UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The effect of task variation in teacher-led groups on repair of English as a foreign language Berwick, Richard 1988-12-31

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1988_A2 B47.pdf [ 13.18MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055821.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055821-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055821-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055821-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055821-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055821-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055821-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055821-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055821.ris

Full Text

THE E F F E C T OF TASK VARIATION  IN  TEACHER-LED GROUPS  ON REPAIR OF ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE  By  RICHARD FRANKLIN BERWICK B . A . , The U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , B e r k e l e y , 1966 M . E d , The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1979  A THESIS  SUBMITTED IN  PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF  THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION  in  THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of  Administrative,  We a c c e p t to  this the  Adult  thesis  required  THE UNIVERSITY  as  and H i g h e r  conforming  standard  OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA  October, ® Richard Franklin  1988 Berwick,  1988  Education  In  presenting  degree  at the  this  thesis  in  University of  partial  fulfilment  of  of  department  this thesis for or  by  his  or  requirements  British Columbia, I agree that the  freely available for reference and study. I further copying  the  representatives.  an advanced  Library shall make it  agree that permission for extensive  scholarly purposes may be her  for  It  is  granted  by the  understood  that  head of copying  my or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  A d m i n i s t r a t i v e , A d u l t and Higher Department  of  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  Date  DE-6 (2/88)  October 14, 1988  Education  ABSTRACT An and  experiment was conducted t o determine how  learners  t e a c h e r s o f E n g l i s h as a f o r e i g n language i n Japan  cooperatively  attempt t o improve t h e c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y  of  t h e i r t a l k i n E n g l i s h d u r i n g performance o f v a r i o u s conversational  tasks.  The b a s i c p r a c t i c a l i s s u e under study  was t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t c e r t a i n k i n d s o f t e a c h e r - l e d and  t a s k s would be more e f f e c t i v e i n g e n e r a t i n g  negotiation  o f the language by which t a s k s  than o t h e r s , eventually  a r e accomplished  be employed as a l t e r n a t i v e s t o t r a d i t i o n a l forms o f f o r e i g n language i n s t r u c t i o n .  study was o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d  within subjects, design.  r e p a i r and  and t h a t these group-task combinations might  teacher-fronted The  groups  i n a 2 x 5 between-and-  repeated-measures a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e  Two, six-dyad,  teacher-led  (Japanese teacher/Japanese l e a r n e r )  groups—homogeneous and mixed  (native  E n g l i s h speaking teacher/Japanese l e a r n e r ) — w e r e formed i n o r d e r t o compare the frequency o f 12 r e p a i r exponents generated d u r i n g performance o f f i v e t a s k s . were r e p r e s e n t e d i n two t a s k s , string-searching  f u n c t i o n o f a l a p t o p computer 1) w i t h and  ( s o c i a l and c o o p e r a t i v e  Non-teaching  problem-solving) g o a l s were embodied  a d d i t i o n a l tasks,  construction  goals  i n s t r u c t i o n i n use o f t h e  2) w i t h o u t t h e computer p h y s i c a l l y p r e s e n t .  i n three  Teaching  3) f r e e d i s c u s s i o n , and  o f a Lego (snap-together) t o y accomplished w i t h  p a r t i c i p a n t s f a c i n g 4) away from and 5) towards each Task c a t e g o r i e s  other.  were a l s o d i v i d e d i n t o e x p e r i e n t i a l and  ii  expository a c t i v i t i e s  ( r e s p e c t i v e l y , Tasks 2 and 5, and  Tasks 1 and 4) f o l l o w i n g a model f o r use o f r e f e r e n c e i n English. occurrence  E x p e r i e n t i a l dyadic a c t i v i t y was r e l a t e d t o t h e o f exophoric  ( p o i n t i n g out) r e f e r e n c e and  e x p o s i t o r y d y a d i c a c t i v i t y t o t h e i n c i d e n c e o f anaphoric ( p o i n t i n g back) r e f e r e n c e i n t h e t a s k t r a n s c r i p t s . R e s u l t s o f the a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t w h i l e t a s k s d i f f e r e d on t h e b a s i s o f r e p a i r and r e f e r e n c e , the groups d i d n o t :  Dyadic t a l k was more r e s p o n s i v e t o t h e  nature o f the t a s k than t o the language background o f t h e teacher.  F u r t h e r a n a l y s i s suggested  more f r e q u e n t and  e l a b o r a t e r e p a i r d u r i n g t a s k s which combine g o a l s and e x p e r i e n t i a l processes  non-teaching  as compared w i t h  emphasizing t e a c h i n g g o a l s and e x p o s i t o r y  tasks  processes.  Q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s o f t a s k t r a n s c r i p t s supported  this  d i s t i n c t i o n and e l a b o r a t e d s p e c i f i c d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n s f o r such r e p a i r exponents as r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s and c o n f i r m a t i o n checks which c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y co-occur i n conversational discourse. Based on these f i n d i n g s , i t was concluded t e a c h e r s a r e capable  of generating  t h a t Japanese  appropriate  c o n v e r s a t i o n a l r e p a i r i n dyadic i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h l e a r n e r s l a r g e l y on a par with t h e i r n a t i v e E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g counterparts.  To t h i s extent, t h e i r p o t e n t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n  t o l e a r n e r s ' a c q u i s i t i o n o f a f o r e i g n language i s o f an equivalent value.  Furthermore, t e a c h e r - l e d s m a l l groups can  iii  be e f f e c t i v e c o n t e x t s f o r g e n e r a t i n g a r i c h supply of c o n v e r s a t i o n a l r e p a i r and. thus should be c o n s i d e r e d  as  alternatives to t r a d i t i o n a l teacher-fronted foreign  language  classroom  instruction.  F i n a l l y , t a s k s which  achievement of s o c i a l and p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g teaching) g o a l s through  support  (i.e.,  non-  e x p e r i e n t i a l a c t i v i t y are e f f e c t i v e  c o n t e x t s i n which normal forms of c o n v e r s a t i o n a l r e p a i r be generated. classroom  can  S i n c e such t a s k s can be adapted e a s i l y t o  s e t t i n g s , they m e r i t c o n s i d e r a t i o n among the range  of t a s k o p t i o n s a v a i l a b l e t o t e a c h e r s and i n s t r u c t i o n a l planners.  iv  other  TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT  ii  TABLE OF CONTENTS  V  LIST  OF TABLES  X  LIST  OF FIGURES  xii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  xiii  CHAPTER 1:  INTRODUCTION  CHAPTER 2 :  FOUNDATIONS OF THE STUDY  Foreigner  Talk  Foreigner  1  (FT)  Talk  10  and  Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n Foreigner  10  Talk  in  Interlanguage Talk Dimensions of  (SLA)  Instructional  Settings  (IT)  14 21 .26  T a s k and I n t e r l a n g u a g e T a l k  Conceptual Dimensions of  the  Study  30 39  Repair  39  Task  42  Reference  50  Summary CHAPTER 3:  57 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY  The R e s e a r c h D e s i g n  60 60  A s s u m p t i o n s and R a t i o n a l e  60  An O v e r v i e w  63  of  the  Design  D e s c r i p t i v e M e a s u r e s and Dependent V a r i a b l e s used i n the Study R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n s and H y p o t h e s e s  v  67 76  TABLE OF CONTENTS  (cont'd.) Page  General  S t r a t e g y f o r Data A n a l y s i s  Methodology  80 83  S e l e c t i o n and Treatment o f S u b j e c t s  83  C o l l e c t i o n and Coding o f Data  86  P r e l i m i n a r y Treatment o f the Data  98  Summary CHAPTER 4:  103 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE DATA  104  The D e s c r i p t i v e Features o f T a l k by Group and Task....104 The A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e : R e p a i r by Group and I n d i v i d u a l Task C l a r i f i c a t i o n Request: Comprehension  Check:  C o n f i r m a t i o n Check: Definition:  CCOM CCON  DDEF  D i s p l a y Question: Echo:  CCLAR  DDQ  Self-repetition:  117 118  121  LLEX  OOEXP OOREP  R e f e r e n t i a l Question: Self-expansion:  116  122  Lexical Uncertainty:  Other-repetition:  115  120  EECH  Other-expansion:  (H1-H2)  SSEXP SSREP  RRQ  123 125 125 126 127 128  Anaphora:  AANA  132  Exophora:  EEXO  133  vi  TABLE OF CONTENTS  (cont'd.) Page  The A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e : R e p a i r and Reference by Group f o r Combined and S e l e c t e d Tasks....136 R e p a i r During E x p e r i e n t i a l and E x p o s i t o r y A c t i v i t y (H3) Anaphoric Reference During E x p e r i e n t i a l and E x p o s i t o r y A c t i v i t y E x o p h o r i c Reference  137 (H4a)  141  (H4b)  143  During  E x p e r i e n t i a l and E x p o s i t o r y A c t i v i t y Summary CHAPTER 5:  145 DISCUSSION OF THE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE  The Use o f R e p a i r by Group and Task  148 148  The General Lack of Group D i f f e r e n c e s The R e l a t i o n s h i p of R e p a i r and Task: A l l o c a t i o n o f R e p a i r t o Teaching and Non-teaching Tasks  148 150  The Use o f Reference by Group and Task  157  S p e c i f i c A l l o c a t i o n s o f Reference t o Task  159  R e p a i r During Combined and S e l e c t e d Tasks: Towards a Framework f o r Complementary Task S t r u c t u r e s  161  Reference During Combined and S e l e c t e d Tasks  166  Anaphora During E x p e r i e n t i a l and E x p o s i t o r y Tasks Exophora During  167  E x p e r i e n t i a l and E x p o s i t o r y Tasks  168  Summary CHAPTER 6: OF THE  169 QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS  TASK TRANSCRIPTS  173  D i s p l a y and R e f e r e n t i a l Questions COM2:  The I n s t r u c t i o n a l Demonstration vii  174 Task  175  TABLE OF CONTENTS  (cont'd.) Page  DIS and LEG2: D i s c u s s i o n and C o o p e r a t i v e P r o b l e m - s o l v i n g  183  D i s p l a y and R e f e r e n t i a l Questions: Summarizing t h e C o n t r a s t s Between the Teaching and Non-teaching Tasks  197  R e p a i r i n Complementary Task S t r u c t u r e s Group 1: D e f i n i t i o n s and E x p r e s s i o n s o f L e x i c a l U n c e r t a i n t y  201 202  Group 2: C o n f i r m a t i o n Checks and R e f e r e n t i a l Questions Summary CHAPTER 7:  209 215  SUMMARY, LIMITATIONS,  IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION Summary  220 220  C o n c l u s i o n s Based on t h e A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e  223  C o n c l u s i o n s Based on the A n a l y s i s o f T r a n s c r i p t s  22 6  L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e Study  229  Implications f o r Educational Practice  232  I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Task-based Research Conclusion  236 237  REFERENCES  239  APPENDICES (A-K)  247  A: I n v i t a t i o n f o r Teachers t o P a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e Research B: I n v i t a t i o n f o r Learners t o P a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e Research C: Statement o f Informed Consent  viii  248 249 251  TABLE OF CONTENTS  (cont'd.) Page  D: E:  F:  E n g l i s h Language P r o f i c i e n c y T e s t s used to S e l e c t Subjects Instructions  to  and Index o f  Dependent  Transcription  253  Raters Variables  '.  Conventions  256 265  G:  ANOVA F r a t i o s f o r S e l e c t e d T r a n s f o r m e d and U n t r a n s f o r m e d V a r i a b l e s L i s t e d i n T a b l e 3 H: S i g n i f i c a n t R e p a i r C a t e g o r i e s and S o u r c e s o f V a r i a n c e f o r E x p e r i e n t i a l and E x p o s i t o r y T a s k s U s i n g LEG1 as t h e E x p o s i t o r y Stem I: J: K:  266  267  ANOVA T a b l e s C o m p a r i n g E x p e r i e n t i a l w i t h E x p o s i t o r y T a s k s (C0M1 v s . LEG1 + COM2)  268  ANOVA T a b l e s C o m p a r i n g E x p e r i e n t i a l E x p o s i t o r y T a s k s (C0M1 v s . LEG2)  271  Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s for M i x e d - and Homogeneous-group T a s k s  ix  with  274  LIST OF TABLES Table  Page  1  Summary o f C o n d i t i o n s f o r T e s t i n g Hypotheses R e l a t i n g t o Group, Task, Reference and R e p a i r  79  2  L e v e l o f Homogeneity W i t h i n Groups by Dependent V a r i a b l e  99  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 11 12 13 14  Comparison of S e l e c t e d Transformed and Untransformed V a r i a b l e s by S i g n i f i c a n c e o f ANOVA E f f e c t s  101  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s f o r Word-based Measures o f C o n v e r s a t i o n a l A c t i v i t y by Mixed-group Task  106  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s f o r Word-based Measures of C o n v e r s a t i o n a l A c t i v i t y by Homogeneous-group Task  108  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s f o r Utterance-based Measures o f C o n v e r s a t i o n a l A c t i v i t y by Mixed-group Task  110  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s f o r U t t e r a n c e - b a s e d Measures o f C o n v e r s a t i o n a l A c t i v i t y by Homogeneous-group Task  I l l  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s f o r Turn-based Measures o f C o n v e r s a t i o n a l A c t i v i t y by Mixed-group Task  112  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s f o r Turn-based Measures of C o n v e r s a t i o n a l A c t i v i t y by Homogeneous-group Task  114  E f f e c t s of Group Membership and Task on C l a r i f i c a t i o n Requests  116  E f f e c t s o f Group Membership and Task on Comprehension Checks.  117  E f f e c t s o f Group Membership and Task on C o n f i r m a t i o n Checks  119  E f f e c t s of Group Membership and Task on D e f i n i t i o n s  120  E f f e c t s o f Group Membership and Task on D i s p l a y Questions  121  x  15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26  27  28  29  E f f e c t s o f Group M e m b e r s h i p a n d T a s k on E c h o e s  122  E f f e c t s o f Group M e m b e r s h i p a n d T a s k on L e x i c a l U n c e r t a i n t y  124  E f f e c t s o f Group Membership and T a s k o n O t h e r - e x p a n s i o n  125  E f f e c t s o f Group M e m b e r s h i p a n d T a s k on O t h e r - r e p e t i t i o n  125  E f f e c t s o f Group Membership a n d T a s k on R e f e r e n t i a l Q u e s t i o n s  126  E f f e c t s o f Group M e m b e r s h i p and T a s k on S e l f - E x p a n s i o n  127  E f f e c t s o f Group M e m b e r s h i p and T a s k on S e l f - r e p e t i t i o n  129  S i g n i f i c a n t Repair Exponents and S o u r c e s o f V a r i a n c e f o r a l l  Tasks  130  E f f e c t s o f Group Membership and T a s k on A n a p h o r i c R e f e r e n c e  133  E f f e c t s o f Group M e m b e r s h i p and T a s k on E x o p h o r i c R e f e r e n c e  133  S i g n i f i c a n t Reference Categories and S o u r c e s o f V a r i a n c e f o r A l l T a s k s  135  S i g n i f i c a n t R e p a i r C a t e g o r i e s and S o u r c e s o f V a r i a n c e f o r E x p e r i e n t i a l and E x p o s i t o r y T a s k s U s i n g COMl a s t h e E x p o s i t o r y Stem  139  E f f e c t s o f Group Membership and S e l e c t e d T a s k s on A n a p h o r i c R e f e r e n c e : C o n t r a s t i n g LEG2 w i t h COMl (EXPER-EXP0S2)  142  E f f e c t s o f G r o u p Membership a n d S e l e c t e d T a s k s on E x o p h o r i c R e f e r e n c e : Contrasting LEG2 a n d COM2 w i t h COMl ( E X P E R - E X P O S l )  144  E f f e c t s o f Group Membership and S e l e c t e d T a s k s on E x o p h o r i c R e f e r e n c e : C o n t r a s t i n g LEG2 w i t h COMl (EXPER-EXP0S2)  144  xi  LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1  2 3  Page Range o f c o n t e x t u a l support and degree o f c o g n i t i v e involvement i n communicative a c t i v i t i e s  45  Extending t h e Knowledge Framework t o problems i n o b s e r v a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h  54  F a c t o r i a l d e s i g n and major c o n c e p t u a l d i s t i n c t i o n s used i n t h e study  64  4  P l o t o f means by t a s k f o r CCLAR  117  5  P l o t o f means by t a s k f o r CCOM  118  6  P l o t o f means by t a s k f o r CCON  119  7  P l o t o f means by t a s k f o r DDEF  120  8  P l o t o f means by t a s k f o r DDQ  122  9  P l o t o f means by t a s k f o r EECH  123  10  P l o t o f means by t a s k f o r LLEX  124  11  P l o t o f means by t a s k f o r RRQ  127  12  P l o t o f means by t a s k f o r SSEXP  128  13  P l o t o f means by t a s k f o r SSREP  129  14  P l o t o f means by group and t a s k f o r AANA and EEXO P l o t o f means by group and experiential-expository tasks f o r SSREP  15  16  17  18  134 140  P l o t o f means by group and experiential-expository tasks f o r AANA  142  P l o t o f means by group and e x p e r i e n t i a l - e x p o s i t o r y tasks f o r EEXO  145  A l l o c a t i o n of four repair exponents t o complementary  164  xii  task structures  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS No p r o j e c t o f t h i s s o r t can be completed w i t h o u t t h e h e l p o f o t h e r s . I want t o mention s e v e r a l people i n p a r t i c u l a r whose h e l p was u n s t i n t i n g and t i m e l y and who made the completion o f t h e study a g o a l o f t h e i r own. B e r n i e Mohan, my t h e s i s a d v i s o r , has been w i t h me from the s t a r t ; he d i r e c t e d more p a t i e n c e and i n c i s i v e t h i n k i n g my way than I p r o b a b l y deserved. Dorothy Pedtke typed most o f t h e t r a n s c r i p t s and c h e e r f u l l y accomplished more than she b a r g a i n e d f o r . Steve Ross was a b i g h e l p w i t h s t a t i s t i c s and a c o n s t a n t source o f c r i t i c a l a d v i c e . Tom Sork and Dan P r a t t , two c o r d i a l and encouraging a d u l t e d u c a t o r s , put me back on t r a c k and h e l p e d keep me there. My w i f e Taeko r e s t o r e d balance and common sense t o t h e e n t e r p r i s e whenever I thought I'd j u s t about had my f i l l o f it. F i n a l l y , I am e s p e c i a l l y g r a t e f u l t o t h e twenty-four v o l u n t e e r s , Japanese, American and B r i t i s h , who made t h e study p o s s i b l e .  xiii  CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION T h i s study i s about t h e ways t e a c h e r s  and l e a r n e r s o f  E n g l i s h as a f o r e i g n language h e l p each o t h e r t o keep t h e i r t a l k i n t h e language comprehensible.  I t i s a l s o about t h e  v a r i a b i l i t y o f these e f f o r t s d u r i n g performance o f d i f f e r e n t conversational  tasks  i n small, teacher-learner  Three o b s e r v a t i o n s The  first  groups.  form t h e b a s i s o f t h e study.  i s t h a t E n g l i s h i s r e g u l a r l y used around the  w o r l d by non-native speakers (NNSs) t o communicate w i t h each other:  by Japanese and Kuwaiti  r e p a i r a malfunctioning  technical specialists to  h y d r a u l i c motor, by m e d i c a l  from t h i r d - w o r l d c o u n t r i e s a t t e n d i n g c o n f e r e n c e t o exchange i n f o r m a t i o n  doctors  an i n t e r n a t i o n a l  about t h e i r  s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , by m u l t i - n a t i o n a l r e s i d e n t s o f e x p a t r i a t e communities t o pass t h e time o f day.  This observation i s  not t h e same as s a y i n g t h a t E n g l i s h i s a p o p u l a r language, o r spoken by a l a r g e number o f people o r t h a t many people have s t u d i e d i t i n s c h o o l .  I t i s more o f an a s s e r t i o n t h a t  NNSs o f E n g l i s h f i n d i t a u s e f u l medium f o r c o n d u c t i n g t h e various  facets of social l i f e — o f  expressing  f e e l i n g s and o p i n i o n s ,  exchanging  information,  solving problems—and that  they a r e a b l e t o do so o u t s i d e o f any d i r e c t e x p e r i e n c e i n c u l t u r e s i n which E n g l i s h i s n a t i v e l y spoken. The  second o b s e r v a t i o n  r e l a t e s t o the f i r s t , but  extends i t i n t o t h e dimension o f use: 1  NNSs f r e q u e n t l y  learn  English,  o r , f o r t h a t matter, any language not a c q u i r e d  mother tongue, d u r i n g  attempts t o use i t w i t h o t h e r NNSs i n  s e t t i n g s completely u n r e l a t e d instruction.  