaffiliative act of refusal to explain his words. The learner concludes this sequence by suggesting that discussion of the problem utterance could be postponed to a future session forse puoi spiegare la prossima volta! (‘maybe you can explain next time!’), which reiterates a similar request in turn 30. The NS’ reluctance to explain/self-repair his utterance may be due to the fact that the problem is not linguistic but semantic, as neither participant identifies a specific trouble source, though di proposito is a hypothetical candidate item. While there is evidence of apperception by the learner in this episode, there is no further interactional development of SLA processes due to the NS’ reluctance to collaborate in this particular instance. Without comprehended input, SLA processes are not initiated. There is however evidence that apperception is an important trigger for SLA, as the learner


91

acts on this episode later. First, the problem utterance is highlighted in the transcript. Furthermore, the learner’s report suggests that she followed up this episode and integrated the candidate expression into her linguistic repertoire. She claims to have acquired new idiomatic expressions as part of her chat interactions, citing the above episode as one example: Un aspetto della lingua che mi sono rendo conto è l’uso delle frasi idiomatichi. La prima frase era quando ho chiesto di chattare con Giovanni per questo compito. Lui ha detto, ‘Uno lo fa di proposito’. Suggerisce che uno parla senza obbligazione e non si fa appositamente. One aspect of language that I became aware of is the use of idiomatic sentences. The first sentence was when I asked Giovanni to chat for this assignment. He said, ‘Uno lo fa di proposito’. It suggests that one talks without obligation and should not do it on purpose. Apperception in this case appears to have motivated the learner to investigate the NS’ problem utterance further and produce a correct paraphrase and explanation in her report. While the NS appears to be unwilling or unable to explain, the learner is motivated to investigate further, demonstrating understanding of the NS’ comment on chat interaction. While there is no evidence that the original expression has been used in interaction, the learner exhibits output through correct reformulation of the original utterance in her report. This demonstrates that reflection on online conversation through the production of formal reports is productive for SLA and may encourage noticing (Schmidt, 1990). As noted previously in the LOL sequence, sometimes interactional roles are reversed and the NS requests clarification of the learner, thus the NS initiates the sequence which the learner self-repairs. However, unlike the LOL sequence, where the NS of Italian orients to the learner of Italian as an expert in chat/SMS language, in Excerpt 28, the NS is repairing non-target Italian. EXCERPT 28: NATIVE SPEAKER INITIATES OTHER-REPAIR AND LEARNER SELF-REPAIRS (B) 9 NS anni? years? 10 L perche’ - mi dici primo why-tell me first →111 NS cosa..? what?

92


→12 NS cosa vuoi dire’ what do you mean 13 L Voglio che mi dici quanti anni hai I want you to tell me how old you are In this example of (b) (other-initiated by NS and self-repaired by learner), repair initiation is motivated by a non-target formulation by the learner perche’ – mi dici primo (‘why – tell me first’), which the NS is unable to understand, not only from a syntactic point of view but also because it is interactionally inappropriate, as he expects a second pair part, the learner’s age, in response to his question in turn 9. The NS thus requests clarification (turn 11) and the learner reformulates through a much clearer and more target-like paraphrase (turn 11). This variation on NS-initiated self-repair (learner) is interesting as the NS’ apparent lack of understanding forces the learner to rethink her utterance, rather than being provided with a ready correct alternative by the NS, as occurs in correction or recasts. Excerpt 29 also clearly shows the learner successfully reconstructing (selfrepairing) an original utterance which is not understood by the NS, who thus is technically the initiator of the repair sequence. This sequence occurs in an attempt to establish a mutual language learning partnership, with the learner of Italian helping the learner of English through translation of conversational routines from English into Italian: EXCERPT 29 95 L: c’e` lei un altra?? [ce l’hai un’altra intended] have you got another?? 96 NS: cosa what 97 L: hai un altra frase da dirmi? do you have another sentence to tell me? 98 NS: ok ok 99 L: In Excerpt 29, the NS appears to express genuine non-understanding of the learner’s problem utterance in turn 95. She is thus forced to reformulate her original utterance to achieve understanding in turn 97. While not using the original question format she intended (this includes pleonastic ce combined with pronoun and verb), as is common in spoken Italian, the


93

learner formulates another syntactically complex utterance which is more target-like than the original. In other cases, pragmatic issues can give rise to other-initiated (NS) selfrepaired (L) sequences, as in Excerpt 30, which contain a correctionappreciation-apology routine, as often occurs after exposed correction in the data. EXCERPT 30 25 NS: si dice: sono una donna you’re meant to say: I’m a woman →26 L: grazie, sono una donna. mi dispiace thank you, I’m a woman →27 NS: ti dispiace di cosa you’re sorry for what →28 L: mi dispiace per il miosbaglio I’m sorry about my mistake 29 NS: figurati, è comprensibile not at all, it’s understandable 30 L: ma grazie per il suo correzione but thank you for your correction 31 NS: 䄗㩷䄗 In turn 26, the learner thanks the NS for his correction, repeats the correct alternate item and apologizes. Even though this routine is common in the data, the NS is unsure why the learner is apologizing. The learner thus expands her apology to make it clear to the NS that she is apologizing for her corrected mistake (turn 28). The NS provides an appropriate second pair part in response figurati, è comprensibile (‘not at all, it’s understandable’) in turn 29. This is followed up by the learner with an expression of appreciation for the NS’ correction grazie per il suo correzione (‘thank you for your correction’), which also expands on her original thanks in the problem utterance in turn 26. It is possible that the inclusion of three actions in the problem utterance, that is, thanking, repetition of correct alternate and apologizing, contributed to the NS’ confusion as the referent for the apology could have been construed as being in the same turn. It is also possible that as a monolingual, the NS is unfamiliar with the correction routine as apologies are a common response by learners to NS correction in the data, and to the best of my knowledge, also in face-to-face contexts.

94


To conclude this section on other-initiated self-repair, while learners’ clarification requests appear to be a frequent and productive repair trajectory, they do not provide observable output, at least interactionally, as the candidate expression/trouble source is usually in the NS’ talk, and is unlikely to be used by the learner in the short term. In fact, the learner may not even acknowledge understanding of candidate items at times (see Excerpts 24 and 25). Longitudinal research would be required to ascertain whether these items have been incorporated in learners’ linguistic repertoire. On the other hand, NSs’ clarification requests, where they initiate repair on what constitutes a genuine trouble source rather than an issue of ‘form and accuracy’ in the learners’ talk, appear to push learners to reformulate problem utterances until more target-like utterances and understanding are achieved. Given the naturalistic and authentic nature of these behaviours, they may be difficult to foster in a purposeful manner to encourage learning. Learner reports also seem to have a role in promoting comprehended input, as is evident in the case of Excerpt 27 on uno lo fa di proposito.

Silence as opportunity for self-repair Before moving onto a discussion of other-initiated other-repair in Chapter 5, it is worth reflecting whether silence or lack of response as other-initiation of self-correction could be fostered in online chat. In face-to-face contexts, silence/pauses by interlocutor provide an opportunity for the speaker to self-repair a problematic item. How can this feature of repair in face-to-face talk be expressed in online text chat? In private chat, lack of response is considered unaffiliative and promotes the posting of smaller utterances. Silence is often interpreted as lack of interest unless participants ask permission to leave the computer. Participants need to continue typing and posting turns. Excerpt 31 includes a sequence which is indicative of the type of response which requires participants to account for a pause in postings, as the process of message production of co-participants is unavailable: EXCERPT 31: NON PARLI PIÙ? 36 L: grazie thank you 37 NS: prego you’re welcome →38 NS: non parli piu? you’re not talking anymore?


95

39 L:

cosa? what? →40 NS: non dici niente? you’re not saying anything? 41 L: no, sono lentamente no, I’m slowly 42 NS: ok ok 43 L: lento? non sono sicura slow? I’n not sure 44 NS: si yes The NS prompts the learner on two occasions in this sequence (turns 38 and 40), as indicated by the arrows. The learner needs to justify her silence in turn 41. This sequence and Excerpts 9 and 10 in Chapter 3 seem to indicate that pausing is not available to chatters to provide a space for learners to self-repair though this issue will be considered again in Chapter 5.

Conclusion In terms of opportunities for SLA, the analysis above suggests that various possibilities are available to learners in online intercultural chat. In particular, conversational trajectories such as other-initiated (NS) self-repair (L), where the NS expresses non-understanding rather than recasting the candidate expression, encourage the learner to self-repair through reformulation of original non-target or unclear utterances. They provide observable examples of micromoments of learning as we are able to observe the developing interlanguage of learners and modified output during naturalistic conversation. Comprehended input also seems to occur where the learner other-initiates repair on items in NS talk and receives feedback (self-repair) from the NS on vocabulary and grammar. Repetition of newly acquired lexical items is however frequently oriented to by participants as irrelevant in online conversation, as learners pursue understanding rather than use of candidate items. Repetition is more likely where learners self-initiate repair through word searches which allow them to continue or launch interpersonal trajectories with the assistance of NSs. Delucidations on grammar may however show evidence of pushed output in an embedded manner, as in the case of il pianeta , which is used in an interactionally appropriate and meaningful manner later in conversation, after the learner self-initiates

96


repair on her own talk, for resolution (other-repair) by the NS. Available data do not tell the researcher whether new lexical items and correct alternates are either voiced in private to aid retention or stored by the learner for use later. Learner reports may have a role to play in fostering awareness of interlanguage development, as in the case of uno lo fa di proposito. However, certain trajectories which involve NS and learner repair-initiation, without correction, would appear to visibly push the learner into more target-like formulations, within a context where non-understanding is authentic rather than pedagogically motivated. In classroom contexts, the language teacher typically prompts learners to produce more target-like formulations as part of the initiation-response-feedback trajectory, where the answer to questions is frequently already known (Hall, 2007). It is therefore important to provide foreign language learners with opportunities to engage in and reflect on naturalistic repair trajectories which require collaboration with NSs, such as those which are evident in online chat, as they appear to have potential for SLA, with pedagogical repair trajectories coexisting harmoniously with social ones.

Chapter 5

Other-Repair in Online Intercultural Chat: When Native Speakers Do Correction

Introduction Correction seems a straightforward process which we take for granted in our everyday lives but corrections are in fact complex turn-by-turn achievements by participants. This is especially so where there is differential language expertise, such as when language learners interact with NSs of a foreign language. This chapter therefore discusses how NSs ‘do correction’ in the social environment of online text chat, and how NS and learner behaviours in correction sequences may be conducive to SLA.

Other-Initiated Other-Repair: Exposed and Embedded Correction Of all possible types of repair, other-initiated other-repair, occurring after the problem utterance, is the least preferred form of repair in social/everyday or institutional settings, with the exception of the language classroom. Jefferson (1987) calls these types of repair ‘correction’, and distinguishes between ‘embedded’ or ‘exposed’. Exposed or open correction tends to be avoided in conversation since it disrupts conversation and draws attention to a conversational problem or the conversational incompetence of a speaker. Correction can however be embedded to avoid loss of face to the speaker of the problem utterance and disruption to conversation. The place of embedded and exposed correction in online intercultural chat is discussed in the following two sections. Embedded correction A common way to correct in monolingual social settings to avoid loss of face for the person producing a problematic utterance is ‘embedded’ correction.

98


In SLA research, this most closely resembles Gass’ (1997) description of ‘inexplicit indirect feedback’ (p. 115) except that there is no ‘pushing down’ (Varonis & Gass, 1985, p. 75) of conversation or interruptions to the conversational flow. It is considered the type of feedback which is least likely to draw learners’ attention to formal aspects of a conversation. According to Jefferson (1987), embedded corrections keep issues such as incompetence and/or impropriety away from the conversational surface because there is no need to explain or justify a correction. In particular, ‘the talk which constitutes “embedded correction” does not permit of “accountings”’ (p. 95) as required in exposed correction. Embedded corrections permit interactants to ‘correct with discretion’ (Jefferson, 1988, p. 100). Jefferson (1988) describes embedded correction as: tying together a wrong item and an item which puts it right, such that the wrong item is added to by the right item rather than being discarded and replaced. ( Jefferson, 1988, p. 6) Embedded correction as described by Jefferson (1987) in face-to-face L1 settings is rare in my data as a strategy to deal with pedagogical repair. However, embedded correction has been identified as typical in second language talk by Brouwer et al. (2004), hence further attention is required in a separate study to determine why dyadic online intercultural chat favours exposed correction to deal with pedagogical repair. One might conjecture that it has something to do with its inability to clearly draw attention to issues of form and accuracy, which seems to be the predominant focus of exposed correction sequences. The distinction between ‘form and accuracy’ and ‘personal meanings’ contexts proposed by Seedhouse (1999) may provide guidance in the analysis, as lexical problems are more likely to impact on participants’ pursuit of understanding within interpersonal trajectories than grammatical and surface errors. This is evident when NSs orient to surface error correction as secondary to the social conversational trajectories. In particular, NSs may in some instances engage in exposed correction ‘on the fly’, within the same turn which continues or launches an interpersonal trajectory, disallowing any further comment or ‘accountings’ (Jefferson, 1987) which typify exposed correction. Excerpts 1 and 2 are from chat sessions between one learner and two different NSs, who correct her on the same item, even though they have only just started conversing online.

Other-Repair in Online Intercultural Chat

99

EXCERPT 1 (NATIVE SPEAKER 1) 23 L: sono 19 anni!! I’m 19 years 24 NS: ho 19 anni , io compio 25 a novembre I’m 19 years old, I turn 25 in November 25 NS: sei fidanzata? are you engaged? 26 L: no . . . 27 NS: non ci credo I don’t believe it EXCERPT 2 (NATIVE SPEAKER 2) 9 NS: tu di dove sei? [you emphasized syntactically] where are you from? 10 L: Io sono 19 e vengo dall’Australia, Adelaide I’m 19 years and I come from Australia, Adelaide 11 NS: ho 19 anni . . . bello I’m 19 years old . . . nice 12 NS: io sono sposato I’m married 13 L: qui sono le 11.15 di mattina it’s 11.15 in the morning here Turn 24 in Excerpt 1 comprises two actions, the first pedagogical ho 19 anni (‘I’m 19 years old’), a correction of the learner’s previous utterance, and the second one social io compio 25 a novembre (‘I turn 25 in November’) which continues topical talk on participants’ respective age. There appears to be no further space available for the learner to acknowledge the correction, as the NS then launches a new trajectory and first pair part of an adjacency pair sei fidanzata? (‘are you engaged?’) in turn 25. Also, topical talk has priority in the turns following 24, as the final interpersonal element in turn 24 is the sequentially relevant component for designing the next turn. This is further reinforced by the launching of a new trajectory in turn 25. Hence, no further mention of the correction is made. In Excerpt 2, turn 11 also comprises two actions, with the correction appearing first ho 19 anni (‘I’m 19 years old’) and bello (‘nice’), an expression of appreciation of either the learner’s age or the fact that she’s from Australia (turn 10). The NS also proceeds to

100


topical talk in the subsequent turn so there is no further interaction regarding the exposed correction. Excerpt 3 provides further evidence of this tendency for NS participants to sometimes bypass acknowledgements and accountings within exposed correction routines, to favour interpersonal trajectories. EXCERPT 3 39 L: Sei molto gentile ma per i miei compiti faccio dei sbagli di lessico Dimmi qualcose di te You’re very kind but for my assignments I make vocabulary errors. Tell me something about yourself 40 NS: si dice CORSI d’italiano no corse you’re meant so say Italian ‘CORSI’ not ‘corse’ [races] 41 L: Grazie allora dimmi qualcose di te Thank you, so tell me something about yourself →42 NS: degli sbagli dimmi qualcosa di te some mistakes tell me something about yourself →43 NS: io ho 22 anni I’m 22 years old 44 NS: non sono sposato I’m not married 45 NS: lavoro I work 46 L: Lavori o studi? Do you work or study Turn 42 corrects two repairables, the first repairs a definite article in dei sbagli (turn 39), and the second one the incorrect plural ending of qualcose in the previous turn. The NS follows these exposed corrections with a return to interpersonal talk in turns 43–45, which steer the conversation away from any further pedagogical talk. The accountings and acknowledgements which are described as typical of exposed correction by Jefferson (1987) are again bypassed by the NS, to pursue interpersonal trajectories. Exposed correction in online intercultural chat may therefore allow for a degree of embeddedness once the correct alternate has been provided to avoid drawing further attention to the learner’s mistake. Excerpt 4 is an example from another chat session between two female participants and confirms that form and accuracy corrections may be regularly carried out without either participant drawing further


101

attention to them beyond the turn which contains the NS’ correct alternate item: EXCERPT 4 126 L: Australia e` molto differente di italia Australia is very different from Italy 127 NS: io vorrei venire a lavorare lì e starci per sempre I’d like to come and work there and stay there forever 128 L: la vita qui e` piu` relassate life here is more relaxing →129 NS: rilassante relaxing [correction] 130 L: si? e lasci tutto la tua famiglia in italia really?and you’ll leave all your family in Italy 131 NS: lo so . . . però io voglio lavorare e l’italia è bellissima ma ha tanti difetti I know . . . but I want to work and Italy’s beautiful but it has many faults In this sequence, the NS introduces an exposed correction of relassate (turn 128) in turn 129, but without accountings of any sort, only the correct alternate item. There is no subsequent acknowledgement of the correction by the learner, who proceeds with the topical talk trajectory, undeterred by the correction. While this is clearly an exposed not an embedded correction, I would argue that chat allows for exposed correction of form and accuracy problems to proceed in various degrees of explicitness than the possibilities which are available in face-to-face contexts. The examples which have just been discussed represent the following options in the continuum of explicitness of exposed correction in online text chat: 1. the NS corrects ‘on the fly’, including both a pedagogical and social trajectory in the same turn; when the social conversational trajectory is the second element of the turn, this disallows any further attention to correction, and prompts a return to topical talk; 2. the NS introduces a turn containing a correct alternate, without accountings of any sort, within a social conversational trajectory, which both participants prefer over the corrective one in the subsequent turn. On the topic of ‘embeddedness’ the previous chapter has identified examples of learners integrating or ‘embedding’ correct alternate versions of

102


problematic items into their talk, at a stage when they are no longer part of a pedagogical repair routine and talk has returned to the main interactional business. The pianeta sequence in the previous chapter is an example of this, though the repair trajectory commences as a self-initiated otherrepair, with the learner having the opportunity to embed the correct alternate item il pianeta into later talk. Jefferson (1987) observes a similar option which is available to participants in L1 correction sequences which initiate in exposed form but shift into ‘embedded-form acceptance’ (p. 99) during ongoing topical talk. The construct of embedded correction in online intercultural chat may thus warrant further attention in a separate study which focuses on the various iterations which are possible both within self and other-initiated repair sequences. As far as embedded other-initiated other-correction is concerned, I wish to point out some of the methodological complexities of identifying such trajectories in online intercultural chat before proceeding to discuss the more frequent online exposed correction. Excerpt 5 is from a chat session in which an NS and learner have only just met online. Exchange of photos is a customary part of the process of getting to know and ‘see’ one another. It is unnecessary for foto (‘photo’) to be repeated again instead of a pro-term (see Jefferson, 1987, pp. 90–91), hence I suggest this could potentially constitute initiation of an embedded correction routine on the part of the NS. EXCERPT 5: INITIATION OF ONLINE EMBEDDED CORRECTION 119 NS: vuoi 1 mia foto? want one of my photos? 120 L: non lo so come posso ricevere un foto [incorrect gender/ repairable item] I don’t know how to receive a photo 121 NS: mai ricevuta nessuna foto? never received any photos? 122 L: si mai yes never Given the visual saliency of the online chat environment, the fact that foto is repeated three times in consecutive turns suggests that repetition may have a pedagogical function in this interaction, even though there is no exposed correction, and the possible correction is embedded in the main interactional business of exchanging photos. In particular, the word foto (‘photo’) is repeated in turn 121 rather than being replaced by a proterm ne (any) as in the more appropriate response non ne hai mai ricevute?


103

(‘haven’t you ever received any?’). It would also have been appropriate to omit the proterm itself and the auxiliary verb, as in mai ricevuta? (‘never received?’), with ‘one’ implied, as context would have made the meaning clear. Dropping pronouns and auxiliary verbs is in fact common practice in online chat (Tudini, 2004, p. 71) to speed up communication which is slowed down by typing. Jefferson (1987) finds that if there is production of an alternative item by the next speaker rather than a proterm or repeat, ‘correction may be underway’ (p. 93). However, the alternative item produced by the NS in this case is nessuna foto not una foto, which would have made juxtaposition with un foto clearer to the learner. Also, there is no evidence here that the learner noticed the correction if this was the intention, as there is no integration of the candidate item into the subsequent social talk. It is however possible that the learner did not have the opportunity to do so, given participants’ preference for social over pedagogical trajectories, and the embedding of alternate items needs to be relevant to the social trajectories, as in the case of pianeta described in Chapter 4. It is noteworthy that according to Schegloff (2000), embedded correction does not constitute repair because ‘the ongoing trajectory of the interaction has [not] been stopped to deal with possible trouble’ (p. 209). Examples discussed in this section do however show that various expressions and degrees of ‘embeddedness’ are possible in online intercultural conversations and further work is required in this area to explore whether embedded repair activity is indicative of participants orienting to the lesser importance of form and accuracy concerns, when compared to the maintenance of intersubjectivity. Exposed correction Exposed correction is described by Jefferson (1987) as follows: (1) Whatever has been going on prior to the correcting is discontinued. Where prior utterances have been occupied with various ongoing matters, utterances are now occupied by the doing of correcting. That is, ‘correcting’ is now the interactional business of these interchanges. (p. 88) This most closely corresponds to ‘pushing down’ in conversation (Varonis & Gass, 1985, p. 75) and may also cover ‘recasts’, which correspond to Gass’ definition of explicit negative evidence (Gass, 1987, p. 37). Given the prevalence of this type of correction in the data, exposed correction is the focus of this section, which aims to provide further insights into how unacquainted NS-learner dyads foster form and accuracy activities

104


within expression of personal meanings contexts (Seedhouse, 1999), or pedagogical within social talk. It will also consider whether chat promotes repair of linguistic problems such as grammar and lexicon, which may otherwise remain unnoticed in face-to-face conversation, thanks to the enhanced visibility of conversation provided by text chat. Schegloff et al. (1977) note that in interactions where one conversationalist is ‘not-yet-competent’, other-correction is not as infrequent and may be one vehicle for socialization, as well as being a ‘device for dealing with those who are still learning’ (p. 381). In my data, this is more likely where the NS of Italian is also a learner of English. This is evident in Excerpt 6, where an NS and learner of Italian have only just met online, but by turn 78 decide it would be useful to scambiarci frasi (‘exchange sentences’), with the learner of Italian orienting to her role as expert speaker (NS) of English. EXCERPT 6 78 L: parli inglese? do you speak English? 79 NS: poco . . . e quel poco lo dimenticato a little . . . and the little (I knew) I’ve forgotten 80 L: dimmi qualcosa in inglese!! tell me something in English!! 81 NS: potremo scambiarci frasi . . . we could exchange sentences . . . 82 L: si, sarebbe bello, allora cominci tu! yes, it would be nice, so you start! 83 NS: ok ok 84 NS: where cam do yuo from? [Intended: where do you come from?] 85 NS: you 86 NS: fatto un po di casino I stuffed up 87 L: allora se tu vuoi dire questo devi dire: Where do you come from. Questo significa ‘da dove vieni?’ so if you want to say this you have to say: Where do you come from. This means ‘da dove vieni?’ 88 L: dimmi un altra tell me another 89 NS: le solite frasi . . . the usual phrases


105

In this sequence, participants engage in a type of metatalk which suggests that exchange of phrases required for typical conversational routines is a useful activity for SLA in this context. This is evident in the NS of Italian’s attempt at expressing where do you come from in turn 84 in English, a first pair part to which he already knows the answer, as participants have already introduced one another at the start of the conversation. He self-repairs his spelling of you in turn 85, and self-initiates repair in turn 86 fatto un po di casino (‘I stuffed up’) suggesting that he has noticed there is a problem with his formulation. The learner, as NS of English, provides a correction or recast of the original utterance, providing both a correct alternate and a translation into Italian. The role reversal between expert and novice in the target language is also significant, with the learner of Italian engaging in behaviour which is reminiscent of classroom talk when she does ‘being an expert in English’. As well as suggesting that these behaviours reflect classroom experiences of participants, this sequence confirms the potential sociality of ‘conversation talk’ and ‘doing correction’ during online interaction. The business of correction frequently comes to the conversational surface in regards to form and accuracy concerns. Excerpt 7 below presents an NS recast (SLA theory) or other-repair/exposed correction (CA theory) which highlights the need to use an infinitive verb after a modal verb dovere (‘must/to have to’). EXCERPT 7: ONLINE EXPOSED CORRECTION WITHIN LEAVE TAKING SEQUENCE L: io devo vado adesso I have I go now →NS: io devo andare adesso I have to go now L: ciao bye →L: mi dispiace si tu hai ragione andare Sorry you’re right to go The main interactional business in Excerpt 7 is initiated by the learner who is attempting to take leave and close the conversation. However, the NS posts a correct alternate of her first utterance in the second turn, without providing any further explanations or accountings. The learner posts a further contribution to the leave-taking trajectory ciao, which is likely to have been posted almost simultaneously as the NS’ correction, with this posting

106


appearing first on the screen. In the final turn, the learner acknowledges the correction by apologizing for her mistake mi dispiace, agreeing with the NS’ correction si tu hai ragione (‘yes you’re right’) and repeating only the incorrect element of her original utterance andare (‘to go’). Learners of Italian also orient to their role as experts and NSs of English by correcting NSs of Italian when they use English borrowed words incorrectly: EXCERPT 8 64 NS: quali sono i tuoi hobbyes what are your hobbies 65 L: hobbies [probable smiley face] hobbies 66 NS: hai ragione you’re right 67 NS: hobbies hobbies A similar exposed correction trajectory as that discussed regarding Excerpt 7 is launched in the turn 65 by the learner of Italian/NS of English within this interpersonal conversation routine. The NS of Italian chooses to pursue this trajectory rather than the interpersonal one, by agreeing with the proffered correction in the subsequent turn hai ragione (‘you’re right’), and following this with a repetition of the correct alternate in the subsequent turn (67). This pattern recalls Jefferson’s (1987) description of the sequential structure of correction which requires discussion in regard to online intercultural chat.

How Correction is Organized Jefferson (1987, pp. 88–89) describes the sequential structure of correction as follows: Trajectory 1: (correction is accepted) 1. A speaker produces some object (X) 2. A subsequent speaker produces an alternative (Y) 3. Prior speaker produces the alternative (Y)


107

Trajectory 2: (correction is rejected) 1. A speaker produces some object (X) 2. A subsequent speaker produces the alternative (Y) 3. Prior speaker reproduces original object/rejects the alternative (X) Both trajectories 1 and 2 can be either embedded or exposed. In my data, these trajectories are clearly visible in exposed correction sequences. For example, Excerpts 7 and 8 show examples of Trajectory 1 (XYY) in relation to repairable items devo vado and hobbyes. NSs produce correct alternatives, and learners repeat these alternatives in the subsequent turn. In regard to Trajectory 2 (XYX), which is common in L1 face-to-face conversation, learners in my data rarely reject the alternative proposed by the NS. The NS’ authority in regard to his/her native tongue, be that English or Italian, is infrequently questioned, as we have seen in Excerpts 7 and 8, where the learners tend to express agreement. As we have seen in the examples of correction ‘on the fly’ (Excerpts 1–4), another option available to online chatters is also to bypass step 3 of the trajectory altogether, and return to topical talk. This is typical of corrections relating to form and accuracy concerns, which may or may not impact on meaning. Hence, the ‘Y’ in Jefferson’s (1987) XYY pattern is often missing in online intercultural chat, due to participants’ preference of interpersonal trajectories over pedagogical. In regard to the regular XYY pattern, the following sections discuss further variations of exposed correction in online intercultural chat, including a. form and accuracy trouble sources which impact on meaning and affiliation, and b. non-contiguity of components of the sequential structure of correction. Another important dimension of exposed correction regards how online participants maintain intersubjectivity while engaging in such socially dispreferred actions, which is the focus of Chapter 6.

Accuracy for identification of gender In Excerpt 9, two exposed corrections are carried out by the NS. During introductions, the learner mistakenly describes herself as australiano, with

108


a masculine ‘o’ ending, suggesting she is male. The NS engages in exposed correction (turn 17) to explain that she should have used australiana, and a further correction in turn 25 points out that una donna (‘a woman’) should have been used instead of la donna (‘the woman’). The sequential structure (XYY) is indicated at the relevant turns. EXCERPT 9: XYY STRUCTURE IN TWO EXPOSED CORRECTIONS 13 NS: non sei italiana? you’re not Italian? 14 NS: o si or are you 15 L: no, sono un australiano in Australia ma studio italiano al’universita (X) no, I’m an australian [m] in Australia but I study Italian at university 16 NS: uomo? man? 17 NS: se non lo sei avestri [meaning ‘avresti’] dovuto dire australiana (Y) if you’re not you should have said australian [f] 18 L: che cosa ‘avrest’? what’s ‘avrest’ [should have] 19 NS: verbo avere verb to have 20 NS: in passato in the past [sic] 21 NS: do you are woman or men? [are you a woman or a man] 22 L: si si, so avere in passato, sono la donna (Y) (X) yes, I know avere in the past, I’m the woman 23 NS: 䄗㩷䄗 24 NS: Sei simpatica come parli You’re nice the way you talk 25 NS: si dice: sono una donna (Y) you’re meant to say: I’m a woman 26 L: grazie, sono una donna. mi dispiace (Y) thank you, I’m a woman. I’m sorry. As discussed previously (see Chapter 2), the first exposed correction sequence relating to australiano in turn 17 attempts to ascertain the gender


109

of the learner while doing correction at the same time. It also ‘lectures’ the learner avresti dovuto dire (‘you should have said’), which constitutes an accounting for correction (Jefferson, 1987). After some interceding grammatical talk and a further clarification request/repair initiation on the learner’s gender in English (turn 21), the learner concludes the correction sequence by producing a correct alternate which clarifies her gender sono la donna. However, this utterance also contains the repairable item la donna which should be una donna, and is corrected by the NS in turn 25, with a form of accounting which accompanies exposed correction in L1 contexts (Jefferson, 1987), si dice (‘you’re meant to say’). The learner thanks the NS, repeats the correct alternate and apologizes in the subsequent turn (26). Hence, these exposed correction sequences proceed as follows: X: repairable items (australiano/ la donna) Y: exposed corrections with accountings (avestri dovuto dire australiana/si dice :sono una donna) Y: correct alternates (sono la donna/sono una donna). In the case of stage 3 (Y), only in the second, more form-oriented correction sequence (sono una donna) are there typical response tokens in addition to repetition of the correct alternate. These include thanking and apologizing after other-repair which we have seen previously, more recently in Excerpts 7 and 8 in this chapter. These also often occur after recasts, without repetition of the correct alternate which has just been provided by the NS. In Excerpt 10, the learner thanks the NS for his correction but does not repeat the correct alternate. EXCERPT 10: ‘Y’ AS EXPRESSION OF APPRECIATION OF CORRECTION 125 L: grazie devo aiutare con la mia italiana thanks I [you intended] have to help with my Italian 126 NS: 127 NS: devi aiutarmi you have to help me 128 NS: con il mio italiano with my Italian 129 L: grazie thanks

110


In turn 125, the learner’s utterance contains three repairable items, devo, (‘I have to’), the absence of direct object pronoun mi at the end of aiutare (‘to help’) and incorrect gender of italiana (‘Italian’) which should be masculine when denoting Italian language, and which provokes incorrect agreement of the possessive adjective (should be masculine il mio italiano) (‘my Italian’). The NS provides a recast of the original repairable over two turns (127–128). The learner does not repeat the correction, only expresses appreciation in the subsequent turn (129). This is a common pattern in correction sequences. Hence, acknowledgements such as expressions of appreciation and apologies are a regular component of stage 3 (Y) of the sequential structure of correction in online intercultural chat, as well as, or in addition to, provision of the correct alternate. The role of repetition for SLA in exposed correction sequences is discussed later in this chapter in the section The interactional relevance of repetition after exposed correction in online intercultural chat.