as a  t o second o r f o r e i g n language  T h i s may seem an odd a s s e r t i o n t o make u n t i l i t  i s r e a l i z e d t h a t language i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y a c q u i r e d during  use,  d u r i n g v e r b a l and p h y s i c a l i n t e r a c t i o n between  speakers and h e a r e r s , and t h a t , on a g l o b a l s c a l e ,  foreign  language a c q u i s i t i o n which occurs under c o n d i t i o n s  o f formal  c l a s s r o o m i n s t r u c t i o n i s a r e l a t i v e l y r a r e event.  The u s u a l  perception  o f classroom i n s t r u c t i o n i s t h a t i n s t r u c t i o n  precedes l e a r n i n g which i n t u r n precedes use f o r communicative purposes.  ordinary  The s o c i a l worlds o u t s i d e t h e  c l a s s r o o m s e t t i n g , however, make i t p o s s i b l e t o t u r n t h i s p r o c e d u r a l l i n e v i r t u a l l y on i t s head, so t h a t use, l e a s t attempted use,  or at  becomes t h e v e h i c l e f o r l e a r n i n g .  In  t h i s view o f language l e a r n i n g , p a r t i c i p a n t s i n c o n v e r s a t i o n s may f u n c t i o n as " t e a c h e r s " , as i n t e r l o c u t o r i n f o r m a n t s , who n e g o t i a t e of course d u r i n g The  and r e p a i r t h e i r t a l k as a matter  elaboration  f i n a l observation  o f i t s pragmatic  structure.  extends t h e second.  When  language i s used f o r normal communicative purposes, i t i s v e r y u n l i k e l y t h a t language p e r se becomes t h e o b j e c t o f discussion.  With t h e e x c e p t i o n o f some obvious examples (an  i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o n v e n t i o n o f l i n g u i s t s , perhaps), classroom use o f a f o r e i g n language i s most o f t e n with things  extraconcerned  o t h e r than language.  By c o n t r a s t ,  i t i s most unusual t o f i n d 2  foreign  language i n s t r u c t i o n which does not f o c u s e x p l i c i t l y on the language t o be taught and l e a r n e d , most t y p i c a l l y on t h e syntax and l e x i s which form the c o n t e n t b a s i s f o r i n s t r u c t i o n i n a f o r e i g n language. of t h i s emphasis  Beyond t h e c e n t r a l  role  on language r a t h e r than on o t h e r areas o f  c o n t e n t i n f o r e i g n language classrooms, however, i s the more fundamental concern i n e d u c a t i o n a l systems g e n e r a l l y w i t h the s t r u c t u r e and o r g a n i z a t i o n o f i n s t r u c t i o n .  Even when  language and c o n t e n t are merged i n t o a common s y l l a b u s , i t i s t h e t r a d i t i o n a l t e a c h e r - f r o n t e d l e s s o n which c o n t e x t u a l i z e s t h e use o f language i n the c l a s s r o o m and has s p e c i f i c consequences  f o r t h e ways i n which l e a r n e r s  may  employ i t . These o b s e r v a t i o n s are intended t o suggest t h e o u t l i n e o f a study concerned w i t h how  t e a c h e r s (both n a t i v e speakers  and NNSs of E n g l i s h ) and l e a r n e r s  (NNSs o f E n g l i s h ) employ  the language i n v a r i o u s d y a d i c s e t t i n g s o f p o t e n t i a l use t o p l a n n e r s o f f o r e i g n language i n s t r u c t i o n a l  syllabuses.  These s e t t i n g s range from those which most resemble t e a c h e r l e d , content-based i n s t r u c t i o n t o those which resemble the k i n d o f i n f o r m a t i o n exchange  and p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g which occur  when s o c i a l , n o n - i n s t r u c t i o n a l g o a l s , predominate.  The  focus o f the study i s r e p a i r , d e f i n e d b r o a d l y here as the ways i n t e r l o c u t o r s use language t o h e l p themselves and each o t h e r make sense o f t h e i r d i s c o u r s e as i t u n f o l d s . c e n t r a l purpose o f t h e study i s t o understand how  The learners  and t e a c h e r s r e p a i r each o t h e r ' s t a l k d u r i n g performance o f 3  tasks expressly organized  t o accomplish i n s t r u c t i o n a l  and  non-instructional goals.  A secondary, r e l a t e d purpose i s t o  d i s t i n g u i s h among t a s k s on e m p i r i c a l g r o u n d s — t o propose a framework f o r the c h o i c e among t e a c h e r - l e d t a s k s which e v e n t u a l l y be of use t o e d u c a t i o n a l p l a n n e r s  may  i n designing  a c q u i s i t i o n - r i c h environments i n f o r e i g n language classrooms. Why  r e p a i r w i t h i n NNS-NNS d i s c o u r s e i s worth  studying  i s the p o i n t of the d i s c u s s i o n t o f o l l o w i n Chapter 2, foundation may  o f the e n t i r e study.  the  For the moment, however, i t  be u s e f u l t o note t h a t a s m a l l body of evidence  and  argumentation p o i n t s t o the p o t e n t i a l l y b e n e f i c i a l e f f e c t s o f NNSs c o o p e r a t i v e l y attempting  to r e p a i r t h e i r t a l k i n  s m a l l groups on t h e i r a c q u i s i t i o n o f a second language (Duff, 1986;  Gass & V a r o n i s ,  Rulon & McReary, 1986,  1985b; P o r t e r , 1983,  Varonis  and Gass, 1985).  1986; According  t o t h e s e s t u d i e s , i t i s u n s c r i p t e d i n t e r a c t i o n between NNSs, and t o a l e s s e r extent between n a t i v e speakers (NSs)  and  NNSs, which seems t o produce the c o n d i t i o n s f o r n e g o t i a t i o n and  r e p a i r o f the d i s c o u r s e  (much as i s the case w i t h  o r d i n a r y c o n v e r s a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y ) through such t a c t i c s requests  f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n and  uncertainty.  i n d i c a t i o n s of  as  lexical  Behind t h i s l e v e l of d i s c u s s i o n i n the  l i t e r a t u r e , however, i s a w i d e l y h e l d assumption  (asserted  i n deductive  terms i n Long, 1981;  see a l s o Long, 1983a,  1983b, 1985)  t h a t as o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r n e g o t i a t i o n  r e p a i r i n a second language i n c r e a s e , the 4  and  comprehensibility  o f t h e language t o which a l e a r n e r attends  also increases.  Given s u f f i c i e n t i n t e r a c t i o n o f t h i s s o r t , l e a r n e r s e v e n t u a l l y a c q u i r e v a r i o u s forms o f grammatical, pragmatic and  s t r a t e g i c competence which can be s a i d t o comprise  second language competence.  Taken t o g e t h e r ,  t h e s e forms o f  competence comprise a l e v e l o f s o c i a l i z a t i o n which i s u n l i k e l y t o be achieved  through f o c u s i n g t h e a t t e n t i o n o f  language l e a r n e r s on t h e formal p r o p e r t i e s o f a t a r g e t language. Along these l i n e s , a number o f second language a c q u i s i t i o n s t u d i e s have p o i n t e d out t h e r e l a t i v e i n e f f i c i e n c y o f second language i n s t r u c t i o n conducted by teachers  i n t r a d i t i o n a l r o l e s as d i r e c t o r s o f v e r b a l  exchange i n t h e classroom  (Long, Adams, & Castanos, 1976;  Long & P o r t e r , 1985; Long & Sato, 1983; P i c a , 1987; P i c a & Doughty, 1985).  Unfortunately  no s t u d i e s have  examined s y s t e m a t i c a l l y an a l t e r n a t i v e r o l e f o r t h e NNS teacher  o f E n g l i s h as a c o n v e r s a t i o n a l p a r t i c i p a n t and  problem-solver i n cooperation  w i t h NNS l e a r n e r s — t h e k i n d o f  r o l e which i s f r e q u e n t l y performed by NNSs i n commercial, t e c h n i c a l and s o c i a l exchanges around t h e world.  Moreover,  none has compared t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e p a i r b e h a v i o r , i f any,  which might be found between groups which c o n t a i n  n a t i v e and non-native t e a c h e r s non-native l e a r n e r s . speculate  of English, i n addition t o  Although i t may be i n t e r e s t i n g t o  about NNSs as prime candidates  language through n o n - l i n g u i s t i c content, 5  f o r "teachers" of n a t i v e speakers a r e  t y p i c a l l y viewed as having the advantage as t e a c h e r s because o f t h e i r n a t i v e competence. t h i s p o i n t may  S t u d i e s focused s p e c i f i c a l l y  h e l p f o r e i g n language p o l i c y p l a n n e r s  on  to  formulate p o l i c y based on e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h . In a d d i t i o n t o approaching  some o f these  unresolved  i s s u e s i n second language a c q u i s i t i o n r e s e a r c h and  policy  p l a n n i n g , t h e r e i s a l s o the o p p o r t u n i t y t o a p p l y r e c e n t l y developed  models of the forms of d i s c o u r s e o c c u r r i n g i n  f i r s t and  second language i n s t r u c t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n s  1983;  Mohan, 1986)  t o problems i n f o r e i g n language  i n s t r u c t i o n a l planning.  I t i s s t i l l v e r y much an open  q u e s t i o n as t o which communication c o n t e x t s and i n classrooms languages.  (Cummins,  activities  b e s t promote the l e a r n i n g of f o r e i g n  Although  i t i s now  f a i r l y unexceptional  to  a s s e r t , f o r example, t h a t n e g o t i a t e d i n t e r a c t i o n i s u s e f u l f o r language a c q u i s i t i o n , q u e s t i o n s remain over  the  p a r t i c u l a r forms o f t a l k which v a r i o u s a c t i v i t i e s might f o r e i g n language classrooms  may  engender.  How  be  organized,  f o r example, t o promote the k i n d s o f v e r b a l  i n t e r a c t i o n b e l i e v e d t o be a t the b a s i s of second language acquisition? Given t h i s s o r t of p l a n n i n g problem, Mohan's (1986) formulation of verbal a c t i v i t y i n educational s e t t i n g s , r a n g i n g from d i s c o u r s e which emphasizes " g e n e r a l , t h e o r e t i c a l knowledge" on the one hand t o p r a c t i c a l knowledge" on the other  (p. 40), becomes a u s e f u l  p o i n t a t which t o i n i t i a t e the r e s e a r c h . 6  "specific,  This  study  examines t h e evidence o f r e p a i r w i t h i n discourse/practical  a largely theoretical  d i s c o u r s e framework.  t o a p p l y a system f o r t h i n k i n g  I t thus attempts  about second language  e d u c a t i o n a l d i s c o u r s e t o a p r a c t i c a l problem encountered when p l a n n i n g t h e f o r e i g n language i n s t r u c t i o n a l s y l l a b u s : establishing c r i t e r i a f o r organizing  talk i n foreign  language classrooms. Chapter 3 d e s c r i b e s t h e study's methodology; i t s main function  i s to d e t a i l the pattern  w i t h i n which t h e study's  f i v e hypotheses a r e o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d .  Accordingly, a 2 x 5  repeated-measures f a c t o r i a l d e s i g n i s o u t l i n e d a t the b e g i n n i n g o f t h e chapter and r e l a t e d t o t h e fundamental concepts and s t u d i e s  d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter 1.  The twelve  r e p a i r exponents and two forms o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l which s e r v e as dependent v a r i a b l e s i n considerable d e t a i l .  reference  i n t h e study a r e examined  Because t h e study i s based on an  e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n , s p e c i a l emphasis i s p l a c e d on t h e procedures and s t r a t e g i e s employed t o c a r r y i t o u t . Chapter 4 begins w i t h a d i s c u r s i v e summary o f t h e means and  standard deviations  f o r nine,  non-inferential  d e s c r i p t i v e codings appended t o t h e t a s k t r a n s c r i p t s , i n c l u d i n g word-based, turn-based and u t t e r a n c e - b a s e d measures o f t a l k d u r i n g t h e t a s k s . the  chapter, however, i s t o r e p o r t  of t h e hypotheses o u t l i n e d through a n a l y s i s  The major f u n c t i o n o f the r e s u l t s of the t e s t s  i n Chapter 2 and c a r r i e d out  of variance, the quantitative  methodology  by which t h e dyads' p r o d u c t i o n o f r e p a i r and r e f e r e n c e on 7  five  tasks  i s compared.  Chapter  5 d i s c u s s e s and i n t e r p r e t s topical  focus of  the  results  following  the  The m a j o r  p o i n t s r a i s e d during the  discussion include  rationale  for  and r e f e r e n c e  allocation  of  each r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n .  repair  v a r i o u s t a s k s and a d i s t i l l a t i o n into  complementary t a s k  complementary t a s k a tentative,  structures.  structures  exploratory  in educational Chapter  settings  of the  influence  the  results  of the  the  functional  quantitative  qualities  of  reference  are  transcripts  i n which they Chapter  the  others  instructional  Finally,  are  to  transcripts.  Formal  the  with  complementary  of  task  i n problems of  for  s p e c i a l encouragement  study.  applied linguists  foreign  8  Because and  to  language  educational  is  the  found.  design, attention is directed  and i m p l i c a t i o n s  the  g o a l s and p r o c e d u r e s o f  use to  the  and  Core groups  characteristically  of potential  interest  limitations  tasks.  7 s u m m a r i z e s and c o n c l u d e s t h e  study i s  extends  examined as c o - o c c u r r i n g u n i t s w i t h i n  and r e l a t e d  task  repair  e x p o n e n t s a r e made  exponents a l l o c a t e d to the  structures  tasks  to the  repair.  the  repair  offered  of  tasks  a n a l y s i s b y f o c u s i n g on  exponents produced d u r i n g p a r t i c u l a r  repair  analysis of  t h e most s a l i e n t  c o m p a r i s o n s between  perspective  production of  This d i s c u r s i v e treatment of  the  extensive  the  of  f o r p r e d i c t i n g how  6 provides a qualitative  transcripts.  functional  into  the  exponents  The n o t i o n  i s put  framework  repair  to  a  to  to  its  practice. teachers  who  wish t o undertake t h e i r own task-based s t u d i e s o f problems i n f o r e i g n language e d u c a t i o n .  9  CHAPTER 2: FOUNDATIONS OF THE STUDY T h i s chapter summarizes c o n c e p t u a l accomplished talk  and e m p i r i c a l work  i n t h e areas o f f o r e i g n e r t a l k ,  interlanguage  ( t a l k between l e a r n e r s o f a second o r f o r e i g n  language),  r e p a i r , t a s k and r e f e r e n c e .  The d i s c u s s i o n w i l l  emphasize t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e work t o t h i s study and prepare  t h e ground f o r a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e r e s e a r c h  design  and methods i n Chapter 3. The  nature o f t a s k and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o  c o n v e r s a t i o n a l r e p a i r w i l l be c l o s e l y examined, as w i l l t h e bases f o r s e l e c t i n g t a s k c a t e g o r i e s employed d u r i n g implementation  of the research  design.  F o r e i g n e r T a l k (FT) Ferguson's seminal are important  c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o c u r r e n t understanding o f  how n a t i v e speakers other. of  c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s o f FT (1971, 1975)  (NSs) and NNSs communicate w i t h each  Ferguson (1971, p. 143) d e s c r i b e d FT as "a r e g i s t e r  s i m p l i f i e d speech . . . which i s used by speakers  language t o o u t s i d e r s who a r e f e l t t o have a v e r y  of a  limited  command o f t h e language o r no knowledge o f i t a t a l l . " i s thus geared  FT  t o an a p p r a i s a l o f t h e NNS i n t e r l o c u t o r which  the NS makes d u r i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n , v e r y p r o b a b l y d u r i n g t h e f i r s t moments o f c o n t a c t but a l s o f o l l o w i n g t h e NS's assessment o f t h e NNS's comprehension o f t h e ongoing discourse  (see a l s o Gass and V a r o n i s , 10  1985b).  Ferguson  (1975) has a l s o d e s c r i b e d how NSs o f E n g l i s h  adapt t h e i r speech t o NNSs, o r a t l e a s t how NSs would adapt, g i v e n a s e t o f c o n s t r a i n t s on t h e speech s i t u a t i o n .  The  study i s an i n d i r e c t approach t o t h e use o f FT i n t h e sense t h a t t h e NSs i n t h e study, a l l members o f a s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s course, were asked t o r e w r i t e 10 sentences i n o r d i n a r y E n g l i s h as i f they were speaking them on b e h a l f of t h e i r NS group t o a group o f uneducated, foreigners.  non-European  Ferguson a l s o e x c e r p t e d s i x t y - o n e sentences  from C. S. Lewis' n o v e l Out o f t h e S i l e n t P l a n e t . sentences were s e l e c t e d because an Englishman  These  they e x e m p l i f i e d speech o f  speaking E n g l i s h f o r e i g n e r t a l k t o M a r t i a n s ,  t h a t i s , t h e n o v e l i s t ' s concept o f FT.  The e x c e r p t e d  sentences were then compared w i t h t h e 10 sentences m o d i f i e d for native-foreigner  communication.  The r e s u l t s a r e i n t e r e s t i n g i n t h a t they presage some of the a c t u a l m o d i f i c a t i o n s described i n l a t e r studies  (e.g., Freed, 1978, below).  Ferguson  empirical found  several  major c a t e g o r i e s o f m o d i f i c a t i o n both i n t h e n o v e l and on the r e - w r i t i n g t a s k s — o m i s s i o n s , expansions, and replacements o r rearrangements.  Examples o f o m i s s i o n  included dropping the d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e v a r i o u s forms o f t h e verb  'the', o m i t t i n g  'to be', a v o i d i n g i n f l e c t i o n a l  s u f f i x e s s i g n a l l i n g case and number, and e l i m i n a t i o n o f c o o r d i n a t i n g and s u b o r d i n a t i n g c o n j u n c t i o n s .  Expansions  i n c l u d e d a d d i t i o n o f 'you' t o i m p e r a t i v e s , p a r t i a l r e p e t i t i o n o f i n i t i a l sentences o r phrases, and a d d i t i o n o f 11  tags  (you come. OK?,  substituting  'no'  f o r example).  f o r a l l n e g a t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n s (I no  understand, f o r i n s t a n c e ) — b u t  'not' f o r c o n t r a c t e d  forms, changing normal nominative forms (me Tarzan,  Replacements i n c l u d e d  pronouns t o a c c u s a t i v e  you Jane, an u n l i k e l y u t t e r a n c e i n  ordinary conversation!—see  Hatch 1983,  s u b s t i t u t i o n and a n a l y t i c paraphrase replace yesterday,  p. 175f),  content  lexical  (one day gone t o  papa f o r f a t h e r ) , unmarked or more  f r e q u e n t l y o c c u r r i n g synonyms (take f o r c a r r y ) , decomposition  negative  and  of words i n t o phrases w i t h s i m i l a r semantic  (which p l a c e f o r where, bier head f o r l e a d e r ) .  On t h e b a s i s of the l i m i t e d body of evidence a v a i l a b l e t o him,  Ferguson s p e c u l a t e d t h a t NSs  a c q u i r e the FT  as c h i l d r e n and r e t a i n the r e g i s t e r f o r s p e c i a l o f c o n t a c t w i t h n a t i v e speakers is,  " f o r e i g n e r s " ) , modifying  rule-governed language,  way  of another  1975,  t h e i r speech i n a  p. 11).  situations  language ( t h a t  (FT as a c o n v e n t i o n a l i z e d use  (Ferguson,  register  systematic, of  He d i d not, however,  examine the p o s s i b l e f u n c t i o n s o f FT as a v e h i c l e f o r language i n p u t which would encourage a c q u i s i t i o n of a second language by the NNS,  nor d i d he e x p l o r e the  v a l u e o f s i m p l i f i c a t i o n by the In an e x h a u s t i v e 1980)  communicative  NS.  study, Freed  examined the s t r u c t u r a l and  (1978; see a l s o Freed, f u n c t i o n a l q u a l i t i e s of FT  produced i n 11, two-member c o n v e r s a t i o n groups.  The  study  drew e x t e n s i v e l y from Newport's (1976) data on E n g l i s h baby t a l k o r motherese, the s i m p l i f i e d r e g i s t e r a d u l t s employ 12  w i t h i n f a n t s a c q u i r i n g E n g l i s h as t h e i r f i r s t Freed compared FT w i t h n a t i v e t a l k  language.  (NT), i . e . , NS's  i n c a s u a l c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h other NSs,  speech  NT w i t h baby t a l k ,  and FT w i t h baby t a l k . U s i n g the u t t e r a n c e as the b a s i c u n i t of speech segmentation and the number of S-nodes per u t t e r a n c e and sentence (measures o f p r o p o s i t i o n a l complexity number o f main verbs concluded  based on  i n the segment under a n a l y s i s ) ,  t h a t E n g l i s h FT i s i n f a c t a r e g i s t e r  per the  Freed  differing  from normal E n g l i s h i n terms of the r e l a t i v e f r e q u e n c i e s of v a r i o u s forms and  f u n c t i o n s (1978, p. 235).  She  found, f o r  example, t h a t FT c o n t a i n e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more sentence fragments and s t o c k e x p r e s s i o n s , and a c c e p t a b l e u t t e r a n c e s , than NT. complexity,  FT had  fewer  grammatically  In terms o f s y n t a c t i c  s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer S-nodes and  per u t t e r a n c e , whereas the mean l e n g t h of u t t e r a n c e s i g n i f i c a n t l y l o n g e r i n NT. sentence l e v e l :  Americans.  s h o r t e r mean  Americans t a l k i n g t o f o r e i g n e r s used  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more Whd e c l a r a t i v e sentences  was  S i m i l a r r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d a t the  fewer S-nodes per sentence and  l e n g t h o f sentence.  sentences  and Yes/No q u e s t i o n s , but f a r fewer than Americans t a l k i n g t o o t h e r  F u r t h e r a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d t h a t the Yes/No  q u e s t i o n s employed d u r i n g FT were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more l i k e l y t o have no s u b j e c t - a u x i l i a r y i n v e r s i o n , and t o c o n t a i n d e l e t i o n s o f do and/or you, Freed's  than  NT.  functional analysis highlighted information  exchange as the main purpose of both FT and NT, 13  although  behavior  i n d i c a t i n g a need t o keep t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n  was e s p e c i a l l y e v i d e n t i n FT.  going  F o r example, NSs speaking t o  NNSs used more c o n v e r s a t i o n c o n t i n u e r s  (e.g., mmm,  really)  t o show i n t e r e s t i n o r a t t e n t i o n t o t h e i r p a r t n e r ' s u t t e r a n c e s undergoing a sometimes t o r t u o u s c o n s t r u c t i o n . FT, moreover, was much more l i k e l y t o be c l a r i f i e d than NT. NSs'  attempts a t c l a r i f i c a t i o n i n c l u d e d r e p e a t i n g p r e v i o u s  u t t e r a n c e s i n whole o r i n p a r t , and p a r a p h r a s i n g p r e v i o u s l y used words and phrases.  NSs engaged i n FT a l s o emphasized  such c o n v e r s a t i o n a l support  as s u p p l y i n g a word o r phrase t o  the NNS when needed. Freed's  d i s c u s s i o n o f n a t u r a l l y o c c u r r i n g FT s t r e s s e d  the u n d e r l y i n g f u n c t i o n a l s i m i l a r i t y o f FT and NT, i n addition t o the s p e c i f i c d i s s i m i l a r i t i e s ,  and thus  supported  Ferguson's e a r l i e r c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f FT as a r e g i s t e r ( r a t h e r than a d i a l e c t ) which, she noted,  i s intended by i t s  u s e r s t o improve t h e q u a l i t y o f i n f o r m a t i o n and s o c i a l exchange d u r i n g a p a r t i c u l a r c o n v e r s a t i o n .  Unlike the  c o n t r o l and d i r e c t i v e f u n c t i o n s o f baby t a l k used i n motheri n f a n t exchanges, FT i s "motivated  by t h e need t o i n i t i a t e  and m a i n t a i n c o n v e r s a t i o n a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e s o c i a l and c o g n i t i v e presence o f . . . f o r e i g n p a r t n e r s .  That i s , t h e  Americans saw t h e i r f o r e i g n p a r t n e r s as c o n v e r s a t i o n a l peers  . . . ." (p. 2 3 6).  F o r e i g n e r T a l k and Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n (SLA) T h i s n o t i o n o f i n t e r a c t i o n between i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h developed  c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s and t h e competence t o e x p l o r e 14  t o p i c s f r e e l y through v e r b a l exchange i s a l s o c e n t r a l t o t h e FT r e s e a r c h which focuses on SLA.  Krashen (1980, 1982), f o r  example, argued t h a t NS i n p u t d i r e c t e d t o l e a r n e r s i s made more comprehensible through c o n v e r s a t i o n a l n e g o t i a t i o n and e v e n t u a l l y thus l e a d s t o SLA.  Long (1980, 1981), among  o t h e r s , even more e m p h a t i c a l l y emphasized t h e r o l e o f NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n which occurs d u r i n g two-way c o n v e r s a t i o n a l exchange i n a c q u i s i t i o n o f a second language.  Hatch  (1983)  o u t l i n e d a middle p o s i t i o n which puts c o n v e r s a t i o n a l and classroom  i n t e r a c t i o n a t t h e source o f i n p u t m o d i f i c a t i o n s  l e a d i n g t o SLA, although  t h e extent o f n e g o t i a t i o n and  m o d i f i c a t i o n seems c l e a r l y r e l a t e d t o such v a r i a b l e s i n t h e communicative environment as t a s k 1986;  (Crookes,  1986; Duff,  Long, 1980; Long, 1985a; P i c a , 1987) and p r o f i c i e n c y o r  apparent comprehension o f t h e NNS as assessed  by t h e NS  (Long, 1983a; Long & P i c a , 1986; Long & P o r t e r 1985; V a r o n i s & Gass, 1982).  T h i s emphasis on i n t e r a c t i o n — o n i t s sources  and e f f e c t s — i s l a r g e l y m i s s i n g literature.  from t h e e a r l y FT  More r e c e n t d i s c u s s i o n s , however, p l a c e NS-NNS  i n t e r a c t i o n a t t h e c e n t e r o f t h e SLA process deduction  ( a l b e i t by  more than by evidence) and s t r e s s t h e importance  of NS r e s p o n s i v e n e s s o f t h e NNS p a r t n e r  t o t h e p e r c e i v e d c o n v e r s a t i o n a l needs (Long, 1983a).  A r e l a t e d body o f  l i t e r a t u r e i n t h e area o f communication s t r a t e g i e s has a l s o found an i n t e r a c t i o n p e r s p e c t i v e u s e f u l i n d e v e l o p i n g t h e o r e t i c a l accounts o f how l e a r n e r s use t h e i r  interlanguage  w i t h i n t e r l o c u t o r s i n communicative, problem-posing  15  s i t u a t i o n s t o n e g o t i a t e common u n d e r s t a n d i n g s (Tarone, 1983; a l s o Faerch  & Kasper, 1983; Haastrup & P h i l l i p s o n , 1983;  Wagner, 1983). The  d i v e r s i t y o f NS responsiveness  i s w e l l documented  by Long (1980, 1981; see a l s o S c a r c e l l a & Higa,  1981).  Although e a r l y d e s c r i p t i o n o f FT tended t o s t r e s s s i m p l i f i c a t i o n o f i n p u t t o NNSs as t h e predominant means o f conveying  meaning d u r i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n ,  Long (1980), argued  t h a t s i m p l i f i c a t i o n o f i n p u t was o n l y one type o f m o d i f i c a t i o n NSs a r e l i k e l y t o make when speaking The more important important  l e v e l of conversational  t o NNSs.  activity—  from t h e p e r s p e c t i v e s o f both SLA and  i n s t r u c t i o n a l methodology—was shown t o be i n t e r a c t i o n a l m o d i f i c a t i o n s c o n s t r u c t e d c o o p e r a t i v e l y by c o n v e r s a t i o n a l partners.  Long found t h a t q u e s t i o n s  occurred  significantly  more f r e q u e n t l y i n NS-NNS dyads than i n NS-NS dyads d u r i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n a l t a s k s r e q u i r i n g exchange o f i n f o r m a t i o n (twoway t a s k s ) .  Questions t y p i c a l l y took t h e form o f  c o n f i r m a t i o n checks, comprehension checks, requests  clarification  and o t h e r - r e p e t i t i o n , and served t o s u s t a i n t h e  c o n v e r s a t i o n by i n c r e a s i n g t h e NNS's p a r t i c i p a t i o n .  Long  a l s o found s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between NS-NNS and NS-NS dyads i n t h e frequency  o f s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s and expansions o f  previously occurring utterances.  Long e x p l a i n e d  that  NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , by communication breakdowns. checks, c l a r i f i c a t i o n r e q u e s t s ,  16  Confirmation  s e l f - and o t h e r -  r e p e t i t i o n s are a l l i n t e r a c t i o n a l resources a v a i l a b l e t o t h e NS (and t o NNSs) t o r e p a i r t h e d i s c o u r s e when breakdowns occur.  Comprehension checks,  s e l f - and  o t h e r - r e p e t i t i o n a r e among t h e d e v i c e s NSs can use t o a v o i d breakdowns, and so may be expected  t o be more  f r e q u e n t where communicative t r o u b l e i s a n t i c i p a t e d , as i s t h e case w i t h much NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n .  (p. 152)  F i n a l l y , Long compared groups o f t a s k s which r e q u i r e d i n f o r m a t i o n exchange w i t h those which d i d not. found  a s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r frequency  trouble-avoidance  devices"  Again, he  o f t h e " r e p a i r and  (p. 152) i n t h e i n f o r m a t i o n  exchange group o f t a s k s . These r e s u l t s p o i n t t o the range o f m o d i f i c a t i o n speakers  have a t t h e i r d i s p o s a l and a c t u a l l y do invoke t o  c o n t i n u e t h e exchange o f i n f o r m a t i o n .  C l e a r l y NS i n p u t t o  NNSs i n t h e form o f s i m p l i f i e d speech i s n o t t h e o n l y , nor even a p p a r e n t l y most important,  means o f m a i n t a i n i n g t h e  NNS's a c c e s s i b i l i t y t o t h e t a r g e t language.  Long (1981, p.  275)  interaction  makes t h e p o s i t i o n i n f a v o r o f m o d i f i e d  explicit:  " p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h NS, made  p o s s i b l e through t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n o f i n t e r a c t i o n , necessary  i s the  and s u f f i c i e n t c o n d i t i o n f o r SLA."  T r i g g e r s t o M o d i f i c a t i o n o f FT D i s c u s s i o n o f NS r e s p o n s i v e n e s s  has a l s o t u r n e d t o t h e  q u e s t i o n o f what t r i g g e r s o r otherwise p r i o r t o and d u r i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n .  i n f l u e n c e s FT both  T h i s s p e c i f i c k i n d o f NS  adjustment t o NNSs was examined i n Gass and V a r o n i s 17  (1984),  Gass and V a r o n i s  (1985b), Long (1983a), Long (1985a), P i c a  and Long (1986) and V a r o n i s and Gass (1982) . Varonis  Gass and  (1984) found t h a t NNS speech i s more l i k e l y t o be  understood,  and thus l e s s l i k e l y t o be n e g o t i a t e d , by NSs  who were f a m i l i a r w i t h NNS speech.  This finding  suggests  t h a t NSs who a r e t e a c h e r s may t r e a t t h e language o f t h e i r NNS s t u d e n t s d i f f e r e n t l y — a n d thus modify t h e i r i n p u t d i f f e r e n t l y — t h a n NSs who have no s p e c i a l c o n v e r s a t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e w i t h NNSs.  P i c a and Long (1986), however,  found  i n g e n e r a l no r e l a t i o n s h i p between years o f t e a c h i n g experience  and such i n p u t f e a t u r e s as t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f  q u e s t i o n s , statements and i m p e r a t i v e s , and t h e l e n g t h o r s y n t a c t i c complexity  of teachers  1  u t t e r a n c e s which a r e  d i r e c t e d towards t h e i r NNS s t u d e n t s .  On t h e o t h e r hand,  P i c a and Long d i d f i n d t h a t experienced o t h e r FT f e a t u r e s more f r e q u e n t l y than  t e a c h e r s use v a r i o u s inexperienced  t e a c h e r s , i n c l u d i n g more yes/no q u e s t i o n s and fewer Whq u e s t i o n s , although of  experienced  t e a c h e r s employ one d e v i c e  c o n v e r s a t i o n a l adjustment, o t h e r - r e p e t i t i o n ,  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more f r e q u e n t l y than i n e x p e r i e n c e d The  evidence  teachers.  i s thus mixed on t h e q u e s t i o n o f whether t h e  t e a c h e r ' s experience  i n f l u e n c e s t h e k i n d and frequency  o f FT  d i r e c t e d towards t h e NNS. On t h e i s s u e o f how NS p e r c e p t i o n s o f NNS p r o f i c i e n c y i n f l u e n c e NS c o n v e r s a t i o n a l adjustment, V a r o n i s and Gass (1982) found t h a t whereas such f a c t o r s as NNS p r o n u n c i a t i o n and grammar seem t o t r i g g e r m o d i f i c a t i o n s i n t h e language o f 18  NSs,  t h e p h y s i c a l appearance o f t h e NNSs does not.  They  concluded t h a t NNS p r o n u n c i a t i o n and grammar were t h e major c o n t r i b u t o r s t o t h e c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y o f NNS speech t o NS conversation partners.  I n o t h e r words, NNS's p r o f i c i e n c y i n  the second o r f o r e i g n language, as r e a l i z e d i n p r o n u n c i a t i o n and grammar, seems t o be one b a s i s f o r NS's use o f FT. Comprehensibility  o f NNS speech as e s t a b l i s h e d through  NS sampling o f t h e NNS's p r o n u n c i a t i o n and grammar a t t h e o u t s e t o f a c o n v e r s a t i o n , however, would seem t o be o n l y one among a number o f sources o f adjustment.  Given t h e  i n t e r a c t i v e n a t u r e o f d i s c o u r s e i n NS-NNS c o n v e r s a t i o n , t h e l e v e l o f comprehension  which NSs a t t r i b u t e t o NNSs d u r i n g a  c o n v e r s a t i o n c o u l d a l s o be a major f a c t o r l e a d i n g t o q u a l i t a t i v e and q u a n t i t a t i v e adjustments i n NS speech. A l o n g t h i s l i n e o f t h i n k i n g , Long  (1983a) has a l s o examined  the causes o f NSs l i n g u i s t i c and c o n v e r s a t i o n a l adjustments t o NNSs, i n c l u d i n g t h e p e r c e i v e d f o r e i g n n e s s o f t h e NNS, f e a t u r e s o f t h e NNS's i n t e r l a n g u a g e , the NNS's comprehension  t h e NS's p e r c e p t i o n o f  o f t h e NS's speech, i n a d d i t i o n t o  the NS's p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y o f t h e NNS's speech.  Based on a summary o f l i t e r a t u r e devoted t o NS  c o n v e r s a t i o n a l adjustments t o NNSs, Long argued t h a t a combination o f f a c t o r s l e a d t o o f t h e NNS's i n t e r l a n g u a g e , interlanguage, NNS.  adjustment—comprehensibility  the l i n g u i s t i c q u a l i t i e s of the  and, s i g n i f i c a n t l y , NS comprehension  Comprehension,  of the  o r t h e l a c k o f i t , occurs throughout a  c o n v e r s a t i o n and i s a t t h e b a s i s o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l 19  adjustment.  I t i s t h e q u a l i t y o f a c o n v e r s a t i o n as  d i s c o u r s e , not as a c o l l e c t i o n o f i s o l a t e d u t t e r a n c e s , which p e r m i t s r e p a i r o r avoidance o f misunderstanding.  Thus t h e  feedback which NNSs p r o v i d e d u r i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n i s , as Long noted, an important source f o r NS e v a l u a t i o n o f NNS comprehension. What a c t u a l l y t r i g g e r s NS adjustment when NNSs s i g n a l trouble during a conversation?  I n a study which  c o n t r o l l e d f o r t h e e f f e c t s o f grammar, v o c a b u l a r y and p h y s i c a l appearance, ongoing adjustment  and which responded  t o the issue of  o f FT d i s c o u r s e , Gass and V a r o n i s (1985b)  focused on t h e e f f e c t o f NNS c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y and p r o f i c i e n c y as f a c t o r s i n NS speech m o d i f i c a t i o n .  Their  study used d a t a from Abunahleh e t a l . (1982) i n which e i g h t NNSs a t p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s r a n g i n g from b e g i n n i n g t o i n t e r m e d i a t e each made random telephone c a l l s t o NSs.  The  NNS c a l l e r s f o l l o w e d a s c r i p t o f e i g h t q u e s t i o n s on food p r e p a r a t i o n and consumption,  w i t h t h e t h i r d and seventh  q u e s t i o n s r e q u i r i n g t h e c a l l e r t o say Pardon me? t o whatever the NS responded.  T h i s technique was designed t o e l i c i t a  c l a r i f i c a t i o n from t h e NS and thus c o n s t i t u t e d a d i r e c t means o f d e t e r m i n i n g t h e q u a l i t y and q u a n t i t y o f NS m o d i f i c a t i o n r e s u l t i n g from NS p e r c e p t i o n o f NNS p r o f i c i e n c y over t h e course o f t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n . The study showed t h a t t h e frequency o f n e g o t i a t i o n exchanges—"exchanges i n which t h e r e i s some o v e r t i n d i c a t i o n t h a t understanding between p a r t i c i p a n t s has not 20  been complete and . . . a r e s u l t a n t attempt t o c l a r i f y t h e nonunderstanding" (Gass & V a r o n i s , to  1985b, p. 3 9 ) — i s r e l a t e d  p r o f i c i e n c y ; NSs i n i t i a t e d n e g o t i a t i o n r o u t i n e s about  t h r e e times more f r e q u e n t l y w i t h l o w - l e v e l NNSs than w i t h h i g h - l e v e l NNSs.  The q u a n t i t y o f speech, moreover, seems a t  least partially related to proficiency: request  for clarification,  Following the f i r s t  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more speech was  d i r e c t e d t o h i g h - l e v e l s u b j e c t s than t o l o w - l e v e l ones. Gass and V a r o n i s suggested t h a t t h i s a d d i t i o n a l amount o f speech r e s u l t e d from a more severe reassessment o f t h e h i g h l e v e l speakers' proficiency.  p r o f i c i e n c y than o f t h e low l e v e l  Thus t h e authors  concluded  that  speakers'  "perceived"  c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y t r i g g e r s NS speech m o d i f i c a t i o n (p. 55), although  i t should a l s o be noted t h a t t h e c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y  NSs a t t r i b u t e t o NNS speech d u r i n g a c o n v e r s a t i o n seems r e l a t e d t o ongoing r e v i s i o n s o f t h e i r i n i t i a l  perceptions  about a speaker's p r o f i c i e n c y — t h a t i s , t o t h e i r  perception  o f t h e NNS's comprehension. Foreigner Talk i n I n s t r u c t i o n a l Settings One f i n a l area o f r e s e a r c h i n t o FT and what has come t o be c a l l e d f o r e i g n e r t a l k d i s c o u r s e  (Long, 1980, 1981,  1983a), i s t h e study o f t a l k i n classrooms between NS teachers  and NNS students.  In g e n e r a l t h i s l i n e o f r e s e a r c h  compares t h e d i s c o u r s e i n t e a c h e r - f r o n t e d l e s s o n s , which o r d i n a r i l y s t r e s s language i n s t r u c t i o n , with t h e noni n s t r u c t i o n a l d i s c o u r s e o c c u r r i n g i n s m a l l groups o f NNS. For t h e p r e s e n t , however, t h i s d i s c u s s i o n w i l l l o o k o n l y a t 21  those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f FT which o t h e r s t u d i e s have a s s o c i a t e d w i t h second and f o r e i g n language i n s t r u c t i o n a l settings. Chaudron's (1983) study o f FT i n h i g h s c h o o l and u n i v e r s i t y s u b j e c t - m a t t e r c l a s s e s f o r E n g l i s h as a second language (ESL) students examined how t e a c h e r s classroom  simplified  language l i n g u i s t i c a l l y and c o g n i t i v e l y ( c f .  Ferguson, 1971).  Chaudron s e l e c t e d v o c a b u l a r y ,  anaphoric  ( " p o i n t i n g back") r e f e r e n c e , t o p i c development, e x p l a n a t i o n s and q u e s t i o n s f o r q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s .  He found t h a t  t e a c h e r s attempt t o s i m p l i f y v o c a b u l a r y by e l a b o r a t i n g on i t and making i t much more redundant than i n non-ESL classrooms.  He a l s o noted, however, t h a t e l a b o r a t i o n can  c r e a t e new meanings f o r l e a r n e r s t o d e a l w i t h and thus l e a d t o ambiguity.  S i m p l i f i c a t i o n through  was p a r t i c u l a r l y p r o b l e m a t i c .  anaphoric  Although  reference  teachers  apparently  d i d n o t h e s i t a t e t o use anaphoric pronouns, they tended t o c o m p l i c a t e t h e c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y o f t h e i r e x p l a n a t i o n s by overuse  o f such pronouns and by assuming t h a t students had  learned the appropriate rules f o r r e l a t i n g referent t o pronoun when, i n f a c t , they had not.  S i m i l a r problems were  noted w i t h r e g a r d t o marking and changing simplifying instructions.  Chaudron found,  t o p i c s , and f o r example, t h a t  t e a c h e r s ' e l a b o r a t i o n s sometimes e n t a i l e d e x c e s s i v e and c o n f u s i n g r e p h r a s i n g o r e x c e s s i v e redundancy. Chaudron (1983) a l s o found t h a t t e a c h e r s ' procedural" or " o b l i q u e l y l o g i c a l " questions 22  "specific  (p. 135)  d i r e c t e d towards ESL s t u d e n t s — p r e s u m a b l y  intended t o  s i m p l i f y t h e s t r u c t u r e o f knowledge t h a t a t e a c h e r wants t o convey—often  exceeded t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e ESL s t u d e n t s t o  p r o c e s s t h e language d i r e c t e d towards them.  Others have  noted t h e h i g h e r frequency o f q u e s t i o n s i n FT g e n e r a l l y (Freed, 1978, f o r example) and o f q u e s t i o n s i n t e n d e d by t e a c h e r s i n second and f o r e i g n language classrooms t o t e s t l e a r n e r ' knowledge (see Long & Sato, 1983, summarized below) as compared w i t h o r d i n a r y c o n v e r s a t i o n a l and instructional settings.  Chaudron, however, has a d d i t i o n a l l y  r a i s e d t h e i s s u e o f how a c c u r a t e l y t e a c h e r s a r e a b l e t o p i t c h t h e i r FT d i s c o u r s e t o NNSs i n i n s t r u c t i o n a l The second (1983).  frequency and f u n c t i o n s o f t e a c h e r s  1  settings.  questions i n  language classrooms was examined by Long and Sato The authors p o i n t e d out t h e importance  of questions  i n FT d i s c o u r s e t o s u s t a i n i n g NNS p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n c o n v e r s a t i o n by s i g n a l l i n g an open t u r n , making c o n v e r s a t i o n a l t o p i c s c l e a r e r by " c o m p e l l i n g " responses and, g e n e r a l l y , i n opening o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o modify t h e i n t e r a c t i o n a l structure of conversation. c o m p r i s i n g t r a n s c r i p t s o f s i x elementary  Classroom  data  l e v e l ESL l e s s o n s  were compared w i t h t r a n s c r i p t s o f c o n v e r s a t i o n s between NSs and NNSs i n 36 dyads, o r two-member groups.  