Contiguity of X+Y+Y Chapter 3 has previously noted the regular non-contiguity of repairables (X) and correction (Y) in online exposed correction sequences, often due to competing social and pedagogical trajectories. Reviewability and visual saliency of online text chat allow participants to easily locate and deal with trouble sources or repairables many turns later, after intervening social talk. Correction of repairables may in fact be dealt with later than would usually occur in face-to-face talk, so long as the trouble source does not interfere with understanding and the pursuit of affiliation (see impresa sequence in this chapter). This is unlike face-to-face interaction, where repair initiated by other speaker is normally in the turn following the trouble source turn (see Schegloff, 2000, for exceptions). Jefferson’s (1987) XYY structure may therefore be in the same positions as in face-to-face, but the various stages are often split over many turns in online intercultural chat, especially stages 1 (X) and 2 (Y). Furthermore, the final stage (Y) is often bypassed by participants to return to topical talk. For example, there can be a delayed correction by the NS, hence X and Y are split, as in the following correction of in cinema (‘in the cinema’). EXCERPT 11: SPLITTING OF STAGES 1 (X) AND 2 (Y) 45 NS: lavoro I work

Other-Repair in Online Intercultural Chat 46 L: 47 NS: 48 L: 49 NS: 50 NS: 51 NS: 52 L: 53 NS:

111

Lavori o studi? Do you work or study? diciamo le solite cose let’s say the usual things Ti piace andare in cinema? Do you like to go in [incorrect preposition] the cinema? mi ero iscritto all’università ma poi ho lasciato I had enrolled at university but then I left al cinema si dice you’re meant to say ‘al cinema’ [to the cinema] si yes A me piacciono le commedie e tu I like comedies and you e a te and you

Turn 48 contains a repairable item in cinema which does not impact on meaning, though an incorrect preposition in is used. The NS does not post a correction in the subsequent turn (49) but provides a second pair part answer to the learner’s question Lavori o studi? (turn 46). The utterance in turn 49 mi ero iscritto all’università ma poi ho lasciato (‘I had enrolled at university but then I left’) is either an expansion of turn 47 diciamo le solite cose (‘let’s say the usual things’) or a response to the learner’s question in turn 46. Stage 2 (Y) of the correction sequence hence occurs after this social trajectory has been completed, two turns later in turn 50 al cinema si dice (‘you’re meant to say al cinema’), with the accounting component si dice highlighted in bold. There is no acknowledgement of correction or repetition of the correct alternate, hence no Stage 3 (Y) of the sequential structure of correction. As we have seen in the discussion so far, learners are either likely to pursue social trajectories subsequent to an NS correction and bypass Stage 3 (Y) of Jefferson’s (1987) exposed correction sequence structure or likely to respond contiguously. Excerpt 11 above provides an example of the learner proceeding with social trajectories in turn 52, rather than providing some form of acknowledgement or repetition of the correct alternate. However, it is also common for the learner to provide contiguous acknowledgement of correction, as is evident in Excerpts 7 to 10 above, where learners provide some form of acknowledgement or expression of appreciation of the NS’ correction. It is uncommon for learners to delay Stage 3 (Y) of correction

112


sequences, though embedded repetition of correct alternates requires further attention, as this may occur at a later stage than exposed repetition, as suggested in Chapter 4 (see pianeta sequence). Embedded repetition is particularly important for the tracking of observable pushed output. Excerpt 12 suggests that learners may in fact notice NSs’ ‘on the fly’ exposed corrections, as the learner embeds the correct alternate una mia foto (feminine not masculine) into the interpersonal conversational trajectory, three turns subsequent to the NS’ exposed correction: EXCERPT 12 →36 L: hai un foto? [repairable: masculine un] do you have a photo? 37 NS: mi vedi? can you see me? →38 NS: una foto [exposed correction: feminine una] a photo 39 L: oh si tu sei molto bella! oh yes you’re very beautiful! 40 NS: [space] 41 NS: e una tua foto? and one of your photos? →42 L: hai ricevuto la mia foto in quel email? [embedded correct alternate] did you receive my photo in that email? 43 NS: non si vedeva I couldn’t see it Arrows signal the XYY exposed correction trajectory which is provoked by the learner’s use of the masculine un before foto, a common error by learners of Italian who generalize the rule that nouns ending in ‘o’ are masculine. This is corrected two turns later by the NS, who provides the correct alternate una foto in turn 38. It is unclear whether turn 41 is an embedded correction as it is a component of the interpersonal trajectory. It does however present a form of corrective input for the learner, in particular, that foto is feminine. The learner’s utterance in turn 42 is a response to the NS’ request for her photo in turn 41, but at the same time it contains an embedded correct alternate where foto is not simply repeated but used meaningfully as a feminine noun, in a complex possessive construction. This example provides further evidence of comprehended input and


113

pushed output within an other-initiated other-correction sequence which initiates an exposed though ‘on the fly’ (incidental/by the way) format, and provokes an embedded correct alternate when appropriate to the social trajectory. While not frequent, in some circumstances learners’ will delay acknowledgement of correction in online chat. Excerpt 13 shows a delayed indirect expression of appreciation for correction, due to the NS’ pursuit of social trajectories after correction (XY+ delayed Y). EXCERPT 13: XY + DELAYED Y 223 L: che ha successo [with incorrect auxiliary ‘has’] what happened X 224 NS: che è successo [with correct auxiliary] what happened Y 225 NS: era caduta la linea the line had gone dead 226 NS: nn [= non] lo so perche˙ I don’t know why 227 L: 䄗 (Y)

䄗

228 L:

sai forse devo venire piu spesso qui sopra a parlare con te cosi mi imparo per bene (Y) you know I have to come here more often to talk to you so I learn properly

The NS highlights his correction in bold in turn 224 and follows this with a response to the learner’s question in the subsequent two turns (225 and 226). The learner does not have the opportunity to provide the usual contiguous response tokens or repeat the correct alternate as the intervening NS’ utterances on technical problems do not allow this. Nonetheless, the learner does not choose to bypass acknowledgement. The smiley face in turn 227 expresses appreciation for correction, as does the final utterance (turn 228). Hence, I see this as a form of acknowledgement which completes the XYY correction sequence, despite the delay of stage 3 (Y) due to the NS’ urgency to provide a second pair part answer to the learner’s original question. Hence, while pushed output is not always visible or relevant in exposed correction sequences, there is evidence of comprehended input, Stage 2 of Gass’ (1997) model, when learners acknowledge correction and complete the XYY sequence.

114


The Interactional Relevance of Repetition after Exposed Correction in Online Intercultural Chat Pellettieri’s (2000) study of learners interacting with one another in online chat is predominantly task-based rather than based on open-ended conversation. It focuses on grammatical gains and interestingly takes account of the fact that learners do not always have the opportunity to incorporate feedback and reformulate their problem utterances, as this would be disruptive to the conversation. This is a relevant consideration when analysing negotiations occurring within social rather than instructed settings, especially when conversationalists are building new relationships where correction could seem rude. This difference between social conversation and task-based instructed activity is borne out by previous studies of open-ended chat conversation (Tudini, 2003, 2004, 2007), which show that only between 9 and 11 per cent of conversational turns are dedicated to negotiation sequences when compared to task-based studies which cite a figure of around 30 per cent( 31 per cent in Pellettieri, 2000, and 34 per cent in Smith. 2003). This confirms previous CA studies which show that second language speakers and their interlocutors rarely orient to linguistic proficiency during interaction (Hosoda, 2006, p. 28). However, in my data, orientation to form and accuracy rather than personal meanings concerns varies from dyad to dyad, as some dyads orient to microlinguistic repair more frequently than others. Also, as noted by Pellettieri (2000), reconstructions after NS correction may be seen as superfluous to the conversation. Reconstructions are not always natural or appropriate in real-life settings, and are not frequent in my data. For example, an interactionist analysis by Tudini (2007, p. 588) of data collected over one semester, identified only 24 reconstructions despite the presence of 41 recasts (exposed corrections). The use of CA in identification of exposed corrections and learner reconstructions may have yielded different results. However, these findings are reinforced by the current analysis, which uses CA parameters for the identification of other-initiated other-repair sequences. Microanalysis reveals that if the XYY structure is completed, at the Y position there is either repetition of the corrected (other-repaired) item or, more commonly, learner acknowledgement, expressions of gratitude or apologies following exposed correction. This creates a regular pattern and type of adjacency pair as response tokens are projected by other-repair. The pre-corrective and affiliative behaviours which accompany these sequences are revisited in Chapter 6. In terms of Jefferson’s (1987) XYY structure, exposed correction in online intercultural chat proceeds loosely as follows:

Other-Repair in Online Intercultural Chat z z z

115

Learner produces talk that contains a repairable item (stage 1). NS openly corrects repairable item in the following or later turn, with or without accountings (stage 2). Learner accepts and repeats corrected term AND/OR expresses appreciation AND/OR apologizes for error/non-understanding (stage 3).

This structure has been exemplified above, but a further exemplification follows in Excerpt 15, where the learner reformulates her original question after correction by the NS: EXCERPT 15: NATIVE SPEAKER CORRECTION WITH LEARNER REPETITION OF CORRECT ALTERNATE (XYY) 25 L: grazie, giochi allo sport? thanks, do you play sport? 26 NS: si dice ‘fai/pratichi qualche sport?’ you’re meant to say ‘do you play a sport?’ 27 NS: 䄗

䄗

28 L:

va bene, grazie. fai qualche sport? OK, thanks. Do you play a sport?

In this extract, the NS corrects the learner’s non-target-like question which includes a literal translation into Italian of ‘play’, and launches the first pair part of an interpersonal trajectory. The NS understands the question, as he would otherwise be unable to reformulate an accurate alternate item. The NS offers the learner a choice of verbs which are appropriate, either fai or pratichi. He also mitigates the correction with a smiley face in the subsequent turn. The learner responds to the correction in the final turn of the sequence with an utterance containing the following actions: 1. Agreement with the correction va bene; 2. Expression of appreciation grazie; 3. Repetition of correct alternate, which involves selection of one of the verbs proffered by the NS. The learner’s repetition of correct alternate also launches a first pair part which allows the interpersonal conversation to proceed. It is therefore oriented to as an interactionally relevant repetition by participants. Many form and accuracy exposed corrections do not impact on the interpersonal conversational trajectory in a significant way, as they do not launch first pair

116


parts or other actions which are essential to keep the conversation going. For example, compare Excerpts 7 (devo vado) and 8 (hobbyes) where repetition is oriented to as relevant, with Excerpts 3 (dei sbagli) and 4 (relassate), where it is not. This clearly requires further attention in future research on the interactional relevance of repetition and reformulation of corrected non-target language, as pushed output may not be visible in an exposed form in naturalistic conversational contexts for interactional reasons. This contradicts Hosoda’s (2006) face-to-face study where repetition of the correct alternate provided by NSs was common, with interactional structures very like those which are apparent in language classrooms (Ohta, 2001; cited by Hosoda, 2006). Participants may regularly consider repetition to be redundant in visually salient online conversation, where the correct alternate has been recorded in written form, and does not need to be in a sense ‘captured’ for learning in the rapid fade of ongoing face-to-face conversation, whether social or classroom-based.

The Significance of Vocabulary: Native Speaker Ensuring Understanding of Social Status Through Extended Other-Repair Focus on a single vocabulary item is justified by Markee (2008), as vocabulary appropriation is an integral part of interactional competence, and allows for unpacking of how learners ‘design the emerging grammar of interaction of the definition and repair sequences in which these vocabulary items are embedded’ (p. 406). Online participants are also required to design the unique grammar of dyadic online interaction, in an adaptation of face-to-face conversational repertoires. The vocabulary of occupations appears to be particularly important in my data, as co-participants place a great deal of importance on understanding each other’s occupation in opening sequences, especially where they have only just met online. This section provides evidence of the social and interactional significance of occupational vocabulary which triggers repair sequences between NSs and learners. It also provides evidence of participants’ social perspective on what SLA researchers traditionally brand microlinguistic issues such as vocabulary gap. Through line-by-line analysis of a sequence where a previously unacquainted NS and learner of Italian typically discuss their occupations at the start of the conversation, this section considers how NSs and learners collaborate in pursuing understanding of a single vocabulary item in an online setting. Unlike instances discussed so far in this chapter, the NS’ corrections


117

are not concerned with the learner’s talk or form and accuracy so much as correcting the learner’s partial understanding of the trouble source impresa edile. Various types of repair and affiliative strategies, to be explored further in Chapter 6, ensure that understanding is achieved while intersubjectivity is maintained. Many repair sequences are triggered by learners’ lack of contact with NSs of various professional backgrounds and consequent unfamiliarity with professional jargon in Italian. This specialized vocabulary occurs when learners and NSs exchange information on their occupations, in a typical start to conversation, which would probably be unproblematic in an educational environment where the main occupations are those of students, or where co-participants are already acquainted. One such example was discussed in Chapter 4, where the occupation of building surveyor required persistent clarification on the part of the learner. In Excerpt 16, the learner signals non-understanding of the NS’ occupation in the building industry which subsequently leads to an issue of social status for the NS, who is keen to ensure the learner’s understanding of his position through multiple repairs of the same trouble source impresa edile (‘building company’) and related term edilizia (‘building’). The sequence on this item is presented in Excerpts 16, 17 and 18. Though repairs are often initiated by the learner, this sequence involves open correction of the learner’s interpretation of the NS’ occupation and social position. Excerpt 16 presents the first part of the sequence, including two related trouble sources, indicated by arrows. The XY pattern of exposed correction is also indicated at the relevant points, though further repair activity follows Stage 2 (Y).

EXCERPT 16 33 L: ma dimmi cosa fai nella vita? now tell me what do you do for a living? 34 NS: lavoro I work →35 NS: ho un’impresa edile I own a building company 36 NS: te! how’s that! 37 L: non capisco I don’t understand →38 NS: mi occupo di edilizia I’m in the building industry

118

39 NS: 40 NS: 41 L: 42 L: 43 NS: 44 L: 45 L: 46 L: 47 NS: 48 L: 49 L: 50 NS: 51 NS: 52 L: 53 L:

Online Second Language Acquisition hai cap [= capito]? did you understand che fai nella vita? what do you do for a living? scusa sorry qualcuno e entrato nella stanza someone came into the room ok ok sono all’universita I’m at university edilizia di testi (X) construction of texts ? ? no edilizia di case (Y) no construction of houses o non ho capito hahaha oh I don’t understand hahaha aspetta wait sii yees costruisco case I build houses hahah ho capito adesso costruisci case hahah I understand now you build houses haha haha

54 L:

Understanding is crucial in this social conversation, where the NS’ professional background is part of a categorization sequence (Maynard & Zimmerman, 1984) which is interrupted due to non-understanding of an item of Italian vocabulary on the part of the learner. The NS’ attempt to impress the learner with his occupation, as demonstrated by te (‘how’s that!’) in turn 36, does not meet with the expected response from the learner. The learner’s expression of non-understanding non capisco


119

(turn 37: ‘ I don’t understand’) initiates a repair sequence which is completed by the NS at turn 38 (‘I’m in the building industry’). The NS follows this with a comprehension check (turn 39) and then attempts to get back to the main topic of conversation che fai nella vita? (turn 40: ‘what do you do for a living?’). After a brief side sequence on her surroundings (turns 41–42), in turn 44 the learner provides what appears to be either an answer to turn 40 or an explanation of why someone has entered the room; it is unclear. In turns 45 to 46, the learner again checks her understanding of the NS’ occupation and provides an incorrect interpretation with a question mark, which invites and provokes an exposed correction by the NS no edilizia di case (turn 47: ‘no construction of houses’). This is not immediately followed by a correct alternate or other response token, as discussed previously in regard to form and accuracy corrections. This stage of the sequential structure of correction is delayed considerably until the learner declares understanding later in turn 269 (Excerpt 18). The learner instead follows the NS’ correction by expressing despair at not understanding (turn 48), followed by a request for a break in conversation (turn 49: aspetta ‘wait’) which is accepted by the NS. In my data, this usually signals that the learner wishes to consult a dictionary, rather than asking further questions of the NS. The NS however appears finally to find a simple reworking of his original statements which describes his profession more clearly to the learner (turn 51: costruisco case ‘I build houses’). However, it does not convey the managerial component of running a building company which is expressed in his initial description ho un’impresa edile (turn: 35: ‘I have a building company’). As the explanation stands, and in the eyes of the learner, he could well be a bricklayer, though this repair sequence closes with textual expressions of laughter tokens and a smiley face, probably to indicate relief and appreciation by the learner (turns 52–54). In Excerpt 17, a number of turns later (turns 71–72), it is still unclear that the learner has a complete picture of the NS’ occupation, despite her affiliative expression of approval, and her successful incorporation of the newly learned term edilizia (‘building’), which on the surface indicates that the earlier repair sequence has produced a successful learning outcome: EXCERPT 17 71 L: comunque secondo me l’edilizia e una professione importantissima anyway in my opinion building is an important profession 72 L: bravo good on you

120


So as not to have his social status undermined and to ensure that the learner fully comprehends, the NS explains his occupation once again a considerable time later in the conversation in Excerpt 18 (turns 250–292). The additional explanations by the NS are provoked by the learner’s implication that the NS is carrying out physical building work in turn 250 e su qual tipo di casa hai lavorato sta mattina (‘and what type of house di you work on this morning’) and works as part of a team in turn 252 with the statement e lavori con quanti altri? (‘and with how many others do you work?’) rather than ‘managing’ the team. EXCERPT 18 250 L: e su qual tipo di casa hai lavorato sta mattina and what type of house did you work on this morning 251 NS: ho 13 cantieri aperti I have 13 building sites open 252 L: e lavori con quanti altri? and with how many others do you work? 253 NS: sono andato a controllare se il lavoro era stato fatto bene I went to check whether the work had been done properly 254 NS: ho una ventina di operai I have around 20 workers 255 L: a sei il capo, ma lavori con le proprie mani? (X) oh you’re the boss, but do you work with your own hands? 256 NS: si te l’avevo detto già (Y) yes I had already told you 257 NS: dimenticata? forgotten? 258 NS: 䄗㩷䄗 259 L: scusa (Y) sorry 260 L: davvero controllo I really will check 261 L: un’impresa vuol dire tanta gente? does ‘impresa’ mean lots of people? 262 NS: no no 263 NS: aspetta mo ti spiego wait I’ll explain straight away (southern Italian: mo)

Other-Repair in Online Intercultural Chat 264 L: 265 NS:

266 NS: 267 NS: 268 NS: 269 L: 270 NS: 271 L: 272 NS: 273 L: 274 NS: 275 NS: 276 NS: 277 L: 278 L: 279 L: 280 L: 281 L:

121

ok ok lavoro in proprio mi chiamano x costruire case ed ho degli operai a lavorare [x = per and multiplication sign] I’m self-employed and they call me to build houses and I have labourers working ed sono io il principale and I’m the employer capito? Questo significa impresa get it? This is what impresa means è un vocabolo in italiano it’s a term in Italian capito scusa (Y) I get it sorry di niente no problem mi fanno male le spalle My shoulders hurt ahahahahah ahahahahah parlo male no? I speak badly, don’t I? sinceramente non ti sento ahahahaha . . . forse frankly I can’t hear you ahahahaha . . . perhaps vuoi dire che lo scrivi bene italiano you mean that you write Italian well hai capito che significa impresa? did you understand what impresa means? si yes firm firm forse in inglese probably in English comunque anyway pensavo che ridevi perche ho detto ‘mi fanno male le spalle’ I thought you were laughing because I said ‘my shoulders hurt’

122


282 L:

pensavo che ridessi [imperfect subjunctive] I thought you were laughing 283 NS: no no 284 L: adesso capisc now I understand 285 L: o [adds missing final ‘o’ to capisc] 286 L: haha haha 287 L: ma si dice cosi in italiano but is that how you say it in Italian 288 L: ? ? 289 NS: si yes 290 L: bene bene great 291 L: grazie thanks 292 NS: e sempre un piacere it’s always a pleasure The NS goes to considerable lengths to explain his managerial role, as owner of the building company, through various statements throughout this example. First, at turn 251 ho 13 cantieri aperti (‘I have 13 building sites open’), the NS answers the learner’s question with an embedded correction of her reference to only one house. Then, at turn 253 sono andato a controllare se il lavoro era stato fatto bene (‘I went to check whether the work had been done properly’), he reinforces his role as inspector of other people’s work, a further embedded correction. Finally, at turn 254 ho una ventina di operai (‘I have around twenty workers’) he refers to the size of his workforce and the fact that they are in fact employees, which also aims to correct the learner’s understanding of his occupation, while he continues on the main conversational trajectory, which responds to the learner’s questions. Even though the learner finally appears to have understood that the NS is the boss at turn 255 a sei il capo (‘oh you’re the boss’), in the same turn the learner still wonders whether the NS is physically involved in building (ma lavori con le proprie mani? ‘but do you work with your own hands?’). The NS then openly corrects and reprimands the learner for forgetting what he


123

has said during the earlier conversation on the same topic (turns 256–257). This reprimand is followed by an affiliative smiley face, given that he has carried out a socially dispreferred action. The learner apologizes (turn 259) and appears to want to consult a dictionary scusa davvero controllo (‘I really will check’, turn 260). Instead she requests more information on the meaning of an unknown term which had been previously introduced by the NS at turn 35 impresa (‘firm’), the original trouble source. This implies that the learner chose to scroll back to the first discussion of the NS’ occupation, as the textual conversation permits. This is likely as impresa is used only at the beginning of the conversation. At this point, the learner initiates a repair sequence on this same word on which she seeks clarity (turn 261), to which the NS responds with a repair (no) and initiates an extended explanation (turns 265–268), after gaining the learner’s permission to explain his repair (turns 263–264). At turn 269, the learner accepts the explanation and apologizes (capito scusa) (‘I get it sorry’) for her misunderstanding. Despite the brief topic change (turns 271–275), NS and learner collaborate until certainty of understanding is achieved, as evidenced by the code-switch to English by the learner at turns 278–279 firm forse in inglese (‘firm probably in English’). This confirms Mori’s (2004) findings on the role of code-switching in managing sequential boundaries, as in this case the learner was able to bring the impresa sequence to a successful conclusion by providing an English translation, thus assuring that no further explanations in Italian were required. The line-by-line analysis of this sequence provides one example of nonexpert NSs from a non-educational field providing comprehensible input and feedback on their professional backgrounds and other aspects of Italian language, with a combination of other and self-initiated repair sequences by either the NS or the learner, though the NS twice engages in exposed correction to ensure understanding. Embedded correction is also used effectively in turns 251, 253 and 254 as these responses are both answers to the learner’s questions in turns 250 and 252, and explanations which contradict the learner’s perspective on the NS’ occupation. This conversation is a prototypical example of NSs and learners enacting both expert-novice and social roles through discussion of the work they do. The learner engages in an important learning experience to maintain intersubjectivity with her interlocutor by understanding multiple roles which cut across social classes within the building industry while at the same time acquiring new vocabulary and discussing grammatical issues. Embedded correction is apparent here but not in regard to form and accuracy concerns. Rather, it is deployed by the NS to provide discrete correction of the

124


learner’s understanding of his occupation, and snapshots of his daily routine as manager of a building company.

Conclusion This chapter has explored various configurations and uses of embedded and exposed correction for SLA, with exposed correction used most commonly by NSs to deal with form and accuracy concerns. These include an online adaptation of Jefferson’s (1987) sequential structure of correction, which includes the possibility of bypassing or delaying final stages of the structure, such as acknowledgement or provision of correct alternate. Features of online exposed correction, such as correction without accountings or learner repetition of correct alternates, do not however mean that learners have not noticed corrections. We have seen that correct alternates may be provided either in exposed or in embedded form, hence more attention needs to be paid to this stage of sequential structures of correction in future research. There may in fact be scope for repaired items to be tracked in learner online conversations (cf. Markee, 2008), as there is evidence of interlanguage development and pushed output over more than one chat session rather than in a single learning episode. Learner’s reflections on chat sessions are also an important contribution to understanding whether learners recognize their own SLA. Extracts 19, 20, and 21 provide evidence of one learner’s production of pushed output related to expression of one’s age in Italian, during introduction sequences with various NSs over multiple chat sessions. Changes in this learner’s output by the third session (Excerpt 21) may be attributed to exposed correction by the NSs in the first and second sessions (Excerpts 19 and 20). The trouble source (TS) and correction (C) are indicated. EXCERPT 19 (NATIVE SPEAKER 1) 23 L: sono 19 anni!! [TS] I’m 19 years 24 NS: ho 19 anni [C], io compio 25 a novembre I’m 19 years old, I turn 25 in November EXCERPT 20 (NATIVE SPEAKER 2) 9 NS: tu di dove sei? [tu emphasized syntactically] where are you from?


125

10 L:

Io sono 19 e vengo dall’Australia, Adelaide [TS] I’m 19 years and I come from Australia, Adelaide 11 NS: ho 19 anni [C]. . . bello I’m 19 years old . . . nice The NSs correct the learner’s use of essere (‘to be’) rather than avere (‘to have’), as required when expressing age in Italian. It should be noted that there is no acknowledgement of correction by the learner, nor is there any form of accounting (Jefferson, 1987) by the NS, only an exposed correction and a continuation of the main trajectory within the same turn, so that the conversation is not disrupted. The turn-taking organization here does not allow for any further language learning behaviour to occur, as the learner is unable to repeat the correct version or acknowledge it. However, by the third chat session with a third NS, this learner would appear to have acquired the correct syntax to describe her age: EXCERPT 21 (NATIVE SPEAKER 3) 12 L: quanti anni ha? how old are you? 13 NS: ci diamo del tu bella . . . 48 let’s address each other as tu dear 14 NS: separato vivo solo I’m separated and live alone 15 NS: tu? you? 16 L: Io ho 19 anni e vivo con la mia famiglia, sono studente I’m 19 years old and I live with my family, I’m a student In a subsequent chat session (NS 4), she reverts to English syntax io sono 19 again, showing instability of this form, but uses the correct form again by session 5 (NS 5), in relation to a third person, her brother lui ha 17 anni (‘he is 17 years old’). Interestingly, this correction is noted by the learner in her report on the online chat experience, as one of the items which was corrected twice by NSs. As there are no further language learning behaviours evident in these episodes, there is no interactional evidence of SLA because the correct form could have been acquired outside the chat environment. However, the report confirms that the learner noticed the corrections when reviewing the chat sessions for her report. Under the heading correzioni (‘corrections’) which is part of her table which summarizes the

126


chat experience, the learner notes in regard to the correction episode with NS 1 io ho detto: ‘sono 19 anni’ lui mi ha corretto: ‘ho 19 anni’ (‘I said: “sono 19 anni” he corrected me: “ho 19 anni”’). Then in regard to NS 2, the learner notes: io ho fatto lo stesso sbaglio, e ho detto ‘sono 19 anni’ lui mi ha corretto: ‘ho 19 anni’. (‘I made the same mistake, and I said “sono 19 anni” he corrected me: “ho 19 anni”’): This suggests that assessment tasks which include a report on such episodes are a worthwhile activity for SLA, as well as empowering learners who are able to take responsibility for their own learning. This chapter also observes that form and accuracy repetitions not always oriented to as interactionally relevant, though there is preliminary evidence that correction of first pair parts of adjacency pairs is possibly more likely to require repetition for the conversation to proceed. This clearly requires further attention in future research on the interactional relevance of repetition and reformulation of corrected non-target language, as pushed output may not always be visible in exposed form in naturalistic conversational contexts due to participants’ preference for social over pedagogical trajectories. However, the correction and the role of the NS in doing correction is also frequently acknowledged and reinforced by the learner. As indicated in Chapter 4, other-initiated repair by NSs seems to yield the most visible immediate cases of modified output where the learner is forced to selfrepair and needs to make himself/herself understood to the NS. In noting the prevalence of other-repair in his L2 classroom data, Van Lier (1988) raises the question of ‘whether other-repair replaces or interferes with selfrepair to some significant extent, and if this is detrimental to the learners’ interlanguage development’ (p. 191). This requires further exploration, though this study shows evidence of learners acknowledging and repeating corrected utterances, where it is interactionally appropriate.

Chapter 6

Mitigation and Play in Repair Sequences: Native Speakers and Learners Constructing Intersubjectivity

Introduction Face-saving principles and strategies (Goffman, 1967) which are commonly applied in L1 face-to-face settings are also observed in interaction between participants with differential language expertise. For example, in her study of NS-NNS face-to-face interactions, Kalin (1995) indicates that NSs abandon truthfulness to assume face-supporting behaviour through avoidance of potential problems (p. 184). NSs in online intercultural chat regularly adopt various politeness strategies to mitigate other-repair, a rare and dispreferred action in social and institutional L1 contexts (Brouwer et al., 2004, p. 76; Liddicoat, 2007, p. 211; Schegloff et al., 1977, pp. 125–126.). Mitigation includes various types of face-supporting behaviours which minimize embarrassment, maintain intersubjectivity and promote ongoing dialogue where participants have differential language expertise. While the online intercultural environment features unmitigated other-initiated other-repair, as we have seen previously, many sequences also indicate that participants find it necessary to openly sanction and/or mitigate such behaviours. This is due to the unaffiliative and problematic nature of exposed correction, especially in a social context (Heritage 1984, p. 269). Strategies such as compliments, encouragements, explanations, justifications, smiley faces (emoticons) and other ‘attendant activities’ (Jefferson, 1987) are common in other-initiated repair sequences. Learners too engage in mitigating their pursuit of understanding or knowledge gap by expressing thanks, apologies, humour, self-parody and sometimes self-disparagement as part of their clarification requests or responses to correction, in an effort to maintain intersubjectivity during these sequences. Hence, requests for clarification are sometimes also oriented to as dispreferred by the learner.


128

The extra conversational work around exposed correction and clarification requests suggests that participants are orienting to the need to deal politely with linguistic problems to avoid disrupting their often newly established relationship. This chapter therefore explores how this additional conversational work is accomplished by NSs and learners to maximize SLA while maintaining intersubjectivity.

Preference Organization in Repair Sequences: Dealing with Dispreferredness of Repair Preference organization is introduced in this chapter on mitigation and play in repair sequences because acts of mitigation are provoked by participants’ orientation to repair as a dispreferred action, even in an online intercultural text chat setting. Mitigation trajectories that occur in the online text chat setting indicate clearly both NSs’ and learners’ orientation to the dispreferred status of repair, especially other-initiated repair. The Figure 1 represents the continuum of ‘dispreferredness’ in the range of possible repair types, from most to least preferred, with self-repair the preferred option in face-to-face conversational work (Liddicoat, 2007, pp. 210–211). 1. Self-initiated self-repair (SI-SR)

¨

2. Other-initiated self-repair (OI-SR)

¨

3. Self-initiated other-repair (SI-OR)

¨

4. Other-initiated other-repair (OI-OR)

Figure 1 Representation of most to least preferred types of repair

Given that other-initiated other-repair (exposed correction) is the least preferred repair type, one would expect correction sequences to be mitigated at all times by participants doing correcting, usually NSs. However, this is not always the case, as we have seen many instances where correction sequences contain no mitigation whatsoever and may occur even without accountings (Jefferson, 1987) of any kind. Unmitigated correction sequences are possibly unique to the online intercultural chat environment. Preference organization may however provide insights into how NS and learner participants engage in online pedagogical repair and related face work. Liddicoat (2007) makes the following summarizing observations about the effect of preference organization on turn shape, which have a bearing on online intercultural repair:

Mitigation and Play in Repair Sequences z z z z z

129

a preferred action is routinely performed without delay; a dispreferred action is routinely delayed in its turn; a dispreferred action is routinely prefaced or qualified in its turn; a dispreferred action is routinely accomplished in a mitigated or indirect form; a dispreferred action is routinely accounted for (pp. 116–117).