Among t h e t o t a l  o f 938 q u e s t i o n s i n t h e classroom corpus, Long and Sato found a s i g n i f i c a n t l y l a r g e r number o f d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s than r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s , i . e . , q u e s t i o n s f o r which t h e t e a c h e r a l r e a d y knows t h e answer over q u e s t i o n s designed t o 23  elicit  unknown i n f o r m a t i o n o r t o check o r otherwise  conversational material.  clarify  Moreover, t h e frequency o f d i s p l a y  q u e s t i o n s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r i n t h e c l a s s r o o m  speech  than i n t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n a l dyads. Other comparisons  between t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l and non-  i n s t r u c t i o n a l s e t t i n g s showed f u r t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t  differences.  R e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s , f o r example, c o n s t i t u t e d more than t h r e e - q u a r t e r s o f t h e t o t a l number o f q u e s t i o n s i n t h e NSNNS dyads, b u t o n l y 14 p e r c e n t o f t h e t o t a l number o f q u e s t i o n s i n t h e ESL c l a s s e s .  A t t h e same time, t h e  t e a c h e r s asked fewer q u e s t i o n s o v e r a l l than t h e NSs i n conversational settings.  S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were a l s o  o b t a i n e d f o r v e r b a l marking temporal r e f e r e n c e : for  o f p r e s e n t and non-present  The ESL t e a c h e r s p r e f e r r e d v e r b s marked  p r e s e n t tense by a s i g n i f i c a n t margin over NSs i n t h e  NS-NNS dyads.  Long and Sato concluded t h a t  instructional  t a l k i n second language classrooms i s a g r e a t l y d i s t o r t e d v e r s i o n o f i t s NS-NNS c o u n t e r p a r t i n c o n v e r s a t i o n a l s e t t i n g s and suggested t h a t i f t h e d i f f e r e n c e i s important i n terms of  SLA, as they c l e a r l y t h i n k i t i s , f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h be  conducted t o determine  "how t h e i n t e r a c t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e o f  classroom NS-NNS c o n v e r s a t i o n can be changed" (p. 284). A d d i t i o n a l evidence o f t h e r e l a t i v e l y d i s t o r t e d nature of  FT i n i n s t r u c t i o n a l s e t t i n g s — r e l a t i v e t o treatment o f NS  s t u d e n t s i n c o n t e n t area c l a s s r o o m s — w a s Llano  r e p o r t e d by Shinke-  (1983). Shinke-Llano examined t e a c h e r t a l k d i r e c t e d t o  both NSs and NNSs i n f i f t h  and s i x t h grade c l a s s e s . 24  The FT  d i r e c t e d t o t h e students o f l i m i t e d E n g l i s h p r o f i c i e n c y (LEP)  provided  s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s i n t e r a c t i o n than t h e  "normal" i n s t r u c t i o n a l r e g i s t e r used f o r non-LEP The  students.  a t t e n t i o n t h a t LEP s t u d e n t s d i d r e c e i v e tended t o be  managerial r a t h e r than i n s t r u c t i o n a l , and, i n g e n e r a l , much b r i e f e r than t h a t r e c e i v e d by t h e i r t h e i r non-LEP counterparts. T h i s l e v e l and q u a l i t y o f FT suggests a c o n c l u s i o n s i m i l a r t o t h e ones reached by Chaudron (1983) and Long and Sato (1983) f o r a d u l t - l e v e l i n s t r u c t i o n , namely t h a t t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l r e g i s t e r which t e a c h e r s  t y p i c a l l y employ f o r  NNSs i s q u a l i t a t i v e l y and q u a n t i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t from t h e l a r g e l y well-modified  v a r i e t y o f FT which o c c u r s i n non-  instructional settings. appropriate  Although f i n d i n g s have  adjustment o f t h e t e a c h e r ' s  NNSs l i s t e n i n g t o s t o r i e s (Henzl,  reported  classroom speech t o  1974, 1979) and l e c t u r e s  (Wesche & Ready, 1 9 8 5 ) — i . e . , l e a r n e r s mainly a t t e n d i n g t o the t e a c h e r ' s  e x p o s i t o r y b e h a v i o r — t h e weight o f evidence  suggests, t o t h e c o n t r a r y ,  t h a t FT i n classrooms i s a  r e l a t i v e l y i n e f f i c i e n t medium by which t o a s s i s t c o n s t r u c t i o n o f d i s c o u r s e which i s u s e f u l t o language learners Porter,  (see a l s o Long, Adams, & Castanos, 1976; Long & 1985).  FT o c c u r r i n g i n n a t u r a l o r n o n - i n s t r u c t i o n a l  s e t t i n g s seems b e t t e r a d j u s t e d the NS's p e r c e p t i o n  t o ongoing d i s c o u r s e  and t o  o f t h e NNS's l e v e l o f understanding,  g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s which suggest a p o s s i b l e r o l e f o r noni n s t r u c t i o n a l conversational  t a s k s between NSs and NNSs i n 25  second and f o r e i g n language classrooms. The  d i s c u s s i o n so f a r has examined t h e n a t u r e and  f u n c t i o n s o f FT i n a v a r i e t y o f contexts of n a t u r a l l y modified  and noted t h e uses  NS speech i n h e l p i n g t o s u s t a i n NNS  p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n conversation.  The NS's r e p a i r o r avoidance  of troublesome c o n v e r s a t i o n a l m a t e r i a l i s p a r t o f t h i s process  (Long, 1980).  However, t h e r o l e o f o t h e r NNSs as  c o n v e r s a t i o n a l p a r t n e r s and sources o f i n p u t and i n t e r a c t i o n i n a second o r f o r e i g n language has not y e t been The  considered.  p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t NNSs c o u l d f u n c t i o n i n much  the same way as NSs f o r o t h e r NNSs, and t h a t they c o u l d c o n t r i b u t e t o a l e a r n e r ' s a c q u i s i t i o n o f a second language, has  r e c e i v e d some a t t e n t i o n i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e .  I t i s to  t h i s s m a l l b u t important body o f l i t e r a t u r e t h a t t h e d i s c u s s i o n t u r n s next. Interlanguage T a l k (IT) Conversation  between NNSs i n a non-native language has  been v a r i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d as Interlanguage T a l k (IT) (Krashen, 1980, 1981, 1982; Long & P o r t e r , Interlanguage Communication  1985),  (the term can a l s o r e f e r , non-  s p e c i f i c a l l y , t o t h e developmental c h a r a c t e r o f l e a r n e r s ' t a l k t o e i t h e r NNSs o r N S s — s e e Faerch & Kasper, 1983) and Learner Language ( P o r t e r , 1983).  IT has r e c e i v e d a t t e n t i o n  r e c e n t l y i n t h e SLA l i t e r a t u r e because, l i k e FT d i s c o u r s e , it  apparently  i n c r e a s e s o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o n e g o t i a t e meaning  d u r i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n a l exchange, thus l e a d i n g i n p r i n c i p l e t o SLA.  (No unambiguous evidence y e t e x i s t s f o r t h i s 26  claim,  a l t h o u g h most SLA r e s e a r c h e r s argue a s t r o n g case f o r t h e c a u s a t i v e p o s i t i o n o f n e g o t i a t e d d i s c o u r s e i n SLA. Long, 1981, 1985a).  (See  IT has a l s o been examined f o r i t s  p o t e n t i a l as a p e d a g o g i c a l t o o l i n second language classrooms, p a r t i c u l a r l y as an a l t e r n a t i v e t o t e a c h e r fronted  forms o f d e l i v e r i n g i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l .  S t u d i e s o f FT d i s c o u r s e ,  i t w i l l be r e c a l l e d , have  noted t h e r e l a t i v e i n e f f i c i e n c y o f FT used by t e a c h e r s i n second language classrooms i n comparison w i t h FT d i r e c t e d t o learners  i n non-instructional  same o p p o r t u n i t i e s and  settings.  Can IT p r o v i d e t h e  f o r interaction, negotiation  r e p a i r as n o n - i n s t r u c t i o n a l  FT?  o f meaning  What a r e some o f t h e  l i m i t a t i o n s o f IT as a medium f o r p o s s i b l e  second language  a c q u i s i t i o n and what a r e i t s l i m i t a t i o n s as a method o f organizing  instruction?  Porter  (1983; a l s o 1986) compared t a l k generated by  dyads d u r i n g p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g t a s k s a t t h r e e l e v e l s o f proficiency input,  i n English  f o r s p e c i f i c characteristics of  i n t e r a c t i o n and a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s .  learners,  s i x advanced l e a r n e r s  E n g l i s h were p a i r e d  so t h a t  S i x intermediate  and s i x n a t i v e  i n d i v i d u a l s spoke w i t h o t h e r s a t  t h e i r own l e v e l and a t t h e o t h e r two l e v e l s . were n a t i v e  speakers o f  speakers o f Spanish.  All  learners  The 27 d y a d i c  c o n v e r s a t i o n s c e n t e r e d on a f r e q u e n t l y  used i n s t r u c t i o n a l  t e c h n i q u e r e q u i r i n g i n d i v i d u a l s t o rank o r d e r a l i s t o f solutions the  t o a problem o r items which c o u l d be used i n t h e  s o l u t i o n o f a problem ("You have j u s t c r a s h landed i n 27  the Sonora d e s e r t  . . . ." P o r t e r , 1983,  p. 217),  and  then  to discuss t h e i r ranking with a conversational partner. Each p a r t i c i p a n t n e g o t i a t e d a p r e f e r r e d s o l u t i o n f o r each of three d i f f e r e n t tasks with a d i f f e r e n t conversation The  tape recorded  d i s c u s s i o n s were t r a n s c r i b e d and  partner. r a t e d by  teams o f judges f o r such q u a l i t i e s as c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y r a t e r , fluency, pronunciation, grammaticality, p r e c i s i o n and breadth.  and  by  lexical  In a d d i t i o n , t r a n s c r i p t i o n s of the  d i s c u s s i o n s were coded and analyzed  f o r t o t a l words, the  percentage o f words c o n t r i b u t e d by each p a r t i c i p a n t , and number of f a l s e s t a r t s  (a g r e a t e r frequency  o f f l u e n c y , P o r t e r hypothesized, l i s t e n e r ' s comprehension).  the  t r a n s c r i p t i o n s were a l s o  coded f o r m o n i t o r — t h e speakers' t h e i r own  f o r t h i s measure  would r e s t r i c t  The  a t t e n t i o n t o the q u a l i t y of  and o t h e r s ' speech (as measured by the  o f s e l f - and  the  o t h e r - c o r r e c t i o n s o f grammatical and  frequency lexical  e r r o r s ) , o t h e r - r e p e t i t i o n r a t e (a measure of comprehension), r e p a i r r a t e (a measure of n e g o t i a t i o n i n the d i s c u s s i o n i n c l u d i n g c l a r i f i c a t i o n requests,  c o n f i r m a t i o n checks,  v e r i f i c a t i o n s o f meaning, d e f i n i t i o n r e q u e s t s , i n d i c a t i o n s o f l e x i c a l u n c e r t a i n t y , and comprehension checks), the prompt r a t e (a measure o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l and w i l l i n g n e s s t o keep the c o n v e r s a t i o n  and  for  cooperativeness  going).  F i n a l l y , P o r t e r examined the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s  of learner  t a l k i n comparison w i t h n a t i v e - n a t i v e t a l k as a b a s e l i n e : To what extent had the l e a r n e r s a c q u i r e d r u l e s as i n d i c a t e d by the occurrence 28  sociolinguistic  of inappropriate t a l k  i n t h e i r discussions?  Porter's findings are of p a r t i c u l a r  i n t e r e s t t o i n s t r u c t i o n a l p l a n n e r s who have g e n e r a l l y assumed ( f o l l o w i n g Krashen, 1978, 1982) t h a t NS speech c o n s t i t u t e s t h e o n l y source  o f h i g h - q u a l i t y language i n p u t  a v a i l a b l e t o l e a r n e r s i n second and f o r e i g n language classrooms.  Perhaps t h e most important  finding of Porter's  study was t h a t l e a r n e r - l e a r n e r c o n v e r s a t i o n , between l e a r n e r s a t advanced and i n t e r m e d i a t e  especially levels of  p r o f i c i e n c y , i s a t l e a s t as e f f e c t i v e as NS-learner  talk i n  terms o f p r o v i d i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o r e p a i r o r a v o i d misunderstanding, and t o a s s i s t i n t e r l o c u t o r s i n c o n t i n u i n g s u c c e s s f u l l y through a t o p i c o f mutual i n t e r e s t .  Only a  t i n y f r a c t i o n of the errors occurring during learner t a l k was repeated  by a non-native c o n v e r s a t i o n p a r t n e r ; many  e r r o r s were s u c c e s s f u l l y monitored and c o r r e c t e d by t h e partner. S e v e r a l o f P o r t e r ' s s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s a r e worth r e p o r t i n g here.  Regarding t h e i n t e r a c t i o n a l q u a l i t y o f IT,  P o r t e r found t h e r a t e o f m o n i t o r i n g c l a r i f i c a t i o n requests,  and such r e p a i r s as  c o n f i r m a t i o n checks and  comprehension checks t o be e s s e n t i a l l y i d e n t i c a l i n both l e a r n e r - l e a r n e r and NS-learner  conversation,  and t h e r a t e a t  which l e a r n e r s prompted each o t h e r t o be much h i g h e r than the r a t e a t which they prompted NSs. (1986, p. 214) concluded:  On these p o i n t s P o r t e r  "both types o f i n t e r l o c u t o r s  [ l e a r n e r s and NSs] a r e e q u a l l y e f f e c t i v e partners.  conversation  The f i n d i n g f o r . . . prompts [however] suggests 29  t h a t l e a r n e r s make b e t t e r p a r t n e r s Comprehensibility  . . ..  11  d u r i n g l e a r n e r t a l k was s i g n i f i c a n t l y  b e t t e r than d u r i n g NS-learner  talk.  Comprehensible i n p u t  thus would seem t o be a s s i s t e d by IT when p a r t i c i p a n t s share the same i n t e r l a n g u a g e phonology. by t h e advanced l e a r n e r s speaking  Moreover, i n p u t  provided  t o o t h e r l e a r n e r s was  s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r i n q u a l i t y than t h a t p r o v i d e d by NSs as measured by t h e judges'  ratings.  Learners  but p a r t i c u l a r l y a t t h e advanced l e v e l ,  at a l l levels,  produced  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more language f o r o t h e r l e a r n e r s than f o r N S s — a f i n d i n g which c l e a r l y suggests t h e p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t o f IT as i n p u t i n i n s t r u c t i o n a l s e t t i n g s . One a d d i t i o n a l f i n d i n g , however, showed IT t o be a r e l a t i v e l y i n e f f i c i e n t means f o r language l e a r n e r s t o a c q u i r e r u l e s o f s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c competence.  P o r t e r found  t h a t IT d i d not p r o v i d e l e a r n e r s " s o c i o c u l t u r a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e models" (p. 194) f o r t h e t h r e e language f u n c t i o n s examined i n t h e q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s : e x p r e s s i n g o p i n i o n s , agreements and disagreements. s p e c i a l r o l e f o r teachers the classroom,  T h i s suggests a  i n classrooms o r f o r NSs o u t s i d e  namely p r o v i d i n g adequate s o c i o c u l t u r a l  f o r language l e a r n e r s who a p p a r e n t l y  input  a r e unable t o p r o v i d e  i t t o each o t h e r . Dimensions o f Task and Interlancruacre T a l k One-way and Two-way Tasks. The  e f f e c t o f t a s k on t h e q u a l i t y o f IT ( p a r t i c u l a r l y  on t h e frequency  o f r e p a i r s undertaken d u r i n g 30  conversation  on task) has and Duff  a l s o been examined by Gass and V a r o n i s  (1986), among o t h e r s .  (An e x t e n s i v e review o f the  l i t e r a t u r e on t a s k , Crookes, 1986, Conceptual  (1985a)  w i l l be examined i n  Dimensions of the Study, below.)  F o l l o w i n g V a r o n i s and Gass' (1985) model d e s c r i b i n g the form and p r o c e s s of n e g o t i a t i o n of meaning i n d i s c o u r s e , Gass and V a r o n i s  (1985a) observed  nonnative  how  one-way and  two-way t a s k s made d i f f e r e n t communicative demands on i n t e r m e d i a t e - l e v e l NNSs i n c o n v e r s a t i o n a l dyads and i n f l u e n c e d the q u a l i t y of n e g o t i a t e d i n t e r a c t i o n .  thus They  d e f i n e d a one-way t a s k as "an i n t e r a c t i o n which i n v o l v e s the g i v i n g o f i n f o r m a t i o n from o n l y one p a r t i c i p a n t t o the other"  (p. 149)  and a two-way t a s k as "an  i n t e r a c t i o n which  i n v o l v e s exchanges of i n f o r m a t i o n . . . exchanges i n which both p a r t i c i p a n t s have i n f o r m a t i o n which must be shared i n o r d e r t o complete a g i v e n t a s k " v a r i a b l e used i n the study was  (p. 149).  The  the number of pushdowns, o r  i n d i c a t i o n s of d i f f i c u l t y i n understanding, listener.  t h a t understanding  employed.  i n i t i a t e d by a  Pushdowns were the b a s i s of nonunderstandinq  routines—"exchanges  complete"  dependent  i n which t h e r e i s some o v e r t  between p a r t i c i p a n t s has not been  (p. 1 5 1 ) — a n d were expected The  indication  t o v a r y w i t h the t a s k  one-way t a s k e n t a i l e d one member o f the dyad  d e s c r i b i n g a p i c t u r e w h i l e the o t h e r member attempted t o r e c o n s t r u c t i t without picture The  d i r e c t r e f e r e n c e t o the  (but w i t h the feedback of the person  original  describing i t ) .  two-way t a s k r e q u i r e d the dyad members t o p i e c e 31  i n f o r m a t i o n t o g e t h e r which they possessed towards s o l u t i o n o f a crime;  individually  the members had t o exchange  i n f o r m a t i o n c o o p e r a t i v e l y i f the crime were t o be The  authors  solved.  r e p o r t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between  t h e i r one-way and two-way t a s k s .  T h i s r e s u l t seems t o  c o n t r a d i c t Long's (1980) f i n d i n g s i n which two-way tasks r e s u l t e d i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater interaction  negotiated  ( v i a comprehension checks, r e q u e s t s  clarification,  etc.) than one-way t a s k s .  The  for authors  p o i n t e d out, however, t h a t the l e v e l of shared d i s t i n g u i s h e d the two  s o r t s of t a s k s , w i t h two-way t a s k s  r e q u i r i n g l e s s n e g o t i a t i o n than one-way t a s k s t h e i r study,  possessed  (although,  the  As the amount of i n f o r m a t i o n  independently  by p a r t i c i p a n t s i n c r e a s i n g l y o v e r l a p s , they have  l e s s need t o share (Gaies, 1982  i t d u r i n g performance o f the  task.  a l s o makes t h i s p o i n t , e x p l a i n i n g t h a t  p a r t i c i p a n t s ' shared  knowledge o f each o t h e r reduces the  chance of c o n v e r s a t i o n a l breakdown and dropping The  in  a p p a r e n t l y not s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s ) because o f  the g r e a t e r amount of i n f o r m a t i o n shared by participants:  assumptions  e x p l a n a t i o n t h a t p a r t i c i p a n t s ' shared  or knowledge reduces the need t o n e g o t i a t e  of topics.) assumptions  over  c o n v e r s a t i o n a l " t r o u b l e " i s a t t r a c t i v e i f not  persuasive.  However, i t does not d e a l d i r e c t l y w i t h the problem of what i s being negotiated  ( i n f o r m a t i o n per se  versus  c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y of the p a r t i c i p a n t ' s t a l k — c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y or l a c k of i t b e i n g a f o c a l i s s u e i n Long, 32  1980  and 1983, f o r example) o r w i t h t h e problem o f  directionality  (one-way t a s k s can, arguably,  require  p a r t i c i p a n t s t o n e g o t i a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than two-way t a s k s due t o t h e r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l e r number o f assumptions which p a r t i c i p a n t s s h a r e ) .  Thus, i t i s not c l e a r whether  n e g o t i a t i o n over nonunderstanding i n IT i s a f u n c t i o n o f t h e degree o f shared assumption p e r m i t t e d by a t a s k o r t h e need t o share i n f o r m a t i o n i n o r d e r t o complete a t a s k successfully  (by d e f i n i t i o n , a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f two-way  t a s k s ) o r , perhaps, t h e need t o make t h e language by which i n f o r m a t i o n i s t o be shared more comprehensible. Convergent and Divergent Duff  Tasks.  (1986) p r o v i d e s an a d d i t i o n a l view o f t h e t a s k -  i n t e r a c t i o n r e l a t i o n s h i p i n IT, examining t h e degree t o which d y a d i c t a s k s support independent-goal  shared-goal  (convergent)  (divergent) i n t e r a c t i o n .  (1983, 1986) and Gass and V a r o n i s  or  Like Porter  (1985a), Duff employed  t e a c h e r l e s s t a s k s i n t h e form o f c o o p e r a t i v e  problem-solving  and debate. U n l i k e o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s , however, Duff used two-way t a s k s e x c l u s i v e l y i n t h e study and thus d i d not attempt t o r e p l i c a t e r e s e a r c h which examined t h e e f f e c t o f one-way and two-way t a s k s on r e p a i r b e h a v i o r . the study i n c l u d e d f o u r n a t i v e speakers and  f o u r o f Japanese.  Subjects i n  o f Mandarin Chinese  Q u a n t i t y o f i n p u t was measured by t h e  number o f words and c - u n i t s ("a word, phrase,  o r sentence  t h a t i n some way c o n t r i b u t e d pragmatic o r semantic meaning t o a c o n v e r s a t i o n " , p. 153). Q u a l i t y was measured by t h e 33  frequency of t u r n s , q u e s t i o n s s y n t a c t i c complexity;  and  see Freed,  S-nodes (a measure of 1978).  S p e c i f i c measures  of i n t e r a c t i o n i n c l u d e d comprehension checks, requests,  clarification  c o n f i r m a t i o n checks, c o l l a b o r a t i v e checks  ( " e x p l i c i t feedback o r agreement or disagreement i s sought", p. 152),  i n a d d i t i o n to several question  forms.  The  i n t e r a c t i o n f e a t u r e s were s i m i l a r t o those r e p o r t e d (1980, 1981)  i n Long  P i c a (1987), P i c a and Doughty (1985), P i c a  Long (1986) and P o r t e r  and  (1983) except f o r the e l a b o r a t i o n o f  q u e s t i o n types and the a d d i t i o n o f c o l l a b o r a t i v e checks. Duff found t h a t the debates (the d i v e r g e n t  tasks)  produced s i g n i f i c a n t l y more words per t u r n , fewer c - u n i t s , more words per c - u n i t and more S-nodes per c - u n i t than problem-solving  (convergent) t a s k s .  Debate, i n g e n e r a l ,  thus found t o produce l o n g e r and more complicated than p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g .  As f o r the i n t e r a c t i v e q u a l i t y o f  the form of c o n f i r m a t i o n checks and  d i d not reach  was  discourse  t a s k s , Duff found s i g n i f i c a n t l y more s u b j e c t q u e s t i o n s  problem-solving  the  the  in  r e f e r e n t i a l questions  in  than i n debate, although t a s k d i f f e r e n c e s s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r comprehension checks  c l a r i f i c a t i o n requests.  and  E t h n i c d i f f e r e n c e s were a l s o noted,  w i t h the Chinese s u b j e c t s t a k i n g more frequent  turns  and  a s k i n g q u e s t i o n s more f r e q u e n t l y than t h e i r Japanese counterparts. i n d i v i d u a l s may  T h i s f i n d i n g suggests t h a t r e l a t i v e l y  voluble  c r e a t e the o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r t h e i r l e s s  v o l u b l e p a r t n e r s t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n the n e g o t i a t i o n o f conversational m a t e r i a l . F i n a l l y , with shorter turns 34  and  more f r e q u e n t and problem-solving  immediate feedback, Duff concluded  was  more conducive  t o SLA  that  than debate,  p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h r e s p e c t t o the g r e a t e r amount o f questioning by t h i s t a s k  (and thus c l a r i f i c a t i o n  of meaning) engendered  type.  The major i m p l i c a t i o n of D u f f ' s study i s t h a t t a s k s be d i s t i n g u i s h e d by the degree t o which they  can  stimulate  c o o p e r a t i v e , i n t e r l a n g u a g e exchange on the t o p i c .  Divergent  t a s k s would seem t o encourage a more e x p o s i t o r y , a b s t r a c t and  i n s t r u c t i v e approach t o t a l k w i t h c o n v e r s a t i o n p a r t n e r s ,  whereas convergent t a s k s seem conducive  t o the  frequent,  c o o p e r a t i v e exchange o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l m a t e r i a l which i s made c o n c r e t e and p e r s o n a l l y r e l e v a n t from moment-to-moment. T h i s d i s t i n c t i o n has a l s o been d i s c u s s e d by Kramsch (1985) who  noted the "dual nature of the language l e a r n i n g t a s k "  (p.  170)  and the v a r i a t i o n o f t a s k s along the  interaction  continuum between " p o s i t i o n - c e n t e r e d t e a c h i n g learning, received  ...  and  i n which i n f o r m a t i o n i s d e l i v e r e d and  . . . [and] person-centered  communication, i n which  i n f o r m a t i o n i s exchanged and meanings are n e g o t i a t e d "  (p.  171) . Required  versus Optional Information  Exchange.  Kramsch's d i s t i n c t i o n i s echoed i n r e s e a r c h conducted by Doughty and P i c a (1986) and P i c a (1987).  Doughty and  P i c a compared t a s k s which r e q u i r e d the exchange o f i n f o r m a t i o n and t a s k s which l e f t o p t i o n a l , i n teacher-led, small  i n f o r m a t i o n exchange (four-member) group  35  and  dyadic s e t t i n g s .  They found t h a t t h e requirement o f  i n f o r m a t i o n exchange was t h e key v a r i a b l e i n p r o d u c i n g s i g n i f i c a n t l y more m o d i f i e d measured by t h e frequency  i n t e r a c t i o n i n E n g l i s h (as  of c l a r i f i c a t i o n  requests,  c o n f i r m a t i o n checks and comprehension checks) i n a l l s e t t i n g s , but t h a t t h e NNS-NNS p a r t i c i p a t i o n p a t t e r n s i n s m a l l groups and dyads produced much more m o d i f i e d i n t e r a c t i o n than those l e d by t h e NS t e a c h e r . l a r g e number o f ungrammatical u t t e r a n c e s  Noting the  (p. 322) i n t h e  v a r i o u s i n t e r m e d i a t e p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l student  groups,  however, P i c a and Doughty c a u t i o n e d t h a t t h e t e a c h e r the o n l y source the l e a r n e r s . support  o f grammatical i n p u t o r d i n a r i l y a v a i l a b l e t o Beyond t h i s caveat, which f i n d s o n l y  limited  i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e and must contend w i t h  c o n t r a d i c t o r y evidence study's  remains  (Long, 1980, f o r example), t h e  g e n e r a l c o n c l u s i o n was t h a t i t i s t h e t a s k -  o b l i g a t o r y exchange o f i n f o r m a t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y i n but not l i m i t e d t o NNS groups, which seems t o c r e a t e t h e c o n d i t i o n s f o r n e g o t i a t e d exchange o f i n f o r m a t i o n and meaning. Information  Exchange versus  Decision-Making Tasks.  These f i n d i n g s a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h those r e p o r t e d i n Pica  (1987) who c o n t r a s t e d t h e number o f c l a r i f i c a t i o n  requests,  c o n f i r m a t i o n checks and comprehension checks  ( i n d i c a t i v e o f t h e degree o f m o d i f i e d  interaction) i n  t e a c h e r - and l e a r n e r - d i r e c t e d groups f o r both d e c i s i o n making and i n f o r m a t i o n exchange t a s k s .  P i c a found t h a t  t e a c h e r - d i r e c t e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n was g e n e r a l l y t h e l e a s t 36  productive of modified i n t e r a c t i o n . two  When c o n t r a s t i n g t h e  s o r t s o f t a s k , however, P i c a found much l a r g e r  d i f f e r e n c e s i n both t e a c h e r - l e d and l e a r n e r - l e d groups when i n f o r m a t i o n had t o be exchanged i n o r d e r t o complete a t a s k s u c c e s s f u l l y than when members o f a group simply d i s c u s s e d a problem.  When p a r t i c i p a n t s were o b l i g e d t o share  i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e l o c a t i o n o f f l o w e r s on a board, m o d i f i e d i n t e r a c t i o n became t h e key t o s u c c e s s f u l of t h e t a s k . of  I n a d d i t i o n , P i c a noted t h e apparent i n f l u e n c e  r o l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s on t h e task-based  did  completion  t a l k when t h e t a s k  n o t r e q u i r e an equal exchange o f i n f o r m a t i o n among  participants. classroom  The t e a c h e r ' s normally dominant s t a t u s i n t h e  o r a g i v e n l e a r n e r ' s a b i l i t y t o dominate a group's  c o n v e r s a t i o n a l time, restrict  f o r example, were l e s s l i k e l y t o  t h e occurrence  o f m o d i f i e d i n t e r a c t i o n when t h e  t a s k encouraged p a r t i c i p a n t s t o exchange i n f o r m a t i o n on a more-or-less  equal b a s i s .  In summary, then, d i f f e r e n t t a s k s have been found t o i n f l u e n c e t h e q u a l i t y and q u a n t i t y o f IT.  Although  Long  (1980) found two-way t a s k s more e f f e c t i v e than one-way t a s k s i n g e n e r a t i n g n e g o t i a t e d i n t e r a c t i o n between members o f NNS dyads, Gass and V a r o n i s  (1985a) found no s i g n i f i c a n t  d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e two forms o f t a s k , n o t i n g t h a t t h e degree o f shared background and experience which l e a r n e r s b r i n g t o a t a s k seems t o c o n t r o l t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f interaction. Duff  R e c a s t i n g t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between t a s k types,  (1986) found  s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between t a s k s 37  which r e q u i r e l e a r n e r s t o r e a c h a common s o l u t i o n (convergent tasks)  and those which encourage independent  g o a l s f o r each member ( d i v e r g e n t t a s k s ) . Doughty and P i c a  (1986) and P i c a  Others, i n c l u d i n g  (1987), have concluded t h a t  t a s k s can be d i s t i n g u i s h e d on t h e b a s i s o f whether o r n o t they r e q u i r e , and n o t merely i n v i t e , an exchange o f information there  i n o r d e r t o be completed s u c c e s s f u l l y .  Thus,  i s l i t t l e consensus on how t a s k s can be c l e a r l y  d i s t i n g u i s h e d t o serve p r e d i c t i v e f u n c t i o n s i n second and f o r e i g n language r e s e a r c h ,  although i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e  q u a l i t y and q u a n t i t y o f IT i s i n f l u e n c e d by t h e n a t u r e o f the t a s k i n which l e a r n e r s a r e asked t o engage. More g e n e r a l l y , t h e o r g a n i z i n g o f NNS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n has been found a s e r i o u s a l t e r n a t i v e t o NS-NNS exchanges i n classrooms ( P o r t e r , 1983, 1986) and a source o f i n p u t and negotiated  i n t e r a c t i o n a t l e a s t as e f f e c t i v e as t h a t which  o c c u r s i n NS-NNS dyads.  I n s t r u c t i o n which i s  teacher-  f r o n t e d , and m a i n t a i n s t h e t r a d i t i o n a l t e a c h e r - p u p i l  status  d i f f e r e n c e s , has been found i n some s t u d i e s t o produce an " i n f e r i o r " and l e s s focused  v e r s i o n o f FT, s p e c i f i c a l l y i n  the d y s f u n c t i o n a l use o f d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s 1983;  (see Chaudron,  Long & Sato, 1983; a l s o Doughty & P i c a , 1986;  P i c a , 1987 f o r comparisons o f t e a c h e r - f r o n t e d NNS-NNS group c o n v e r s a t i o n a l The  and s m a l l ,  activity).  d i s c u s s i o n next moves t o s e v e r a l key conceptual  u n d e r p i n n i n g s f o r t h e study, examining i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l t h e n a t u r e and uses o f r e p a i r , t a s k and r e f e r e n c e . 38  Conceptual Dimensions o f the  Study  Repair The  f i r s t conceptual  f i e l d t o be examined here i s  repair, a s u r p r i s i n g l y mercurial  term g i v e n  i t s frequency of  o c c u r r e n c e i n the l i t e r a t u r e and uses as a measure o f i n t e r a c t i o n a l adjustment.  In g e n e r a l ,  r e p a i r has  viewed e i t h e r as a p r o c e s s f o r n e g o t i a t i n g "trouble"  (Gass and V a r o n i s ,  been  conversational  1985a, 1985b) or a r e l a t e d  group o f i n t e r a c t i o n s t r a t e g i e s which p a r t i c i p a n t s use improve the c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y Porter,  1983,  1986).  o f t h e i r t a l k (Long,  to  1980;  Other s t u d i e s have d i s t i n g u i s h e d  between forms o f r e p a i r which are e s s e n t i a l l y l e x i c o grammatical i n nature and  those which modify the  p r o p o s i t i o n a l content o f the d i s c o u r s e Porter,  1986;  Schachter, 1985;  S c h e g l o f f , J e f f e r s o n , and  (Kasper,  Schwartz, 1980). Sacks (1977) c h a r a c t e r i z e d  r e p a i r as "the s e l f - r i g h t i n g mechanism f o r the o f language use  i n s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n " (p. 381)  when c o n v e r s a t i o n a l p a r t i c i p a n t s p e r c e i v e t r o u b l e i n e i t h e r t h e i r own  1985;  organization which occurs  a source of  or t h e i r partner's  talk.  R e p a i r o f a n t i c i p a t e d or a c t u a l l y o c c u r r i n g t r o u b l e  was  d i s t i n g u i s h e d from simple c o r r e c t i o n o r replacement o f e r r o r and  found t o be overwhelmingly the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f  " t r o u b l e source".  That i s , s e l f - r e p a i r i s o r d i n a r i l y  p r e f e r r e d t o o t h e r - r e p a i r , although S c h e g l o f f e t a l . speculated  t h a t o t h e r - c o r r e c t i o n f o r the  competent 39  not-as-yet  the  .  . . appears t o be one v e h i c l e f o r s o c i a l i z a t i o n .  If  t h a t i s so, then i t appears t h a t o t h e r - c o r r e c t i o n i s not so much an a l t e r n a t i v e t o s e l f - c o r r e c t i o n i n conversation  i n general, but rather a device f o r  d e a l i n g w i t h those who a r e s t i l l taught  l e a r n i n g or being  t o operate w i t h a system which r e q u i r e s , f o r i t s  r o u t i n e o p e r a t i o n , t h a t they be adequate s e l f - m o n i t o r s and  s e l f - c o r r e c t o r s as a c o n d i t i o n o f competence, (p.  381) Indeed, Kasper (1985) not o n l y found a p r e f e r e n c e  f o r both  o t h e r - i n i t i a t e d and other-completed r e p a i r i n languagecentered  instruction  ( i . e . , i n s t r u c t i o n dominated by t h e  t e a c h e r ) , b u t a l s o found t h e more c o n v e n t i o n a l p a t t e r n o f self-initiated  and s e l f - c o m p l e t e d  i n s t r u c t i o n a l discourse. t o depend on t h e context specifically occurs,  r e p a i r by NNSs d u r i n g non-  The r e p a i r p r e f e r e n c e i n which t a l k o c c u r s .  concerned w i t h t h e context  Porter  thus seems Although not  i n which r e p a i r  (1983, 1986) r e p o r t e d h i g h e r r a t e s o f both  s e l f - and o t h e r - c o r r e c t i o n (monitoring)  by NSs i n  c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h NNSs, a f i n d i n g i n support  of Schegloff et  al. These s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s a r e l a r g e l y r e l a t e d t o t h e lexico-grammatical  c h a r a c t e r o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l r e p a i r (but  see Schwartz, 1980 f o r a treatment o f s e l f - and o t h e r - r e p a i r i n n e g o t i a t e d and i n s t r u c t i o n a l d i s c o u r s e ) . i n t e r e s t t o the present  Of even more  study a r e t h e v a r i o u s exponents o f r e p a i r  which have been r e p o r t e d as c o n t r i b u t i n g t o i n t e r a c t i o n a l 40  modification.  Here t h e r e i s a w e l l - s t u d i e d ,  frequently  r e p l i c a t e d group o f exponents, although t h e term r e p a i r i s not y e t r o u t i n e l y o r c o n s i s t e n t l y used t o d e s c r i b e them. Long (1980), f o r example, found t h a t NS-NNS dyads r e l i e d on such r e p a i r d e v i c e s as c o n f i r m a t i o n checks, requests,  clarification  s e l f - and o t h e r - r e p e t i t i o n t o r e p a i r breakdowns  which had a l r e a d y occurred,  whereas comprehension checks and  r e p e t i t i o n f u n c t i o n e d t o a v o i d breakdown. grouped c l a r i f i c a t i o n  requests,  Porter  comprehension checks,  v e r i f i c a t i o n s o f meaning, d e f i n i t i o n r e q u e s t s u n c e r t a i n t i e s under r e p a i r .  (1983)  and l e x i c a l  (Tarone (1983) has a l s o  d e s c r i b e d t h e l a t t e r t h r e e d e v i c e s as exponents o f t h e communication s t r a t e g y appeals f o r a s s i s t a n c e ) . found r e p a i r f r e q u e n c i e s NS groups. concentrated requests  Porter  f o r NNS groups s i m i l a r t o those i n  About t w o - t h i r d s  o f a l l r e p a i r s were found t o be  among c o n f i r m a t i o n checks,  clarification  and comprehension checks.  F u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f r e p a i r frequency as an i n d i c a t o r o f i n t e r a c t i o n a l m o d i f i c a t i o n i s found i n Gass and Varonis  (1985b).  Repair  occurs w i t h i n  "negotiation  exchanges . . . i n which t h e r e i s some o v e r t i n d i c a t i o n t h a t u n d e r s t a n d i n g between p a r t i c i p a n t s has not been complete and t h e r e i s a r e s u l t a n t attempt t o c l a r i f y t h e nonunderstanding"  (p. 39). Gass and V a r o n i s  (1985a)  d e f i n e d nonunderstanding r o u t i n e s i n a s i m i l a r f a s h i o n and,  i n d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e i r model o f unaccepted i n p u t ,  noted t h a t n e g o t i a t i o n i n nonnative-nonnative d i s c o u r s e i s 41  t r i g g e r e d and then i n d i c a t e d by a h e a r e r ' s  incomplete  u n d e r s t a n d i n g , f o l l o w e d by t h e o r i g i n a l speaker's  response  and t h e h e a r e r ' s o p t i o n a l r e a c t i o n t o t h e response (p. 151f).  Schwartz (1980) made t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f r e p a i r  and n e g o t i a t i o n e x p l i c i t on t h e b a s i s o f h e r q u a l i t a t i v e study, d e f i n i n g r e p a i r as "a p r o c e s s o f n e g o t i a t i o n , i n v o l v i n g speakers c o n f e r r i n g w i t h each o t h e r t o a c h i e v e understanding"  (p.  151).  Thus i t seems t h a t r e p a i r i s viewed  both as t h e  p a r t i c u l a r u t t e r a n c e s speakers make when d e a l i n g w i t h p o t e n t i a l o r a c t u a l t r o u b l e spots i n c o n v e r s a t i o n s and t h e p r o c e s s by which p a r t i c i p a n t s attempt t o reach a common understanding o f problematic conversational m a t e r i a l . working elements  The  d e f i n i t i o n o f r e p a i r used i n t h i s study combines o f both views:  C o n v e r s a t i o n a l r e p a i r i s a group o f  i n t e r a c t i o n s t r a t e g i e s speakers employ t o make t h e i r own and o t h e r ' s t a l k more comprehensible  i n anticipation of or  response t o communication d i f f i c u l t i e s .  Although i t i s not  always p o s s i b l e t o know i n advance o f o b s e r v a t i o n what p a r t i c i p a n t s c o n s i d e r t o be " t r o u b l e " , i t i s p o s s i b l e t o examine t h e evidence o f breakdown under v a r i o u s c o n v e r s a t i o n a l circumstances by e x a m i n i n g — a s  o t h e r s have  d o n e — t h e r e c o r d o f r e p a i r b e h a v i o r d u r i n g performance o f different tasks. Task The concept o f communication t a s k and i t s use as a u n i t of  a n a l y s i s i n SLA r e s e a r c h and t e a c h i n g has been examined 42  comprehensively  by Crookes (1986).  Crookes d e f i n e d  communication t a s k as "a p i e c e of work or an  activity,  u s u a l l y w i t h a s p e c i f i e d o b j e c t i v e , undertaken as p a r t of an e d u c a t i o n a l course, a t work, or used t o e l i c i t research"  data f o r  (p. 1), and noted t h a t a number of o t h e r terms,  i n c l u d i n g a c t i v i t i e s , j o b s , procedures,  p r o c e s s e s , have a l s o  been used t o denote o r g a n i z a t i o n a l formats  o f use  researchers i n o p e r a t i o n a l i z i n g t h e i r research  to  designs.  From the r e s e a r c h e r ' s p o i n t of view, then, t a s k s which appear t o have unique c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s can be employed t o elicit  language data f o r l a t e r a n a l y s i s .  Tasks can  be  v a r i e d t o produce s y s t e m a t i c v a r i a t i o n i n the language used to  n a v i g a t e through the t a s k .  From the  instructional  p l a n n e r ' s p o i n t of view, however, t a s k s r e p r e s e n t  special  environments i n which t o o p e r a t i o n a l i z e i n s t r u c t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s . Thus, implementation  of various tasks  leads  e v e n t u a l l y t o v a r i o u s , f o r e s e e a b l e changes i n knowledge o r a t t i t u d e s among l e a r n e r s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , as Crookes noted, l i t t l e understanding  there i s i n f a c t very  o f the t a s k - b e h a v i o r  second language r e s e a r c h and p r a c t i c e .  relationship in  Applied  linguists  have a p p l i e d the e q u i v a l e n t of c r i t e r i a f o r f a c e v a l i d i t y t o t a s k s borrowed from i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r a c t i c e (but  see  Shortreed,  1986  conceptual  grounds e s t a b l i s h e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e o f group  and  f o r an attempt t o d i s t i n g u i s h among t a s k s  s o c i a l psychology).  