Participants’ orientation to the dispreferredness of online other-initiated pedagogical repair will be documented in this chapter as online pedagogical other-repair both mirrors and diverges from what occurs in face-to-face contexts. For example, it diverges in that dispreferred exposed correction may be contiguous or delayed, depending on interactional requirements of competing social and pedagogical trajectories (see Chapter 3). However, it often replicates the other features which accompany dispreferred actions in face-to-face L1 contexts. Schegloff et al. (1977) note the importance of modulation of dispreferred other-repair (p. 380) in their data, as otherrepair is considered inappropriate in L1 conversations, where sequentially appropriate next turns are usually expected in the turn immediately after the trouble source. The following sections explore participants’ deployment of conversational resources such as prefacing, permission requests and various types of accountings and mitigation, which maintain intersubjectivity prior to, during and after delicate micromoments of learning. Compliments, apologies, explanations and expressions of appreciation are some of the essential components of repair sequences which assist NSs and learners in dealing with these important episodes, but emoticons may also provide humour and support where participants feel it is helpful to learning and their relationship. Various prototypical trajectories will illustrate the interrelationship between preference organization, repair and mitigation when participants co-construct a conversation which is beneficial for both SLA and relationship building.

Strategies to Set Up an Expert Novice Relationship This section explores how differential language expertise is made relevant in chat and how the adoption of expert-novice roles orients the conversation to language learning by both NSs and learners, within a social context. Kasper (1985) contrasted the organization of repair in ‘language-centered’ and ‘content-centered’ phases of L2 lessons and concluded that:

130


talking about repair in foreign language teaching as such is inconclusive: rather, preferences and dispreferences for specific repair patterns depend on the configuration of relevant factors in the classroom context . . . the teaching goal of the two phases turned out to be the decisive factor for the selection of repair patterns. (p. 39) While not dealing with classroom interaction, analysis of online chat suggests that preference organization is also likely to vary according to participants’ motives, which are alternatively social and pedagogical, or both at the same time, especially when pedagogy becomes a ‘vehicle for socialization’ (Schegloff et al., 1977, p. 381). Issues such as participant familiarity and motives for setting up the relationship may come into play, if these are made relevant by participants in interaction. Maynard and Zimmerman’s (1984) study notes the prevalence of pretopical talk between unacquainted monolingual pairs who exchange questions and answers which allow them to explore ‘common territories of self’ and test the new relationship in pursuit of affiliation (p. 314). Similar behaviours are observed within online sequences where learners and NSs have only just met, and exchange information about each other’s location and background. The newness of many online relationships examined in this study suggests that exposed correction is entirely inappropriate and unaffiliative and hence requires strategies to render it acceptable. Hosoda’s (2006) study of interactions between speakers of Japanese as a first and second language (friends in ordinary conversation) shows a repair format which avoids exposed correction: Turn 1 (T1). Talk that contains a repairable item Turn 2 (T2). Other-initiation (OI) of repair Turn 3 (T3). Attempt at self-repair (SR) Turn 4 (T4). Other-repair (OR) Turn 5 (T5). Acceptance of OR in the form of repetition Turn 6 (T6). Return to main sequential action (Hosoda, 2006, p. 38) This trajectory differs from exposed correction trajectories discussed earlier because while the NS initiates repair by indicating there is a conversational problem (T2), the NNS has a chance to self-repair first (T3). This reflects most CA research in face-to-face foreign language naturalistic settings. Exposed correction is uncommon in Hosoda’s data as it is a dispreferred social action. This finding is also confirmed by Kurhila (2005) in a study based on a face-to-face foreign language setting which involved NSs

Mitigation and Play in Repair Sequences

131

and NNSs of Finnish (pp. 150–151). Yet exposed correction is frequent in my data, as is participants’ regular orientation to its dispreferredness. When the learner reveals novice status Exposed correction sequences are particularly common, though not exclusive to mutual language learning partnerships that are set up by participants through appropriate websites or as part of requirements of previous courses. While there are also cases of unsolicited exposed corrections, learners generally play an important role in orienting the conversation to learning. Analysis of repair sequences indicates that frequency of correction depends on contextual factors such as learner proficiency and the focus of the relationship, that is, whether the relationship is set up as a mutual language learning partnership or not, or whether participants make language learning relevant to the conversation. Where NSs and learners are not in a previously established mutual language learning partnership, in introductions learners almost always declare their learner status early in the conversation, thus setting up an expert-novice relationship, as in Excerpt 1: EXCERPT 1 1 L: ciao come sta? [Lei/formal] hi how are you 2 NS: io bene I’m well 3 NS: e tu? and you? 4 L: sto bene grazie dove sei I’m well thanks where are you? 5 NS: torino turin 6 L: sono in Australia I’m in Australia 7 NS: wow wow 8 NS: 6 australiana you’re australian 9 L: sono australian studio italiano all’universita I’m australian I study Italian at university 10 NS: beh devo dire ke lo stai studiando bene well I have to say that you’re studying it well

132


In a prototypical opening sequence, participants exchange information on their location, as is typical of conversations where participants are internationally dispersed (Belz, 2003) and not co-present. In turn 9, the learner confirms that she is Australian and in the same turn informs the NS that she is a university student of Italian. The NS compliments the learner on her Italian in an ingratiating move in the subsequent turn (line 10) beh devo dire ke lo stai studiando bene (‘well I have to say that you’re studying it well’), which is also probably designed to encourage the learner. In many chat softwares, participants need to provide information about themselves in a profile which is readily accessible to other participants. Normally, place of origin and/or residence is part of that profile, hence ‘foreign’ identity can be ascertained by the NS prior to commencement of chat. However, participants do not often use or refer to one another’s profile during interaction and tend to assume ignorance of one another’s personal details, as in Excerpt 1. Learners’ novice status is also revealed when they invite the NS to ‘do correction’. When the learner invites correction In addition to revealing their ‘Italian student’ hence linguistic novice status, learners often encourage NSs to other-repair, usually in the early stages of the conversation . Excerpts 2, 3 and 4 are prototypical examples of this type of learner request, indicated by arrows: EXCERPT 2 →17 L: poi corregge le mie parole se io sbaglio? [incorrect conjugation of ‘potere’ and use of personal pronoun ‘io’] can you correct my words if I make a mistake? 18 NS: ‘puoi correggere le mie parole se sbaglio?’ ‘can you correct my words if I make a mistake?’ EXCERPT 3 11 NS: hai foto do you have a photo 12 L: Perche tutti chiedono le foto? Why does everyone ask for photos? →13 L: C6 Niente foto ma mi piacerebe [misspelled] chattare mi puoi corregere [misspelled] se faccio sbagli [C6 = Ci sei] Are you there No photos but I would like to chat can you correct me if I make mistakes


133

EXCERPT 4 →45 L: per favore, voglio parlare meglio il mio italiano, se io faccia [incorrect conjugation] uno sbaglio puoi corregermi [mispelled]? I want to speak Italian better, if I make a mistake could you please correct me? 46 NS: si yes 47 L: grazie thank you 48 NS: In each case above, there is a specific very similar request format by the learner for the NS to correct his/her mistakes. The NS often quite promptly follows up the learner’s request with corrections of the learner’s language if required. For example, in Excerpt 2, the first NS correction occurs in the turn subsequent to the request (turn 18), a correct alternate of the actual request in turn 17. In particular, the NS corrects two elements of her request: 1. non-target use of the present indicative Italian modal verb potere (to be able/can) which is either spelt or conjugated incorrectly by the learner, and not followed by the infinitive correggere; 2. the use of a subject pronoun io before sbaglio, where Italian does not require it. In Excerpt 3, the NS does not correct the learner until a second request for correction later in turn 33 (sequence not reproduced here) Sono Australiana genitori Italiani sposata figli 43 anni Grazie ma mi puoi correggere se sbaglio (‘I’m Australian [f] Italian parents married children 43 years old Thanks but can you correct me if I make a mistake’). After this second request, which also includes a great deal of information about the learner’s identity, the NS engages in multiple exposed corrections of the learner’s grammar. In Excerpt 4, the first exposed correction sequence is initiated by the NS at turn 52, four turns after the invitation-agreement to correct sequence is completed. While the timing of corrections varies, it is significant that in many cases, these learner requests provide NSs with the authority to do exposed correction, which may otherwise not occur without further negotiation. They therefore appear to be an effective learning strategy if form-focused feedback is required and the learner wishes to orient the conversation to

134


learning through active receipt of linguistic feedback from the NS. There are also many chat sessions where the learner does not request feedback, but the NS explicitly requests permission to ‘do correction’. There are in fact many examples in the data of NSs explicitly requesting permission to correct, prior to taking on an informal ‘language tutor’ role.

When the native speaker requests permission to correct In addition to receiving learner invitations to correct, NSs often request permission to correct, again orienting to the dispreferredness of otherrepair, and invoking the learner’s collaboration. In Excerpt 5, it becomes evident that the NS has noticed multiple repairable items in the learner’s talk but does not correct without permission and considerable mitigation as part of that request. EXCERPT 5: NATIVE SPEAKER REQUESTING PERMISSION 141 NS: ti piace? do you like it [Italian] 142 NS: fai davvero pochi errori . . . e l’italiano da scrivere è molto difficile you make really few mistakes and written Italian is very difficult 143 L: si per la maggior parte. [response to turn 141] yes most of the time 144 L: veramente, grazie [response to turn 142] really, thank you 145 NS: sì sì absolutely →146 NS: se vuoi ti dico quando sbagli se vuoi così correggi i tuoi errori e poi ti trovi meglio . . . If you like I’ll tell you when you make a mistake if you like so you’ll correct your mistakes and then you’ll be better off . . . 147: L: si, per favore correggermi! [correggimi intended] yes, please correct me! In this sequence, exposed correction sequences only commence after the NS has asked the learner for permission to correct at turn 146. This is preceded by a compliment by the NS on the learner’s ability in Italian in turn 142, which is reinforced in turn 145 sì sì (‘yes yes’), after the learner expresses appreciation for the NS’ comment. In his request for permission, the NS


135

goes to great lengths to ensure that the learner agrees to his proposal: he repeats se vuoi (‘if you like’), a marker of uncertainty, twice and suggests that correction will be beneficial to her: e poi ti trovi meglio . . . (‘and then you’ll be better off . . .’). A justification for the request and impending corrective activity is provided in the implication that the learner will improve her language through correction così correggi i tuoi errori (‘so you’ll correct your mistakes’). The learner agrees enthusiastically to the NS’ proposal, as evidenced by the use of per favore (‘please’) and the non-target imperative form correggermi (‘correct me’), which is reinforced by an exclamation mark. Once these preliminary negotiations have been completed, the NS wastes no time in correcting the learner’s language in the subsequent extended repair sequence, which involves multiple exposed corrections.

Native Speakers Playing Tutor In dyadic face-to-face conversations-for-learning (Kasper, 2004), participants with differential language expertise may orient to expert-novice relationships. Expert-novice roles are also played out in online conversations, often with overt metacommentaries which confirm the tutor-learner relationship and the role of NSs as linguistic experts, as is evident from analysis of Excerpts 1 to 5 in this chapter. Orientation to these social categories may assist in relationship building while at the same time orienting the conversation to language learning. Excerpt 6, from a single chat session, provides evidence of the NS’ assumption of the ‘tutor’ role in a mildly playful though overt manner. The conversation up to this point was focused on personal issues such as respective occupations, hobbies, marital status and romantic interests. Despite the fact that there is potentially much to repair from a grammatical point of view from the very beginning, the conversation does not ever break down, and does not orient to the learning of grammar until turn 119, a possible embedded correction, or turn 123, the first exposed correction in this session. EXCERPT 6: INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO EXCHANGE PHOTOS 119 NS: vuoi 1 mia foto? want one of my photos? 120 L: non lo so come posso ricevere un foto I don’t know how to receive a photo 121 NS: mai ricevuta nessuna foto? never received any photos?

136

122 L: 123 NS: 124 NS: 125 L: 126 NS: 127 NS: 128 NS: 129 L: 130 NS: 131 L: 132 NS: 133 NS: 134 NS: 135 L: 136 NS: 137 NS: 138 NS: 139 NS: 140 L: 141 NS:

Online Second Language Acquisition si mai yes never si dice: no mai you’re meant to say: no never questo nn l hai imparato bene you haven’t learnt this well grazie devo aiutare con la mia italiana thanks I [you intended] have to help with my Italian devi aiutarmi you have to help me con il mio italiano with my Italian grazie thanks devi ancora capire il femminile e maskile you still have to understand feminine and masculine si yes se parli di te if you’re talking about yourself gli aggettivi possessivi possessive adjectives sono sempre al maskile [sic!] are always masculine lo so I know mio my mio italiano my Italian cmq [comunque] anyway vedi sotto? see below? cose cmq? what’s cmq abbreviazione per comunque abbreviation for comunque


137

142 NS: cmq = comunque cmq = comunque (anyhow) 143 L: grazie thanks The sequence reproduced in Excerpt 6 shows persistent form and accuracy corrections, with most repairs not explicitly invited by the learner. However, earlier in the conversation, in turn 9 (not reproduced here), during introductions, the learner had explained that she’s a student of Italian. This may provide the learner with a justification, should she make a mistake or seek conversational help if required. It also appears in this case to authorize the NS to correct her, even though she does not specifically invite him to do so, as occurs in other exposed sequences. This NS is keen to take on the role of tutor and regularly accounts for his exposed corrections with explanations and justifications (accountings according to Jefferson, 1987). Some of the justifications suggest that he has the right to correct the learner, as he is an NS. In particular, the sequence starts with a possible embedded correction at turns 119–121 (the only one in this conversation), where the NS appears to correct the gender of foto (‘photo’) without interrupting the conversation. The NS then carries out his first uninvited other-repair (turn 123) which is clearly exposed and didactic, as it is preceded by si dice (‘you’re meant to say’). This didactic role is continued in the next turn (turn 124) where the NS reprimands the learner (questo nn l’hai imparato bene ‘you didn’t learn this properly’). This reprimand is at the same time a reinforcement of his expert role and a form of justification (accounting) for his correction. Rather than rejecting these unaffiliative actions, the learner accepts the NS’ corrections and justification by thanking him for the correction (turn 125: grazie devo aiutare con la mia italiana: ‘thanks I [you] have to help with my Italian’). This confirms his expert/tutor role. The NS continues to correct the learner in turn 124, though this is preceded by a friendly smiley face (turn 126), before he produces another exposed correction (turns 127–128), and further extended justifications based on grammatical issues in turns 130 to 137. It should be noted that the grammatical rule he provides on Italian possessive pronouns is incorrect (turns 132–134) as agreement is usually with what is possessed. These explanations are consistently punctuated by the learner’s thanks and acknowledgement of his role (turns 129 and 131). At turns 138 to 139, the NS attempts to return to the main topic of conversation (how to exchange photos using the chat software), but uses an abbreviation (cmq = comunque: ‘anyway’) at turn 138, which is commonly

138


used in Italian chat and SMS communication, but which is unknown to the learner. The learner thus initiates a repair which orients to her novice status as a user of Italian chat and SMS, not just novice speaker of Italian, and requires the NS to explain. She follows this with thanks to conclude the sequence and return to the main topic of conversation (how to exchange photos) in turns 144 to 157. In summary, the open orientation to expertnovice roles is proposed quite didactically by the NS after the first exposed correction (turn 123) questo nn l’hai imparato bene (turn 124) and subsequently during an ‘instructing’ sequence at turns 130 to 137. Interestingly, the learner reinforces the NS’ authority to ‘tutor’ her at turns 125, 129, 135 and 143, though he provides incorrect grammatical information. While it is somewhat more playful than Excerpt 6, Excerpt 7 has a couple of significant features, namely, the NS’ orienting openly to his tutor role (turns 164–172) and an uncommon instance of the learner rejecting the NS’ repair initiation (turn 162). EXCERPT 7: NATIVE SPEAKER OFFERS HIS SERVICES AS ITALIAN TUTOR 158 NS: e tu hai il ragazzo? and do you have a boyfriend? 159 L: si il mio ragazzo e un maestro yes my boyfriend is a teacher 160 NS: maestro o professore? primary school or high school teacher 161 NS: è diverso there’s a difference 162 L: maestro per i bambini lo so che e diverso maestro for children I know there’s a difference 163 NS: si yes 164 NS: sai devo insegnarti you know I have to teach you 165 L: si yes 166 NS: e devo capire quanto hai studiato and I have to understand how much you’ve studied 167 NS: 䄗 168 NS: mi paghi? will you pay me? 169 L: non ho capito mi paghi?

Mitigation and Play in Repair Sequences I don’t understand ‘mi paghi’? 170 NS: se ti insegno mi devi pagare la lezione if I teach you you have to pay for the lesson 171 NS: 䄗 172 NS: sono un bravo professore I’m a good teacher 173 L: il mio ragazzo fa body building come te my boyfriend does body building like you 174 NS: ha tanti muscoli? does he have lots of muscles? 175 L: si, lui ha yes, he has 176 NS: lui ha . . . he has . . . 177 NS: cosa? what? 178 L: il mio ragazzo ha tanti muscoli my boyfriend has lots of muscles 179 NS: ecco that’s right 180 NS: dovevi finire la frase you had to finish the sentence 181 L: mi dispiace sorry 182 NS: oppure dire: lui ne ha tanti or say: he has lots of them 183 NS: no no 184 NS: 6 bravissima you’re very good 185 L: perche? why 186 NS: perkè fai ancora errori because you still make mistakes 187 NS: ma in generale ti riesci a spiegare bene but in general you manage to get your message across 188 NS: l italiano nn è facile Italian isn’t easy 189 L: grazie molto lo so che l italiano non e facile thanks a lot I know that Italian isn’t easy

139

140


The NS initiates correction of the learner (turns 160–161) even though she has used the term maestro (‘teacher’) appropriately (turn 159). She therefore promptly rejects this correction at turn 162. The NS then justifies his unaffiliative and face-threatening action by asserting his tutor role at turns 164 sai devo insegnarti (‘you know I have to teach you’) and 166 e devo capire quanto hai studiato (‘and I have to understand how much you’ve studied’), mitigating this with two smiley faces at turns 167 and 171. This role is acknowledged by the learner at turn 165 (si). At turns 168, 170 and 172, the NS playfully attempts to formalize this role by suggesting that she should pay for his lessons mi paghi? (‘will you pay me?’), se ti insegno mi devi pagare la lezione (‘if I teach you have to pay for the lesson’) and sono un bravo professore (‘I’m a good teacher’). This trajectory is rejected by the learner, who returns to the main topic of conversation (turn 173). However, the NS immediately finds reason to continue correcting the learner’s grammar, in particular her omission of the particle ‘ne’ in turn 175, which is implicit in English. This triggers another correction sequence from turns 176 to 182, which includes an apology from the learner (turn 181) and the provision of a correct alternate by the NS (turn 182). This is followed by a polite rejection of the learner’s apology (turn 183: no) which prefaces the NS’ positive evaluation of the learner’s ability (turn 184). This evaluation is affiliative and serves to mitigate the correction, but at the same time it suggests that the NS has the right to evaluate the learner’s ability. This mitigative component of the exposed correction sequence continues until it is closed by the learner who expresses appreciation for the NS’ compliments and agrees that Italian is not an easy language to learn (turn 189). The tutor role is acknowledged by the learner, though she finally rejects this trajectory (turn 173) by changing topic, probably because it is unclear to what extent the NS is merely performing this role or proposing formalization through payment. While many of the usual attendant activities associated with exposed correction are visible here, the NS ‘performs’ the tutor role overtly, bringing out into the open, an orientation to linguistic expert which is usually enacted more subtly, through repair and associated preference organization. This overt language tutor-student orientation is also evident in Excerpt 8, and is enacted after the NS corrects the learner. EXCERPT 8 110 L: costruire gli ?? sbarramenti. Build the ?? barriers. 111 L: Per fare l’elettricita`. To create electricity.


141

112 NS: le dighe the dams 113 L: Grazie!! Thank you!! 114 L: Linguaggio tecnico..non sono brava. Technical language.. I’m not good. 115 NS: sono il tuo 2tutor2 [typographical error] I’m your tutor 116 NS: ‘tutor’ ‘tutor’ 117 L: Grazie professore! Thank you teacher! 118 NS: - 119 NS: è un piacere con una studentessa come te!! it’s a pleasure with a student [f] like you!! 120 L: Piacere mio. Pleasure is mine. The learner’s word search incorporates a type of online try-marking in turn 110 costruire gli ?? sbarramenti (‘build?? barriers’), as evidenced by the two question marks prior to the candidate word. The NS suggests dighe (‘dams’) as the correct alternate. A prototypical post-correction routine is then enacted by the learner, which includes an expression of appreciation for the correction (turn 113) and excusing + self-criticism non sono brava (‘I’m not good [f]’) in turn 114. The NS then suggests that he is the learner’s tutor in turns 115–116, and the learner accepts this role by addressing the NS as her teacher Grazie professore! (‘Thanks teacher!’) Further affiliative work by the NS such as the two smiling emoticons in turn 118 and the suggestion that the learner is a pleasure to teach are incorporated in this appreciation routine, concluded by the learner with the standard response, second pair part piacere mio (‘pleasure is mine’). Examples of this type of interaction are frequent in the data and tend to reinforce and/or make light of participants’ differential language expertise, expert-novice orientation and dispreferred correction activity.

Mitigation through Accountings According to Jefferson (1987), exposed correction may be accompanied by ‘attendant activities’, termed ‘accountings’. These activities may include ‘instructing . . . complaining . . . admitting . . . forgiving . . . accusing . . .

142


apologising . . . ridiculing’ (p. 88), as part of the correction sequence. These are a prototypical component of exposed correction in my data, and tend to mirror face-to-face processes, as NS corrections regularly include explanations and justifications within the same or subsequent turn. In her definition, Jefferson includes both lapses in competence and/or conduct, such as the search for the name of a movie (p. 90). In my data, NSs frequently address lapses in linguistic competence relating to non-target like use of Italian, especially grammar or understanding of vocabulary (cf. impresa sequence in the previous chapter). The following extracts from online NSlearner conversations provide various instances of the types of accountings which occur regularly in my data. In Excerpt 9, a recast by the NS is followed by a justification and explanation: EXCERPT 9 17 L: poi corregge le mie parole se io sbaglio? [incorrect conjugation of ‘potere’ and use of personal pronoun ‘io’] can you correct my words if I make a mistake? 18 NS: ‘puoi correggere le mie parole se sbaglio?’ ‘can you correct my words if I make a mistake?’ 19 L: haha grazie haha thanks 20 NS: in italiano non devi mettere sempre ‘io’ in Italian you don’t always have to put ‘I’ 21 NS: prego You’re welcome 22 NS: parlami un po’ di te talk to me about yourself 23 L: ok piano piano perche il mio italiano non e` buono ok slowly because my Italian isn’t much good 24 L: haha haha 25 NS: 26 NS: scusa sorry In Excerpt 9, the NS corrects the learner’s request/invitation poi corregge le mie parole se io sbaglio? (‘can you can correct my words if I make a mistake?’) by providing the target form in the subsequent turn. The learner laughs and expresses appreciation for her correction in turn 19 haha grazie (‘haha


143

thanks’) and the NS follows this with a grammatical explanation of one element of her correction, regarding the omission of subject pronouns in Italian. This is followed by the second pair part prego (‘you’re welcome’) in response to first pair part grazie (‘thank you’). Given the constraints of typing the conversation, the NS would most likely have provided the grammatical justification in the turn subsequent to the correction if the learner’s thanks had not been posted first. It should be noted that the conclusion of this correction trajectory is anomalous as the NS does not usually apologize for correction (turn 26), rather it is more likely to be the learner who apologizes for making a mistake. It is also unclear whether turn 23 ok piano piano perche il mio italiano non e` buono (‘ok slowly because my Italian isn’t much good’) is a response to the NS’ correction or her invitation to talk about herself. Hence, in this case the attendant activities follow production of the correct alternate, and include NS ‘justifying’ and ‘instructing’ in italiano non devi mettere sempre ‘io’ (‘in Italian you don’t always have to put ‘I’ ’), the learner ‘requesting slower pace’ and ‘excusing’ ok piano piano perche il mio italiano non e` buono (‘ok slowly because my Italian isn’t much good’) and the NS ‘apologizing’ scusa (‘sorry’). NSs in fact regularly do ‘instructing’ within exposed correction sequences with the use of si dice Y (‘you’re meant to say Y’), as in Excerpts 10 and 11 below, which have been discussed previously as clear instances of Jefferson’s (1987) X, Y, Y correction structure, including repetition of the correct alternate by the learner. EXCERPT 10 22 L: si si, so avere in passato, → sono la donna yes, I know have in the past, I’m the woman 23 NS: 䄗㩷䄗 24 NS: Sei simpatica come parli You’re nice the way you talk →25 NS: si dice: sono una donna you’re meant to say: I’m a woman →26 L: grazie, sono una donna. mi dispiace thank you, I’m a woman. I’m sorry EXCERPT 11 L: grazie, giochi allo sport? thanks, do you play at sport?

144


→NS: si dice ‘fai/pratichi qualche sport?’ you’re meant to say ‘do you play a sport?’ →NS: 䄗㩷䄗 →L: va bene, grazie. fai qualche sport? OK, thanks. do you play a sport? In Excerpt 10, the repairable item is the definite article la which is corrected to indefinite article una, while in Excerpt 11, the NS takes issue with the non target syntax of giochi allo sport, which is corrected in the subsequent turn. In these instances, ‘acknowledging’ and ‘thanking’ on the part of the learner are also one of the activities which accompany exposed correction. Si dice is a regular attendant activity when NSs do exposed correction, though it is also sometimes omitted, and a target reformulation or recast provided, as in Excerpt 9 (turns 17–18) earlier. As observed in Chapter 5, in the case of recasts, the alternate corrected item can be provided without justification by the NS and the attendant activities provoke only an ‘apologizing’ routine, as in Excerpt 12, where the NS proceeds with the main conversational trajectory after correction. EXCERPT 12 41 L: Grazie allora dimmi qualcose [misspelled] di te Thank you so tell me something about yourself 42 NS: degli sbagli dimmi qualcosa di te some mistakes tell me something about yourself 43 NS: io ho 22 anni I am 22 years old 44 NS: non sono sposato I’m not married 45 NS: lavoro I work 46 L: Lavori o studi? Do you work or study? In this case, there are no accountings whatsoever, and the learner does not even have the opportunity to provide some form of acknowledgement for the correction in turn 42, as the NS steers the conversation back to ‘doing introductions’ in turn 43. However, the NS has previously received permission to correct from the learner, before proceeding with correction.


145

Correction through provision of the correct alternate, and ‘instructing’ behaviour also occurs when learners of Italian orient to their role as experts of English. EXCERPT 13 84 NS: where cam do yuo from? [Intended: where do you come from?] 85 NS: you 86 NS: fatto un po di casino I stuffed up 87 L: allora se tu vuoi dire questo devi dire: Where do you come from. Questo significa ‘da dove vieni?’ so if you want to say this you have to say: Where do you come from. This means ‘da dove vieni?’ In Excerpt 13, the learner of Italian, as NS of English, corrects her interlocutor’s English, in Italian, in turn 87, after he criticizes his own efforts fatto un po di casino (‘I stuffed up’). Hence, ‘correcting’ is accompanied with self-evaluation and instructing, as occurs when NSs of Italian correct learners. In particular, in turn 87, the learner of Italian, orienting to her role as NS of English, engages in 1. instructing: allora se vuoi dire questo devi dire; 2. reformulation: Where do you come from; 3. instructing through translation into Italian of the candidate phrase: Questo significa ‘da dove vieni?’. This inversion of expert-novice roles suggests that learners may benefit from language learning partnerships where they too can ‘do being the tutor’, and establish a relationship which is on an equal footing in terms of mutual contributions to learning. As we have seen from various ‘instructing’ behaviours, attendant activities (Jefferson, 1987) can be quite didactic and do not necessarily always mitigate the act of correction, as has been described in studies of monolingual face-to-face conversation (Jefferson, 1987; Liddicoat, 2007). These activities tend to reinforce the correction and are often included in the same turn which contains the correction, as in si dice + correction or correction + si dice (‘you’re meant to say’ ), which is one of the most typical attendant activities

146


which accompany NSs’ corrections. Excerpts 14 and 15 provide further evidence of such activity: EXCERPT 14 51 L: ti piace cuocere? do you like cooking? 52 NS: si, mi piace yes, I like it 53 NS: a te? and you? 54 NS: si dice cucinare . . . you’re meant to say’ cucinare’ . . . EXCERPT 15 204 L: e stai facendo una corsa specializzata? and are you doing a specialized run? [meaning ‘course’] 205 NS: una corsa è : a run ‘una corsa’ is: a run 206 NS: un corso a course 207 NS: si dice you’re meant to say In Excerpt 14, the NS provides the second pair part of the question-answer adjacency pair (ti piace cuocere? si, mi piace (‘do you like cooking? yes, I like it’), before correcting the learner three turns later. He then commences a second related adjacency pair, asking whether the learner also likes to cook. This trajectory suggests that there is no misunderstanding involved, and that the NS prefers to continue the main conversation thread, where he exchanges personal information with the learner, before proceeding with delayed correction. The winking emoticon provides the only mitigating affiliative element of this correction. Timer information which is unavailable in this software would indicate whether there was any delay by the NS to provide a space for the learner to self-repair in this instance. However, corrections often proceed without delay as they appear on the transcripts. In Excerpt 15, si dice (‘you’re meant to say’) is posted in the turn subsequent to provision of the correct alternate. The staggering of correct alternate and si dice over two turns may simply be due to the need to avoid ambiguity, but could also ensure that the NS holds the floor to complete the correction process prior to a new trajectory being started by the learner. The splitting of potential TCUs has been previously observed as a feature of


147

online chat which ensures that the current ‘chatter’ holds the floor. It is also preceded by a delucidation of why the learner’s version is incorrect, as the feminine corsa (‘run’) has a different meaning to corso (‘course’) which is what the learner intended. The use of English translation in this case is helpful in expediting the explanation of the learner’s error. This is also a form of accounting for the NS’ exposed correction. In Excerpt 16, the NS appears to already have launched another trajectory (turn 49) when he notices a learner error at turn 48. EXCERPT 16 48 L: Ti piace andare in cinema? Do you like to go in the cinema? 49 NS: mi ero iscritto all’università ma poi ho lasciato I was enrolled at university but then I left 50 NS: al cinema si dice you’re meant to say ‘al cinema’ (to the cinema) 51 NS: si yes The NS corrects the learner at turn 50, by providing the correct preposition (composite article) al (‘to the’), before he responds to the learner’s question with a second pair part answer (turn 51). His correction includes the prototypical accounting for correction si dice though in this case it is highlighted in bold, which reinforces the didactic nature of this pedagogical action. Given the time lag between typing and posting, it is possible that he is typing his turn 49 at the same time as the learner, but the learner posts her turn 48 first, which is how it appears on the transcript. Analysis in this section has identified various attendant activities by NSs and learners of Italian (and English) when engaging in exposed correction (Jefferson, 1987), which may or may not promote SLA, depending on whether corrected items can be appropriately incorporated into talk, in an interactionally relevant manner. The similarity to behaviours described by Jefferson (1987) in L1 contexts suggests that the architecture of exposed correction transfers to online intercultural contexts to assist participants with differential language expertise in promoting SLA and maintaining intersubjectivity. These activities are often an attempt to mitigate dispreferred exposed correction sequences or other activities which draw attention to learners’ lapses in linguistic competence. They may involve explaining, instructing, justifying, laughing, apologizing, criticizing (usually oneself) or expressing appreciation.