on  Thus, i t i s v e r y d i f f i c u l t t o know,  except perhaps w i t h h i n d s i g h t , which t a s k c a t e g o r i e s are 43  worth p u r s u i n g  f o r data c o l l e c t i o n , o r t o ensure t h a t a  g i v e n t a s k used i n one p i e c e o f r e s e a r c h i s t h e same as t h a t used i n another  (a problem noted by V a r o n i s and Gass, 1985).  Without r e f e r e n c e t o a d e f e n s i b l e t h e o r e t i c a l p o i n t o f view, it  i s a l s o d i f f i c u l t t o know whether t a s k s a r e b e s t  d i s t i n g u i s h e d by how o b l i g a t o r y i n f o r m a t i o n s h a r i n g - i s o r by the degree o f shared assumptions l e a r n e r s b r i n g t o t h e conversational setting.  There a r e c e r t a i n l y o t h e r ways t o  d i s t i n g u i s h among t a s k s used i n classrooms  o r planned f o r  r e s e a r c h purposes, i n c l u d i n g , f o r example, t h e r e l a t i v e degree o f c o g n i t i v e complexity Even i f complexity 1986;  one t a s k has over  another.  can be o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d (see S h o r t r e e d ,  Crookes, 1986), r e s e a r c h e r s a r e s t i l l  faced with  j u s t i f y i n g i t s importance i n t h e o r e t i c a l and p r a c t i c a l terms. One way o f approaching  t h e problem o f s e l e c t i n g  tasks  f o r r e s e a r c h o r i n s t r u c t i o n a l purposes i s t o b e g i n w i t h a t h e o r e t i c a l framework f o r s e l e c t i n g and then c h a r a c t e r i z i n g tasks.  (Apart from p r e l i m i n a r y c l a s s i f i c a t i o n w i t h i n such a  framework, such t a s k s may w e l l have been i n classroom use for a considerable period).  This rather deductive strategy  i s n o t t h e o n l y approach, o f course,  although  i n contrast to  the i n d u c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s o f much r e c e n t r e s e a r c h i n t h e field,  i t can h e l p t o v a l i d a t e t h e s e l e c t i o n o f t a s k f a c t o r s  w i t h i n which data w i l l be examined.  T h i s way o f t h i n k i n g i s  e x e m p l i f i e d i n two r e l a t e d views o f communication t a s k which have been proposed by Cummins (1983) and Mohan (1986). 44  Cummins was i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e ways communication i s a f f e c t e d by changes i n " c o n t e x t u a l support f o r a g i v e n . . . exchange o r b i t o f d i s c o u r s e , and . . . t h e degree o f c o g n i t i v e e f f o r t r e q u i r e d f o r comprehension and expression"  (Cummins, 1983, p. 108).  A c c o r d i n g t o Cummins,  language p r o f i c i e n c y can be expected t o v a r y a l o n g two orthogonal continuua:  Range o f C o n t e x t u a l Support and  Degree o f C o g n i t i v e Involvement i n Communicative His  Activities.  framework i s reproduced below.  COGNITIVELY UNDEMANDING  CONTEXT EMBEDDED  CONTEXT REDUCED  B  COGNITIVELY DEMANDING F i g u r e 1.  Range o f c o n t e x t u a l support and degree o f  c o g n i t i v e involvement i n communicative a c t i v i t i e s ,  (p. 120)  Cummins noted t h a t context-embedded communication i s t y p i c a l o f everyday ( n o n - i n s t r u c t i o n a l ) t a l k o u t s i d e o f classrooms i n t h a t p a r t i c i p a n t s n e g o t i a t e meaning by  45  o f f e r i n g feedback about the i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y o f the t a l k as i t unfolds.  Context-reduced s i t u a t i o n s are more  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of academic o r s c h o o l s e t t i n g s i n which a premium i s p l a c e d on a b s t r a c t reasoning, elaborated  messages and  precisely  c a r e f u l c o n t r o l of l e a r n e r s ' verbal  p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n order t o a v o i d m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Cognitive  Involvement "can be c o n c e p t u a l i z e d  amount o f i n f o r m a t i o n or i n c l o s e s u c c e s s i o n out the a c t i v i t y " end  i n terms o f  t h a t must be p r o c e s s e d  the  simultaneously  by the i n d i v i d u a l i n order t o c a r r y  (p. 121).  At the c o g n i t i v e l v undemanding  o f the continuum are mainly automatized communicative  t a s k s which r e q u i r e r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e a c t i v e involvement or c r e a t i v e use  of language.  C o g n i t i v e l v demanding t a s k s ,  c o n t r a s t , r e q u i r e more a c t i v e communication n e g o t i a t i o n o f the d i s c o u r s e .  The  by  and  d i s c o u r s e becomes open t o  m a n i p u l a t i o n by the p a r t i c i p a n t s , thus a l l o w i n g them t o a c h i e v e such l o c a l c o n v e r s a t i o n a l  purposes as  clarifying  what a c o - c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i s t says o r c h e c k i n g t o see l i s t e n e r has  comprehended an  i f the  utterance.  With NNS-NNS communication i n mind, Cummins' framework suggests c o n d i t i o n s under which n e g o t i a t i o n conversational  and  r e p a i r are l i k e l y t o be e s s e n t i a l c o n d i t i o n s  o f the d i s c o u r s e  (quadrant B) and  c o n d i t i o n s under which  they are l e a s t l i k e l y t o occur (quadrant C).  Quadrant B  a c t i v i t y c o u l d r e a s o n a b l y occur, f o r example, i n a company s e t t i n g i n which t e c h n i c a l s k i l l s are b e i n g  transferred  through the medium of E n g l i s h as a second language:  46  A  t r a i n e r and t r a i n e e chemical a n a l y s i s  are standing i n front of a piece of  equipment; t h e t r a i n e r i s a r e l a t i v e l y  good speaker o f E n g l i s h  and thus has not memorized  i s f a m i l i a r with) t h e r e l e v a n t manual on chemical a n a l y s i s trainee,  (although  section of the i n s t r u c t i o n  o f non-organic p r e c i p i t a t e s ; t h e  h i g h l y motivated t o complete t h e a c t i v i t y  successfully,  i s not sure he has understood what t h e t r a i n e r  s a i d about f i l l i n g a graduated c y l i n d e r t o a c e r t a i n  level,  so he nominates a c e r t a i n f i g u r e f o r t h e t r a i n e r t o c o n f i r m . V e r b a l i n t e r a c t i o n o f a s i m i l a r , although s i m u l a t e d , c o u l d be examined under c o n t r o l l e d varied  sort  circumstances, w i t h t a s k s  a c c o r d i n g t o t h e requirements o f a t h e o r e t i c a l  framework such as t h e one Cummins has proposed. A terminology f o r task a n a l y s i s generally  been developed on t h e b a s i s  i n SLA r e s e a r c h has not o f frameworks o r  models o f t h e s o r t d i s c u s s e d here (but see Duff, 1986; F a e r c h & Kasper, 1983; Wagner, 1983 f o r c o n c e p t u a l of use t o d e s i g n o f e m p i r i c a l  study).  thinking  Mohan (1986),  however, o f f e r s a broad t h e o r e t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e f o r describing  a c t i v i t i e s and, s p e c i f i c a l l y , uses o f language i n  e d u c a t i o n a l s e t t i n g s which can be a p p l i e d t a s k s f o r r e s e a r c h purposes. Mohan was i n t e r e s t e d attempt t o e x p l a i n  to selection of  I t should be emphasized  that  i n e d u c a t i o n a l p r o c e s s e s and d i d not  p r o c e s s e s i n SLA.  language and content l e a r n i n g  The t y p o l o g y o f  i s based on a knowledge  framework (p. 35f.) which i s d i v i d e d  into general  t h e o r e t i c a l knowledge and s p e c i f i c p r a c t i c a l knowledge.  47  Knowledge i s communicated through an a c t i v i t y which, Mohan noted,  "combines t h e o r y  (action situations)  (background  . . . .  knowledge) and p r a c t i c e  Verbal, expository learning i s  e s s e n t i a l f o r understanding t h e o r y and symbolic knowledge, but i t needs t o be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h l i f e e x p e r i e n c e and p r a c t i c a l knowledge" (p. 45). Thus t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between e x p o s i t o r y and e x p e r i e n t i a l approaches  t o t e a c h i n g and  l e a r n i n g i s , a t i t s broadest, t h e d i f f e r e n c e between content expressed through t h e o r e t i c a l d i s c o u r s e over knowledge which e x i s t s independently o f t h e s i t u a t i o n i n which i t i s discussed  (as i n l e c t u r e s , textbooks, classroom d i s c u s s i o n s ,  f o r example) and content expressed through  practical  d i s c o u r s e over o b j e c t s which can be r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e communicative s i t u a t i o n  ( l a b o r a t o r y work, demonstrations,  c o o p e r a t i v e games, f o r example). The e x p o s i t o r y - e x p e r i e n t i a l d i s t i n c t i o n i s c e r t a i n l y more complex than suggested by t h e broad o u t l i n e p r e s e n t e d so f a r .  F o r t h e purposes  o f t h i s d i s c u s s i o n , however, a  simple, l i m i t e d and incomplete c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f t a s k i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e d i s t i n c t i o n w i l l be adopted.  A  communication t a s k i s e x p o s i t o r y when p a r t i c i p a n t s can communicate about t h e t o p i c o f c o n v e r s a t i o n by means o f discourse only. obvious example.  A telephone c o n v e r s a t i o n would be an (This i s c l e a r l y n o t e x p o s i t o r y i n t h e  sense o f c a t e g o r i e s o f r h e t o r i c sometimes employed t o d e s c r i b e prose, e.g., " e x p o s i t o r y " v e r s u s prose.)  "narrative"  A communication t a s k i s e x p e r i e n t i a l when  48  p a r t i c i p a n t s can communicate through v a r i o u s media  about t h e t o p i c o f c o n v e r s a t i o n  (visual presentation, gesture  and  a c t i o n , as w e l l as v e r b a l i z a t i o n ) and when they can d i r e c t l y experience  f o r themselves what i s t a l k e d about.  An  example  would be t a l k w h i l e j o i n t l y c o n s t r u c t i n g a Lego t o y . Although  i t i s convenient  t o speak i n terms o f a  d i s t i n c t i o n between two t a s k types, i t i s p r o b a b l y more r e a l i s t i c t o view t a s k s along a dimension p e r m i t t i n g p a r t i c i p a n t s v a r i o u s degrees o f d i r e c t , shared and shared p e r c e p t i o n i n t h e t a s k s i t u a t i o n .  experience A l l things  b e i n g e q u a l , e x p e r i e n t i a l t a s k s are l i k e l y t o l e a d t o more r e p a i r than e x p o s i t o r y t a s k s on the grounds t h a t p a r t i c i p a n t s have more sources o f i n f o r m a t i o n which indicate conversational trouble.  I t should be a l s o p o i n t e d  out, however, t h a t shared experience m a t e r i a l r e s o u r c e s may,  may  and p e r c e p t i o n o f  a t the extreme, b e g i n t o o b v i a t e  p a r t i c i p a n t s ' need t o n e g o t i a t e t r o u b l e , a problem posed by Gass and V a r o n i s  (1985a) and r a i s e d a g a i n below d u r i n g  d i s c u s s i o n o f how the Knowledge Framework may be a p p l i e d t o problems o f o b s e r v a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h . Proposing conceptual  new t a s k terminology  and r e l a t i n g i t t o  d i s c u s s i o n i n the l i t e r a t u r e o n l y  j u s t i f i e s i t s i n c l u s i o n i n the r e s e a r c h .  partially  I t does not  f o l l o w , however, t h a t an e x p e r i e n t i a l - e x p o s i t o r y c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f t a s k s i s a v a l i d one, o r even t h a t the framework which supports  i t i s a u s e f u l means o f s t u d y i n g  the a l l o c a t i o n o f IT d u r i n g t a s k s .  49  How  can these a d d i t i o n a l  c r i t e r i a f o r d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between e x p e r i e n t i a l and e x p o s i t o r y t a s k s be i n v e s t e d i n t h e research?  What  a d d i t i o n a l body o f r e s e a r c h can be employed t o t e s t t h e r e a l i t y o f e x p e r i e n t i a l and e x p o s i t o r y b e h a v i o r performance o f g i v e n  during  tasks? Reference  One way o f approaching  these q u e s t i o n s  i s t o examine  how elements o f spoken t e x t s g a i n cohesion d u r i n g d i s c o u r s e and  f o r c e what Brown and Yule  co-interpretation. cohesion  (1983a, p. 190) r e f e r t o as  H a l l i d a y and Hasan (1976) have d i s c u s s e d  i n t e x t s as "a semantic r e l a t i o n between an element  i n t h e t e x t and some o t h e r element t h a t i s c r u c i a l t o t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f i t " (p. 8 ) . They note,  "Where t h e  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f any item i n t h e d i s c o u r s e r e q u i r e s making r e f e r e n c e t o some o t h e r item i n t h e d i s c o u r s e , t h e r e i s cohesion"  (p. 11). Reference i s a form o f c o h e s i o n which  l i n k s t h e i d e n t i t y o f a t h i n g ( i t s r e f e r e n t i a l meaning) with o t h e r elements i n a t e x t v a r i o u s l y c r a f t e d t o r e p r e s e n t i t . H a l l i d a y and Hasan's taxonomy d i s t i n g u i s h e s between exophoric reference.  ( s i t u a t i o n a l ) and endophoric Exophoric  ( t e x t u a l ) forms o f  r e f e r e n c e i s an e s p e c i a l l y  p a r t o f t h e taxonomy because i t s use i s e n t i r e l y  interesting restricted  t o t h e s i t u a t i o n i n which i t o c c u r s ; i t s use i s thus e x t e r n a l t o e f f o r t speakers text.  During exophoric  expend on c r e a t i n g a c o h e s i v e  r e f e r e n c e speakers  typically  r e f e r t o o b j e c t s which can be viewed o r otherwise through t h e use o f language.  entirely  located  In t h e absence o f a v i s u a l  50  r e c o r d o r a supplemental t e x t , t h e r e f o r e ,  non-participants  are f o r c e d t o imagine what t h e i n i t i a l r e f e r e n t might have been.  The authors noted t h a t  "language-in-action"  s i t u a t i o n s e n t a i l a h i g h p r o p o r t i o n o f exophoric  reference,  s i t u a t i o n s i n which a t l e a s t one o f t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s makes r e f e r e n c e t o t h i n g s i n t h e immediate environment and assumes t h a t t h e c o - p a r t i c i p a n t i s a b l e t o f o l l o w t h e v e r b a l (and o f t e n p h y s i c a l ) " p o i n t i n g out".  When an addressee i s unable  t o do so, as may be t h e case when a d u l t s a r e d e a l i n g  with  v e r y young c h i l d r e n who assume t h a t everyone wo whom they speak shares t h e i r own focus o f a t t e n t i o n , r e f e r e n t i a l presuppositions  must be r e s o l v e d , n e g o t i a t e d  before the adult w i l l allow the conversation The  f o l l o w i n g exchange (excerpted p.  34)  i n effect, t o move on.  from H a l l i d a y & Hasan,  i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s point:  Child:  Why does THAT one come out?  Parent:  That what?  Child:  THAT one.  Parent:  That what?  Child:  That ONE!  Parent:  That one what?  Child:  That l e v e l t h e r e t h a t you push t o l e t the water o u t .  T h i s r a t h e r narrow focus o f n e g o t i a t i o n would n o t t y p i c a l l y happen i n a d u l t c o n v e r s a t i o n ,  e s p e c i a l l y i n cases  of peer group members who share c o n s i d e r a b l e knowledge and maintain  c e r t a i n expectations  about t h e t h i n g s l i k e l y t o be  51  p o i n t e d out d u r i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n . " r e s e r v o i r o f shared experience" exophoric  In f a c t i t i s p r e c i s e l y t h e (p. 36) which makes  r e f e r e n c e a n a t u r a l , expected f e a t u r e o f t h e  d i s c o u r s e b u t an enigma t o those who do not share t h e same l e v e l o f experience  and t h e same m a t e r i a l  One f u n c t i o n o f endophoric r e f e r e n c e then, i s t o supply exophoric  cohesion  reference  context. i n discourse,  t o t h e spoken t e x t which  i s unable t o do.  Anaphora, t h e  " p o i n t i n g back" form o f endophoric r e f e r e n c e , lends c o h e s i o n  f o r example,  t o t e x t s by r e f e r r i n g t o t h i n g s  (objects,  i d e a s , s t a t e s ) which a r e removed i n space ( i n t h e case o f w r i t t e n t e x t s ) and time from t h e i n i t i a l  presupposition.  T h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f anaphora makes t a l k more p o r t a b l e , i n a sense, a l l o w i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n a l p a r t i c i p a n t s t o share meaning (assuming they share a s i m i l a r r e f e r e n t i a l competence) without dependence on t h e s i t u a t i o n . and Hasan p o i n t out t h a t speakers-to-be conversation)  Halliday  (next speakers i n a  o r d i n a r i l y have t h e competence t o judge  whether r e f e r e n c e  i s exophoric  or not i t serves a cohesive  o r anaphoric,  i . e . , whether  f u n c t i o n i n a t e x t , and t o  i d e n t i f y which p a r t o f t h e t e x t i s t h e r e f e r e n t .  Although  t h i s s o r t o f competence may be g e n e r a l l y a v a i l a b l e t o s p e a k e r s - h e a r e r s i n any language group, i t i s demonstrably a l e a r n e d competence which permits people i n p a r t i c u l a r language groups t o r e c o g n i z e what k i n d o f r e f e r e n c e work i n a c o n v e r s a t i o n — w h e t h e r r e f e r e n c e  i s at  functions t o point  out o r t o p o i n t b a c k — a n d t o respond t o i t a p p r o p r i a t e l y .  52  What h a p p e n s t o  this  language-specific structure  of  reference  when NNSs engage i n c o n v e r s a t i o n and how d o e s  relate to  the  instructional practical  tasks they  are  settings?  Given Mohan's d i s t i n c t i o n  and t h e o r e t i c a l  asked t o perform  function,  it  and t e x t u a l  list  of  of  terms  differences selected  research  It  does,  perspective.  as r e f e r e n c e  It  for  nor  exponents  2).  The  indicative  of  subtle  instructional)  thinking  of  on for  such v e r b a l  in discourse contexts  offered  it  i s not  s i m p l y as a guide f o r  for  parts.  intended to The f i g u r e  experiential  with exophoric reference  to  task making  behavior approaches  limited  It  aims t o  claim thus  exploring suggest  absolute,  suggests that  there  a p p r o a c h e s t o be a s s o c i a t e d  more t h a n w i t h a n a p h o r i c  i s no s u g g e s t i o n , h o w e v e r ,  approaches are  recent  relationship  relationships.  a tendency  that matter,  put  c o n n e c t i o n s among i t s  tendencies but  There  terms  learning.  Figure 2 i s  is  (Figure  also provides a foundation  and r e p a i r  t o t e a c h i n g and  clearcut  (or,  however,  s u g g e s t i o n s about the  possible  exhaustive  of  to behavioral  research design  i s neither  and H a s a n ' s  among s p e c i f i c t y p e s o f t a s k s w h i c h c o u l d b e  for  purposes. into  use i n the  between  reference  becomes p o s s i b l e t o p r o p o s e a s e t  w h i c h move f r o m c o n c e p t u a l framework which are  in  knowledge and H a l l i d a y  d e s c r i p t i o n o f how s i t u a t i o n a l  it  that  or r e s t r i c t e d  or that  anaphoric reference  texts.  The same may be s a i d f o r  experiential to  exophoric  cannot appear  53  the  reference.  other  in  reference,  experiential  links  in  Figure  2; they a r e a l l t e n d e n c i e s ,  some o f which may be t r e a t e d  empirically. Many o f t h e terms i n F i g u r e 2 w i l l be r e - i n t r o d u c e d i n Chapter 3 w i t h t h e r e s e a r c h d e s i g n .  For the present, i t  s h o u l d be noted t h a t t h e f i g u r e d i s t i n g u i s h e s h o r i z o n t a l l y between t h e o r e t i c a l and p r a c t i c a l knowledge, and v e r t i c a l l y between concept and s i t u a t i o n .  Task i s thus r o u g h l y a t t h e  i n t e r s e c t i o n between what t h e r e s e a r c h e r i n t e n d s and what a c t u a l l y occurs  (or teacher)  i n the discourse  setting.  Movement down t h e f i g u r e b r i n g s i n c r e a s i n g s p e c i f i c i t y , so t h a t a t t h e p o i n t where t h e r e f e r e n c e types and r e p a i r  FRAMEWORK COMPONENTS (Mohan, 1986)  INTERFACE: FRAMEWORK/ BEHAVIOR PREDICTED VERBAL BEHAVIOR  F i g u r e 2.  Theoretical  Practical  <- KNOWLEDGE BASE  Expository  Experiential  <- APPROACH TO TEACHING/ LEARNING  Background Knowledge  Action Situation  <- ACTIVITY/ TASK  I Anaphoric  Exophoric  <- DISCOURSE REFERENCE  Display Question  Referential Question  <- REPAIR EXPONENT  I I  • ~ I  I  I I  I I  Extending  t h e Knowledge Framework t o problems i n  observational research. exponents a r e l i s t e d ,  i t i s p o s s i b l e t o t h i n k i n terms o f  how p a r t s o f t h e framework might be extended i n t o o p e r a t i o n a l i z i n g task-based  research.  I t i s possible to  propose, f o r i n s t a n c e , t h a t exophoric  r e f e r e n c e would be  54  more f r e q u e n t than anaphoric  r e f e r e n c e when an e x p e r i e n t i a l  approach t o o r g a n i z i n g a t a s k i s employed, o r t h a t more d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s w i l l be produced under e x p o s i t o r y  (rather  than e x p e r i e n t i a l ) c o n d i t i o n s . At t h e same time, F i g u r e 2 does n o t attempt t o r e l a t e s p e c i f i c task a t t r i b u t e s discussed i n the l i t e r a t u r e t o l e a r n e r s ' v e r b a l behavior.  Thus, although  two-way t a s k s , as  Long (1980) and o t h e r s have found, a r e f o c a l p o i n t s f o r n e g o t i a t i o n o f language, F i g u r e 2 proposes, i n s t e a d , t h a t e x p e r i e n t i a l and e x p o s i t o r y a c t i v i t y be viewed as more fundamental bases f o r l e a r n e r s ' v e r b a l b e h a v i o r .  The f i g u r e  i s n o t e s p e c i a l l y s e n s i t i v e , moreover, t o t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t some t a s k s w i l l be mixed a f f a i r s and t h a t e x p e r i e n t i a l and e x p o s i t o r y a t t r i b u t e s may be blended i n t h e same t a s k . T h i s p o s s i b i l i t y suggests t h e d i m e n s i o n a l i t y o f approaches t o t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g , and t h e importance o f e v e n t u a l l y r e f l e c t i n g d i m e n s i o n a l i t y i n a r e s e a r c h d e s i g n which c l a i m s some reasonable  l i n k t o t h e world  of educational p r a c t i c e .  F i n a l l y , t h e f i g u r e does n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t some t a s k a t t r i b u t e s may have a complex, c u r v i l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h p o i n t s a l o n g t h e e x p e r i e n t i a l - e x p o s i t o r y dimension. h i g h l e v e l o f shared  A very  s i t u a t i o n a l knowledge, f o r i n s t a n c e ,  would reduce t h e n e g o t i a t i o n over meaning p a r t i c i p a n t s would otherwise approach.  have t o accomplish  d u r i n g use o f an e x p e r i e n t i a l  L a r g e l y shared p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e s i t u a t i o n would  occur when p a r t i c i p a n t s have a common p h y s i c a l , v i s u a l access t o t h e o b j e c t s they a r e t a l k i n g about. 55  Highly  experiential  (literally  "hands-on") a c t i v i t y , then, would  p r e d i c t a b l y e n t a i l shared v i s u a l p e r c e p t i o n and p e r m i t e x p o s i t o r y r e f e r e n c e t o be t h e norm ( H a l l i d a y & Hasan, 1976 made p r e c i s e l y t h i s p o i n t ; see a l s o Gaies,  1982).  A high  l e v e l o f n e g o t i a t i o n would thus occur somewhere between completely situation:  shared and completely  atomized knowledge o f the  When the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t o p i c s becomes a  problem f o r p a r t i c i p a n t s t o work out, when gaps i n s i t u a t i o n a l o r background knowledge must be compensated f o r , t a l k w i l l v e r y l i k e l y have t o be r e p a i r e d . The g e n e r a l argument developed t o t h i s p o i n t , then, i s t h a t c e r t a i n k i n d s o f knowledge ( t h e o r e t i c a l and p r a c t i c a l ) are l i k e l y t o be communicated by c e r t a i n approaches t o t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g ( e x p e r i e n t i a l and e x p o s i t o r y ) which are g i v e n form i n p a r t i c u l a r t a s k s . i n which b e h a v i o r reference  Tasks a r e t h e s e t t i n g s  i s enacted and i n which v a r i o u s forms o f  (anaphora and exophora, f o r example) and r e p a i r  occur. T h i s f o r m u l a t i o n o f the argument, o r a t l e a s t p a r t s o f the argument, can be t e s t e d by e m p i r i c a l means.  Thus, f o r  example, an important focus o f t h e f o r e g o i n g d i s c u s s i o n has been on r e f e r e n c e , on t h e d e s c r i p t i v e system o f r e f e r e n c e which has served  as a b a s i s f o r n e a r l y a l l l a t e r  c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the s u b j e c t  (Brown & Yule,  1983a; M a r t i n ,  1983) and on t h e p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p among c o n v e r s a t i o n a l reference,  r e p a i r and t a s k .  In t h e case o f r e f e r e n c e ,  i t is  the more e s t a b l i s h e d framework ( r e f e r e n c e , i n p a r t i c u l a r 56  e x o p h o r i c and a n a p h o r i c forms o f used to v a l i d a t e tasks—that teachers their  reference)  t h e more n o v e l way o f  tasks r e f l e c t  and e x p o s i t o r y  communication w i t h l e a r n e r s .  procedure w i l l  results  thinking  about  the v a r y i n g degrees to  apply experiential  was d o n e a n d t h e  w h i c h c a n be  obtained  be p r e s e n t e d  which  approaches  to  E l a b o r a t i o n o f how from the  i n the  this  validation  following  two  chapters.  Summary A review highlighted  of  the  literature importance  s e c o n d and f o r e i g n  role  exchange o f  talk,  has been c h a r a c t e r i z e d medium f o r  second language, appropriate  settings,  during lecture  and n a r r a t i o n  produced i n n o n - i n s t r u c t i o n a l s e n s i t i v e to contributions proficiency,  the  as a d i s t o r t e d  teacher  situation  (input)  of  settings particular  to  peers.  teacher  and  relatively  acquire  a  s t u d i e s have s u g g e s t e d t a l k to  foreign  instructional  settings,  and t h e  in  known a s  assisting learners  of  of  conversational  otherwise  although several  adjustment  level  functions,  between  instructional  for  literature  in conversational  s e r v e key s o c i a l  FT i n  has  modification  E a r l y FT  achieve a basic  information  fields  s i m p l i f i c a t i o n b y NSs i n NS-NNS  FT w h i c h o c c u r s  was a l s o shown t o  inefficient  interactional  learning.  for  communication i n order to  the  of  language  suggested a c e n t r a l  communication.  in several related  material.  however,  learner,  learners FT  seems more  w i t h NS  adjusted according to the  learner's  p r o n u n c i a t i o n and d e m o n s t r a t e d c o m p r e h e n s i o n .  Much r e c e n t  work c o m p a r i n g FT a n d I T 57  h a s f o c u s e d on  the  i n t e r a c t i o n a l q u a l i t i e s o f t h e language produced i n v a r i o u s k i n d s o f d i s c o u r s e s e t t i n g s and t h e p o t e n t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n such i n t e r a c t i o n makes t o SLA.  S e v e r a l s t u d i e s have shown  IT t o be a t l e a s t as u s e f u l as FT i n g e n e r a t i n g  negotiation  over troublesome o r misunderstood c o n v e r s a t i o n a l m a t e r i a l . When compared w i t h t r a d i t i o n a l , t e a c h e r - f r o n t e d instruction,  classroom  i n f o r m a t i o n exchange i n small-groups o f NNSs  has proved t o be a s u p e r i o r means o f d e v e l o p i n g  negotiated  exchanges which r e q u i r e t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s , i n g e n e r a l , t o c l a r i f y i n f o r m a t i o n and check comprehension. Among t h e key v a r i a b l e s i n s t u d i e s o f NS-NNS and NNSNNS i n t e r a c t i o n a r e r e p a i r , t a s k and r e f e r e n c e .  The nature  o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l r e p a i r was examined and found t o be a frequent  focus o f a t t e n t i o n i n s t u d i e s examining how members  of NS-NS, NS-NNS and NNS-NNS groups r e f i n e and c l a r i f y conversational trouble.  Repair  i s c l e a r l y an e s s e n t i a l  f e a t u r e o f s m a l l group communication i n t h a t i t a l l o w s members t o widen t h e scope o f m a t e r i a l which can be discussed.  Although t h e r e p a i r process  r e q u i r e s sometimes  complex n e g o t i a t i o n over incomplete u n d e r s t a n d i n g , r e p a i r i s a l s o s i g n a l l e d by a l i m i t e d number o f r e c u r r i n g and commonly used exponents which have been r e p o r t e d  i n the l i t e r a t u r e .  Task has been viewed as both an i n s t r u c t i o n a l and  resource  as a means o f s t u d y i n g t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f l e a r n e r  language ( i n t e r l a n g u a g e ) .  Tasks have been v a r i e d t o study  e f f e c t s on l e a r n e r language and on t h e language used t o n e g o t i a t e t a l k between l e a r n e r s . 58  T h e o r e t i c a l viewpoints  on  the n a t u r e o f e d u c a t i o n a l d i s c o u r s e have g e n e r a l l y  not  informed the s e l e c t i o n of t a s k s f o r r e s e a r c h purposes, has  nor  task-based language been the s u b j e c t of comparative,  small-group study which d i s t i n g u i s h e s between n a t i v e  and  n o n - n a t i v e t e a c h e r - l e d groups on performance of t a s k s . Based on c o n c e p t u a l  reasoning,  i t has been argued here t h a t  t a s k s seem most fundamentally t o v a r y on a dimension o f e x p e r i e n t i a l and  e x p o s i t o r y a c t i v i t y and t h a t  the  d i s t i n c t i o n can be t e s t e d e m p i r i c a l l y through a p p l i c a t i o n of a now  widely  discourse The and  h e l d understanding of r e f e r e n c e w i t h i n  the  situation.  i s s u e of how  reference  t a s k i n f l u e n c e s v a r i o u s forms o f r e p a i r  i n s m a l l , t e a c h e r - l e d groups i s the s u b j e c t  the e n t i r e d i s c u s s i o n which f o l l o w s .  59  of  CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY T h i s chapter c o n t a i n s a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e r e s e a r c h d e s i g n and t h e methodology used t o implement i t .  Major  t o p i c s taken up i n t h e s e c t i o n on r e s e a r c h d e s i g n i n c l u d e a b r i e f r a t i o n a l e , a t a b u l a r summary and r e l a t e d d i s c u s s i o n o f the d e s i g n , a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e major v a r i a b l e s used d u r i n g o p e r a t i o n o f t h e d e s i g n , a l i s t o f hypotheses and a d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e g e n e r a l s t r a t e g y used t o t e s t t h e hypotheses.  The s e c t i o n on methodology focuses on s e l e c t i o n  and treatment  o f s u b j e c t s , c o l l e c t i o n and c o d i n g o f data and  v a r i o u s approaches t o a n a l y s i s o f t h e data. The Research  Design  Assumptions and R a t i o n a l e Two assumptions r e g a r d i n g t h e nature o f r e p a i r between NNS c o n v e r s a t i o n p a r t n e r s have guided overall  construction of the  design.  F i r s t , a d i s t i n c t i o n i s drawn between r e p a i r undertaken by t e a c h e r - l e a r n e r groups (which may i n c l u d e e i t h e r a NS o r a NNS teacher)  and by l e a r n e r - l e a r n e r groups.  Several  s t u d i e s have made i t c l e a r t h a t t h e proper b a s e l i n e f o r making sense o f i n t e r l a n g u a g e t a l k i s t a l k between n a t i v e and non-native (1983) study,  speakers.  One o f t h e s t r e n g t h s o f P o r t e r ' s  f o r example, was t h a t each NNS-NNS dyad had  NS-NNS and NS-NS c o u n t e r p a r t s t o a l l o w f o r m u l t i p l e l e v e l s  60  of comparison on t h e dependent v a r i a b l e s .  Long  (1981)  e x p l i c i t l y noted t h e importance o f comparing mixed dyads w i t h NS-NS dyads i n o r d e r t o make u s e f u l  (NS-NNS)  comparisons  between a r e l a t i v e l y u n s t u d i e d phenomenon (NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n ) and a r e l a t i v e l y w e l l - s t u d i e d phenomenon (NS-NS interaction).  A q u e s t i o n a r i s e s , however, when t h e o b j e c t  o f r e s e a r c h i n t e r e s t i s t h e language o f r e p a i r i n t e a c h e r l e d groups:  What s o r t o f comparison ought t o be r e p r e s e n t e d  i n t h e r e s e a r c h design?  Because t h e r e i s no " w e l l - s t u d i e d "  group t o s e r v e as a n a t u r a l b a s e l i n e i n t h i s study, c r i t e r i a f o r s e l e c t i o n o f l e v e l s i n a group f a c t o r should, as an a l t e r n a t i v e , r e f l e c t something o f t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d i n which E n g l i s h - a s - a - f o r e i g n language (EFL) t e a c h e r s o p e r a t e .  Given  the t y p i c a l overseas EFL s i t u a t i o n , t h i s would mean t h a t r e s e a r c h groups would, a t a minimum, i n c l u d e l e a r n e r s o f E n g l i s h who speak a common l o c a l language, and a combination of n a t i v e and non-native ( i . e . , l o c a l ) t e a c h e r s o f spoken E n g l i s h who a r e p r o f i c i e n t i n t h e language t h e y t e a c h . An important i m p l i c a t i o n o f comparing two k i n d s o f t e a c h e r - l e d groups i n an EFL s e t t i n g , then, i s t h a t b a s e l i n e comparative d a t a f o r r e p a i r o f NNS-NNS ( t e a c h e r - l e a r n e r ) t a l k i s r e p a i r o f NS-NNS ( t e a c h e r - l e a r n e r ) t a l k and t h a t comparisons between NS-NNS and NNS-NNS t e a c h e r - l e d groups must be s e t up a t t h e stage o f r e s e a r c h d e s i g n . The second assumption i s t h a t t h e t a s k s s e l e c t e d f o r the r e s e a r c h d e s i g n a r e q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t from each o t h e r and can be expected t o produce q u a l i t a t i v e l y  61  different  repair profiles.  T h i s assumption i s based i n a v e r y  sense on t h e w e l l - a r g u e d  general  s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c perception that the  forms and o r g a n i z a t i o n o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a r e dependent on c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e speech s i t u a t i o n Hymes, 1972; Turner,  1976, f o r example).  (Cazden, 1972; But t h e more  s p e c i f i c p o i n t made here i s t h a t t h e frequency  w i t h which  p a r t i c i p a n t s r e p a i r t h e i r own and o t h e r s ' t a l k i s s e n s i t i v e t o t h e k i n d o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l environment they a r e o p e r a t i n g in.  Although  t a s k s can be c a t e g o r i z e d i n many ways, one  system developed  f o r categorizing tasks i n educational  s e t t i n g s , Mohan's (1986) Knowledge Framework was found t o be o f p o t e n t i a l v a l u e i n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g t h e k i n d s of language generated  by e x p e r i e n t i a l and e x p o s i t o r y  approaches t o t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g .  E x p e r i e n t i a l and  e x p o s i t o r y approaches t o t a s k s i n t h e r e s e a r c h  situation,  namely t a s k s intended t o e l i c i t r e s e a r c h data, w i l l  extend  uses o f t h e framework beyond i n s t r u c t i o n a l p l a n n i n g and i n t o t h e area o f r e s e a r c h d e s i g n .  Based on t h e framework, i t i s  assumed t h a t e x p e r i e n t i a l approaches t o t a s k s i n t h e r e s e a r c h s i t u a t i o n w i l l o r d i n a r i l y r e q u i r e more r e p a i r than e x p o s i t o r y ones, although approaches, those  c e r t a i n kinds o f e x p e r i e n t i a l  i n which s i t u a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n must be  n e g o t i a t e d , w i l l e n t a i l more r e p a i r than The  others.  i m p l i c a t i o n of t h i s p o s i t i o n f o r the research  design i s that a conceptual b a s i s e x i s t s f o r d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between t a s k s and can a s s i s t p r e d i c t i o n s about t h e r e l a t i v e frequency  of repair.  Furthermore, t h e v a l i d i t y o f  62  d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between t a s k s on t h e b a s i s o f t h e i r e x p e r i e n t i a l and e x p o s i t o r y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s can be t e s t e d by examining t h e frequency o f r e f e r e n c e w i t h i n t h e v a r i o u s k i n d s o f t a s k s s e l e c t e d f o r t h e study.  In g e n e r a l , exophora  s h o u l d be found more f r e q u e n t l y i n t a s k s  emphasizing  e x p e r i e n c e ; anaphora should be found more f r e q u e n t l y i n t a s k s emphasizing  exposition. An Overview o f t h e Design  Group and Task C a t e g o r i e s F i g u r e 3 o u t l i n e s t h e combined between-and-within s u b j e c t s , repeated-measures f a c t o r i a l d e s i g n used i n t h e study.  Although  t h e d e s i g n i s p r i m a r i l y intended t o  support a s e r i e s o f 2 x 5 repeated-measures a n a l y s e s o f variance  (ANOVA), i t i s a l s o t h e b a s i s o f a q u a l i t a t i v e  a n a l y s i s o f t r a n s c r i p t s coded f o r r e p a i r and r e f e r e n c e . Group. t h e between-subjects f a c t o r , has two l e v e l s , Mixed  (NS-NNS) and Homogeneous (NNS-NNS), w i t h s i x  e q u i v a l e n t v a l u e s w i t h i n each l e v e l homogeneous dyads).  ( i . e . , s i x mixed and s i x  The dyads (N=12) a r e t h e b a s i c between-  s u b j e c t s source o f comparison; each c o n t a i n s one t e a c h e r and one l e a r n e r . Communication Task, t h e w i t h i n - s u b j e c t s f a c t o r and repeated measure, has f i v e b a s i c l e v e l s  (computer  i n s t r u c t i o n , C0M1; computer demonstration,  COM2; t o p i c a l  d i s c u s s i o n , PIS; Lego c o n s t r u c t e d back-to-back, LEG1; Lego conducted  f a c e - t o - f a c e , LEG2).  63  F a c t o r 2: Communication Task Teaching t a s k s (educational goals) Subject instruction F a c t o r 1: Group  COMl  Non-teaching t a s k s ( s o c i a l goals) Social exchange  COM2  DIS  Problemsolving  LEG1  LEG2  Mixed 1 2 3 4 5 6  NS-NNS NS-NNS NS-NNS NS-NNS NS-NNS NS-NNS  Homogeneous 1 2 3 4 5 6  NNS-NNS NNS-NNS NNS-NNS NNS-NNS NNS-NNS NNS-NNS  F i g u r e 3.  F a c t o r i a l d e s i g n w i t h major c o n c e p t u a l  d i s t i n c t i o n s used i n t h e study. The t a s k f a c t o r c o n t a i n s conceptual d i s t i n c t i o n s o f use d u r i n g t h e ANOVA and t h e q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s which f o l l o w s the ANOVA. non-teaching  The f i r s t d i s t i n c t i o n i s between t e a c h i n g and tasks.  Teaching t a s k s emphasize achievement o f  o b j e c t i v e s intended t o i n c r e a s e t h e l e a r n e r ' s knowledge o r competence through e x p l i c i t i n s t r u c t i o n o f s u b j e c t matter  64  which an e d u c a t i o n a l a u t h o r i t y c o n s i d e r s worth l e a r n i n g ( i . e . , broadly, educational goals). t a s k s s e l e c t e d f o r the study, C0M1 around s u b j e c t - m a t t e r instruction.  LEG1  Although  and COM2 are o r i e n t e d  r a t h e r than t a r g e t language  which emphasizes s o c i a l exchange and  and LEG2, which c e n t e r on both s e t s of non-teaching  problem-solving. t a s k s depend on  p a r t i c i p a n t s ' c o o p e r a t i v e , consensual t h e i r goals  teaching  The Non-teaching t a s k s employed here i n c l u d e  f r e e d i s c u s s i o n , DIS, two,  Both of the  behavior to  (they are intended t o achieve  s o c i a l g o a l s ) , DIS  achieve  i n t e r p e r s o n a l or  emphasizes e x p r e s s i v e d i s c u s s i o n a l l o w i n g  f r e e development of p r o p o s i t i o n a l content and presumes t h a t p a r t i c i p a n t s have more-or-less contributions p. 13 0);  equal r i g h t s t o v o l u n t e e r  ("autonomous c o n t r i b u t i o n s " , see E l l i s ,  1984,  the p o i n t o f the d i s c u s s i o n i s t y p i c a l l y  development or e x p l o r a t i o n of s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s .  The  Lego t a s k s , on the o t h e r hand, c e n t e r on exchange o f i n f o r m a t i o n which i s normally  intended t o a s s i s t i n the  s o l u t i o n o f a problem; i t i s the problem which  motivates  c o o p e r a t i v e use of the t a r g e t language. These d i s t i n c t i o n s among t a s k s r e f l e c t the c a t e g o r i e s Ellis  (1984, 1985)  has developed  t o d e s c r i b e the p r o s p e c t i v e  g o a l s o f i n t e r a c t i o n i n second language  classrooms,  s p e c i f i c a l l y message-oriented, s o c i a l , and goals  ( c f . t a s k s based, r e s p e c t i v e l y , on  i n s t r u c t i o n , s o c i a l e x p r e s s i o n , and  activity-oriented subject-matter  problem-solving).  Malamah-Thomas (1987) draws a r e l a t e d , although  65  briefer,  d i s t i n c t i o n between either  educational  Four of  the  classroom language used t o or s o c i a l purposes.  tasks are  extent to which they  also c l a s s i f i e d according to  emphasize the  e x p o s i t i o n d u r i n g performance been s i m p l i f i e d  task  environment  role  of the  in practice to  members c a n p o i n t  achieve  (i.e.,  t o whether  or not  and see t h i n g s  " d o i n g " and + o r  simplification  for  when p l a n n i n g c l a s s r o o m a c t i v i t i e s . f r o m t h e most i n t e n s e  activity  t h e most i n t e n s e  to  (LEG2 a n d COM2 [+ seeing]  ->  COMl [-  a teacher  level  of  doing, + seeing]  ->  LEG1 [+  testing  procedure  below). has the  PIS  lies  outside this  potential  to  t a k e on o r d r o p  of  and t h e  the  reference  development  outset,  which contains the participants  potential  a g a i n s t which the tasks  pursuing directional  the  an u n d i r e c t e d ,  want t o make o f  Grouping of  hypothesis-  into  of  the  discussion.  