148


Learners’ Face Work around Other-Initiated Self-Repair (Clarification Requests) Exposed correction is not the only repair trajectory which participants orient to as dispreferred though it is the most common one. Learners also frequently deploy strategies to save face (Goffman, 1967), especially when initiating repair repeatedly due to non-understanding of items in NSs’ talk. This is despite the fact that the chat context is supposedly low risk in face terms, due to participants’ anonymity, which includes the option of constructing an identity which is not their own (ten Have, 2000). Requests for conversational assistance by learners are generally accommodated by the NSs in my data, and are constituted mainly by the basic conversational building block of question-answer adjacency pairs. However learners sometimes orient to these requests as dispreferreds, especially when they need to persist in requesting clarification to be able to understand NSs, thus drawing attention to their lapse in competence. In Excerpt 17, the learner requests clarification of the NS four times, as indicated by the arrows, to be able to understand what he does for a living. EXCERPT 17 28 L: Altretanto Giovanni cosa fai per lavoro Same here Giovanni what do you do for a living 29 NS: geometra disegnatore building surveyor 30 NS: impianti di depurazione purification plants →31 L: Non capisco I don’t understand 32 NS: tu hai già cenato? have you already had dinner? 33 NS: lacoro in una società che realizza impianti di depurazione. I work in a company that builds purification plants 34 NS: lavoro scusa I work sorry 35 NS: diciamo che curo l’ambiente let’s say that I look after the environment →36 L: SI ore fa. Spiega depurazione per favore YES hours ago. Explain purification please 37 NS: acque di scarico delle industrie industry waste waters


149

38 NS: noi le depuriamo in modo tale ke se vengono scaricate nel terreno nn creano guai all’ambiente we purify them so that if they are discharged into the ground they don’t cause environmental problems →39 L: Si ma cosa devi fare solo controllare? Yes but what do you have to do just check? 40 NS: disegno le vasche I design the tanks [also translated as tubs] →41 L: Da bagno? Forse ti sembro stupida Bath tubs? You must think I’m stupid 42 NS: no vasche in cemento armato no tanks made of reinforced concrete This excerpt has been noted previously in Chapter 4 (Excerpt 23), for the learner’s multiple repair initiations in regard to the lexical trouble sources, indicated by arrows, relating to the NS’ profession. By the fourth repair initiation/clarification request Da bagno?(‘bath tubs’), in the same turn (41), the learner engages in mild self-disparagement Forse ti sembro stupida (‘You must think I’m stupid’), which is slightly mitigated by forse (‘perhaps’). This comment is a probable attempt to compensate for her knowledge gap and persistence in pursuing understanding. A preferred response to this utterance would have been disagreement by the NS (cf. Liddicoat, p. 120). However, negation is not clearly forthcoming by the NS, as the no that follows in turn 42 is probably a negative response to the first component of the previous utterance, that is, the learner’s question on bath tubs, rather than disagreement with her self-disparagement. Hence he focuses on the trouble source and provides a resolution to the repair sequence, as requested by the learner, rather than dealing with her self-disparaging remark. In Excerpt 18, from a chat session which is the focus of Chapter 7, the learner deploys laughter tokens and an apology to defuse her persistence in pursuing understanding of the particle mica. EXCERPT 18 →151 L: ma dicevo che non capsico ‘mica’ but I was saying that I don’t understand ‘mica’ 152 NS: allora hai detto tutto well then say no more →153 L: puoi spiegare l’uso di mica can you explain the use of mica

150


→154 L: ? ? 155 NS: ok ok 156 NS: non ne ho inventato solo 1 tanti piatti ho inventato ok! I didn’t only make up 1 I’ve made up many dishes 157 NS: questo significa this is what it means 158 NS: ??????? ?????? 159 L: ah ok oh ok 160 L: scusa scusa so sorry →161 L: ti dicevo che non capsico mica I was saying that I don’t understand mica [or: I was saying I don’t really understand] 162 L: hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha The four requests for clarification, as indicated by arrows, relate to the trouble source mica, which is used by the NS in turn 138 mica solo 1. The NS’ attempt at repair resolution in turn 156 is an appropriate reformulation of the original utterance rather than an explanation of mica. By turn 159, the learner indicates that she has understood (ah ok) in turn 159, but appears to change her mind at turn 161(ti dicevo che non capsico mica). She softens this request by preceding it with a strong apology in turn 160 scusa scusa (‘so sorry’), which may also be a type of negation or backtracking on her previously expressed understanding. She also follows her fourth repair initiation with laughter tokens in turn 162, which may express her awkwardness at requiring further explanations (see Chapter 7 for other interpretations). The need for the learner to excuse herself for repeatedly seeking clarification suggests that repair initiation on the same repairables is oriented to as dispreferred and requires additional face-work on the part of the learner, possibly because it draws attention to her lapse in linguistic competence and thwarts resolution of the repair sequence on mica. Instances of the NSs contradicting learners’ apologies and self-criticism are also plentiful in the data, even though initiation or completion of a question-answer adjacency pair by participants often takes precedence over the self-criticism-disagreement trajectory in online chat. In Excerpt 19,


151

a preferred response is provided by the NS after the learner apologizes for her Italian during a discussion on respective hobbies, in particular, on the NS’ position in football. EXCERPT 19 8 L: bello, qual posizione gioci? [misspelled] great, what position do you play? 9 L: scusa se non capisci sorry if you don’t understand 10 NS: dietro le punte . . . ..tipo x spiegarti il numero 10 . . . . behind the forwards [attacking midfielder] . . . ..like to explain number 10[striker] . . . . 11 NS: mavà ti fai capire . . . . go on you get your message across . . . . 12 L: hmmmm non credo di aver capito hmmmm I don’t believe I’ve understood 13 NS: ti fai capire benissimo . . . .. you get your message across really well . . . . . . 14 NS: single? single? 15 L: ma va bene è un pò difficile magari spiegarmi in italiano! well ok it’s probably a bit difficult to explain in Italian! 16 NS: sono quello ke fa i gol I’m the one who scores the goals 17 L: ah ho capito ah I understand The learner appears to identify a possible repairable in her previous utterance (turn 8) when she apologizes in the subsequent turn (9) scusa se non capisci (‘sorry if you don’t understand’). However, the NS does not respond to her possible repair initiation on her own talk, and disagrees with her apology for her Italian expression. The NS’ rejection of the learner’s selfcriticism ma và ti fai capire . . . . (‘go on you get your message across. . . . ’) is provided in turn 11, after he responds to her question on his position on the soccer field (turn 10). In turn 12, using hmmmm as a marker of uncertainty, the learner then hesitantly claims she does not understand his answer to her question and initiates repair regarding position on the soccer field. In turn 13, the NS appears to repeat and extend his utterance in praise of the learner’s ability, providing a further disagreement with her original apology for not being understandable: ti fai capire benissimo . . . ..(‘you get

152


your message across really well . . . . . . ’). The NS then tries to launch a new trajectory single? but in the following turn (15) the learner returns to the repair trajectory regarding the NS’ position on the football field, which is then resolved by the NS in turn 16 by a reformulation in regard to his position. In summary, repeated initiation of repair due to non-understanding on the part of the learner is likely to be oriented to as dispreferred, and may require some face-supporting behaviour to avoid embarrassment. This is achieved mainly through laughter and apology but also, self-disparagement at times. Self-criticism may be either contradicted by the NS, a preferred response, or ignored, depending on whether he/she chooses to attend to completing an adjacency pair, resolving a repair sequence or launching another trajectory.

Mitigation through Correction-Apology and Correction-Appreciation Routines In online intercultural chat, learners frequently thank NSs for correction or apologize for linguistic errors after correction. While correction-appreciation or correction-apology routines do not constitute an adjacency pair, learners’ regular orientation to acknowledge the dispreferred act of correction constitutes a template for exposed correction sequences, unless competing social trajectories prevent these from being carried out in full. The pattern of learners thanking NSs for correction acknowledges their role as experts in the target language, and learners as novices. It also brings the dispreferred correction sequence to a interactionally complete conclusion for participants, with thanking sometimes projecting an appropriate response from the NS, such as figurati (‘not at all’), prego (you’re welcome’) or other variants of ‘you’re welcome’. This prototypical resolution of correction softens the face-threatening nature of this action. On the other hand, apologizing orients to the error rather than the correction as a dispreferred and reflects learners’ loss of face at being corrected. Excerpt 20 provides exemplification of the correction-appreciation and/or apology routines which are present within the same sequence. EXCERPT 20 25 NS: si dice: sono una donna you’re meant to say: I’m a woman


153

26 L:

grazie, sono una donna. mi dispiace thank you, I’m a woman 27 NS: ti dispiace di cosa you’re sorry for what 28 L: mi dispiace per il miosbaglio I’m sorry about my mistake 29 NS: figurati, è comprensibile not at all, it’s understandable 30 L: ma grazie per il suo correzione but thank you for your correction 31 NS: 䄗

䄗

In the turn following the NS’ correction (turn 26), the learner thanks the NS, repeats the correct alternate and apologizes in the same ‘breath’ grazie, sono una donna. mi dispiace (‘thank you, I’m a woman. I’m sorry’). The NS does not understand why she apologizes (turn 27: ti dispiace di cosa) and she needs to explain that she is apologizing for her mistake in the subsequent turn (turn 28: mi dispiace per il miosbaglio). The NS responds with an appropriate second pair part figurati (‘not at all’) in response to her apology, and adds the statement è comprensibile (‘it’s understandable’), which implies that she has the right to make mistakes as a learner of Italian and minimizes the gravity of her error. The learner responds in the subsequent turn by once more expressing appreciation for the NS’ correction ma grazie per il suo correzione (‘but thank you for your correction’). The smiling emoticon from the NS in turn 31 provides an affiliative conclusion to the sequence. In Excerpt 21, a similar routine is observed, though in this case the NS uses a laughing emoticon to display unaffiliative playful behaviour in regard to the learner error. EXCERPT 21 204 L: e stai facendo una corsa specializzata? and are you doing a specialized run? [meaning ‘course’] 205 NS: una corsa? a run? ah 206 NS: a 207 NS: una corsa è : a run ‘una corsa’ is: a run

154


208 NS: un corso a course 209 NS: si dice you’re meant to say 210 L: scusa. sorry 211 L: corso course 212 NS: niente no problem 213 L: mi dispiace I’m sorry In turn 204, probably due to issues in gender marking, the learner uses una corsa (‘a race’) inappropriately, when she actually intended un corso (‘a course’). Given the unaffiliative emoticon which accompanies the NS’ correction and other attendant activities (explaining una corsa = a run and instructing si dice), the learner responds to the correction with two apologies scusa (‘sorry’) and mi dispiace (‘I’m sorry’) in turns 210 and 213. These two apologies may reflect the learner’s loss of face due to the NS’ impolite correction. NS responds with a second pair part niente (‘no problem’) to the first apology. The conversational routines surrounding exposed correction are additional attendant activities which typify online interaction between dyads where there is differential language expertise. They appear to be designed to soften the dispreferredness of correction by sanctioning sequences with politeness formulas and /or concluding them in an interactionally orderly manner.

Native Speakers Explaining Grammar This section is motivated by the fact that some instances of exposed correction of non target-like Italian are not always managed competently by NSs when they need to explain the correction, one of the ‘attendant activities’ described by Jefferson (1987). This reinforces the notion that NSs may be experts in using the target language but not in its grammar. Further research in this area is required, but it is possible that monolingual NSs who have not studied foreign languages are at a disadvantage at explaining grammar, though they do not express any doubts about their abilities when doing correcting. Being an NS appears to provide them with the authority to correct and explain, even if the explanation may be incorrect.


155

In Excerpt 22, discussed earlier in regard to novice-expert orientations by participants (Excerpt 6, this chapter), the NS provides incorrect grammatical instructions and explanations in regard to the learner’s error. EXCERPT 22 125 L: grazie devo aiutare con la mia italiana thanks I [you intended] have to help with my Italian 126 NS: →127 NS: devi aiutarmi you have to help me →128 NS: con il mio italiano with my Italian 129 L: grazie thanks →130 NS: devi ancora capire il femminile e maskile you still have to understand feminine and masculine 131 L: si yes →132 NS: se parli di te if you’re talking about yourself →133 NS: gli aggettivi possessivi possessive adjectives →134 NS: sono sempre al maskile [sic!] are always masculine 135 L: lo so I know →136 NS: mio my →137 NS: mio italiano my Italian While the NS is right to observe that the learner has issues with gender devi ancora capire il femminile e maskile (‘you still have to understand feminine and masculine’: turn 130), his explanation at turns 132 to 134 is incorrect because in Italian, agreement is not with who possesses but with what is possessed. He also seems to have issues with understanding possessive adjective gender agreement when he states that gli aggettivi possessivi sono sempre al maskile (‘possessive adjectives are always masculine’) in turns 133 and 134. Despite appearing to agree with the NS (turns 131 and 135), this episode

156


did not impact negatively on the learner’s subsequent use of possessive adjectives in Italian, as later in the conversation (not reproduced here) she speaks of il mio ragazzo (‘my boyfriend’) (turn 159) and la mia classe (‘my class’) (turn 203), observing the correct grammatical rule. In Excerpt 23, the same NS also provides grammatical explanations when he corrects the learner’s use of anche (‘too’) in turn 67 earlier in the sequence: ho ricevuto il tuo anche. mi piacciono i tuoi capelli blu (-). (‘I received yours too. I like your blue hair! (-)’). The following correction occurs eighty-one turns after the problem utterance. EXCERPT 23 148 NS: quando usi una frase usando ‘anche . . . when you use a sentence using ‘anche . . . 149 NS: tu lo metti sempre alla fine come si usa in inglese you always put it at the end as they do in English 150 L: e non va bene in italiano . . . and it isn’t right in Italian . . . 151 NS: in italiano bisogna metterlo o all’inizio o primo del soggetto in Italian you have to put it at the beginning or before the subject 152 NS: esempio example 153 NS: anche a me piace studiare I like studying too 154 L: capisco, grazie I understand, thanks 155 NS: anche io vado al mare durante l’estate I too go to the beach during summer 156 NS: vedi?!? see?!? 157 L: si -(?) yes -(?) 158 L: sei di grande aiuto you’re a great help 159 NS: non ti preoccupare . . . no problems . . . 160 NS: se ti servisse per qualcosa una mano..chiedimi pure if you should need a hand for anything..do ask me 161 L: - (?) - (?)


157

In this case, the NS is able to take advantage of the textual format to scaffold the learner through the provision of two examples of correct uses of anche (‘too’) before pronouns for the learner to model. He does not provide a recast of the original problem utterance, as ho ricevuto anche il tuo, but prefers to provide other appropriate examples of anche before pronouns. However, while his examples are technically correct, the original utterance is comprehensible and not as inaccurate as indicated by the NS, especially given the greater flexibility of talk in allowing different positions for ‘anche’, especially after possessive pronouns, as in the original utterance by the learner in turn 67: ho ricevuto il tuo anche. (‘I received yours too. I like your blue hair! (-)’). This is especially true of online talk. However the NS appears to have some knowledge of English and he possibly interprets the learner’s use of anche as an English use, as in the use of ‘too’ at the end of sentences, or after pronouns. This NS provides a useful grammar lesson, but it could be argued that he is hypercorrecting the learner’s original utterance. There is therefore evidence here that NSs promote potentially useful metalingual talk when accounting for exposed correction. However, learner participants need to be reminded that explaining one’s own native language grammar is a complex task, which may require further reflection on examining chat transcripts, and possibly some input by instructors and other students in online and classroom discussion.

Native Speakers Orienting to Meaning and Disattending to Linguistic Expert Role Repairs are more prevalent in some dyads than others, depending on the type of relationship that is established between participants, who in some cases, have met online for the first time. Given the predominantly social focus of online chat, there are numerous NS-learner dyads who do not engage in any form of pedagogical repair work. Markee (2000) explains that the social imperative of maintaining intersubjectivity may at times take precedence over the achievement of language-learning goals, even in a language classroom. One manifestation of this phenomenon entails members avoiding initiating any repair work at all. (p. 164) While dyadic online chat is less risky than classroom work, where peers are listening to rather than reading exchanges, some dyads do not

158


engage in pedagogical repair work. These sessions have the following characteristics: a. The learner is highly proficient and does not encounter problems of understanding related to linguistic issues (only interpersonal issues are attended to); b. NS-learner dyads simply choose to focus on social interaction (sometimes even when the learner reveals he/she is learning Italian) ignoring formal linguistic errors. In Excerpt 25, taken from an online chat session where both characteristics (a & b) are present, the conversation never orients to language learning in both sessions analysed. The learner displays near native proficiency in Italian and participants are focused on social interaction. However, a pedagogical orientation by the learner results in the NS rejecting her proposed trajectory, which attempts to discuss issues relating to gender relations in Italy, as suggested in the assessment topics for the course. This is despite his having previously agreed to answer questions on Italian culture and society. This is the learner’s second attempt at discussing such issues with this NS. EXCERPT 25 101 L: la societa` italiana e` progressive per qanto riguarda le pari opportunita`? is Italian society progressive in regards to equal opportunity? 102 NS: abbastanza penso, dipenda di chi e` la persona e di che tipo di famiglia ha . . . enough I think, depends on who the person is and what kind of family he/she has . . . 103 L: In che senso? How do you mean? 104 NS: io non sono un fissato su di questo . . . I’m not obsessed by this . . . 105 L: OK allora, ovviamente non t va di parlarmi d questo argumento, anche se e` un argumento MOLTO importante!!! OK then, obviously you don’t feel like speaking about this topic, even if it’s a VERY important topic!!! 106 NS: tu lo stai prendendo? are you having it? 107 L: Cosa? What?


159

108 NS: il caffe`? a coffee? In turn 101, the learner asks a question about equal opportunity in Italy, and the NS responds with a second pair part answer (turn 102), though he provides an unclear answer which suggests that equal opportunity is up to the individual. The learner requests clarification and further elaboration in the form of a question in che senso? (‘how do you mean?’) which does not receive the expected second pair part answer but is responded to with a rejection of the trajectory io non sono un fissato su di questo . . . (‘I’m not obsessed by this . . .’). The learner reinforces the importance of her proffered conversational trajectory in response, but the NS subsequently changes topic successfully (turns 106–108), despite her insistence. Clearly, the NS is in this instance uninterested in ‘serious’ talk and prefers to orient the conversation towards less abstract discussions. It may be that gender relations are too sensitive a topic in this case. Discussions about the learner’s language are also oriented to as irrelevant in this dyad. While negotiations on sensitive topics are a useful learning exercise, mutual language learning partnerships are more likely to promote SLA through the initiation of various types of pedagogical repair sequences.

The Role of Emoticons Paralinguistic features such as emoticons have been documented by previous researchers of both foreign language (Negretti, 1999; Tudini, 2004) and L1 contexts (Golato & Taleghani-Nikazm, 2006; Schönfeldt & Golato, 2003), as important features of chat interaction which support online conversationalists who otherwise have no visual interaction. Golato and Taleghani-Nikazm’s (2006) study of negotiation of face in web chats between NSs suggests that emoticons are a mitigative strategy to ‘soften the imposition of the dispreferred action of making a request’ and a strategy ‘to express and intensify friendliness towards the co-participant’ (p. 317). Given the high number of emoticons around online pedagogical repair sequences in my data, they appear to constitute an important attendant activity which softens the dispreferred act of initiating repair, mainly in NSinitiated exposed correction sequences. Persistent requests for conversational assistance by the learner are also oriented to as dispreferred in this context. In the latter case, the humour imparted by emoticons makes light of the learner drawing attention to what could be construed as a lapse in

160


linguistic competence, and consequent loss of face. The use of emoticons therefore has an important role to play in allowing conversational repair to proceed so that intersubjectivity is maintained and SLA promoted.

Softening exposed corrections Emoticons are most frequently observed in exposed correction sequences, suggesting that they are used by NSs to maintain intersubjectivity when conducting the dispreferred act of other-repair. While the most commonly used emoticons in chat are a simple smiley - or sad face /, some chat softwares provide greater variety of images. This variety is reflected in the excerpts discussed in this study, to indicate the wide range of options and possible interactional nuances available to NSs and learners through emoticons. Emoticons in exposed correction sequences tend to occupy an entire turn, either in the turn preceding or subsequent to the correction. However, they may also occur in the same turn which contains the correction. In Excerpt 24, a winking face is used by the NS to express affiliation and friendliness towards the learner after correcting her. EXCERPT 24 51 L: ti piace cuocere? do you like cooking? 52 NS: si, mi piace yes, I like it 53 NS: a te? and you? 54 NS: si dice cucinare . . . you’re meant to say cucinare . . . In this case, the NS first answers the learner’s question ti piace cuocere? (‘do you like cooking?’), completing in turn 52 a question-answer adjacency pair which had been initiated by the learner in turn 51. He continues this trajectory in turn 53, before inserting his correction and winking smiling emoticon in turn 54. In Excerpt 26, a more elaborate use of emoticons is made in an exposed correction sequence. According to the chat interactions and the learner’s report, these participants have established a language learning partnership via Sharedtalk.

Mitigation and Play in Repair Sequences EXCERPT 26: 204 L: e stai facendo una corsa specializzata? and are you doing a specialized run? [meaning ‘course’] 205 NS: una corsa? a run? 206 NS: a ah 207 NS: una corsa è : a run ‘una corsa’ is: a run 208 NS: un corso a course 209 NS: si dice you’re meant to say 210 L: scusa. sorry 211 L: corso course 212 NS: niente no problem 213 L: mi dispiace I’m sorry 214 NS: scusa tu se rido ma era divertente I’m sorry if I laugh but it was amusing 215 L: 216 L:

don’t make fun of me !!

217 NS: a 218 L: mah!!!! well!!! 219 L: 220 NS: 221 NS: 222 L: 223 L: 224 L: 225 L:

ahahaha sei molto buffo you’re very funny not! not

161

162


After the learner asks her question about a specialized course in turn 204, using corsa (‘run’) though she means corso (‘course’), the NS follows up with a confirmation check una corsa? (‘a run?’), noting her error which is due to the assumption that course is feminine in Italian. The NS then proceeds in the next turn with an unaffiliative ‘laughing’ emoticon, followed by an explanation of what una corsa actually means. This is followed by the correct alternate un corso in turn 208 and the prototypical didactic accounting for correction si dice (‘you’re meant to say’) in turn 209. An apology by the learner follows in turn 210 (first pair part of apology adjacency pair), which usually projects a preferred mitigating response. She then proceeds to repeat the correct alternate in the next turn, (211). This suggests that she is keen to resolve the repair sequence clearly, given the prominence attributed to the error by the NS. The repairable item is also in an utterance which launches a first pair part question in the main conversational trajectory, hence it is interactionally significant for the conversation to proceed. In turn 212, the NS provides an appropriate second pair part answer niente (‘no problem’) to the learner’s earlier apology (turn 210). Then the learner apologizes again in turn 213, but this time the NS rejects the apology and offers a counter apology for his laughter, though he qualifies this with an observation that the error was funny. This provokes a reprimand in English on the part of the learner (‘don’t make fun of me’), together with a pleading emoticon in turn 215. She reinforces this with two exclamations in the subsequent turn. Then a series of emoticons expressing various social actions and emotions are displayed. First, the NS provokes the learner by using the same ‘laughing’ emoticon again in turn 217. The learner responds with an emoticon which expresses anger and the exclamation mah!!!! (‘well!!!!’) in turn 218. This changes to a ‘crying’ emoticon in turn 219 to express offence at the NS’ laughter. In turn 220, the NS responds with an emoticon which suggests observation and amazement at the learner’s tears; it is unclear. Then, the image of a flower is displayed by the NS in turn 221 as a conciliatory peace offering to the learner. The learner’s emoticon in the following turn (222) appears to notice the flower. She then expresses laughter in turn 223, suggesting that she is reconciled and finds the episode comical. This is reinforced by her statement sei molto buffo (‘you’re very funny’) in the subsequent turn. She then playfully revokes this statement in the final turn, by using the colloquial English not which is used to negate a previous statement. It is clear in Excerpt 26 that exposed correction is a delicate enough enterprise where there is differential language expertise without the addition of NS laughter tokens, including a laughing emoticon, which were


163

oriented to by both participants as a dispreferred action requiring further negotiation and a good dose of humour. Humour was provided successfully by a range of emoticons, a useful resource in the constraints of the online text environment, where paralinguistic resources are unavailable to participants.

Smiley face as preface or conclusion to exposed correction As noted in previous analyses, NS smiley faces often appear in the turn subsequent to the learner’s problem utterance, and prior to exposed correction, as in Excerpt 27. EXCERPT 27 125 L: grazie devo aiutare con la mia italiana thanks I [you intended]have to help with my Italian 126 NS: 127 NS: devi aiutarmi you have to help me 128 NS: con il mio italiano with my Italian 129 L: grazie thanks The NS smiley face following the problem item and prior to correction in this sequence may have a few possible functions: a. the NS is expressing pleasure at the learner’s confirmation of his tutor role; b. the NS is providing a space for the learner to self-repair; c. the NS is mitigating and prefacing a subsequent exposed correction. Excerpt 28 provides further evidence that the smiley face provides a type of affiliative, mitigating preface to a dispreferred exposed correction. EXCERPT 28 21 NS: do you are woman or men? are you a woman or a man 22 L: si si, so avere in passato, sono la donna yes, I know avere in the past, I’m the woman

164


23 NS: 䄗㩷䄗 24 NS: Sei simpatica come parli You’re nice the way you talk 25 NS: si dice: sono una donna you’re meant to say: I’m a woman 26 L: grazie, sono una donna. mi dispiace thank you, I’m a woman. I’m sorry. The smiley face in turn 23 is clearly used as a preface to exposed correction here because it is followed and reinforced by an ingratiating move by the NS in turn 24, a compliment on the way the learner talks. An exposed correction follows these actions. From the evidence available, it is possible that in some cases, the smiley face not only mitigates but could also provide a type of visual hesitation and/or a space for self-repair that would normally occur in face-to-face conversation, prior to dispreferred correction. The use of recording software which provides timer details would be able to ascertain whether this is so in further research on this topic.

Emoticons with clarification requests As discussed in the section on learners’ face work around other-initiated self-repair (this chapter), face-saving behaviours are also deployed by learners when they need to persist in requesting clarification regarding an item in NSs’ talk. Laughter and emoticons express affiliation and appreciation to make light of potentially embarrassing moments when the learner is unable to understand the NS. In Excerpt 29, the learner uses an emoticon at the conclusion of a repair sequence. EXCERPT 29 48 L: o non ho capito hahaha oh I don’t understand hahaha 49 L: aspetta wait 50 NS: sii yees 51 NS: costruisco case I build houses

Mitigation and Play in Repair Sequences 52 L: 53 L:

165

hahah ho capito adesso costruisci case hahah I understand now you build houses haha haha

54 L: Laughter is a regular component of this sequence (turns 48, 52, 53) and may express discomfort and/or attempts to make light of the learner’s persistence in seeking clarification. The ‘happy’ emoticon at the end of the sequence may express relief at understanding and resolution of the repair sequence, and contributes an element of humour.

Conclusion This chapter has identified various learning behaviours which may be evident prior to or around exposed correction sequences, and which orient to their dispreferredness. These include the following: z z z z

z

Learner establishes his/her foreigner/learner status within the NS chatline and with respect to the NS of the target language; Learner asks the NS to correct his/her online talk; NS requests permission to do correction; When doing correction, the NS mitigates dispreferred correction with various types of ‘attendant activities’ (Jefferson, 1987), including affiliative emoticons, accountings and compliments on the learner’s linguistic ability, either prior or subsequent to correction; Learner expresses appreciation and/or apologizes for mistake and/or repeats corrected item, if this is possible or interactionally relevant.

In the case of extended clarification requests, apologies, self-deprecation, humour (emoticons and laughter) and expressions of appreciation are deployed by learners to overcome loss of face due to the need to draw attention to lapses in linguistic competence. In summary, participants generally tend to ‘tread softly’ when dealing with exposed correction and persistent clarification requests in online chat. Learners’ ability to use preference organization as a resource to support their learning indicates that the online chat environment offers them learning opportunities in negotiation of repair. The co-construction of

166


pedagogical activities and form-focused interaction within a social form of interaction requires the use of accountings and other attendant activities (Jefferson, 1987) which are unique to intercultural online chat, but also mirror face-to-face processes. While this requires further systematic research, I would argue that learners not only acquire the specific ‘repairable’ and ‘pushed output’ which is the object of the sequence but the metalanguage and politeness formulas surrounding the correction.

Chapter 7

Insights from Unsuccessful Repair Sequences

Introduction Previous chapters have examined various repair trajectories which are co-constructed by NSs and learners in online intercultural chat. These often show evidence of input from the NS, and comprehended input and hypothesis testing by the learner. These episodes may or may not result in observable output, depending on whether participants orient to repetition of the candidate item as relevant. There is generally a tendency to attend to social, non-pedagogical conversational trajectories under way, as soon as possible after repair resolution, though some dyads dwell on the pedagogical, mirroring classroom processes which may include repetition of the corrected item. This chapter instead focuses on a repair sequence which is initiated by the learner, but which remains unresolved as the NS has difficulty identifying the trouble source, the modal particle mica (Coniglio, 2008), a polysemic negative intensifier which sometimes also provides a stronger substitution of non (not). Mica is also difficult to describe in dictionaries, which rely heavily on exemplification. The NS responds to the learner’s multiple repair initiations and clarification requests by reformulating the entire turn in which the repairable item is located, but is unable to explain it to the learner’s satisfaction. It is possible that in this case the SLA process does not go beyond stages 1 and 2 of Gass’ (1997) model, ‘input/apperceived input’ and ‘comprehended input’, where the learner notices a gap in her knowledge of mica but is apparently unable to process the NS’ input in a constructive way during the sequence. However, this is subject to interpretation, thanks to the polysemic possibilities offered by the trouble source mica. It is also possible to interpret a particular section of the online talk as a possible case of highly competent output but this is not absolutely clear. It illustrates the challenges encountered by non-expert NSs in explaining rather more elusive aspects of their native language grammar. Part of this sequence has

168


been discussed previously in Chapter 6, as it shows that persistent repair initiation through clarification requests by learners require strategies to avoid seeming impolite, especially when understanding is not achieved quickly.

When Mutual Understanding Fails In Excerpt 1, participants discuss cooking as the NS has revealed earlier in the conversation that he is a qualified chef. The conversation breaks down towards the end of the sequence, and participants decide to orient to interpersonal topics which pursue affiliation, abandoning the pedagogical trajectory which is pursued by the learner. EXCERPT 1: MICA 137 L: ma dimmi hai inventato qualche pasto? so tell me have you made up any dishes? 138 NS: mica solo 1! not just 1! 139 L: dimmi dimmi tell me more 140 L: o vuol dire che non hai inventato nessun piatto or does this mean you haven’t made up any dishes 141 NS: ricordati che la cucina e tutta una invenzione remember that cooking is all made up 142 L: mica e una parola che non capsisco mica is a word(f) that I don’t understand [could also be interpreted as: it’s not really a word that I don’t understand] 143 L: puoi spiegarmelo? can you explain it (m) to me? 144 NS: ok ok 145 NS: conosci la parola inventare do you know the expression make up 146 L: forse l’ho inventato maybe I’ve made it up 147 L: ma si of course 148 L: avanti go on


169

149 NS: che vuoi sapere qualche ricetta did you want to know some recipes perhaps 150 L: no solo il nome o gli ingredienti principali no only the name or the main ingredients 151 L: ma dicevo che non capsico ‘mica’ but I was saying that I don’t understand ‘mica’ 152 NS: allora hai detto tutto well then say no more 153 L: puoi spiegare l’uso di mica can you explain the use of mica 154 L: ? ? 155 NS: ok ok 156 NS: non ne ho inventato solo 1 tanti piatti ho inventato ok! I didn’t only make up 1 I’ve made up many dishes ok! 157 NS: questo significa this is what it means 158 NS: ??????? ?????? 159 L: ah ok oh ok 160 L: scusa scusa so sorry 161 L: ti dicevo che non capsico mica I was saying that I don’t understand mica [or: I was saying I don’t really understand] 162 L: hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha 163 NS: questo significa al posto di (solo) it means this in place of (only) 164 NS: ma che fai sfotti what are you doing pulling my leg 165 NS: 166 L:

sfotti? are you pulling my leg? [learner requests clarification] 167 NS: noooooo!!!!!!!!!! noooooo!!!!!!!!!!

170


168 NS: pensavo che lo stavi facendo tu! I thought you were doing it to me! 169 NS: non mi permetterei mai I wouldn’t dare 170 NS: e xche lo dovrei fare? and why should I do it 171 L: sono persa I’m lost 172 L: non capisco nulla I don’t understand anything 173 L: 174 NS: ok ok 175 NS: parlami un po’ di te! tell me a bit about yourself!

The sequence begins with a question-answer adjacency pair, where the NS responds to the learner’s question, with an answer which contains the trouble source: mica solo 1! with mica being used a strong negative in place of non. This is followed by topicalization by the learner dimmi dimmi (‘tell me more’), where the learner registers the NS’ response as news, not just information, projecting ‘the possibility of further talk about this news’ (Liddicoat, 2007, p. 164). The learner initiates repair on mica solo 1! in the subsequent turn (140), seeking clarification on what he means, suggesting that mica solo 1 could be interpreted as ‘not even 1’ dish. While this is an incorrect interpretation, it at least appears to recognize mica as expression of negation. As the learner has at this stage launched two adjacency pairs, topicalization and repair initiation, the NS responds only to one of these. Hence, the subsequent turn ricordati che la cucina è tutta una invenzione (turn 141: ‘remember that cooking is all made up’) is probably the NS’ response to dimmi dimmi (turn 139) and does not yet take account of the learner’s clarification request (repair initiation) in turn 140, possibly because his response is posted at about the same time as the learner’s turn, or simply because he responds to the first of the learner’s two first pair parts, in order of appearance on the screen at turns 139 and 140, rather than the more recent posting. However, the learner does not wait for the NS to respond to her initiation of repair on the NS’ turn containing mica, and follows this up with another repair initiation which indicates that she has located the specific source of her non-understanding, the particle mica, when she states


171

mica e una parola che non capsisco (‘mica is a word that I don’t understand’; turn 142). Because of the lack of prosody or symbols indicating emphasis, this statement could be interpreted in two ways: mica could either be part of global request ‘it’s not actually a word that I don’t understand’, which in a sense hides the trouble source or ‘mica is a word that I don’t understand’. Both of these repair initiations launch a pedagogical trajectory, but only the latter interpretation locates the trouble source. The pedagogical trajectory is reinforced by the learner’s more explicit request that the NS explain further in the next turn (143) puoi spiegarmelo. The learner’s use of the masculine pronoun lo instead of la to indicate the feminine parola (‘word’) may contribute to the NS’ interpretation of the trouble source at the turn level rather than as the single word mica. The NS responds to this request affirmatively in turn 144 ok , and in turn 145 with the question conosci la parola inventare (‘do you know the expression make up’), which is both a comprehension check (self-initiated other-repair) and a type of pre-telling (see Liddicoat, 2007, pp. 136–139) as it is preparatory talk to a long repair. These two turns (144 and 145) signal preparation for the NS’ attempt at repairing his original repairable utterance. In the subsequent three turns (146–148), the learner indicates that she understands inventare (‘make up’) and responds with an encouragement to go ahead (avanti), hence orienting to this talk as preparation for repair. The NS’ repair of the learner’s understanding of inventare, which is resolved confidently by the learner, who is not concerned by this particular word, and provides an example of use in turn 146 in response forse l’ho inventato (‘maybe I’ve made it up’). At this stage, it appears that the NS has not identified the trouble source. He has not dealt with mica; rather, he suggests that inventare may be part of the problem. He in fact initiates another repair che vuoi sapere qualche ricetta (‘did you want to know some recipes perhaps’)with the initial che, indicating his uncertainty about what the learner wants clarified and launching a return to a nonpedagogical trajectory with a first pair part question, on the topic of food. The learner provides the second pair part of this adjacency pair and repairs the NS’ suggested trajectory, indicating that she only needs il nome o gli ingredienti principali (‘the name or the main ingredients’). She then repairs her own repair initiation as she relaunches the pedagogical trajectory with a request for explanation of mica (151), this time with quotation marks, avoiding confusion with other possible repairables. Hence, the learner has at this stage launched two trajectories. The NS then posts an answer allora hai detto tutto (turn 152: ‘well then say no more’) either to the information on recipes (turns 149–150) or the contiguous request for explanation of mica (turn 151). Given that adjacency pairs are not necessarily contiguous in online chat, the NS is most likely continuing the non-pedagogical, recipe trajectory

172


he initiated. In either case, the colloquial expression hai detto tutto implies that the co-participant does not need to speak further and that the current speaker is about to take the floor (a potential tellable). He is however unable to pursue this trajectory, as the learner expands her just posted request for clarification, insisting that the NS explain l’uso di mica (‘the use of mica’) in turn 153. In this case, the NS may have posted his preface between the learner’s turns 151 and 153, which were possibly intended to be contiguous. The question mark that follows (turn 154) indicates that there is a pause in the talk, and that the learner insists on an explanation. The NS agrees to this request in turn 155 with the response ok, which indicates that he is preparing for repair. He proceeds with an accurate reformulation of the original candidate item, mica solo 1! (‘not just 1’), as non ne ho inventato solo 1 tanti piatti ho inventato ok! (‘I didn’t only make up 1 I’ve made up many dishes ok!’), though he chooses to expand the entire original turn rather than explain the single word. The NS’ peremptory use of ok with an exclamation mark at the end of this reformulation suggests impatience and a desire to close the mica trajectory. This attempt at closure is further reinforced by questo significa (‘this is what it means’), but then the NS seeks the learner’s collaboration with his multiple question marks in the subsequent turn, to ensure that she has understood. The learner accepts the NS’ reformulation in turn 159 with ah ok which also suggests possible closure of the repair sequence on mica. She then apologizes in turn 160, repeating scusa (‘sorry’) twice. Her next turn (161), another apparent repair initiation on mica, appears therefore to be inappropriate after the strong apology, which may foreshadow her redoing a clarification request. It is her fourth repair initiation on this topic and is subject to a few interpretations: 1. The NS’ reformulation is unsatisfactory, and the learner requires a formal grammatical explanation; 2. The learner has not yet understood how to use mica at this stage, despite the clearer reformulation by the NS; 3. The learner has understood mica and actually has just used mica correctly herself, suggesting that she is playing with the double meaning of her statement: which could either mean that she has not understood the word ‘mica’ or she has not really understood in general. If (1) or (2) were true, it would appear that the learner has not reached the stage of ‘comprehended input’. If interpretation (3) were the case, the learner would appear to have processed how to use mica and produced an observable case of output, as per Gass’ (1997) model of SLA processes. The extended laughter tokens which follow this statement could support


173

either interpretation. They could be intended to express awkwardness and mitigation of her display of non-understanding despite the NS’ attempt to support her. Or, they could express humour to signal that she is in fact competently playing with the double meaning of mica. The NS interprets her talk in turn 161 as a further request for clarification on mica initially, and responds to it as such, attempting a further approximate explanation of the meaning of mica in turn 163 questo significa al posto di (solo) (‘it means this in place of (only)’). He follows this in turn 164 with what appears to be a slightly hostile response to the laughter ma che fai sfotti (‘what are you doing pulling my leg’), an attempt to repair the laughter, suggesting that the learner is in fact teasing him. He reinforces this interpretation with the angry emoticon in turn 165. This response by the NS clearly orients to the learner’s prior talk as a mock clarification request, in keeping with interpretation (3) above. By turn 166, the learner expresses probable genuine non-understanding of sfotti, which becomes a new trouble source in the conversation. She seeks clarification and other-initiates repair in a prototypical fashion, by repeating the problem item with a question mark. The NS’ response noooooo!!!!!!!!!! indicates that he has not understood the learner’s repair initiation as a pedagogical clarification request on sfotti. He orients to her utterance as criticism, as the learner checking if he is teasing, not as a request for clarification of an unknown word. He thus does not follow the pedagogical trajectory launched by the learner and explains why he is not teasing in turns 168 to 170. This is not the response the learner expected and informs the NS of her non-understanding sono persa (‘I’m lost’; turn 171) and non capisco nulla (‘I don’t understand anything’; turn 172), which is reinforced by a comical sad emoticon in turn 173. Rather than repairing the misunderstanding, the NS closes the pedagogical trajectory which the learner has pursued on both mica and then sfotti in turn 174, and changes topic, orienting to interpersonal social conversation parlami un po’ di te! (‘tell me a bit about yourself!’) in turn 175. The line-by-line analysis of the mica sequence indicates that despite the learner’s repeated initiation of repair on the same item, the NS and learner have difficulty dealing collaboratively with the trouble source mica, an intensifier of non, which can acquire subtle multiple meanings according to context and intonation. In the online chat context, intonation needs to be reflected textually and is not always attended to, with participants often relying on the syntax of utterances for understanding. Mica can also be used without non as a self-standing negative, as in the NS’ first use of the term. The NS is unable to help the learner understand mica initially because he himself misunderstands the question and doesn’t realize that mica is

174


the trouble source, since it appears to be a reinforcement of the learner’s question. The learner insists nonetheless, with the one-to-one conversation allowing her to engage constantly with the NS. Such persistence would be uncommon in a classroom environment, where non-understanding by learners may not be declared to the language teacher, due to the need to adhere to a classroom turn-taking system. In dyadic online chat, conversation is private and allows persevering language students to pursue understanding without competition for the expert’s attention. It is unclear from the learner’s use of mica and follow-up laughter tokens in turns 161 to 162 whether she has integrated mica into her repertoire, to the point where she is able to produce a pun. This is however a possibility, given the learner’s apparent linguistic inquisitiveness and proficiency in the target language. Difficulties with mica, a problem of non-understanding and competing pedagogical and social trajectories, lead to a problem of misunderstanding when the learner requests clarification of sfotti and the NS takes this literally, despite the prototypical online clarification request format used by the learner. This repair is not resolved but leads to NS topic change when the learner expresses despair at not understanding (turns 171–173). It is possible that the NS does not have the foreign language learning experience which gives intercultural speakers an advantage in metalinguistic discussions. It is therefore worth comparing this with another sequence where mica is again the trouble source. The same word initially caused problems in the following exchange between an NS and learner of Italian though in this case the NS was a learner of English, hence the partnership had been set up for mutual language learning. The NS in this case had no difficulty explaining mica which is used as a strong negative, not dissimilarly from its first use in Excerpt 1. But unlike Excerpt 1, where social and pedagogical trajectories are often launched in contiguous turns by the same participant, the NS and learner here only deal with a single pedagogical trajectory, and appear to share the same understanding of the action under way. EXCERPT 2 (simone) 100 NS: impari in fretta! mica come me you learn quickly! not at all like me 101 L: mica? 102 NS: mica/non mica/not 103 L: okies 104 NS: it’s another mode to say ‘non come me’ it’s another mode to say ‘not like me’


175

105 NS: ‘mica come me’ ‘not at all like me’ 106 L: cool! grazie cool! thank you 107 NS: eh eh! Almeno sono utile a qualcosa Huh! At least I’m useful for something Excerpt 2 begins with the NS’ commenting on the learner’s ability to learn quickly. In turn 101, the learner identifies mica as a trouble source in his statement and uses a prototypical clarification request strategy where she other-initiates repair and expects the NS to self-repair. This requires simple repetition of the problem item followed by a question mark, mirroring faceto-face processes where intonation would perform the same task. Without apparent hesitation, the NS responds by repeating mica with a forward slash and non to indicate that these two words are synonyms. Even though the NS does not explain the ‘intensifying’ nature of mica when compared to non, the learner appears to understand this explanation, as she accepts it and appears ready to close the discussion with okies, a diminutive of O.K. The NS however provides further explanation and exemplification of the synonymous use of mica and non, possibly because he hasn’t yet seen the learner’s acceptance, as turns are written and posted at different times. The learner again accepts and expresses appreciation for the NS’ efforts in turn 106 cool! grazie, thus ratifying his role as expert in Italian language . The NS also expresses his pleasure at being helpful to the learner in the final turn of this sequence. There is no evidence here of output by the learner, only acceptance and appreciation, with the NS providing repetition of the trouble source turn. There is however evidence of stages 1 and 2 of Gass’ (1997) SLA process, that is, input/apperceived input and comprehended input. Stages 3, 4 and 5, the latter being the most observable in online talk, are not apparent here, despite collaborative resolution of the repair sequence. Repetition by the learner is not made relevant here by either participant, and the conversation returns to the original social trajectory.

Conclusion The mica case in Excerpt 1 provides evidence that despite the advantages of dyadic interaction within a visually salient conversation, with no competition from other learners for the expert’s attention, the learner has initially not understood the NS’ attempts at clarifying his native language grammar, and may not have learnt how to use mica from this episode. Thus, the NS

176


changes topic rather than solving the problem, despite persistent and competent learner requests for a satisfactory resolution, that is, an understanding of what mica means and how it is used, for integration in her own repertoire. It is possible that the prosody and facial expression available in face-to-face conversation would have been of assistance in avoiding misunderstanding as it may have been possible to distinguish between mica in use and mica as identified trouble source. This is also the case in the misunderstanding with sfotti? where different intonations would have been provided according to whether the question was a pedagogical clarification request or a question regarding the NS’ behaviour. The NS’ interpretation of the learner’s question as the latter rather than the former also suggests that he is not familiar with the clarification request format used by foreign language learners in online chat and/or that he sees the learner’s question as a type of overlap with his own question ma che fai sfotti, given the different turn-taking possibilities of online chat, which involve dual processes of writing and posting each turn. The NS in Excerpt 2 seems to handle the learner’s clarification request competently but neither participant orients to the need for the learner to exhibit her understanding and use of mica. An acknowledgement of understanding seems to suffice, as is common in the data. In Excerpt 1, SLA as observed through learner output is not clear, due to the double meaning conferred by mica and the NS’ response to the learner’s final (fourth) clarification request/declaration of non-understanding. I would however suggest that the learning possibilities in Excerpt 1 are far greater than in Excerpt 2, as they are oriented to as significant by participants, and likely to promote follow-up activity by the learner.

Chapter 8

Implications for SLA Research and Language Teaching

Introduction This chapter discusses key findings of previous chapters and their implications for both SLA research and the teaching and learning of foreign languages. Further systematic research focussed on specific online repair trajectories identified in the analysis is required to gain a deeper understanding of how NSs and learners purposely design naturalistic online talkin-interaction and orient conversation to learning. The discussion therefore considers 1. productive repair trajectories; 2. visual saliency and multimodality of online chat as conversational scaffold; 3. intercultural pragmatics in online chat.

Productive Repair Trajectories in Online Intercultural Chat This study set out to explore learning behaviours of NS-learner dyads during online talk-in-interaction, and how these promote SLA. Focussing on repair trajectories, the analysis has provided evidence that language learners engage in a range of strategies to initiate repair and promote the provision of comprehensible input by NSs. Repair is managed within the constraints of a unique turn-taking system which often requires learners to mentally reconstruct split adjacency pairs and make sense of non-contiguous first and second pair parts in the target language. Various repair trajectories are visible in metalinguistic exchanges which promote apperceived input, comprehended input and sometimes visible pushed output. Those that are oriented to by learners as most salient from an interactional point of view

178


include exposed correction by NSs and other-initiated self-repair, where learners initiate repair on trouble sources in NSs’ talk. Self-initiated otherrepair trajectories, where the learner initiates repair on his/her own talk, for resolution by the NS, have also been identified as productive for second language acquisition. The frequency of these learning episodes suggests that these are construed as crucial learning devices by both learner and NS participants, who may be either monolingual or experienced language learners. The implications of key pedagogical repair trajectories for SLA are discussed here.

Exposed correction for learning Repetition of correct alternates Analysis has indicated that pedagogical exposed correction frequently consists of recasts or reformulations by NSs which may be accompanied by accountings and other ‘attendant activities’(Jefferson, 1987) of a metalinguistic and didactic nature. Though learners frequently encourage, express appreciation and acknowledge the NS’ role in providing correction, from an interactional point of view it is often not appropriate or possible for them to repeat the correct alternate, as occurs in face-to-face L1 and L2 settings. While this would display observable pushed output to the language teacher and SLA researcher, other conversational matters often take priority over completion of the repairable-correction-acknowledgement/repetition sequence. Analysis has shown that social trajectories may be launched in the same turn or in the turn following the recast, hence prototypical correction sequences may be ‘cut off’ by the NS, or even the learner at times. This suggests that participants may choose to orient to the interactional insignificance of repairables, which are often errors of syntax and grammar and do not interfere with understanding. By launching social actions after recasts and the doing of correction, participants may force a return to the social trajectory. These social actions force a return to topical talk and may consist of completion or initiation of an adjacency pair. NSs may sometimes also choose to overlook minor grammatical errors to pursue social actions, despite learners’ encouragements to correct. On the other hand, if the NS provides a space for the learner to respond to his/her correction, acknowledgments, expressions of appreciation, affiliative emoticons and repetition of the correct alternate may be observed, to provide closure to the sequence, as observed in Chapter 6.


179

Different findings are possible if analysis focuses systematically on sessions which are meaning-oriented. Many repairables which provoke othercorrection have the potential to impact on the meaning of conversation, and to alter the main trajectory. This is less likely with form and accuracy corrections discussed in this text, which leave the main interactional trajectory intact, and may thus be ignored at times. For example, there is evidence to suggest that learners are more likely to repeat a correct alternate if the repairable item is in an utterance which launches the first pair part of an adjacency pair (see Excerpt 15, Chapter 5 fai qualche sport? or Excerpt 26, Chapter 6 e stai facendo una corsa specializzata?). This requires further systematic evaluation in a focused study as it has implications for SLA in naturalistic environments. The pedagogical trajectory is sometimes oriented to as secondary, sometimes primary, also depending on how relationships are set up. Dyads which have been set up as language learning partnerships are more likely to promote exposed correction though this behaviour is not exclusive to this configuration of partners. Visual saliency (Pellettieri, 2000) is also likely to be a factor in determining whether learners repeat correct alternates. Visibility of NSs’ recasts may allow learners to grasp the correction without the need for repetition, which allows them to move onto the main business of conversation. One limitation of this study is that the analysis is based on chat transcripts, with no access to learners’ voices as they chat. The introduction of a microphone to record any sottovoce rehearsals which might occur as they chat would provide a much richer talk for analysis. For example, voice recordings would indicate whether learners are repeating and noticing candidate items though the transcripts do not reveal this. In Markee’s (2008) study, there is evidence of ‘sottovoce’ rehearsal of candidate items which are being learned by participants (p. 419). A future project could probe whether learners are repeating correct alternates sottovoce, even though they are not writing them in the chat session. Another area to probe further is the use of chat software which shows utterances in progress and timer details, such that both participants and researchers are aware of what is being typed prior to posting of turns, and the timing of postings. From the evidence available, it is possible that in some cases, the smiley face not only mitigates but could also provide a type of visual hesitation (online silence) and/or a transition space for self-repair (transition space repair) that would normally occur in face-to-face conversation, prior to dispreferred correction. The use of recording software which provides timer details would be able to ascertain whether this is so

180


in further research on this topic. Visibility of utterances in progress may also increase the synchronousness of online conversation and impact on turn-taking and the construction of adjacency pairs. How this impacts on ease of use and SLA remains to be seen.

Embedded correction and pushed output As noted in Chapter 5, embedded correction as described by Jefferson (1987) is not commonly used for pedagogical repair in my data, possibly because of its inability to clearly draw attention to issues of form and accuracy. Analysis has however identified the tendency for NSs to engage in exposed correction ‘on the fly’, within the same turn which continues or launches an interpersonal trajectory, disallowing any further comment or ‘accountings’ (Jefferson, 1987) which typify exposed correction. SLA researchers may wonder whether these corrections have any impact at all, given the interactional low priority accorded by participants. We have however also noted learners’ embedding of correct alternate versions of problematic items into their talk, at a stage when they are no longer part of a pedagogical repair routine (see Excerpt 12 pianeta sequence in Chapter 4 and Excerpt 12 foto sequence in Chapter 5). In the latter case, there is evidence of learner uptake in an embedded way, after exposed ‘on the fly’ correction, because it is relevant to topical conversation. Given their relevance to the construct of ‘pushed output’ and evidence of SLA in naturalistic environments, embedded repair patterns in online intercultural chat may therefore warrant further attention in future research which identifies various combinations of exposed and embedded repair trajectories which include embedded pushed output. A longitudinal approach may be required to track whether learners notice correct alternates across chat sessions, showing apperceived input, and incorporate them meaningfully into their interactional repertoires.

Learner orientations to online exposed correction and metalingual talk In my data, it is clear that learners frequently orient to NS correction as a beneficial learning activity during online interaction. They also highlight correction sequences on their transcripts (e.g. Excerpt 2, Chapter 3) and often comment on them in their reports. Grammatical form-focused discussions are likely to foster learners’ metalinguistic awareness and knowledge of the language of grammatical talk in the target language, especially where


181

only the target language is used. The advantages of maintaining use of the target language rather than code-switching to English during metalinguistic talk require further investigation, as analysis in Chapter 4 suggested that learners produced pushed output both as part of and in conclusion to word search trajectories where only the target language was used. Analysis of the impresa sequence discussed in Chapter 5 section ‘The Significance of Vocabulary: Native Speakers Ensuring Understanding of Social Status Through Extended Other-Repair . . .’ section . . .) however illustrates the importance of code-switching to assist learners to resolve more complex repair sequences. So while it is therefore important that learners be made aware of possible limitations of NSs’ ability to explain their native language grammar, they are worthwhile experiences for language learners. As described in Chapter 6, grammatical explanations by NSs indicate that while these provide useful modelling and exemplification of target language structures for learners, description of grammatical principles may sometimes be incorrect and should not be seen as the main objective of online chat. Incorrect explanations, when they occur, may not be noticed by the learner, who generally orients to the NS as an authority in the target language. Learners may in fact not have the grammatical resources or the inclination to contest the NS, as this would be seen as unaffiliative and would require further negotiation, risk-taking and possible further loss of face. The inaccurate explanations also highlight the importance of language teacher training in the target language or experience in learning a foreign language. Being an NS is sometimes not enough, especially where satisfactory grammatical explanations are pursued by adult language learners, such as the learner of the mica sequence (Chapter 7) who expected the NS to provide expert advice on mica, a difficult word to explain without grammatical rather than lexical knowledge of the target language. In this case, the pedagogical trajectory proposed by the learner was not fully understood by the NS, who attempted only a reformulation of the turn which contained the trouble source. NSs of Italian who were also learners of English appeared to be less likely to make these types of errors (see Excerpt 1, this chapter), possibly due to their experience in learning a foreign language, which is an advantage when metalinguistic talk is required. Though metalingual talk may sometimes be a useful dimension of exposed correction sequences, they are not the most important aspect of online intercultural chat. The opportunities for hypothesis testing (Elliott, 1981), focus-on-form in an authentic social context (Doughty & Long, 2003; Long & Robinson, 1998), textual co-construction and revision of

182


target language conversation, and the establishment of language learning partnerships or friendships are equally as important, both in terms of SLA and opportunities for life-long learning. They do however provide an opportunity to stimulate further metalinguistic discussion on authentic language as a follow-up activity in the classroom, during the assessment process, or in online forums. Finally, exposed correction is one of the most frequent and most visibly productive trajectories for SLA in the data, especially if the learner indicates that the corrected item has been incorporated into his/her interactional repertoire. Correction activities in online chat are easily promoted by the language teacher as part of the conversational task. In any case, learners do not appear to require encouragement, as the data indicate that both learners and NSs assume form and accuracy correction sequences to be a useful learning activity. This is possibly because these sequences mirror behaviours which they have either learned in the language classroom or are transferred to the intercultural chat context from their first language. There are however other repair trajectories which are just as productive from an SLA perspective.

Other-initiated self-repair for learning Pushed output when learners initiate repair on native speaker talk Analysis in Chapter 4 has identified another key repair trajectory which learners orient to frequently for language learning online, namely, the otherinitiated (L) self-repair (NS) trajectory, where learners other-initiate repair on an unknown word or expression in NS talk, which constitutes a potential problem in understanding. Learners generally request clarification as a matter of course if they are unable to understand the NS and have the linguistic resources to seek assistance. Beginner learners may need to be provided with these basic tools for conversational SLA if they are not already part of the language program. The online dyadic context may provide opportunities to develop classroom discourse which may be tested in the classroom or during interaction with other learners. Notably, these sequences provide apparent evidence of comprehended input, as learners declare their understanding without repeating candidate items. Repetition is not relevant in these sequences, unless learners need to use them and embed them in the talk. Longitudinal evidence would be required to ascertain whether candidate items are used at a later stage of conversation, providing evidence of integration into the learner’s repertoire through pushed output. Learner reports on their online learning may be of assistance here.


183

Pushed output when native speakers initiate repair on learner talk Pushed output is however evident where NSs request clarification or initiate repair on learners’ non-target utterances which they do not understand (e.g. Excerpts 28 and 29, Chapter 4). Usually, entire turns are involved here and require reformulation by the learner until understanding is achieved. Unlike form and accuracy correction sequences, where understanding is frequently not affected, in this case the NS is unable to provide a recast, thus pushing the learner into the production of alternate, usually more target-like utterances which the NS can understand. These sequences appear to be especially productive for SLA, and of interest to the SLA researcher, though they sometimes require the learner to draw upon target language structures which are quite different from the original trouble source in order to get the message across. They are however worth probing further because they produce authentic problems of understanding in a social setting, rather than being induced through task design. Further research into how different proficiency levels of learners impact on pushed output through other-initiated (NS) self-repair (L) sequences is however required. Learners’ ability to identify these episodes as important for SLA would be worth fostering so that they regularly seek to achieve more target-like utterances which reflect the original repairables’ structure more closely.

Avoiding recasts Where mutual language learning and inter-institutional arrangements are in place, NSs may also be encouraged to advise learners when their language is non-target-like (initiate other-repair) without immediately recasting, allowing self-repair and pushed output to occur, as described in the previous section. This may lead to more instances of learners resolving such sequences themselves and providing correct alternates than would normally occur. However, as NSs may in these cases know what the correct alternate is, this would resemble a classroom repair pattern (IRF) described by Hall (2007): Findings reveal classroom interaction to be comprised primarily of a specialized teacher-led sequence of three actions: a teacher-initiated known-answer question, a student response to that question, and teacher feedback on the sufficiency or correctness of the response (initiation– response–feedback, or IRF). The central task of the IRF is instructional. The elicitation of student responses with known-answer questions allows

184


teachers to determine if the students know the material, and how well. The feedback serves to evaluate the responses, and when necessary, to remediate knowledge deemed inaccurate or insufficient. (p. 516) The introduction of NS-initiated ‘known-answer questions’ would reduce the authenticity of online conversations and may in fact be unachievable in social conversation, but this requires further testing within established online language learning partnerships. Such interaction patterns may however be best left up to the instructor, and online chat be seen as a complementary authentic social repair pattern. Nonetheless, analysis of Excerpt 26 in Chapter 4, on LOL suggested that that NSs of Italian are able to promote SLA by initiating repair on trouble sources in which the learners of Italian have some form of expertise, especially when they are forced to reformulate or explain in the target language. There may be potential for further exploration of this repair trajectory in projects where cultural diversity is explored through online discussion which requires participants to invoke one another’s expertise in a specific aspect of their native language and culture.

Self-initiated other-repair Native speaker as ‘sounding board’ Pushed output as a result of self-initiated other-repair trajectories is evident where the learner seeks NS linguistic and interactional assistance in regard to his/her own target language expression. The pianeta sequence (Excerpt 12, Chapter 4) provides evidence of the correct alternate form being used within the same conversation, in embedded form, after the learner has noticed that in her version of pianeta the definite article is feminine, whereas in the NS’ version it is masculine. A form of lexical trymarking or word search was also observed, where the repair is initiated by the learner and resolved by the NS, as in the case of sapientone (Excerpt 18, Chapter 4). Where the try-marking actions produce utterances which are not comprehensible to the NS, the NS sometimes indicates this and provides a counter repair, which forces the learner to reformulate his/her original expression to achieve understanding, as in the sono andata sopra example (Excerpt 19, Chapter 4). While this is not strictly repaired and resolved by the NS, it is not a self-initiated self-repair either, as the learner is using the NS’ response to achieve a target formulation. These types of repair sequences show visible pushed output achieved with the collaboration of the NS, who becomes a type of ‘sounding-board’ for the learner to


185

engage in hypothesis testing (Elliott, 1981) and collaboratively produced pushed output. In my data, these types of learning behaviours are not common to all dyads. In fact, they tend to characterize only the sessions of specific language learners, with various levels of linguistic proficiency. Try-marking requires a degree of risk-taking as the learners are exposing themselves to possible ridicule when using language they are unsure of, especially where the textual format makes experimental non-target utterances available for scrutiny by the NSs. Language teachers may in fact need to encourage learners to try-mark when conducting word searches and self-initiate otherrepair of utterances which they suspect are incorrect, as it appears to promote pushed output and SLA, at least in the short-term. Given the interchangeable status of participants as both novices and experts, language learning partnerships are likely to be conducive to such linguistic experimentation though this requires further investigation. Future research also needs to probe whether embedded pushed output is more likely if the learner initiates repair. For example, in the case of word searches, the repair is initiated because the learner needs a particular word or expression to be able to proceed with the conversation within the interpersonal realm. He/she is therefore likely to use it and repeat it in an interactionally meaningful way (e.g. sapientone, Excerpt 18, Chapter 4) once repair resolution is achieved. Repairables and trouble sources This study has identified the need for future analysis to distinguish between differing participant orientations to repairables and trouble sources. The differing participant orientations to triggers of repair also has implications for the distinction between repairables and trouble sources, which needs to be reflected in future analyses, as suggested in Hall’s (2000) distinction between instructional correction and CA repair. Microlinguistic, even pragmatic errors such as forms of address, can be dealt with cursorily ‘on the fly’, not some lexical problems. For example, we have seen that understanding what a person does for a living sometimes goes beyond lexical issues and becomes an issue of social status, identity and face, which may be oriented to as a trouble source requiring full understanding, as in the geometra disegnatore (‘building surveyor’) sequence (Excerpt 17, Chapter 5) (and the section Significance of vocabulary: native speaker ensuring understanding of social status through extended other-repair on the vocabulary of occupations in Chapter 5). This is also the case in opening sequences, when learners do not identify their gender correctly, due to a grammatical

186


mistake, which also becomes a major trouble source from a social point of view (see sono un australiano, Excerpt 9 in Chapter 5). In this case, incorrect gender marking becomes a significant identity issue during introduction sequences, as participants are keen to know whether they are interacting with male or female interlocutors. They will in these cases other-initiate repair sequences for resolution by the learner (other-initiated self-repair). The mica sequence in Chapter 7 is also difficult to classify as a lexical or grammatical repair activity, in view of the learner’s pursuit of systemic understanding of an unfamiliar word. These examples indicate that the categorization of triggers of repair, as foreshadowed in Chapter 2, Section Triggers of conversational repair: what do native speaker and learner participants repair in chat? is a complex task in CA for SLA, as participants may occasionally orient to repairables and trouble sources in different ways. This reflects the nature of talk-in-interaction, which often evades categorization. Markee (2000) adapts Anderson and Lynch’s (1988; cited by Markee, 2000) notion that comprehension in talk-in-interaction involves the interplay and deployment of various types of knowledge, namely, schematic, interactional, systemic and lexical knowledge (pp. 65–67). This contributes to the frequent blurring of distinctions between types of knowledge oriented to as relevant to participants in online chat. For example, Markee (2000) notes the blurring of the distinction between systemic and lexical knowledge in the interactions of a learner of English and her interlocutors in a language classroom (p. 133). Further participant-relevant analyses are likely to yield insights into what matters to participants in the co-construction of online intercultural talk on a moment-by-moment basis, as this is an under-researched area. This may also have potential for the analysis of face-to-face NS-learner repair and SLA.

Face-work and repair The collaborative ‘preliminaries’ to exposed correction described in Chapter 6 are not mentioned in Hosoda’s (2006) study of face-to-face repair within NS-learner conversations, as exposed correction was not a feature. Differential language expertise was only made relevant when repair was invited by the learner on a specific item or when there were problems in achieving mutual understanding. Furthermore, the NSs in Hosoda’s study were also able to provide more opportunities for the NNSs of Japanese to self-correct. While other-initiated self-repair is present in my data, it is just as common for NSs to initiate and complete the repair themselves rather


187

than leaving it up to the learner, if they believe that they understand what the learner means to say. And by ‘authorizing’ NSs to do exposed corrections, learners appear to relinquish responsibility and the usual space for self-correction which is likely to be provided in face-to-face conversations. Anonymity and lack of co-presence which are characteristics of the online chat environment may be a factor in emboldening NSs to do correction themselves rather than allowing learners to self-correct once correction is initiated. Learners may also be less likely to be embarrassed by exposed correction in such an environment. According to Graham (2008), as the online setting ‘lessened feeling of responsibility for one’s words’ (p. 287), a set of guidelines on Netiquette early in the development of computer communication helped ‘codify the expectations of appropriate behaviour in an electronic arena’ (p. 286). In particular, A prevailing assumption in the early days of Netiquette was that, in a setting where people couldn’t see their interlocutors and had no investment in them as people, they would not feel a particular compulsion to work to protect others’ face. (pp. 286–287) However, analysis in Chapter 6 has indicated that despite their anonymity and lack of co-presence, many NSs and learners regularly engage in facesaving strategies as part of their form-focused behaviours. It is possible therefore that, as proposed by Joinson (2001), the anonymity of text chat is more likely to promote self-disclosure or the desire to narrate one’s personal experiences and ideas in monolingual dyadic settings, regardless of whether interlocutors have just met or have a longer term relationship (pp. 188–189). The dyadic anonymous setting may in part explain some of the dispreferred exposed corrections, including the candid but polite discussions around the sensitive topic of language learning abilities in the intercultural setting of this study. It may be however that mutual language learning partners are in fact more likely to orient to pedagogical repair and metalingual discussion as a ‘vehicle for socialization’ (Schegloff et al., 1977, p. 381), and may require less face work once established, unlike the newly established relationships explored in this study. This study confirms Lauerbach’s (1982) study on the relationship between face-work and repair, in which NSs’ other-repairs of learners’ foreign language communication problems triggered an increase in face-work both by the learner and NS. Conversationalists in online chat use the same conversational repair strategies available in face-to-face interaction, but the lack

188


of paralinguistic features and intonation requires additional hedging, use of affiliative emoticons and other attendant activities. Emoticons and reassurances from the NS and expressions of gratitude from the learner appear to have an important function in mitigating other repair, maintaining face (Goffman, 1967; Kasper, 1985) and allowing the conversation to proceed.

Follow-up classroom work for data-driven language learning Language learners may benefit from classroom and online discussion of their own transcripts under the guidance of the instructor, in a type of online conversational data-driven language learning (Belz & Vyatkina, 2005). If using such an approach, language learners may benefit from a brief introduction to conversational repair so that they may become aware of and experiment with learning behaviours other than correction, either in online or face-to-face conversation. While there are advantages to out-ofclass chatting to students, feedback in the classroom or in online forums is highly recommended. The use of chat transcripts as follow-up work on SLA develops learners’ interactional competence as it permits the instructor to highlight issues both in successful and unsuccessful repair sequences. These episodes are ideally delucidated in the classroom or online for all students, especially as lack of success at understanding is not necessarily the fault of the learner but sometimes a consequence of interacting with non-expert NSs, as commonly occurs in naturalistic informal contexts. Introduction of transcripts in the classroom, after the assessment process has been completed and with the permission of the student participant proves to be highly motivating, partly due to ‘psychological reality’ of sessions for participants (Potter and te Molder, 2005, p. 20; cited by Markee, 2008, p. 407). Data-driven language learning also appears to have potential for the development of pragmatic competence, as described by Belz and Vyatkina (2005) in their description of a pedagogical intervention on German modal particles in synchronous and asynchronous electronic discourse. Given the problematic nature of the polysemic Italian modal particle ‘mica’ (Coniglio, 2008) for learners of Italian, the ‘mica’ episodes discussed in Chapter 7 have potential for pedagogical intervention along the lines of the Belz and Vyatkina (2005) study. This use of online chat is worthy of further exploration in online SLA research, especially since this would also motivate and empower learners to become reflective analysts of their own SLA.


189

Visual Saliency and Multimodality as Conversational Scaffold Despite the constraints of its unique turn-taking system and written format, this study has indicated that online chat has potential as an instructional tool to promote SLA. Though conversation is slowed down by typing, posting and reading of turns, its readability and visual saliency scaffold the language learner and encourage apperceived input of various aspects of the target language apart from listening comprehension and pronunciation. The textual and multimodal format contributes to the instructional capacities of chat, which include the following repair activities in my data: 1. NS exemplification and modelling of correct use to support lexical and grammatical explanations; 2. Learner ‘noticing’ of linguistic gaps through NS intervention on grammatical errors; 3. on the spot illustration of cultural artefacts and traditions through photos and hyperlinks, including film clips. These activities indicate that while online chat is a new form of written ‘talk’ with its own constraints, the written and hypertextual format provides numerous unique possibilities for SLA and intercultural learning, which are put to good use by participants in this study, but could be developed further in future projects.

NS exemplification and modelling of correct use to support lexical and grammatical explanations NSs’ use of the textual medium to explain and exemplify Italian language issues as one of the ‘attendant activities’ accompanying exposed correction mirrors the language teacher’s use of the whiteboard in the classroom to scaffold metalingual talk. There are numerous instances of this in the data, including exemplification of anche, discussed in Chapter 6. Some relevant turns from the anche sequence are reproduced in Excerpt 1, as these illustrate possible uses of the chat medium by NSs, apart from recasts or other documented forms of negative evidence (Gass, 1997, p. 37). Turns 152 to 156 are not recasts of the repairable item but additional valuable examples of use, to assist the learner in the use of anche, which in this instance is used as the Italian equivalent of ‘too’.

190


EXCERPT 1 152 NS: esempio example 153 NS: anche a me piace studiare I like studying too 154 L: capisco, grazie I understand, thanks 155 NS: anche io vado al mare durante l’estate I too go to the beach during summer 156 NS: vedi?!? see?!? In turn 156, the NS encourages the learner to read his examples, given their visibility in online text chat. This type of activity appears to be appreciated by learners but requires longitudinal research to ascertain whether pushed output is achieved, as repetition by the learner is not always promoted by the NS or considered interactionally relevant. While the NS orients to being a language tutor, the learner is not pushed to provide a correct example. This could however be promoted when setting up guidelines for how to make the most of online chat interaction. Learner reports on their chat experience and classroom discussion may also be able to draw attention to such didactic episodes.

Promotion of ‘noticing’ of linguistic gaps through native speaker intervention on grammatical errors Readability of online chat as it is constructed promotes noticing, not only by learner initiative (Schmidt, 1990), but also through NS intervention on formal errors in learners’ online talk. Analysis has shown that while these interventions are often close to the trouble source, there is considerable freedom for NSs to notice errors but proceed with other conversational matters, and intervene several turns later. This would not be possible in the rapid fade which characterizes aural and face-to-face conversation. Learners themselves appear to be conscious of the advantage of ‘seeing’ one another’s errors in online text chat, as is evident in Excerpt 2: EXCERPT 2 136 NS: poi la prossima volta parliamo anche in inglese then next time we can speak in English too

Implications for SLA Research and Language Teaching 137 L: 138 NS: 139 L: 140 NS: 141 L: 142 L: 143 NS: 144 NS: 145 NS:

191

grazie thanks così tu correggi me! so you can correct me! si si di sicuro yes for sure eheh huh huh e` meglio per le lingue a chattare it’s better for languages to chat perche possiamo vedere le noste sbagli because we can see our mistakes poi quando miglioriamo entrambe passiamo a skype then when we improve we can move onto skype i nostri sbagli [correction/recast] our mistakes comunque lo parli bene . . . i tuoi errori non sono gravi anyway you speak it well . . . your mistakes are not serious

The NS in this Excerpt explicitly notes that correction is considered one of the main benefits of online chat (turns 138–139). The learner’s response in turns 141 to 142 indicates that ‘seeing’ errors is also beneficial to language learning e` meglio per le lingue a chattare; perche possiamo vedere le noste sbagli (‘it’s better for languages to chat; because we can see our mistakes’). After correcting the learner in turn 144, the NS also expresses the perception that video conversations require a higher level of proficiency than text chat, and would be an option once she and the learner improve their linguistic proficiency in English and Italian respectively (poi quando miglioriamo entrambe passiamo a skype ‘then when we improve we can move onto skype’: turn 143). As well as scaffolding conversations, the textual medium also has an important role in triggering ‘form and accuracy’ repair as the learner or NS may not otherwise notice or hear communication problems of a syntactic nature during face-to-face talk. For example, this is evident in Excerpt 6 (Chapter 4), where script does not permit elision of soli with in as would be possible in face-to-face talk. The same may be said of the pianeta sequence (Excerpt 12, Chapter 4), as visual saliency permitted the learner to compare her written version with the NS’ version during online talk. Thus while co-presence and context provide important scaffolds to support learners’ meaning making during face-to-face talk, online chat appears to foster form

192


and accuracy activities. These observations provide insights and support research conducted in the interactionist theoretical framework that noticing through chat interaction leads to SLA gains (Dussias, 2006; Shekary & Tahririan, 2006). The interactional architecture of ‘instructing’ also requires further attention in research as Chapter 3 has highlighted the tendency for NSs to stagger sentence turn-constructional units (TCUs) over many turns, possibly to gain the learner’s attention and hold the floor to complete instructional activities (e.g. Excerpts 7 and 8 in Chapter 3). Learner awareness of such a strategy may be of assistance in promoting equality of participation, especially in mutual language learning partnerships.

On the spot illustration of cultural artefacts and traditions through photos and hyperlinks In regard to the hypertextual environment of online chat, NSs and learners sometimes support their talk with hyperlinks, including links to photos and film clips, and uploaded files (e.g. photos). As well as providing additional contextual scaffolds, this permits the ready introduction and support of conversation topics related to target language artefacts, symbols and interpersonal realia, within a self-contained online environment, where discussion occurs in real time. The sbandieratori example (Excerpt 21) in Chapter 4 is an example of the possibilities offered by the online environment through hyperlinks. A further example is provided in Excerpt 3. In this case, Japanese manga comics are illustrated by hyperlinking to the images. EXCERPT 3: MANGA COMICS 168 NS: a me piacciono molto i manga . . . sono una collezionista I like manga alot...I’m a collector 169 L: che cosa e` collezionista what is collector 170 L: ? 171 NS: manga collector manga collector 172 L: manga? manga? 173 NS: japanese comics japanese comics 174 L: ho capito si I understand yes

Implications for SLA Research and Language Teaching 175 L: 176 NS: 177 L: 178 NS: 179 L: 180 NS: 181 NS: 182 L:

193

non ho mai sentito I’ve never heard of them ma dai? are you serious? no non ho mai sentito quella parola no I’ve never heard that word mi sembra che esista in inglese I think it exists in English si ma io non ho mai letto un comic yes but I’ve never read a comic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manga sono belli they’re beautiful poi la guardo\ I’ll look at it later\

The trouble source manga is queried by the learner, who claims to have never heard of manga comics (turns 175 and 177) and to have never read one comic (turn 179). The NS is able to provide an illustration by hyperlinking to a relevant website. The learner does not look at the site immediately but promises to look at it later, so she can proceed with the conversation. While these activities may occur spontaneously, the potential for focussed intercultural projects within such an environment is worth exploring further, especially where there are formal international agreements between institutions or language teachers working in tandem across the globe. Relevant target language hyperlinks may then be built into such projects to support SLA and intercultural learning and teaching.

Intercultural Pragmatics in Online Chat This section discusses issues raised in the analysis which relate to language learners’ conversation management in online chat. These aspects are relevant to SLA both in online and face-to-face contexts and provide further evidence that online chat may provide learners with a bridge to face-to-face interaction (Chun, 1994), scaffolded by the textual environment and at the same time challenged by the constraints of the online turn-taking system. These include the co-construction and mental reconstruction of appropriate adjacency pairs and conversational routines, including openings and closings. Within openings, the analysis has also touched upon the requirement for learners to adopt the correct informal register, as the use of ‘Lei’

194


provokes other-repair on the part of unfamiliar NSs (see discussion of Excerpts 9 and 10 in Chapter 2). The mitigating and face-saving behaviours which occur around correction sequences also suggest that learners improve their abilities to practise and acquire the language of politeness in online chat. This warrants further attention, both in terms of SLA and the potential for chat to avoid misunderstanding which may occur during email interaction (Ware & Kramsch, 2005). Adjacency pair reconstructions as practice for co-construction of conversational routines As shown in Chapter 3 on turn-taking, adjacency pairs and sequencing, because participants in online chat cannot control where their message is placed, it may not always be posted adjacent to its intended first pair part. This impacts on turn-taking and requires mental reconstruction of adjacency pairs in order for the conversation to make sense and proceed. Despite these systemic and linguistic constraints for learners however, conversation regularly proceeds without difficulty, even when NS-learner dyads engage in exposed correction sequences. This could be due to the following traits of online chat which require further investigation: z

z

z

the architecture of repair is common to all languages, and learners are particularly familiar with correction trajectories as experienced language learners; visual saliency of turns, which are not subject to the rapid fade of face-toface or voice conversation, facilitates reconstruction of adjacency pairs, which is a useful linguistic and metapragmatic exercise; even inexperienced chatters tend to adapt to the unique turn-taking system of chat, in the same way that use of the telephone required adaptation by users when it was first introduced, given the absence of non-verbal communication and related constraints.

These features of online chat need to be tested with beginner language learners, as they may lack the linguistic resources required to be able to reconstruct adjacency pairs. However, this activity provided intermediate level learners involved in this study with opportunities to develop interactional competence and practice in various conversational routines in the target language. This is an area which has potential for further systematic research, given that the familiar conversational matrix of learners’ first language is likely to support their interactions in the target language. Two of many conversational routines which learners engage with regularly and


195

successfully in online chat are that of opening and closing conversations. As they are interactionally similar to telephone openings and closings, these are likely to provide learners with practice in carrying out telephone conversations with NSs, a difficult interactional task in a foreign language, especially as analysis of L1 conversations indicates there are differences across cultures and according to whether interlocutors are familiar or not (Luke & Pavlidou, 2002). For example, learner participants need to establish a ‘fully functioning interactional state’ during online chat openings, which include the following phases: z z z

establishing contact (re)establishing a relationship working towards a (first) topic (ten Have, 2002, p. 235)

Many examples of successful online openings and closings are visible in the data reproduced in this text. Intercultural differences between telephone call and online chat openings and closings are therefore also fertile ground for further investigation, especially where one participant is not an NS of the language being used in the conversation. However, this study’s broad agenda has not permitted a specific focus on this feature of online talk, which requires further systematic attention due to its potential for the development of an important aspect of learners’ interactional and pragmatic competence. Technological considerations also require exploration in further research, given the online context. According to Liddicoat’s (2010) CA study of L1 online video conversations, there is a ‘dislocation’ between technologically accomplished and interactionally accomplished openings and closings which suggest that online video conversations are not just a case of computer-mediated talk but of technologically situated interaction. While it is possible that the technical characteristics of the software used in this study contributed to this conclusion, the technological situatedness of online text chat is worth exploring further through a focus on opening and closing sequences between NSs and learners. Analysis in Chapter 3 however suggests that the software used in this study promotes a degree of uninterruptibility and equality of participation. It allows participants to read, write and post turns simultaneously. Though participants orient to expert-novice roles, the turn-taking system of chat allows learners to pursue pedagogical and interpersonal trajectories uninterrupted, with freedom to split and reconstruct adjacency pairs or launch first pair parts consecutively. Such freedom in the organization of turn-taking requires further testing within more rigid conversational routines, such as formulaic openings and closings, as suggested by Excerpt 3 (Chapter 3). The principle

196


of contiguity in such routines may be oriented to differently by participants and requires further focussed systematic research, which I have been unable to address in this broad study. Differences are also likely according to whether participants are familiar or unfamiliar. Complete chat sessions in Appendix 2 indicate that despite the orderliness of online conversational openings, unfamiliar participants may choose to end conversations abruptly. The opposite is true of the rather more careful closings of more familiar participants who have recently established an online relationship, as in Appendix 1. The role of online preference organization in fostering politeness and avoiding misunderstanding Ware and Kramsch (2005) have suggested that further teacher mediation is required during email telecollaboration projects as email interactions can sometimes lead to misunderstanding which may even shut down communication. Hanna and de Nooy’s (2003) study also indicated that in public discussion fora, learners’ requests for assistance are considered inappropriate as they do not conform to the norms of the genre and sub-culture. While such valuable teaching and research activity needs to continue, making adjustments based on research findings, the analysis carried out in this study suggests that the difficulties and misunderstandings between NSs and learners described in some of these works may, however, be resolved differently in synchronous communication contexts. Asynchronous online communication such as email does not provide NSs and learners with the interactional resources that real-time online talk provides. Preference organization and repair are fundamental to participants’ pursuit of affiliation, even when combined with language learning. Some examples noted in Chapter 6 include NSs and learners’ face-saving behaviours which are an integral component of correction trajectories and pre-correction behaviours such as negotiating or giving permission to correct. This suggests that online chat offers participants the opportunity to avoid or accept misunderstandings and continue interaction when they occur, as participants pursue affiliation in the most unfavourable circumstances. According to Heritage (1984), there is a ‘bias’ intrinsic to many aspects of talk which is generally favourable to the maintenance of bonds of solidarity between actors and which promotes the avoidance of conflict. (p. 265) Relationship building and friendships are a significant motivation for language learning, and chat has the potential to promote international


197

friendships. In fact, Thorne’s (2003) study found that online text chat is preferred over email by learners for ‘authentic interpersonal relationship building’ (p. 48). This notion requires further testing in the online context, with a focus on meaning-oriented analysis within intercultural telecollaboration projects, as well as linguistically oriented analyses such as this study. Linguistically oriented analysis is also fertile ground for further exploration of why some online partnerships are more successful than others in terms of productive relationships for online SLA.

Conclusion While this study presented evidence of micromoments of learning, including apperceived input leading to pushed output and SLA within naturalistic online conversation, the project requires further development. One promising research direction in the online chat context is the longitudinal approach proposed by Markee (2008), where pushed output is tracked beyond one episode of learning, as implemented in an English for Specific Purposes classroom. However, this approach requires further adaptation and testing in the online dyadic context where conversation is generally freer than in the classroom. The scatoletta (Excerpt 14, Chapter 4) and sono 19 anni (Excerpts 19–21, Chapter 5) sequences do however seem to confirm that one learning episode is often insufficient for interlanguage development and a longitudinal approach seems appropriate. In regard to equality of participation in online chat, the analysis indicates that NSs are not the main animators of conversation, as occurred in Kasper’s (2004) face-to-face study of an NS-beginner dyad. There is however evidence that in the online environment, NSs may choose to exercise their authority as expert speakers through the use of exposed correction and consecutive launching of pedagogical and interpersonal trajectories which don’t allow learners to acknowledge correction. This phenomenon is worth exploring further, especially with beginner learners, who may yield different findings. The dyadic German-English ‘conversation-for-learning’ between a beginner learner and NS of German described in Kasper’s (2004) study showed the importance of code-switching by the learner to English, her first language, to shift from conversation to language learning events and trigger recasts (p. 563). While code-switching may assist participants in achieving understanding, it does not seem to be as frequent or salient a feature of online talk between NSs and intermediate learners in my study, even when the NSs were proficient speakers of English. The learners seem to have

198


sufficient interactional and linguistic resources to use a wide range of strategies for triggering metalinguistic discourse in the target language. Further comparative analytical work on the relationship between learner persistence in pursuing understanding and proficiency may be in order. Kalin (1995) concluded that NNSs with higher proficiency were more likely to use explicit strategies for resolving problems of understanding, whereas those with lower proficiency used non-explicit strategies. In Kalin’s (1995) study, differences in ways of coping with problems of understanding suggest that there are developmental differences in NNS behaviour (p. 184), which need to be probed in the online context. It is thus important not to treat chat as monolithic whole. Future studies need to take into account participation structures and proficiency levels of participants to be able to evaluate language learning potential. Online group chat also requires further investigation, especially instructional chat, where there is one NS or teacher and a small group of language learners, to ascertain whether the IRF pattern comes into play here. Kasper’s (2004) study on dyadic conversation for learning observed that NS linguistic expertise was ‘omnirelevant’ and ‘on tap’, with the IRF pattern evident at times, and the NS the main ‘animator’ of the conversation, though the NNS always initiated the shift from topical talk to a metalingual focus (p. 562). She concludes that her study presents no evidence of SLA despite the CA framework, yet it appears, according to Gass (2003, cited by Kasper, 2004), that interactionist research has only produced three studies which show direct evidence of SLA (p. 564). Given the demonstrated potential for SLA of learning behaviours identified during interaction in online dyadic intercultural chat, it is necessary to continue to expand the online talk-in-interaction database to include learners of various levels of proficiency, including beginner participants, as beginner courses have the highest rates of attrition in foreign language programs. However, one may ask why many NSs are more focused on grammar in these data than in face-to-face foreign language settings. In Kurhila’s (2005) study, NNSs oriented conversation to grammar (initiated repair), but NSs were not interested in grammatical details. In both informal and more institutional settings of conversations between NNSs and peers or secretarial staff (institutional setting), attention to grammatical detail was irrelevant as NSs encouraged NNSs to get on with the conversation. As occurred in some online conversations discussed in this study, where NSs oriented the conversation to relationship building and pursuit of affiliation rather than linguistic issues, in Kurhila’s (2005) study secretarial staff’s institutional roles overrode their roles as expert speakers (p. 155). They wanted to carry the


199

conversation forward, whereas the NNSs were using this interaction opportunity to get feedback on language. Fundamentally, in this study NSs and NNSs seemed to have ‘different conceptions of the interactional importance of grammatical correctness’ (p. 157) and Kurhila sees this as having implications for the teaching of Finnish grammar so that it supports successful interaction with NSs. So, why is exposed correction and focus on form with attendant grammatical explanations so frequent in online intercultural interactions, despite its social dispreferredness? Why do untrained NSs so frequently ‘do being a language teacher’ while others try to get on with the conversation? Learners of Italian also appear to take on this ‘English expert’ role when the NS of Italian orients to a novice role as learner of English. As suggested previously, anonymity and lack of co-presence may promote open discussion, but it clearly depends on whether participants decide to orient to learning, as indicated in the analysis of preliminaries (permission to correct/invitation to correct) in Chapter 6. One further explanation of the regularity of exposed correction despite its documented dispreferredness is that the type of error which is being corrected by NSs, usually related to target language grammar, is most expediently dealt with through exposed correction. It is also less likely to be noticed in the rapid fade of face-to-face conversation, where these types of errors do not usually interfere with understanding, and cannot be ‘edited’ so easily. The dyadic online chat environment therefore tends to foster exposed correction, thanks to the visual saliency of errors which can be ‘spotted’ by NSs on reviewing the coconstructed conversation. However, certain conditions need to be met in setting up relationships and face-saving behaviours deployed to maintain intersubjectivity, regardless of whether participants are acquainted or not. One important finding of this study is learners’ orientation to the centrality of vocabulary. The frequency with which learners initiate repair on vocabulary for resolution by NSs, and the face work involved in the repair process, suggests that more attention needs to be paid to meaningful acquisition of target language lexicon in foreign language programs, as it appears to be more disruptive to naturalistic conversation than grammar. While lexical repair is a productive process in terms of SLA, it may impact on learners’ self-confidence and levels of motivation within face-to-face naturalistic settings outside the classroom. Online dyadic text chat is a suitable and motivating environment for language learners’ probing and acquisition of target language vocabulary, especially the formulaic vocabulary of conversational routines, as this promotes the development of their pragmatic competence. Such activity should be a regular component of foreign language programs, in preparation for real-life informal face-to-face

200


environments, including residence abroad, as proposed by Kinginger (2008), who suggests that CMC is a promising avenue for connecting students to their study-abroad destinations (p. 111). Finally, free conversation is not considered to be a suitable environment for interlanguage development under earlier versions of the Interaction Hypothesis. According to Long (1996), free conversation is notoriously poor as a context for driving interlanguage development for a number of reasons, because the lack of any fixed topics or outcomes permits rapid, superficial treatment of topics and the dropping of any that cause linguistic trouble (Long, 1983c). In contrast tasks that orient participants to shared goals and involve them in some work or activity produce more negotiation work. (p. 448) I hope that this study has demonstrated that online NS-learner free conversation offers many learning opportunities, at least in the dyadic format, and provides a naturalistic complement to classroom or asynchronous online interaction patterns. While direct evidence of pushed output is limited for interactional reasons, metalingual and pragmatic activity may be far more important for lifelong language learning beyond the realms of the classroom. Online dyadic chat may also provide a valuable bridge to face-to-face talk, where developing interactional competence in a second language goes beyond learning language as a formal system.

Chapter 9

Integrating Online Chat in Foreign Language Programs: Suggestions and Resources

Introduction This chapter provides practical advice and resources to assist foreign language teachers who would like to connect their students with NSs of the target language and integrate online text chat into their programs.

Setting Up Partnerships Language teachers and researchers are encouraged to use existing international partnerships between their own and foreign educational institutions, to establish whole class mutual language partnerships, where chat partners both benefit linguistically from the interaction. However, there are many reputable networks and websites through which individual language students may find chat partners from different walks of life. SharedTalk at http://www.sharedtalk.com and the etandem network at http://www.slf. ruhr-uni-bochum.de/etandem/etindex-en.html are two such sites which were used in this project and which students found reliable. They provide access to online partners wishing to interact in various languages and do not require payment by students. Polyglot Club at http://www.polyglot-learnlanguage.com/index.php is also a non-profit network which promotes online activities in a range of foreign languages. When setting up projects and partnerships using public websites, learners need to be warned that offensive interlocutors may be encountered. Learners involved in this study had sufficient linguistic resources to recognize offensive behaviour and shut inappropriate conversations down quickly. This may not be the case for beginner learners, who would benefit more from inter-institutional projects, where they may choose from a limited number of participants who are interested in a language learning partnership. Younger learners in particular are best suited to inter-institutional partnerships where anonymity of

202


participants is not possible, as the identities of all participants are available to teachers. While this project is based on online chat interaction, students are now required to establish e-pal partnerships as part of intercultural email projects in the first years of their university studies. This allows them to call on their epals when engaging in chat interaction as part of their Italian program. Mutual language partnerships have become an essential component of foreign language study to provide an authentic bridge to the target culture, which may develop into a lasting friendship with age-peers and incentive to study the target language.

Online Conversation Topics Given that online chat involves free conversation, language teachers have limited scope in designing tasks for the project. For example, Kasper’s (2004) study involved unorganized conversation where metalingual conversation was frequent though no specific task was set. Students involved in this study however made use of conversation topics which promoted intercultural exchange through discussion of cultural similarities and differences, social and political issues, and stereotypical views about Italians. Some topics were inspired by the Cultura project (Furstenberg et al., 2001) and provoked lively classroom and online discussion which was summarized in student reports. However, where NS interlocutors were unfamiliar to the learner, a considerable amount of time was spent in pretopical talk and establishing relationships before learners negotiated discussion of sometimes provocative set topics regarding gender differences and politics in Italy. The negotiation of such topics showed extraordinary interactional resourcefulness on the part of the learner. Learners frequently requested permission of the language teacher to establish their own topics in free conversation, and discuss matters which were important to them at the time of the chat. This included discussion of films and books which were either in the language program or in an extracurricular activity. It is worth experimenting with the use of free conversation though set topics are a useful backup for students to keep the conversation going, if required.

Choosing Appropriate Chat Software Ease of use, ease of access and the option to save online conversations are key criteria which guided selection of software for this project. Ease of

Integrating Online Chat in Foreign Language Programs

203

access to NSs of Italian living in Italy was also an important criterion in selecting an appropriate software for students. Towards the final years of this project, students were encouraged to use chat software they were familiar with after establishing contact with an Italian partner. In recent years, chat software available through Facebook was considered to be one of the most popular and accessible to students, so use of this software was encouraged, as it allows chat sessions to be copied and saved for later analysis and submission for assessment. For students who were unfamiliar with Facebook or chat software generally, instructions were provided on how to access it without revealing personal details (see Appendix 3). Students were also advised to create a new email address for chat interaction, as this is a requirement for access. This minimizes risks associated with interaction with unfamiliar interlocutors. This was especially the case when the project first started, and use of a public chatline required contact with unfamiliar, often anonymous interlocutors.

Integration of Online Chat through Assessment It is important that teaching innovations be given prominence through assessment for learners to be able to appreciate their academic value. Hence, each item submitted by students as part of this project (chat sessions and chat report) was worth 10 per cent of the total course assessment. Despite the fact that online communicative proficiency is an underexplored research area, it was necessary to formulate assessment criteria so that students were aware of the criteria which would be used to evaluate their chat sessions. Face-to-face oral proficiency criteria seemed the most adaptable to the online chat context. Hence, students were assured that word-for-word correction would not occur, given the ‘orality’ of online text chat, which would be treated in a similar way to face-to-face conversation. They were also assured that they would not be marked down for typing errors as a high percentage of typing errors would be expected, given that chat contributions are being typed in real time and at high speed. The following criteria were developed over the duration of the project: z z z z

fluency (ability to keep ‘conversation’ flowing) richness of vocabulary use of correct grammar idiomatic use of language (showing awareness of possible transfer from structures/expressions of mother tongue)

204 z z z


ability to make use of native speaker’s knowledge by improving language during chat session presence of intercultural exchanges where Italian, Australian and Italo-Australian attitudes and stereotypes are compared improvement of language from first session to the last

Assessment of online chat reports was also a difficult task as it was necessary to promote learners’ reflection on their SLA and intercultural learning without descending into stereotypical generalizations on the target culture. The following assessment criteria were developed during the life of the project: z z z z z

structure and organization of contents richness of vocabulary use of correct grammar documentation of new linguistic and cultural aspects learned during chat interactions Intercultural competence (summary and analysis of intercultural exchanges with native speaker, where Italian, Australian and Italo-Australian attitudes and stereotypes are discussed and compared)

In or Out of Class? This project encouraged out-of-class interaction as many participants were studying Italian by distance education. Furthermore, time differences between the northern and southern hemisphere required maximum flexibility and experimentation in the timing of real-time online conversation. Where time differences are not an issue, projects involving inter-institutional online chat conducted in multimedia facilities would be particularly useful for low proficiency learners requiring teacher access during interaction, though this may reduce negotiation with the NS. However, the out-of-class set-up of the current study allowed students to increase exposure to the target language on a weekly basis, one-to-one with an age-peer NS of Italian who took on the role of informal tutor, supplementing the role of the classroom teacher.

Social Diversity of Native Speaker Interlocutors This study has provided examples of learners interacting with NSs of diverse professional backgrounds, not just other foreign language students

Integrating Online Chat in Foreign Language Programs

205

and teachers. This is particularly important to adequately prepare graduates for foreign language environments outside the educational context, as required in today’s globalizing world. However, the conversations where pedagogical repair was more likely to prevail over interactional repair were those that involved language learning partnerships established either via appropriate websites or during study abroad experiences. In these conversations, learners of English offered pedagogical support to learners of Italian in return for their support in production of English during online chat. The openness of correction in these conversations suggests that intercultural speakers such as the learners of Italian involved in this study are more confident about discussing linguistic incompetence, as suggested by Byram when he observes that in an inter-national interaction, both interlocutors have a significant but different role, and the foreign speaker who knows something both of the foreign culture and of their own, is in a position of power at least equal to that of the native speaker. (p. 21)

Encouraging Noticing through Learner Reports As noted in the analysis, many learners who engaged in online chat with NSs as part of this project revisited their conversations and spontaneously highlighted learning episodes. This process often accompanied learners’ documentation of new words, expressions and intercultural issues, for inclusion in a report on the online chat experience, written in the target language. Where possible, learner highlighting has been reproduced in excerpts discussed in this text (see Excerpt 2, Chapter 3). The example of the learner noting NSs’ correction of the same repairable item across three chat sessions (see discussion of Excerpts 19, 20, 21 in Chapter 5) in her report, indicates that there is potential for comprehended input and noticing to be enhanced by the process of learners’ reflection on their own learning when reviewing chat sessions. A brief introduction to conversational repair as part of foreign language programs may provide learners with the capacity to become analysts of their own SLA by promoting noticing of micromoments of learning and documenting their online learning in reports on their experience (cf. Schmidt, 1990). To this end, at different stages of the project, students were encouraged to read key texts on intercultural communicative competence (e.g. Byram, 1997), negotiation of meaning (Varonis & Gass, 1985) and online intercultural learning (Tudini, 2007). It is currently necessary for language teachers to identify clear concise

206


readings on intercultural learning which are suitable for language learners who do not have a linguistics background. Existing literature therefore requires adaptation by the language teacher, and languages curricula need to be developed further to foster learner awareness of relevant issues in CA, SLA and intercultural learning.

Appendix 1

Full Extended Chat Session of One NS Learner Dyad Including Papaveri Sequence

NB Emoticons are not apparent in this transcript, only their position in the talk, due to printing issues at the time of submission by the student. Native Speaker 1: Session 2 NS: monica NS: sono giovanni it’s giovanni NS: hai ricevuto la mia mail? did you receive my email? L: Si` grazie, come stai? Yes thank you, how are you? NS: bene, tu? well, and you? NS: questo è il mio nick this is my nickname L: Bene - bel nick! Good – cute nickname! NS: da firenze alla tasmania [refers to NS’ nickname, not reproduced] from florence to tasmania NS: l [probable emoticon] –l L: Capito!! I understand!! NS: un filo lunghissimo a long string/cable

208

L: NS: L: NS: L:

NS: NS: L: NS: NS: NS: L: L: NS: L: NS: L: L: NS: L:

Appendix Molto!! Very!! virtuale virtual Si`. Yes . il tuo we è stato bello? was your w/e [weekend] good? Si`, ho mangiato fuori con un’amica ma purtroppo ho avuto il raffredore! Yes, I ate outdoors with a friend but unfortunately I had a cold! ahi oh dear era freddo da te? was it cold over there? No, fa bello ancora. No, it’s still nice. i tuoi figli your children che scule fanno what school do they go to o [self-repairs ‘scuole’] o Le scuole sono diverse qui. Schools are different here. Mio figlio va a ‘junior school’ My son goes to ‘junior school’ si certo yes of course mia figlia a ‘high school’ my daughter to ‘high school’ si yes Vanno a scuole private. They go to private schools. Costose ma classi piccole. Expensive but small classes. si certo yes of course Ma va conto le mie idee socialista` [accent mark not required].

Appendix

L: L: NS: L: NS: NS: NS: L: L: NS: L: NS: NS: 45 NS:

L: NS: NS: L: NS:

209

But it goes against my socialist ideals. U [probable emoticon] U contro against beh tappati il naso well, try not to think about it [Literally: ‘well, pinch your nose’] Non ho capito . I didn’t understand . significa chiudi it means close è un modo di dire it’s a figure of speech quando si fa una cosa che non si vorrebbe when you do something that you don’t want to do Ma la scuola privata e` meglio per i figli. But private schools are better for children E i tuoi figli? And your children? sicuramente si yes definitely Che scuola fanno? What school do they go to? i miei il liceo Mine go to ‘liceo’ come la vostra high school it’s like your high school una il liceo classico one’s at ‘liceo classico’ [secondary school with an focus on humanities] Ma piu` specializzata. But it’s more specialised. l’altro il liceo artistico the other’s at ‘liceo artistico’ [secondary school with an focus on art] si yes Conosco il tuo sistema. I know your system. scolastico? education?

210

NS: L:

L: NS: NS: NS: NS: NS: NS: NS: L:

NS: L: NS: L: NS: L: L: NS:

Appendix l [probable emoticon] –l Ho incontrato una ragazza che ha fatto uno scambio a Firenze. – Si` scolastico. I met a girl who went on an exchange to Florence. – Yes, education. Al liceo classico si studia le lingue la storia ecc . . . ? At liceo classico do you study languages history etc . . . ? è stata da una famiglia fiornetina? did she stay with a family from Florence? si sì studia yes you study il latino Latin il greco Greek la filosofia Philosophy tutte le amterie letterarie all the literary subjects materie [self-repairs ‘materie’] subjects E` quasi impossibile studiare il latino qui. Io l’ho studiato ma ora e` rarissimo. It’s almost impossible to study Latin here. I studied it but now it’s very rare. ma anche fisica e chimica e matematica but also physics and chemistry and maths La ragazza che ho incontrata e` stata con una famiglia ricca The girl who I met stayed with a rich family l [probable emoticon] –l con una casa in campagnia with a house in the country una casa bellissima immagino a beautiful house I’ll bet un altro al mare another at the beach e` una in montagna! and one in the mountains! fortunatissima she’s very lucky

Appendix L: NS: NS: L: NS: NS: L: NS: L: NS: NS: L: L: NS: L: NS: NS: L: NS: L:

Com’e` il lavoro oggi? What’s work like today? stamane noioso this morning it’s boring domani e dopodomani sarò via tomorrow and the day after I’ll be away Cosa farai? What will you do? domani andrò a Siena tomorrow I’ll go to Siena e dopodomani a Lucca and the day after to Lucca Beato te. ma per lavoro temo. Lucky you. but for work I fear. solo per quello only for that U [probable emoticon] U ma approfitto per vedere sempre qualcosa but I take advantage to always see something Siena e splendida Siena is wonderful Si` sono stata a Siena 18 mesi fa. Yes I went to Siena 18 months ago. Ma non sono mai stata a Lucca. But I’ve never been to Lucca. hai visto che luce have you seen what light ? ? la luce sulle facciate the light on the facades sui mattoni rossi on the red bricks a Siena? in Siena? si yes Si`. Yes .

211

212

NS: L: L: L: NS: L: NS: NS: L: NS: NS: L: L: L: NS: NS: L:

NS: NS: NS:

Appendix ritrnerai [‘ritornerai’ intended] a vederla quando sarai quì? will you go back to see it when you’re here? Non lo so. I don’t know. Non c’e` molto tempo. There’s not much time. E voglio vedere Firenze. And I want to see Florence. certo sarai molto occupata of course you’ll be very busy Dimmi cosa disegni nel tuo lavoro. Tell me what you design in your work. faccio case bioclimatiche I design environmentally friendly houses che usano il sole per riscaldarsi that use the sun for heating Come la nostra. Like ours. com’è? what’s it like? dovrai mandarmi delle foto you’ll have to send me some photos Si` Yes La nostra casa e` fatto per catturare il sole. Our house is designed to capture the sun’s rays. Funziona bene. It works well. come quelle che faccio io like the ones that I design lo so!!!!l [probable emoticon] I know!!!! l Durante l’inverno fuori gradi −5, dentro +18, senza fuoco. During winter −5 degrees outside, more than 18 degrees inside, without a lit fire. N [probable emoticon] N devi raccontarmi com’è fatta you have to tell me how it’s made e mandarmi le foto

Appendix

NS: L: L: NS: L: NS: L: L:

NS: L: L: NS: L: L: NS: NS: L: NS: NS:

213

and send me photos io uso anche il sole e il vento per produrre elettricità e calore I also use the sun and wind to produce electricity and heat Non abbiamo fatto quello. We haven’t done that. L’elettricita` qui e` hydro. Electricity here is hydro. R.E. R.E. ?RE ?RE energie rinnovabili in italiano renewable energy in Italian Si`. Yes . Dopo la guerra erano gli italiani [emigranti] che sono andati a Tasmania per After the war there were Italian [migrants] who went to Tasmania to lavorare to work costruire gli ??sbarramenti. to build the?? barriers Per fare l’elettricita`. To create electricity . le dighe the dams Grazie!! Thank you!! Linguaggio tecnico..non sono brava. Technical language..I’m not good. sono il tuo 2tutor2 I’m your tutor “tutor” “tutor” Grazie professore! Thank you teacher! ll [probable emoticon] ll è un piacere con una studentessa come te!! it’s a pleasure with a student [f] like you!!

214

L: L: L: NS: L: NS: NS: L: L: L: NS: NS: NS: L:

NS: L: L: NS: L:

Appendix Piacere mio. Pleasure is mine. La mia casa.. My house.. afftronta il sole . . . . . . . . faces the sun . . . . . . . . si yes pavimento di terracotta terracotta tiles “cotto” in toscana “cotto” in tuscany poi then ha una > di cemento nella terra fino a tre metri. it has a cement “skirt” in the ground down three metres tante finestre al nord.. many north-facing windows.. Ma non al sud. But not facing south. dovrai farmi vedere le foto You’ll have to show me the photos farai delle foto per me will you take some photos for me tecniche!!! technical ones!!! Si ti mandero` un email ma le foto non dimostrano le detaglie tecniche. Yes I’ll send you an email but the photos don’t show technical details dovrai provare a fotografarle per me you’ll have to try and photograph them for me i dettagli the details Ma la gonna e sotto la terra! But the skirt is underground! ahahahahha ahahahahha Difficile! Difficult!

Appendix NS: NS: NS: L: NS: NS: L: NS: L: NS: L: NS: NS:

L: NS: NS: L: NS: NS:

215

proverò a immaginarla I’ll try to imagine it h [probable emoticon] h puoi ricevere una foto? Can you receive a photo? Si. Yes. ti mando una foto che mi è arrivata I’ll send you a photo that I received con un gruppo di colleghi with a group of colleagues Ok, ora? Ok, now? si yes Attivi? Are you sending it? prova Try Viene. It’s coming. vediamo se indovini chi sono io!!! Let’s see if you guess who I am!!! ha inviato il file valdultimo.jpg nella directory file: //C|\TinMessenger\DownLoad\directory name the valdultimo.jpg file has been sent to the directory file://C|\TinMessenger\DownLoad\directory name Ok. non posso. Chi sei? Ok. I can’t. Which one is you? avevo molto freddo!!!! I was very cold!!!! qundi sono molto . . . . therefore I’m very . . . . Con cappello? With a hat? NN [probable emoticon] NN yes yes

216

Appendix

L:

C’e` un bel uomo sotto cappello? Is there a good looking man under [a/the] hat? ll [probable emoticon] ll beh non so well I don’t know tu cosa vedi? what do you see? Vediamo quando vengo. We’ll see when I come ahahahaha ahahahaha mandamene una tua send me one of yours Certo. Of course. dimmi quando devo attivare tell me when I have to begin sending Con una della casa. With one of the house. si certo yes of course e anche dei tuoi figli and also of your children ti manderò anceh io quelle I’ll send you them too Si. Yes. Vuoi sapere del mio lavoro oggi? Do you want to know about my work today? dimmelo tell me about it come sei stata? how have you been? Tutti i pazienti depressi, stressati ansiosi, come nel film! All the patients are depressed, stressed anxious, like in the film! ahahahahha ahahahahha [laughter tokens] dagli il prozac!! give them prozac!!

NS: NS: NS: L: NS: NS: L: NS: L: NS: NS: NS: L: L: NS: NS: L: NS: NS:

Appendix L: L: L: NS: NS: L: NS: L: L: NS: L: NS: L: NS: NS: NS: L: L: L: NS:

Voglio metterlo nell’acqua. I want to put it in the water. E` perche` e` l’autunno. And because it’s autumn. Meno luce, Less daylight, l [probable emoticon] l lo so I know piu` depressione. more depression. cominciano le depressioni depression begins Si` e` lo stesso ogni anno. Yes it’s the same every year. Ma avro` tre settimane di primavera!! But I’ll have three weeks of spring!! quando? when? Fra tre settimane. In three weeks’ time. bello nice Quando vengo in italia. When I come to Italy. come mai? how come? oh si oh yes manca davvero poco not long now Dimmi tell me quando when cominciano i papaveri? the poppies are in bloom? fra poco soon

217

218

NS: NS: NS: L: NS: NS: L: NS: NS: L: L: L: NS: NS: NS: L: NS: NS: L: L:

Appendix dovrebbero esserci they should be here quando sarai quì when you’ll be here crescono in mezzo al grano they grow between the wheat Bellissomo!! Beautiful! l [probable emoticon] l in treno on the train Non possiamo crescere i papaveri rossi qui. We can’t grow red poppies here. tra Roama e >firenze between Rome and > Florence come mai? how come? E` difficile spiegare ma It’s difficult to explain but qui sono cresciuti i papaveri per poppies are grown here for la morfina morphine non preoccuparti don’t worry si certo yes of course i papaveri per oppio poppies for opium e quindi i rossi possono rovinare gli altri. and therefore the red ones can ruin the others. oh si oh yes ed è legale la coltura del papavero da oppio? and is it legal to cultivate the opium poppy? Si` ma si deve avere il permesso. Yes but you need to have permission. E` una grand’ industria qui. It’s a huge industry here.

Appendix NS: L: NS: L: L: L: L: NS: NS: L: NS: L: NS: NS: L: NS: L: NS: NS: L:

si capisco yes I understand Solo Tasmania e Turchia. Only Tasmania and Turkey. e illegalmente in Thailandia and illegally in Thailand Si` certo. Yes of course. Ma qui qualche volta But sometimes here sono . . . . . . non posso trovare la parola.. there are . . . . . . I can’t think of the word.. un attimo . . . . one moment . . . . prova try si yes sono rubato . . . . are stolen OR have stolen [with incorrect auxiliary in latter case] hai rubato? you stole? No. No hanno rubato they stole i semi? the seeds? Rubano i papaveri per fpreparare un te`. they steal poppies to prepare a tea ahahahahhaha [laughter tokens and/or expression of recognition of prior turn] Sono pazzi. E pericoloso. They’re crazy. It’s dangerous. deve essere molto buono!!! it must be very good!!! eh si oh yes Chi sa? Who knows?

219

220

NS: L: NS: NS: NS: NS: NS: NS: L:

NS: NS: L: NS: L: NS: NS: NS: L:

Appendix ma sicuramente non si sentono tristi!!! but they certainly won’t be feeling sad!!!! Forse una cura per i pazienti??? Maybe a cure for your patients??? certo of course prescrivila prescribe it due volte al giorno twice a day a colazione e alla sera at breakfast time and in the evening l [probable emoticon] 1 Monica devo andare Monica I have to go Senti Giovanni, devo scappare. I figli vanno a letto. Ma una buon’idea . . . . . . . . Hey Giovanni, I’ve got to run. The children are going to bed. But a good idea . . . . . . . ahahahaha ahahahaha insieme!!!! together!!!! Ti mando delle foto per email. I’ll send you some photos via email. non volevo I didn’t want to N [probable emoticon] N le aspetto e scrivimi I’ll expect them and write to me buona notte!! good night!! a presto see you soon Buon lavoro!! Enjoy your work!!

Appendix L: NS:

Ciao. Bye. grazie, ciao thank you, bye.

221

Appendix 2

Complete Brief Multiple Chat Sessions of One Learner, Including Sono Andata Sopra Sequence

Native Speaker 1: Session 1 NS: ciao hi L: ciao hi L: come va how are you NS: bene te? good you? L: tutto bene all good L: da dove dgt? [da dove digiti] where are you typing from? NS: quanti anni hai? how old are you? NS: siena siena L: 22 22 NS: io 27 I’m 27 NS: da? from? L: australia australia NS: sul serio? seriously? L: si yes

Appendix L: NS: L: L: NS: NS: L: L: L: NS: NS: L: NS: L: NS: L: NS: NS: L: L:

come siena? non conoscola what’s siena like? I don’t know it che ora è li? what time is it there? 9.45 nella mattina 9.45 in the morning puoi correre [correggere] il mio italiano? can you correct my Italian? e che fai cosi presto al pc? and what are you doing on the computer so early in the morning? si yes sono all’universita I’m at university te? you? cosa fai stasera? what are you doing tonight? tra poco dormo soon I’ll be sleeping e notte qui it’s night here lavori o studi? do you work or study? lavoro I work dove? where? meccanico mechanic di motorini, o macchine? of scooters, or cars? macchine cars te che studi what do you study? maestra di bambini, come si dice? teacher of children, how do you say that? insegnata? teacher?

223

224

Appendix

NS: insegnante teacher L: grazie thank you NS: prego you’re welcome NS: non parli piu? you’re not talking anymore? L: cosa? what? NS: non dici niente? you’re not saying anything? L: no, sono lentamente no, I’m slowly NS: ok ok L: lento? non sono sicura slow? I’m not sure NS: si yes L: abiti ancora con i tuoi genatori? do you still live with your parents? NS: no no L: ma tanti ragazzi italiani abitano con loro? but lots of young Italians live with them? NS: si yes L: fino a 30 anni? until they’re 30 years old? NS: anche piu even longer L: perche non tu? why don’t you? NS: mi piace stare solo I like to be on my own L: qual’e il tuo cibo preferito? what’s your favourite food? NS: pasta pasta

Appendix L: NS: L: L: NS: NS: L: L: L: NS: L: L: NS: L: NS: L: NS:

stai scazando![stai scherzando!] you’re joking! perche? why? un italiano che piace la pasta! an Italian who likes pasta! quale pasta? which pasta? a te che piace? what do you like? tutta everything da tanti culturi, si from lots of cultures, yes no, mi piace la cucina italiana, no, I like Italian cuisine, ma anche indiano, chinese but also Indian, Chinese ok ok devo andare adesso, I have to go now, ho un classe I have a class non ci andare! don’t go to it! una classe a class non andarci don’t go to it ciao bye ciao bye

Native Speaker 2: Session 1 NS: ciao chatti con me? hi will you chat with me? L: ciao, come stai hi, how are you

225

226

Appendix

NS: bene te good you L: bene good L: dove dgt? where are you typing? NS: torino turin NS: te you L: non sono mai andata a torino I’ve never been to turin NS: capito I understand L: australia australia NS: bella beautiful NS: descriviti describe yourself L: si, mi piace australia yes, I like australia L: e un paese grande it’s a big country L: con sole with sun L: spaiggie [spiagge] beaches NS: lo so I know NS: descriviti describe yourself L: tante persone divertente many fun people L: oh me! oh me! L: ok ok L: ho 22 anni I’m 22 years old

Appendix L: NS: NS: L: NS: L: L: NS: L: L: NS: L: L: L: NS: L: NS: L: NS: NS:

sono una studentessa I’m a student poi and monica monica cosa what fisicamente come sei what are you like physically sono una ragazza. basta I’m a girl. that’s enough come milano? [com’è milano] what’s milan like? ke? what? descrivi milano describe milan non sono mai andata I’ve never been nn sono di milano I’m not from milan ah, scusa oh, sorry torino turin come torino what’s turin like a me nn piace I don’t like it perche? why? ce gente cattiva there are nasty people veramente? really? monica hai messsenger? monica do you have messenger? si monica yes monica

227

228

Appendix

L:

ne ho pensato di Napoli I thought that was true of Naples NS: nn come napoli pero but not like Naples NS: hai messenger do you have messenger L: non ho messenger I don’t have messenger Native Speaker 3: Session 1 NS: CIAO HI NS: COME VA? HOW ARE YOU? L: bene good L: tu you NS: BENE GOOD NS: da dove dgt? where are you typing from? L: australia. tu? australia. you? NS: italia italy NS: ti vadi chattare? do you feel like chatting? L: dove where NS: roma rome NS: tu? you? L: non capisco ti vadi chattare . . . I don’t understand ti vadi chattare . . . NS: parlare talking NS: con me with me

Appendix L: L: NS: NS: L: NS: L: NS: NS: L: NS: L: L: NS: NS: L: L: NS: L: L:

devo chattare per il mio studio I have to talk for my studies abitavo in roma per 5 mesi I lived in rome for 5 months ok ok come ti chiami? what’s your name? monica monica sei woman? are you a woman? si, sono una woman! yes, I’m a woman! ti e’ piaciuta roma? did you like rome? forse ti disturbo? maybe I’m bothering you? roma e il piu bella del mondo rome is the most beautiful [city] in the world tu dove vivi? where do you live? adesso in australia in australia now mi manca roma I miss rome in che citta’? in which city? sidney sydney adelaide, conosci? adelaide, do you know [it]? no. non sydney no. not sydney volevo dire adelaide I wanted to say adelaide sei sicuro are you sure cosa fai, lavori, studi what do you do, work, study

229

230

NS: lavoro I work NS: ho 44 anni I’m 44 years old L: dove where NS: [name of company] NS: ditta di pulizie cleaning business L: parli inglese do you speak English L: ? ? NS: no no L: ti piace a viaggiare? do you like to travel? NS: si yes NS: but money but money NS: j see adelaide j see Adelaide L: sei andato a australia? have you been to australia? NS: no no L: dove sei andato? where have you been? NS: in italia in italy L: solo italia only in italy NS: e svizzera and switzerland L: 2 paesi? 2 countries? NS: no no

Appendix

Appendix L: NS: NS: L: NS: L: NS: NS: L: NS: NS:

europe e grande europe is big anche s.marino even san marino e citta’ del vaticano and the vatican city questo non conta this doesn’t count quanti anni hai? how old are you? 22 22 ok ok you study? do you study? si, studio italiano yes, I study Italian because? because? scusa il disturbo

sorry to bother you voglio parlare un’ altra lingua I want to speak another language NS: lavori? do you work? L: si in un ristorante italian qui in adelaie yes in an Italian restaurant here in adelaide L: tu? you? NS: puoi parlare con me? can you talk to me? L: sono lentamente I’m slowly NS: ok ok L: non capisco sempre I don’t always understand L:

231

232

Appendix

NS: no problem no problem L: quanti fratelli nella tua famiglia? how many brothers in your family? NS: 1 [probable emoticon] 1 NS: di 35 anni he’s 35 years old NS: tu? you? L: 2. fratello e sorella 2. brother and sister NS: anni? ages? L: 20 e 24 20 and 24 NS: what time is it a adelaide? what time is it in adelaide? L: in adelaide. 3 nel pommeriggio in Adelaide. 3 in the afternoon NS: hai ? do you have ? L: no no NS: peccato shame L: cosa faro oggi? what will I do today? NS: potevamo parlare con microfono we could have talked with the microphone L: no non posso. sono all universita adesso no I can’t. I’m at university now NS: ok ok L: cosa fai oggi? what are you doing today? L: devo andare I have to go NS: sono libero dal lavoro I’m free from work

Appendix L:

ciao bye NS: ciao bye Native Speaker 4: Session 1 L: buon giorno good morning L: ciao Giovanni [name evident from nickname] hi Giovanni NS: ciao hi NS: sei f o m are you f or m L: fem fem L: tu? you? NS: IO mi chiamo Giovanni [full name based on nickname] MY name is Giovanni NS: e ho 45 anni tu ? and I’m 45 years old and you? L: 22 22 NS: come ti chiami what’s your name L: in australia anche le donne si chia Giovanna in australia even the women are called Giovanna L: monica monica NS: nome particolare unique name NS: sei italiana ? are you Italian? L: no. australiana no. Australian NS: da dove dgt ? where are you typing from? L: australia australia

233

234

Appendix

NS: e come mai conosci l’italiano and how come you know Italian L: sto studiando adesso I’m studying now NS: ora lì da voi che ore sono what time is it now over there L: 2.30 nel pommeriggio 2.30 in the afternoon NS: qui è prestissimo sono le 7 del mattino here it’s really early it’s 7 in the morning NS: ti stavo chiedendo come mai sei in chat a quest’ora I was asking you how come you’re chatting at this hour L: ti alzi presto you get up early NS: ma mi hai già risposto but you already answered me NS: si in questo periodo si yes in this period yes NS: sono al lavoro I’m at work NS: dobbiamo installare dei nuovi macchinari we have to install some new machinery NS: ho lavorato sabato e anche dominica I worked on Saturday and even Sunday L: e quando ti rilassi? and when do you relax? NS: spero presto soon I hope NS: ho tanto bisogno di un bel bagno caldo I really need a nice warm bath NS: e di un bel massaggio dietro il collo and a good massage on the back of my neck NS: sono stanchissimo I’m really tired L: sei andato in australia? have you been to australia? NS: no mai ma ultimamente giro molto in europa no never but lately I travel a lot around Europe L: si. dove ti piace? yes. where do you like it?

Appendix

235

NS: parigi,helsinky, copenaghen paris, helsinki, copenhagen L: sono andata a parigi I went to paris L: e bella it’s beautiful NS: si è una città molto romantica yes it’s a very romantic city NS: torre eiffel eiffel tower NS: champ elise Champs-Élysées NS: louvre louvre L: si, sono.. come si dice yes, I .. how do you say NS: operà operà [Opéra] L: scalata? [used in relation to climbing mountains/walls rather than stairs] climbed? L: scendata? [non-existent term, attempted past participle, possibly adapted from scendere: to descend/go down] L: ascendata? [non-existent term; attempted past participle, possibly adapted from ascendere: to rise/ascend] NS: non capisco cosa vuoi dire I don’t understand what you want to say NS: affascinata forse fascinated maybe L: sono andata sopra I went up L: devo andare I have to go L: ciao bye

Appendix 3

Instructions on How to Access Facebook Chat

Italian Facebook: istruzioni per l’uso Per chattare con il tuo nuovo partner, dovresti usare un altro servizio chat. Mondochat è molto facile da stampare ma puoi usare quello che preferisci. Per esempio, è molto facile usare Facebook. Se sei già iscritto a Facebook, ti consigliamo di creare una pagina nuova espressamente per l’italiano. Se non sei iscritto a Facebook, ecco come fare: z z z z

Apri il browser e digita l’indirizzo http://www.facebook.com Inserisci il tuo nome, indirizzo e-mail, ‘password’, sesso e la tua data di nascita, e clicca Sign Up. La conferma sarà inviata al tuo indirizzo email. Clicca il link che troverai nella mail. Auguri: hai creato la tua pagina Facebook.

A questo punto puoi inserire il tuo indirizzo email e Facebook automaticamente avviserà la tua lista di contatti email. Se non vuoi fare così, clicca Skip This Step. Completa il modulo ‘Education History’ se vuoi trovare amici della tua università. Se no, clicca Skip This Step. Inserisci il nome della tua città e clicca Join. Hai creato la tua pagina personale. Poi dovrai aggiungere il nome del tuo partner di chat. NOTA: anche il tuo partner deve iscriversi a Facebook per usare la chat.

Appendix

237

Inserisci il nome del tuo partner nello spazio ‘cerca’ (searchbar). Vedrai una lista di nomi; scegli il tuo partner e clicca Add as Friend. Il tuo partner dovrà prima accettarti come un ‘amico’. Completato questo passo, potrete stabilire un orario conveniente per fare la chat. In fondo alla pagina, troverete un simbolo indica se il tuo amico (o amica) è ‘online’. Clicca il simbolo in fondo a destra e vedrai una lista di opzioni. Clicca Pop Out Chat poi clicca il nome del tuo partner e inizia la chat. Il modo più facile per stampare la tua chat, è di copiarla in un documento Word.

English Facebook: instructions To be able to chat with your new partner, you need to use a chatline that allows you to save the conversations. You may use your preferred chatline, but instructions on how to access Facebook chat are provided below. If you’ve already subscribed to Facebook, we recommend that you create a new page especially for Italian. If you haven’t subscribed to Facebook, here is how to do it: z z z z

Open the browser and type the address http://www.facebook.com Insert your name, email address, password, gender and date of birth and click Sign Up. Confirmation will be sent to your email address. Click the link that you will find in your email. Congratulations: you have created your Facebook page.

At this point, you can insert your email address and Facebook will automatically advise you of your email contact list. If you don’t want to do this, click Skip This Step. Complete the Education History form if you want to find friends from your university. If not, click Skip This Step.

238

Appendix

Insert the name of your city and click Join. You have created your personal page. Then you will need to add the name of your chat partner. NOTE: your partner will also need to subscribe to Facebook in order to chat. Insert your partner’s name in the space (search bar). You will see a list of names; choose your partner and click Add as Friend. Your partner will need to firstly accept you as a friend. Once you have completed this step, you could establish a mutually convenient time to chat. At the bottom of the page, you will find a symbol to indicate if your friend is online. Click the symbol at the bottom-right of the page and you will see a list of options. Click Pop Out Chat, then click the name of your partner and start chatting. The easiest way to print your chat session is to copy it into a Word document.

NB: These instructions are subject to change from time to time and need to be checked prior to use.

References

Beauvois, M. H. (1992). Computer-assisted classroom discussion in the foreign language classroom: Conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 455–464. Belz, J. A. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Language Learning and Technology, 7, 68−117. Belz, J. & Vyatkina, N. (2005). Learner corpus analysis and the development of L2 pragmatic competence in networked inter-cultural language study: The case of German modal particles. The Canadian Modern Language Review / La revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 62, 17–48. Blake, C. (2009). Potential of text-based internet chats for improving oral fluency in a second language. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 227–240. Brouwer, C. E, Rasmussen, G., & Wagner, J. (2004). Embedded corrections in second language talk. In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp. 75–92). London/New York: Continuum. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M., & Fleming, M. (Eds.) (1998). Language learning in intercultural perspective: Approaches through drama and ethnography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carroll, D. (2005). Vowel-marking as an Interactional Resource in Japanese Novice ESL Conversation. In Richards, K., & Seedhouse, P. (Eds.), Applying conversation analysis (pp. 214–234). Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Chun, D. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22(1), 17–31. Coniglio, M. (2008). Modal particles in Italian, Working Papers in Linguistics, University of Venice, Vol. 18. Retrieved November 4, 2009 from http://lear.unive.it/ bitstream/10278/986/1/03%20Coniglio.pdf. Cosenza, G. (2002). I messaggi SMS. In C. Bazzanella (Ed.), Sul dialogo: contesti e forme di interazione verbale (pp. 253−267). Milan: Guerini. Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the Internet, 1st edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, D. (2006). Language and the Internet, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning and Technology, 7 (3), 1–30. Dussias, P. E. (2006). Morphological development in Spanish-American telecollaboration. In J.A. Belz & S.L. Thorne (Eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language Education, (pp. 121–146). Boston, MA: Thomson Heinle. Elliott, A. J. (1981). Child language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

240

References

Ferguson, C. A. (1971). Absence of copula and the notion of simplicity: A study of normal speech, baby talk, foreigner talk, and pidgins. In D. Hymes (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization of languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285–300. Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., English, K., & Maillet, K. (2001). Giving a voice to the silent language of culture: The Cultura project. Language Learning and Technology, 5, 55–102. Garcia, A. C., & Jacobs, J. B. (1999). The eyes of the beholder: Understanding the turn-taking system in quasi-synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32 (4), 337–367. Gardner, R., & Wagner, J. (Eds.). (2004). Second language conversations. London: Continuum. Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. Essays in face-to-face behaviour. New York: Anchor Books. Golato, A., & Taleghani-Nikazm, C. (2006). Negotiation of face in web chats. Multilingua, 25, 293–321. Graham, S. L. (2008). A manual for (im)politeness?: The impact of the FAQ in an electronic community of practice. In Bousfield, D. & Locher, M.A. (Eds.), Impoliteness in language: studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Grimaldi, M. (2004). Il dialetto rinasce in chat. Quaderni del Dipartimento di Linguistica, University of Florence, Vol. 14, 123–137. Retrieved May 15, 2010 from http:// www.linguistica.unifi.it/upload/sub/QDLF/QDLF14/QDFL14_2004_07grimaldi.pdf. Hall, J. K. (2007). Redressing the roles of correction and repair in research on second and foreign language learning. Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 511–526. Hanna, B. E., & de Nooy, J. (2003). A funny thing happened on the way to the forum: Electronic discussion and foreign language learning. Language Learning and Technology, 7, 71–85. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Heritage, J. (2004). Conversation analysis and institutional talk. In K. Fitch & R.E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 103–137). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hosoda, Y. (2006). Repair and relevance of differential language expertise. Applied Linguistics, 27 (1), 25–50. Jefferson, G. (1987). On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. In G. Button & R.E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social interaction (pp. 86–100). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Jefferson, G. (1988) On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation. Social Problems, 35(4), 418–442. Jepson, K. (2005). Conversations—and negotiated interaction—in text and voice chat rooms. Language Learning & Technology, 9(3), 79–98. Joinson, A. N. (2001). Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 177–192.

References

241

Kalin, M. (1995). Coping with problems of understanding: Repair sequences between native and non-native speakers. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. Kasper, G. (1985). Repair in foreign language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 200–215. Kasper, G. (2004). Participant orientations in German conversation-for-learning. Modern Language Journal, 88(iv), 551–567. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 1–9). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79, 457–476. Kinginger, C. (2008). Special issue on study abroad. The Modern Language Journal, 92. Kramsch, C. (1998). The privilege of the intercultural speaker. In M. Byram & M. Fleming (Eds.), Language learning in intercultural perspective: Approaches through drama and ethnography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Harlow: Longman. Kurhila, S. (2005). Different orientations to grammatical correctness. In K. Richards & P. Seedhouse (Eds.), Applying conversation analysis (pp. 143–158). Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Lam, W. S. E (2004). Second language socialization in a bilingual chat room. Language Learning & Technology, 8(3), 44–65. Lauerbach, G. (1982). Face-work in Reparaturen—ein Charakteristikum von Learner/ Native-Speaker Diskursen. L.A.U.T., Paper no. 81, (29S), Trier. Liddicoat, A. J. (1997). Interaction, social structure and second language use: A response to Firth and Wagner. Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 313–317. Liddicoat, A. J. (2007). An introduction to conversation analysis. London/New York: Continuum. Liddicoat, A. J. (2010). Enacting participation: Hybrid modalities in on-line video conversation. In C. Develotte, R. Kern, M.N. Lamy (Eds.), Décrire la conversation en ligne. Lyon: ENS Éditions. Liddicoat, A. J., & Crozet, C. (2001). Acquiring French interactional norms through instruction. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatic Development in instructional contexts (pp. 125–144). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: a design feature in language teaching methodology. In C. Kramsch & R. Ginsberg (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Richie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of research on language acquisition, Vol.2: Second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press. Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Luke, K. K., & Pavlidou, T.-S. (Eds.) (2002). Telephone calls: Unity and diversity in conversational structure across languages and cultures. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

242

References

Markee, N. P. P. (2000). Conversation Analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Markee, N. P. P. (2008). Toward a learning behavior tracking methodology for CA-for-SLA. Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 404–427. Maturi, P. (2006) I suoni delle lingue, i suoni dell’italiano. Introduzione alla fonetica, Bologna: Il Mulino, 2006. Maynard, D. W., and Zimmerman, D. H. (1984). Topical talk, ritual and the social organization of relationship. Social Psychology Quarterly, 47, 301–316. Mori, J. (2003). The Construction of interculturality: A study of initial encounters between Japanese and American students. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(2), 143–184. Negretti, R. (1999). Web-based activities and SLA: A conversation analysis research approach. Language Learning and Technology, 3, 75–87. Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59–86). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Plough, I., & Gass, S. (1993). Interlocutor and task familiarity: Effects on interactional structure. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 35–36). Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. Porter, P. (1986). How learners talk to each other: Input and interaction in taskcentered discussions. In R.R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 200–222). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Richards, K., & Seedhouse, P. (Eds.) (2005) Applying conversation analysis. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics of the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. Satar, H. M., & Özdener, N. (2008). The effects of synchronous CMC on speaking proficiency and anxiety: Text versus voice chat. The Modern Language Journal, 92 (iv), 595–613. Schegloff, E. A. (1979). The relevance of repair in a syntax-for-conversation. In T. Givon (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax. (pp. 261–286). New York: Academic Press. Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1295–1345. Schegloff, E. A. (2000). When ‘others’ initiate repair. Applied Linguistics, 21 (2), 205–243. Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327. Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53 (2), 361–382. Schena, L., Prandi, M., & Mazzoleni, M. (Eds.) (2002). Intorno al congiuntivo. Bologna: CLUEB. Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158. Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. W. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1–63). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

References

243

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction, (pp.3–32). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Schönfeldt, J., & Golato, A. (2003). Repair in chats: A conversation analytic approach. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(3), 241–284. Schwienhorst, K. (2004). Native-speaker/non-native-speaker discourse in the MOO: Topic negotiation and initiation in a synchronous text-based environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17(1), 35–50. Seedhouse, P. (1999). The relationship between context and organisation of repair in the L2 classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 37(1), 59–80. Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Oxford: Blackwell. Seedhouse, P. (2005). Conversation Analysis and language learning. Language Teaching, 38, 165–87. Shekary, M., & Tahririan, M. H. (2006). Negotiation of meaning and noticing in text-based online chat. The Modern Language Journal, 90 (iv), 557–573. Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. Modern Language Journal, 87, 38–57. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). New York: Newsbury House. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371–391. ten Have, P. (2000). Computer-mediated chat: Ways of finding chat partners. M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 3(4). http://www.api-network.com/mc/0008/ partners.php [October 3, 2007]. ten Have, P. (2002). Comparing telephone call openings: Theoretical and methodological reflections. In K. K. Luke & T.-S. Pavlidou (Eds.), Telephone calls: Unity and diversity in conversational structure across languages and cultures (pp. 233–248). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Tudini, V. (2002). The role of online chatting in the development of competence in oral interaction. In the proceedings of the Innovations in Italian Workshop, Griffith University, http://www.gu.edu.au/centre/italian/ Keynote address. Tudini, V. (2003). Using native speakers in chat. Language Learning and Technology, 7, 141–159. Reprinted in Hubbard, P. (2009). Computer-assisted language learning: Critical concepts in Linguistics, Volume III: Computer mediated communication in language learning (Chapter 49, pp. 292–316). New York/London: Routledge. Tudini, V. (2004). Virtual immersion: Native speaker chats as a bridge to conversational Italian. [Special issue on Using and Learning Italian in Australia] In A. Rubino, (Ed.), Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, Series S, 18, 63–80. Tudini, V. (2005). Chatlines for beginners: Negotiating conversation at a distance. In B. Holmberg, M. Shelley, & C. White (Eds.), Distance education and languages: Evolution and change (pp. 212–229). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

244

References

Tudini, V. (2007). Negotiation and intercultural learning in Italian native speaker chat rooms. Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 577–601. Van, Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. London: Longman. Varonis, E., & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation. Applied Linguistics, 6, 71–90. Ware, P. D., & Kramsch, C. (2005). Toward an intercultural stance: Teaching German and English through telecollaboration. Modern Language Journal, 89, 190–205. Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13, 7–26 Warschauer. (1998). Interaction, negotiation, and computer-mediated learning. In M. Clay (Ed.), Practical applications of educational technology in language learning. Lyon, France: National Institute of Applied Sciences. Yamada, M. (2009). The role of social presence in learner-centered language learning using synchronous computer-mediated communication: Experimental study. Computers & Education, 52, 820–833. Yule, G. (2006). The Study of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Index

abbreviations and acronyms 20, 57, 62–3, 82–3 accountings 98, 100, 101, 105, 109, 115, 124, 128, 129, 137, 141, 142, 165, 166, 178, 180 and mitigation 141–8 active construction 76 adjacency pair 5, 9, 30, 33–6, 42, 43, 45, 51, 99, 114, 126, 152, 162, 171, 178, 179, 180, 193–5 intercultural pragmatics 193–6 phantom adjacency pairs 41, 63 question-answer adjacency pair 34, 35, 36, 48, 49, 52, 53, 82, 146, 148, 150, 160, 170 repair initiation 170 splitting of 36–41, 42, 46, 177 topicalization 170 anxiety 20–1 apology 93, 109, 129, 140, 143, 144, 149, 150–2, 153, 162, 172 for corrected mistake 93, 106, 153–4 for delayed response 48–50 apperceived input 24, 30, 32, 71, 167, 175, 177, 180, 189, 197 apperception 24–6, 30, 32, 55, 71, 90, 91, 177, 175, 177, 180, 189 appreciation 44, 45, 74, 87, 93, 99, 109–10, 111, 113, 115, 119, 129, 134, 140–3, 147, 152–4, 164, 165, 175, 178 attendant activities 127, 140, 141–2, 143, 144, 145, 147, 154, 159, 165, 166, 178, 188, 189 back-reference 39 categorization sequences 12, 118 chat jargon 19–20, 26, 63, 88

clarification requests 12, 15, 21, 45, 63, 65, 66–72, 84–5, 89, 90, 91–2, 94, 109, 127–8, 148–52, 159, 164, 165, 167–8, 170, 172–3, 174, 175, 176, 182, 183 see also otherinitiated self-repair closings 39, 74, 193, 195, 196 code-mixing 57 code-switching 77, 82, 123, 181, 197 collaborative repair 11, 55, 56, 57, 64 comprehended input 24–5, 71, 74, 84, 90, 94, 95, 112, 113, 167, 172, 175, 177, 182, 205 comprehensible input 6, 10, 24–5, 26, 43, 55, 83, 123, 177 comprehension check 6, 22, 61, 65, 66, 71–2, 77, 81, 84, 119, 171 see also self-initiated other-repair and word search confirmation check 2, 162 context classroom 5, 9, 10, 12, 17, 18, 20, 24, 26, 29, 33, 51, 64–5, 96, 97, 105, 116, 126, 130, 157, 167, 174, 182, 183, 186, 188, 189, 190, 197, 199, 200, 202 form and accuracy 3, 19, 21, 60–1, 70, 94, 98, 100, 101, 103–4, 105, 107, 114, 115–16, 117, 119, 123–4, 126, 137, 179, 180, 182, 183, 191 form-focused 10, 11, 13, 15, 17–18, 133, 166, 180, 187 informal 2, 5, 19, 20, 44, 57, 134, 188, 193, 198, 200 personal meanings 3, 71, 98, 104, 114 contiguity 35, 38, 40–6, 51, 107, 110–13, 196

246

Index

conversation analysis (CA) 1–7, 15, 25, 26, 15, 33 see also specific entries conversation talk 105 conversation topics 12, 192, 202 conversational adjustments 6 conversational repair see repair conversational routines 39, 42, 43, 92, 105, 154, 193–5, 199 corpus, of NS-learner interactions 11 gender identification accuracy 107–10 correction 6, 43, 97 see also embedded and exposed correction; other-initiated other-repair; repair correction, sequential structure of 106–13 see also repair contiguity of XXY 110–13 correction is accepted 106 correction is rejected 107, 138–40 correction-apology 152–4 correction-appreciation 152–4 current speaker 35, 36, 41, 172 current writer 36, 42 data 3, 13, 14 data-driven language learning 188 delayed correction 42–6 delayed response 48, 63, 87, 113 dialect 20, 26 didactic and conversational repair work, distinguishing between 6–7, 29 dispreferred action 10, 43, 48, 55, 107, 123, 127, 128–9, 130, 131, 134, 141, 142, 147, 148, 150, 152, 159–60, 163, 164, 165, 179, 187, 198–9 dyadic chat 4, 5, 16, 17, 19, 32, 34, 35, 36, 40–1, 46, 50–1, 54, 55, 63, 64–5, 98, 116, 135, 157–8, 174, 175, 182, 187, 197, 198, 199, 200 turn-taking system 41 EFL 14, 23, 76, 92, 104–5, 106, 145, 186, 190–1, 198, 205 embedded correction 3, 54–5, 79, 81, 97–103, 107, 122, 123, 180

embedded pushed output 95, 112–13, 124, 180, 184, 185 emoticons 36, 127, 144, 159–60, 165, 178, 188 smiley face as preface/conclusion to exposed correction 163–4 softening exposed corrections 160–3 epals 202 equality of participation 32, 33, 35, 51, 192, 195, 197 etandem network 13, 201 exemplification 27, 42, 44, 115, 167, 189–90, 145, 195 expert-novice relationship 83, 123, 129–31 learner as novice 132 learner invitations to correct 132–4 NS as tutor 135–41 NS request for permission to correct 134–5 exposed correction 3, 10, 30, 45, 54–5, 93, 103–6, 107, 111, 112, 117, 119, 123, 124, 125, 127–8, 130–1, 133, 134, 135, 137, 138, 140, 141, 178, 186–7, 194 and accountings 97, 98, 100–1, 141–7, 154–7, 189, 197, 199 contiguity of XYY 110–13 dispreferred 129, 165 emoticons in 160–4 gender identification accuracy 107–10 interactional relevance of repetition after 114–16 learner orientation to 180–2 pushed output 180 see also specific entries repetition of correct alternates 178–80 Facebook 203, 236–8 face-saving behaviours 127, 164, 194, 196, 199 face-work 148–52 and repair 186–8 Finnish 131, 199

Index first pair part 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 45, 49, 50, 51, 82, 99, 105, 115, 126, 143, 162, 170, 171, 179, 194 form and accuracy 3, 19, 21, 60–1, 70, 94, 98, 100–1, 103, 105, 107, 114, 115, 117, 119, 123, 124, 126, 137, 179, 180, 182, 183, 191 forward-oriented repair sequences 72 French 21 gender, of participants 3, 13, 14 gender identification accuracy 107–10, 186 gender relations 157–9, 202 German 5, 188, 197 grammatical form-focused discussions 180 gratitude 114, 188 see also appreciation greeting 38 see also openings group chat 3–4, 8, 18, 20, 26, 34, 50, 198 humour 127, 129, 159–60, 163, 165, 173 hyperlinks 189, 192–3 implicit correction see embedded correction initiation-response-feedback (IRF) 51, 96, 183, 198 institutional settings 97, 198 instructing sequences 47, 48, 138, 141, 143, 145, 147, 154, 192 integration 24–6, 103, 175, 182 through assessment 203 interactionist model of second language acquisition 24–6 intercultural pragmatics 193 adjacency pair 193–6 online preference organization 196–7 intercultural speaker 9, 14, 19, 174, 205 interpersonal trajectories 32, 79, 87, 95, 98, 99, 100, 106, 107, 109, 112, 115, 158, 168, 173, 180, 185, 195, 197 intersubjectivity 7, 55, 103, 123, 127, 129, 157, 160, 199

247

Japanese 2, 5, 130, 186, 192 kinesic features, of oral interaction 1 lack of contiguity (split adjacency) 38, 40–6 lack of response 49, 94 larger unit in progress 42, 43 laughter 23, 36, 39, 60, 66–7, 75, 78, 88, 119, 149, 150, 152, 162, 164–5, 172–3, 174 learners see also non-native speaker (NNS); also specific entries invitation to correct 132–4 request for conversational assistance 164–5 revelation of novice status 131–2 longitudinal model of L2 learning 24, 197 meaning-oriented 13, 157–9, 179 metalingual talk 77, 157, 180, 181, 187, 189, 197, 200, 202 metatalk 105 microlinguistic 42, 43, 48, 114, 116, 185 misinterpretation 66, 67 misunderstanding 64, 67, 123, 146, 173, 174, 176, 194, 196–7 mitigation 127, 128 through accountings 141–7 through correction-apology and correction-appreciation routines 152–4 see also emoticons multimodality of chat 84, 178, 189 multiparty chat see group chat mutual understanding, failure of 168–75 native speaker (NS) 14 see also specific entries correction see repair correction and exposed correction explaining grammar 154–7 orienting to linguistic expert role (tutor) 135–41 orienting to meaning 157–9 request permission to correct 134

248

Index

native speaker (NS) (Cont’d) simplified talk 26–7 as ‘sounding board’ 184–5 negative evidence (corrective feedback) 70, 103, 189 negative feedback 10, 21, 22, 24 negotiated interaction 10, 20, 55 negotiation of meaning 1, 6, 9–11, 205 non-native-speaker (NNS) 2, 14, 23, 26, 29, 34, 43, 127, 130, 131, 186, 197, 198 see also learner non-understanding 27, 87, 92, 95, 96, 115, 117, 118, 148, 152, 170, 173, 174, 176 noticing 13, 21–4, 38, 59, 64, 70, 79, 91, 179, 189 encouraging through learner reports 205–6 of linguistic gaps 190–2 and negative feedback 21 occupational vocabulary 116 ‘on the fly’ correction 98, 101, 107, 112, 113, 180, 185 open correction see exposed correction openings 27, 30, 31, 37, 39, 116, 132, 185, 193, 195, 196 other-correction 3, 65, 104, 179 see also correction; exposed correction; other-initiated other-repair other-initiated other-repair 18–19, 47, 55, 73, 82, 94, 97, 114, 127, 128 other-initiated repair 42, 43, 102, 113, 126, 127 other-initiated self-repair 84–94, 95, 128, 164, 178 avoiding recasts 183–4 face work and 148–52, 186 pushed output when learners initiate repair on NS talk 182 when NSs initiate repair on learner talk 183 other-repair, extended 116–24 out-of-class interaction 5, 204 output, learning stage 25 overlap 2, 4, 15, 37, 38, 176

paraphrases 27–8, 73, 81, 85, 91, 92 participants 11 partnerships 13, 76, 92, 131, 145, 159, 160, 182, 184, 185, 187, 192, 197 setting up 174, 179, 201–2 passive construction 75, 76 pauses by interlocutor 48, 94 pedagogical orientation 3, 14, 17–19, 32, 42–3, 46, 48, 51, 62, 65, 98, 101, 102, 107, 110, 129, 130, 157–8, 159, 166, 171, 173, 174, 176, 178, 179, 181, 187, 188, 195, 205 pedagogical trajectory 168, 171, 173, 174, 179, 181 personal meanings 3, 71, 98, 104, 114 phantom adjacency pairs 41, 63 photos 57, 84, 102, 189, 192 politeness 3, 6, 127, 154, 166, 194, 196 Polyglot Club 201 preference organization 5, 9, 33, 41, 128–9, 130, 140, 165, 196–7 and participants’ motives 130 pretopical talk 130, 202 previous literature, insights from 8 problem utterances 62, 90–1, 92, 93–4, 114, 156, 157, 163 productive repair trajectories 94, 177–93 prosodic feature, of oral interaction 1 pushed output 10, 32, 55, 68, 71, 72, 74–6, 95, 112–13, 124, 126, 166, 177, 178, 180, 181, 184–5, 190, 197, 200 when learners initiate repair on NS talk 182 when NSs initiate repair on learner talk 183 ‘quasi-synchronous’ CMC 35 question-answer adjacency pair 34, 35, 36, 48, 49, 52, 53, 82, 146, 148, 150, 160, 170 readability of online chat 23, 43, 51, 189, 190 recast see exposed correction reconstruction after NS correction 114 reconstruction of adjacency pairs 35, 38, 41, 42, 51, 193–6

Index reformulation 27, 76, 85, 91, 95, 126, 172, 178, 181, 183 regional varieties 19, 20 relationship building 42, 129, 135, 196–7 see also partnerships repair 6–7, 9, 20, 24, 29, 52, 177 see also specific entries completion of 54, 56 format, to exposed correction 130 initiation of 6, 14–15, 37, 41, 42–3, 54, 56, 59, 152, 159, 168, 170 insights from unsuccessful sequences 167–76 repeated initiation of 11, 152, 173 role in SLA 54 triggers of 29–32 in voice chat 20–1 repairables 41–6, 51, 56, 65, 107, 109–11, 150, 162, 166, 178, 179, 185–6 repetition 126 of correct alternate 115, 178 of corrected (other-repaired) item 114 of newly acquired lexical items 95 reports assessment 204 same turn self-repair 64, 83 second pair part 30, 34, 38, 40, 48, 49, 50, 63, 82, 92, 93, 111, 113, 141, 143, 146, 147, 153, 159, 162, 171, 177 seeks clarification see clarification requests selective processing 25, 55, 70 self-criticism 141, 150, 152 self-deprecation 165 self-initiated other-repair 64–72, 81–4, 102, 128, 171, 178 face work and 186–8 NS as ‘sounding board’ 184–5 word search 72–7 self-initiated repair 54, 56, 79, 80 self-initiated self-repair 2, 56–64, 74, 128 self-selection 36 sequencing 4, 33–4, 194 SharedTalk 13, 160, 201 silence 50, 53, 58 and self-repair 94–5, 179

249

simplified talk 26–7 single-case analysis 11 slowing down of conversation 23, 26, 103, 189 smiley face see emoticons SMS communication 20, 27, 57, 62, 63, 83, 91, 138 social diversity of NS interlocutors 204–5 social trajectory 7, 11, 15, 17–19, 30, 42, 43, 46, 51, 57, 62, 71, 81, 96, 98, 101, 103, 110, 111, 113, 126, 152, 167, 174–5, 178, 184 software 4, 35, 42, 43, 53, 60, 64, 84, 132, 146, 160, 164, 179–80, 195, 202–3 split adjacency pairs see under adjacency pairs target-like utterances 29, 94, 96, 183 task-based studies 2, 114 teachers and foreigner talk 26–8 telephone 194–5 terminology 14–15 text chat environment 19 topicalization 170 transcription 5, 13–14, 35 and rules of writing 59 transition-relevant place 36 transition-relevant point 36, 53 transition space 60, 179 translations 14, 82, 89, 92, 105, 115, 123, 145, 147 triggers 8, 19–20, 23–4, 29–32, 49, 90, 116–17, 185, 186, 187, 191, 197–8 trouble source 11, 29–30, 31, 41–2, 51, 56, 60, 64, 72, 76, 86–7, 88, 89, 90, 94, 107, 110, 117, 123, 124, 129, 149–50, 167, 171, 173, 178, 181, 183, 184, 185–6, 190, 193 try-marking 77–81, 141, 184, 185 turn constructional units (TCUs) 36, 46, 53, 192 splitting of 46–51 turn allocation 35–6

250

Index

turn-taking 4, 5, 15, 33–5, 36, 39, 40, 42, 46, 51, 53, 55, 63, 65, 125, 174, 176, 177, 180, 189, 193–4, 195 mechanism of action 35–6 preference organization effect on 128 turn allocation techniques 36

visual saliency 21–4, 28, 51, 64, 70, 102, 110, 179, 189–93, 194, 199 vocabulary 8, 10, 26, 37, 82, 95, 142, 199 significance of 116–24 voice chat 20–1

unambiguous grammatical selfrepairs 60 understanding 6, 15, 31, 40, 43, 51, 52–5, 63, 64, 65, 81, 85, 86, 94, 98, 124, 127, 158, 165, 183, 197 of social status through extended other-repair 116–24 unmitigated corrections 127, 128

word search 22, 65, 71, 72–7, 95, 141, 181, 184, 185 online try-making 77–81, 141, 184, 185 XYX structure 106–7 XYY structure 106, 107–10, 112, 113, 114, 115

Author Index

Beauvois, M. H. 18, 23 Belz, J. A. 132, 188 Blake, C. 65 Brouwer, C. E. 54, 98, 127 Byram, M. 9, 52, 205

111, 114, 124, 125, 127, 128, 137, 141, 143, 145, 147, 154, 165, 166, 178, 180 Jepson, K. 20 Joinson, A. N. 187

Carroll, D. 72 Chun, D. 33, 193 Coniglio, M. 167, 188 Cosenza, G. 20 Crozet, C. 54 Crystal, D. 4, 19, 33, 50

Kalin, M. 127, 198 Kasper, G. 5, 30, 64, 129, 135, 188, 197, 198, 202 Kern, R. 9, 18, 33 Kinginger, C. 200 Kramsch, C. 14, 19, 194, 196 Krashen, S. 6, 10 Kurhila, S. 130, 198

de Nooy, J. 3, 196 Doughty, C. J. 10, 21, 181 Dussias, P. E. 192 Ferguson, C. A. 26 Firth, A. 4 Fleming, M. 9 Furstenberg, G. 202 Garcia, A. C. 4, 9, 35, 41, 63 Gass, S. M. 2, 6, 9, 18, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 55, 70, 98, 103, 113, 167, 172, 175, 189, 205 Goffman, E. 127, 148, 188 Golato, A. 8, 9, 159 Graham, S. L. 187 Grimaldi, M. 20 Hall, J. K. 51, 96, 183 Hanna, B. E. 3, 196 Heritage, J. 33, 127, 196 Hosoda, Y. 2, 5, 65, 77, 114, 116, 130, 186 Jacobs, J. B. 4, 9, 35, 41, 63 Jefferson, G. 6, 10, 30, 54, 55, 97, 98, 100, 102, 103, 106, 107, 109, 110,

Lam, W. S. E. 17 Lapkin, S. 21 Lauerbach, G. 54, 187 Liddicoat, A. J. 1, 4, 11, 19, 21, 37, 46, 54, 65, 84, 127, 128, 145, 170, 171, 195 Long, M. H. 10, 21, 181, 200 Luke, K. K. 195 Markee, N. P. P. 2, 5, 6, 7, 17, 24, 25, 30, 32, 33, 54, 64, 116, 124, 157, 186, 188, 197 Maturi, P. 59 Maynard, D. W. 12, 118, 130 Mori, J. 5 Negretti, R. 8, 18, 159 Özdener, N. 21 Pavlidou, T.-S. 195 Pellettieri, J. 2, 4, 9, 10, 18, 21, 114, 179 Plough, I. 2 Porter, P. 6

252

Author Index

Robinson, P. 181 Rose, K. 30 Sacks, H. 34, 35, 36, 39, 52 Satar, H. M. 21 Schegloff, E. A. 3, 5, 6, 29, 33, 34, 39, 41, 42, 43, 52, 54, 56, 64, 72, 103, 104, 110, 127, 129, 130, 187 Schena, L. 60 Schmidt, R. W. 21, 38, 91, 190, 205 Schönfeldt, J. 8, 159 Schwienhorst, K. 34 Seedhouse, P. 2, 3, 5, 19, 21, 71, 98, 104 Shekary, M. 23, 192 Smith, B. 2, 9, 18, 36, 63, 114 Swain, M. 6, 10, 21

ten Have, P. 148, 195 Tudini, V. 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 18, 20, 26, 27, 30, 34, 50, 56, 81, 103, 114, 159, 205 Van, Lier, L.. 7, 29, 30, 126 Varonis, E. 6, 9, 98, 103, 205 Vyatkina, N. 188 Wagner, J. 4 Ware, P. D. 194, 196 Warschauer, M. 9, 23, 33 Yamada, M. 22 Yule, G. 26 Zimmerman, D. H. 12, 118, 130

Tahririan, M. H. 23, 192 Taleghani-Nikazm, C. 9, 159

Online Second Language Acquisition: Conversation Analysis of Online Chat

Conversation Analysis (Second Language Acquisition Research Series)

Online

Online

Error Analysis Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition

Measuring Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition (Second Language Acquisition)

An Overview of Online Learning, Second Edition

Approaches to Second Language Acquisition

The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition (Second Language Acquisition Research)

Age in second language acquisition

Investing Online

Online News

Online Menage

Language Acquisition: The Age Factor (Second Language Acquisition)

Investigations In Instructed Second Language Acquisition (Studies on Language Acquisition)

Third or Additional Language Acquisition (Second Language Acquisition)

Third Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar (Second Language Acquisition)

Speaking and Instructed Foreign Language Acquisition (Second Language Acquisition)

Second Language Acquisition and Language Pedagogy

Second Language Acquisition - Foreign Language Learning

Online Marketing Inside Out (Online Marketing: Sitepoint)

Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Foreign Language Acquisition (Second Language Acquisition)

Online Matchmaking

Hermes Online

Online Matchmaking

Informacao e Comunicacao Online (Vol.I): Jornalismo Online

An Outline of Second Language Acquisition Theories

Arabic Second Language Acquisition of Morphosyntax

Handbook of Online Education

A Philosophy of Second Language Acquisition

Conversation Analysis (Second Language Acquisition Research Series Theoretical and Methodological Issues)

Online Second Language Acquisition: Conversation Analysis of Online Chat

Conversation Analysis (Second Language Acquisition Research Series)

Online

Online

Error Analysis Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition

Measuring Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition (Second Language Acquisition)

An Overview of Online Learning, Second Edition

Approaches to Second Language Acquisition

The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition (Second Language Acquisition Research)

Age in second language acquisition

Investing Online

Online News

Online Menage

Language Acquisition: The Age Factor (Second Language Acquisition)

Investigations In Instructed Second Language Acquisition (Studies on Language Acquisition)

Third or Additional Language Acquisition (Second Language Acquisition)

Third Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar (Second Language Acquisition)

Speaking and Instructed Foreign Language Acquisition (Second Language Acquisition)

Second Language Acquisition and Language Pedagogy

Second Language Acquisition - Foreign Language Learning

Online Marketing Inside Out (Online Marketing: Sitepoint)

Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Foreign Language Acquisition (Second Language Acquisition)

Online Matchmaking

Hermes Online

Online Matchmaking

Informacao e Comunicacao Online (Vol.I): Jornalismo Online

An Outline of Second Language Acquisition Theories

Arabic Second Language Acquisition of Morphosyntax

Handbook of Online Education

A Philosophy of Second Language Acquisition

Conversation Analysis (Second Language Acquisition Research Series Theoretical and Methodological Issues)

Recommend Documents