non-teaching  t o become w h a t e v e r it,  it  it  experiential  participants at  of  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , since  intentions  is,  the  -  ( R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n s and H y p o t h e s e s ,  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d e p e n d i n g on t h e  PIS  activity  doing,  a series  d i s t i n c t i o n s w h i c h were a p p l i e d t o p a r t o f  employ,  experiential  expository  seeing]),  the  Thus,  of  -  in  might  level  doing,  dyad  -  level  t a s k s range  over  " E x p e r i e n c e " has  "seeing")—a example,  of  + or -  experience  task.  refer  out or manipulate  of  the  Because task  its  can s e r v e as a  useful  other  t a s k s may b e c o m p a r e d .  these  categories  allows  for  hypotheses from a c o n c e p t u a l b a s e .  The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s o u t l i n e d h e r e  66  (and r e f l e c t e d  in  Figure  3) o v e r l a p a t a number of p o i n t s , most n o t a b l y i n the combination to  o f t e a c h i n g t a s k s w i t h e x p o s i t o r y approaches  i n s t r u c t i o n and of non-teaching  ( c o o p e r a t i v e problem-  s o l v i n g ) t a s k s w i t h e x p e r i e n t i a l approaches toward s o l u t i o n of the problems. possibilities,  Although  these do not exhaust the  they have been mentioned t o suggest  links  between the r e s e a r c h d e s i g n and the kinds o f d i s c o u r s e c o n t e x t s which might be encountered i n both classroom non-classroom s e t t i n g s . t a s k s i s found  and  A more d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of the  i n Methodology, below.  Treatment Each dyad experienced  a sequence of a l l t a s k s a t  one  s i t t i n g , hence the repeated-measures d e s i g n a t i o n of t h e t a s k factor  (see Ferguson, 1981:  "repeated measurement o f  the same s u b j e c t s under a number of d i f f e r e n t c o n d i t i o n s o r treatments",  p. 317).  The  sequence of t a s k s was  randomized,  however, f o l l o w i n g a standard L a t i n Square assignment o f t a s k s t o t h e dyad. D e s c r i p t i v e Measures and Dependent V a r i a b l e s Used i n the Study D e s c r i p t i v e Measures In o r d e r t o achieve a g e n e r a l d e s c r i p t i v e p i c t u r e o f the data, n i n e n o n - i n f e r e n t i a l measures of c o n v e r s a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y grouped i n t o t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s were a p p l i e d t o the t r a n s c r i p t data p r i o r t o the a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e :  1) word-  based measures ( t o t a l words, the number o f words u t t e r e d per minute, the number of unique words u t t e r e d , and  67  type-token  ratio—unique  w o r d s : t o t a l words, i . e . , an i n d i c a t i o n o f  i n c r e a s i n g l e x i c a l s o p h i s t i c a t i o n as t h e c o e f f i c i e n t from t h e r a t i o i n c r e a s e s ) , ( t o t a l utterances,  derived  2) u t t e r a n c e - b a s e d measures  and words p e r u t t e r a n c e ) ,  and 3) t u r n -  based measures ( t o t a l t u r n s , words p e r t u r n and u t t e r a n c e s per  turn). A l t h o u g h h y p o t h e s i s t e s t i n g c o u l d be based on t h e s e  d e s c r i p t i v e features  of the discourse,  very l i t t l e  previous  work has found them s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t o r s o f r e p a i r behavior.  On t h e o t h e r hand, they comprise a u s e f u l group  o f terms f o r c h a r a c t e r i z i n g t h e q u a l i t y o f t a l k i n NS-NNS and NNS-NNS c o n v e r s a t i o n s  (see,  f o r example, P o r t e r , 1983;  Long, 1985 a f o r i l l u s t r a t i o n s o f word-based measures, A r t h u r e t a l . , 1980; P o r t e r ,  1983; Long, 1980 f o r  a p p l i c a t i o n o f turn-based measures, i n c l u d i n g type-token ratio).  I n t h e p r e s e n t study, t h e d e s c r i p t i v e  make e x p l i c i t r e f e r e n c e research  d e s i g n but,  categories  t o the f a c t o r i a l structure of the  a t t h e same time, do n o t r e q u i r e  raters  to i n f e r the occurrence of a p a r t i c u l a r kind o f r e p a i r behavior Dependent  ( i . e . , they a r e " l o w - i n f e r e n c e " measures). Variables  In a d d i t i o n t o t h e d e s c r i p t i v e measures l i s t e d above, the d e s i g n used two c a t e g o r i e s are b r i e f l y d e f i n e d Instructions  o f dependent v a r i a b l e s , which  and d e s c r i b e d  here (see Appendix E,  t o R a t e r s and Index o f Dependent V a r i a b l e s , f o r  a d d i t i o n a l d e s c r i p t i o n and e x e m p l i f i c a t i o n ) .  The f i r s t  c a t e g o r y o f dependent v a r i a b l e i s r e a l l y a group o f 12  68  r e l a t e d d i s c o u r s e s t r a t e g i e s p a r t i c i p a n t s employ t o m a i n t a i n the c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y of the ongoing t a l k .  These R e p a i r  Exponents (REs) were s e l e c t e d l a r g e l y on the b a s i s o f t h e i r appearance i n p r e v i o u s l y r e p o r t e d r e s e a r c h and t h e i r in The  utility  f o c u s i n g on the q u a l i t i e s of t e a c h e r - l e a r n e r i n t e r a c t i o n . list  break new  o f REs  i s n e i t h e r exhaustive nor i s i t intended t o  ground i n the d e s c r i p t i o n of r e p a i r b e h a v i o r s .  the c o n t r a r y , the l i s t  On  i s intended t o apply c a t e g o r i e s which  have been a l r e a d y i d e n t i f i e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e , o r which are c o n s e r v a t i v e e x t e n s i o n s of e x i s t i n g c a t e g o r i e s , t o examination  of novel research questions.  From an  i n t e r a c t i o n a l p e r s p e c t i v e , moreover, the REs,  considered  i n d i v i d u a l l y , are p a r t i c u l a r p o i n t s i n the d i s c o u r s e and thus cannot suggest the complex, n e g o t i a t e d c h a r a c t e r of the talk.  In o r d e r t o do t h i s , a q u a l i t a t i v e examination  r e p a i r i n c o n t e x t w i l l be presented  i n Chapter  6.  p r e s e n t , however, emphasis i s on the comparative of The  of  For the frequency  r e p a i r and r e f e r e n c e w i t h i n the c e l l s of the d e s i g n . f o l l o w i n g REs  served as dependent v a r i a b l e s i n the  study; the a s s o c i a t e d d e s c r i p t i o n a l s o served as working g u i d e l i n e s f o r coding of t r a n s c r i p t s . 1. C l a r i f i c a t i o n Request (CCLAR). Doughty & P i c a , 1986; Sato,  1983;  1987;  P o r t e r 1983,  Duff, 1986;  P i c a , 1987;  Long, 1980,  P i c a & Doughty, 1985;  1986.)  1981;  1985;  Long and  Pica et a l . ,  A request f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n i s  focused on the p r e c e d i n g speaker's new  (See B r u l h a r t ,  u t t e r a n c e and  or r e f o r m u l a t e d i n f o r m a t i o n from the p r e v i o u s  69  requests speaker.  Although a q u e s t i o n o r d i n a r i l y conveys the c l a r i f i c a t i o n request  (nominally, Would you say t h a t i n o t h e r words?) i t  i s p o s s i b l e f o r the request t o come i n the form o f an i n t e r p r e t a b l e statement such as I don't q u i t e understand. 2. Comprehension Doughty  Check  (CCOM).  (See B r u l h a r t ,  & P i c a , 1986; Duff, 1986; Long, 1980,  Sato, 1983; P i c a , 1983, 1985; P i c a e t a l . , i n knowing  1986,  1987.)  1985;  1981; Long &  1987; P i c a & Doughty,  Speakers are n o r m a l l y i n t e r e s t e d  i f l i s t e n e r s have understood them.  A  comprehension check s a t i s f i e s t h i s i n t e r e s t by a l l o w i n g a speaker t o query the l i s t e n e r ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f a c u r r e n t utterance.  The nominal form o f a c o n f i r m a t i o n check i s Have  you understood . . . ?. although, i n p r a c t i c e , such i n d i r e c t forms o f c o n f i r m a t i o n check as OK? may  serve j u s t as w e l l .  R i s i n g i n t o n a t i o n t y p i c a l l y s i g n a l s a comprehension  check  and thus makes i t p o s s i b l e t o d i s t i n g u i s h such t o p i c a l boundary markers as r i g h t o r OK  (used w i t h f a l l i n g  i n t o n a t i o n ) from an attempt t o check comprehension. 3. Doughty  C o n f i r m a t i o n Check  (CCON). (See B r u l h a r t ,  & P i c a , 1986; Duff, 1986; Long, 1980,  Sato, 1983; P i c a , 1983, 1985; P i c a e t a l . ,  1985;  1981; Long &  1986; P i c a , 1987; P i c a & Doughty,  1987.)  A c o n f i r m a t i o n check i s made by a  l i s t e n e r t o check u n d e r s t a n d i n g o r h e a r i n g o f t h e speaker and can be reduced t o the nominal form Have I understood? As i n t h e case o f a comprehension check, a c o n f i r m a t i o n check i s made w i t h r i s i n g i n t o n a t i o n , but a l s o  entails  p a r t i a l o r complete r e p e t i t i o n o f a p r e c e d i n g u t t e r a n c e  70  ( s p e c i f i c a l l y , the immediately p r e c e d i n g u t t e r a n c e ) as i n the case o f o t h e r - r e p e t i t i o n . 4. D e f i n i t i o n 1980;  Snow, 1987;  definition.) fill  CDDEF).  (See Gaies, 1983;  a l s o P o r t e r , 1983,  1986  Schwartz,  re: requests f o r  L i k e prompts, d e f i n i t i o n s t y p i c a l l y s e r v e t o  a gap l e f t by one of the p a r t i c i p a n t s or may  produced  be  even b e f o r e any s p e c i f i c r e q u e s t has been r e c e i v e d  from an i n t e r l o c u t o r , depending  on the speaker's p e r c e p t i o n  o f the l i s t e n e r ' s l e v e l o f comprehension.  A definition is  o r d i n a r i l y accomplished by a speaker p r o d u c i n g a statement on the meaning of an i d e n t i f i e d o b j e c t which i s u n f a m i l i a r t o the l i s t e n e r but i n c l u d e d w i t h i n a c l a s s o f o b j e c t s which i s presumably i s a k i n d of t o o l ) .  f a m i l i a r t o the l i s t e n e r  (e.g., A wrench  In c o n v e r s a t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n s where  p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s d i f f e r between p a r t i c i p a n t s , a d e f i n i t i o n would g e n e r a l l y be produced by a more p r o f i c i e n t speaker i n a i d o f a l e s s p r o f i c i e n t speaker's u n d e r s t a n d i n g . D e f i n i t i o n thus s e r v e s as a marker of how  the more  p r o f i c i e n t speaker p e r c e i v e s the l e x i c a l competence o f the less proficient 5. 1986;  speaker.  D i s p l a y Question  Long & Sato, 1983.)  (DDO).  (See B r u l h a r t , 1985;  Duff,  Sometimes known as r h e t o r i c a l ,  t e s t , e v a l u a t i v e or known-information  questions, display  q u e s t i o n s r e q u e s t demonstration of knowledge o r i n f o r m a t i o n a l r e a d y possessed by the s p e a k e r — a n d t o be possessed by the speaker.  known by the  listener  In t e a c h i n g s i t u a t i o n s ,  d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s are f r e q u e n t l y intended t o s e r v e an  71  i n s t r u c t i o n a l purpose, and thus t h e p a r t i c u l a r  content  covered by t h e q u e s t i o n would form p a r t o f t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l syllabus.  D i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s may occur i n s e t t i n g s o t h e r  than those which a r e e x p l i c i t l y i n s t r u c t i o n a l . assumption behind  One i m p l i c i t  a d i s p l a y question, regardless of the  s e t t i n g i n which i t i s asked, i s t h a t a c o n v e r s a t i o n a l partner probably  does not know, b u t ought t o know, t h e  s p e c i f i c content on which t h e q u e s t i o n i s based. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , an a d d i t i o n a l assumption behind  a display  q u e s t i o n i s t h a t even though a l i s t e n e r may know t h e content focus o f a d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n , i t i s necessary knowledge.  to t e s t the  A q u e s t i o n o f t h e s o r t What do I have i n mv  hand? ( l i s t e n e r s a r e a b l e t o see what i s i n t h e hand) i s an i l l u s t r a t i o n o f t h e p o i n t . 6.  Echo (EECH).  (See Gass & V a r o n i s , 1986.)  One  o t h e r form o f o t h e r - r e p e t i t i o n , echo, i s s i g n a l l e d by f l a t or f a l l i n g  i n t o n a t i o n and thus does n o t seem t o serve as an  i n d i c a t i o n o f incomplete  understanding,  but r a t h e r f u n c t i o n s  t o p i c k out o r r e i n f o r c e t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f new i n f o r m a t i o n by one o f t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s . encourage a d d i t i o n a l t a l k . exact  An echo i s , by d e f i n i t i o n , an  ( p a r t i a l o r complete) r e p e t i t i o n , o f an  preceding 7. 1986;  I t thus has t h e p o t e n t i a l t o  immediately  utterance. Lexical Uncertainty  (LLEX).  Schwartz, 1980; Tarone, 1983.)  (See P o r t e r , 1983, Indications of l e x i c a l  u n c e r t a i n t y r e p r e s e n t p o s s i b l e t r i g g e r s f o r such c o n v e r s a t i o n a l b e h a v i o r as d e f i n i t i o n s , comprehension checks  72  or prompting and may  take such forms as a s e a r c h f o r a  s p e c i f i c word or pausing  t o i n d i c a t e t o an i n t e r l o c u t o r t h a t  l e x i c a l m a t e r i a l i s not immediately a t hand.  I n d i c a t i o n s of  l e x i c a l u n c e r t a i n t y open up o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r o t h e r - r e p a i r which may  o r may  not be taken up by a p a r t n e r i n a g i v e n  context. 8. R e f e r e n t i a l Question Duff,  1986;  designed  Long & Sato,  to e l i c i t  (RRQ).  1983.)  (See B r u l h a r t ,  A r e f e r e n t i a l question i s  i n f o r m a t i o n which i s unknown t o  speaker but which may  1985;  be possessed  the  by the h e a r e r .  i n t e r l o c u t o r ' s p o t e n t i a l response t o the  An  referential  q u e s t i o n , moreover, must be of i n t e r e s t t o the source question.  R e f e r e n t i a l content  t o p i c being considered;  i s t y p i c a l l y generated by  t h a t i s , i t i s not p a r t o f  p a r t i c i p a n t ' s n e g o t i a t i o n o f meaning (which takes o u t s i d e o f and t e m p o r a r i l y removed from the content).  Given t h i s f o r m u l a t i o n , a request  d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from a r e f e r e n t i a l Self-expansion  (SSEXP).  the place  for thus  question. (See E l l i s ,  1984,  A s e l f - e x p a n s i o n i s a p a r t i a l o r complete r e p h r a s i n g one's own  u t t e r a n c e and  the  topical  c l a r i f i c a t i o n would be e x t e r n a l t o the t o p i c and  9.  of the  1985.) of  i s thus d i s t i n g u i s h e d from  e l a b o r a t i o n o f another speaker's u t t e r a n c e expansion, below), a form of o t h e r - r e p a i r .  (see  other-  I t can be viewed  as a form o f s e l f - r e p a i r which t y p i c a l l y occurs w i t h i n the c u r r e n t speaker's t u r n but may next a v a i l a b l e t u r n  occur w i t h i n the  speaker's  (see, a l s o , s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n and  73  other-  e p e t i t i o n , below).  S e l f - e x p a n s i o n extends the  i n t e r p r e t a b i l i t y and r e f i n e s the meaning of t h e initial  utterance.  10.  Self-repetition  Long, 1980;  (SSREP).  (See B r u l h a r t ,  Long, 1983b; P i c a & Doughty, 1985;  & P i c a , 1986 NNS  speaker's  1985;  a l s o Doughty  r e : the r o l e o f r e p e t i t i o n i n NS-NNS and  interaction.)  self-repetition  Exact, p a r t i a l or semantic  NNS-  (equivalent)  (not i n c l u d i n g a grammatical f u n c t o r ) w i t h i n  f i v e t u r n s of an i n i t i a l u t t e r a n c e i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e speaker wishes t o emphasize or r e c y c l e c o n v e r s a t i o n a l m a t e r i a l o f use i n a c u r r e n t c o n t e x t .  T h i s form of r e p e t i t i o n i s  d i s t i n g u i s h e d from a f a l s e s t a r t or s t u t t e r w i t h i n an u t t e r a n c e i n o r d e r t o emphasize i t s p o t e n t i a l f u n c t i o n i n m a i n t a i n i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n a l cohesiveness p e r c e i v e s necessary 11. 1977  for a listener.  Other-expansion  ( c i t e d i n Freed,  Long, 1980). expansion  a t a l e v e l a speaker  1978;  (OOEXP).  (See Campbell e t a l . ,  Long, 1980), Ferguson,  The term expansion  1975;  normally r e f e r s t o  o f an i n t e r l o c u t o r ' s u t t e r a n c e s and has a l s o been  a p p l i e d s p e c i f i c a l l y t o r e p e t i t i o n and/or r e p h r a s i n g o f p a r t or a l l o r p a r t of a p r e v i o u s u t t e r a n c e i n o r d e r t o o b l i g a t o r y grammatical f u n c t o r s (Long, 1980,  supply  p. 84).  Use  the term here i s a p p l i e d t o r e p h r a s i n g and/or e x t e n s i o n ,  of but  not exact r e p e t i t i o n alone, of e i t h e r grammatical o r p r o p o s i t i o n a l content 12.  i n the p r e v i o u s speaker's  utterance.  O t h e r - r e p e t i t i o n (OOREP) (See B r u l h a r t ,  Doughty & P i c a , 1986;  Long, 1980,  74  1981,  1985;  1983b; P i c a &  Doughty, 1985; P i c a & Long, 1986; P o r t e r , 1986.)  Exact,  p a r t i a l o r semantic r e p e t i t i o n o f another p a r t i c i p a n t ' s utterance w i t h i n f i v e turns nominally understanding problematic  indicates  incomplete  and a d e s i r e t o begin r e c y c l i n g t h e  conversational material.  T h i s form o f o t h e r -  r e p e t i t i o n i s o r d i n a r i l y accompanied by r i s i n g i n t o n a t i o n . The  second category  o f dependent v a r i a b l e has been  d i s c u s s e d under t h e n o t i o n o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l ( H a l l i d a y & Hasan, 1976; Brown & Yule,  reference  1983a) and i n c l u d e s  the f o l l o w i n g two exponents. 1. Exophoric  Reference  (EEXO).  Exophoric  ("pointing  out" o r " s i t u a t i o n a l " ) r e f e r e n c e , takes a number o f forms d u r i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n depending on t h e background and s i t u a t i o n a l p e r c e p t i o n which p a r t i c i p a n t s share.  Among t h e  most common exponents o f t h i s form o f r e f e r e n c e , however, are context-bound, demonstrative pronouns which p o i n t t o p a r t i c u l a r o b j e c t s i n t h e p e r c e p t u a l range o f t h e speaker and h e a r e r :  i t , t h i s , t h a t , these, those  (push t h i s  [e.g.,  f u n c t i o n k e y ] ) , i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e used t o r e f e r t o a " p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l or subclass i d e n t i f i a b l e i n the s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n towel;  . . .  . . . . pass me t h e  . . . t h e snow's t o o deep" ( H a l l i d a y & Hasan, 1976,  p. 71). As H a l l i d a y and Hasan have p o i n t e d out, however, i t i s n o t necessary  t h a t t h e t h i n g b e i n g r e f e r r e d t o be  " p h y s i c a l l y present perception"  i n the i n t e r a c t a n t ' s f i e l d of  (p. 49). The o n l y fundamental requirement i s  t h a t p a r t i c i p a n t s a r e a b l e t o share  75  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the  thing being referred exponents  in  our,  his,  as mine,  addition hers,  sufficient  to  2. back"  to  yours,  etc.),  although  for  spoken d i s c o u r s e i t  "textual")  function;  ordinarily  reference  to  of  numbercrunching r e f e r s ,  is  the  right  the  they  inspection or there  of  is  they  refer  no p r i o r  i n the  form o f  reference  spoken o r  better  suited  "computers"  in  the  be  The t h e y  group o f  objects by  in  spoken  to  a  which  visual  shared p e r c e p t i o n ,  i n the  to  would c o n s t i t u t e  c a n o n l y be i d e n t i f i e d  some o t h e r  in  without  c l a u s e and w o u l d  the  relative  cohesive  are  by c o n t r a s t , if  lends  ("pointing  anaphoric reference.  side,  is  i n C o m p u t e r s c a n be  course, to  exophoric reference  participants  purposes i t  Anaphoric  entirely  p r e c e d i n g independent  c o u n t e d as an i n s t a n c e  case of  of  your,  situation.  a previous point  F o r example,  and  a s my,  c a n n o t be i n t e r p r e t e d  something at  T h e y go on t h e  theirs,  i s marked b y i t s  (AANA).  reference, it  present  the  used f o r wordprocessincr. although  immediately  hers,  since exophoric reference  i n the here-and-now  written text.  his,  such p o s s e s s i v e m o d i f i e r s  Anaphoric Reference  or  classes of  (such p o s s e s s i v e  ours,  emphasize t h a t  no c o h e s i o n t o isolation  Numerous o t h e r  c o u l d a l s o be i n c l u d e d  determiners its,  to.  and  if  text.  R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n s and H y p o t h e s e s This  section introduces  and h y p o t h e s e s w h i c h r e f l e c t which are Table  1).  linked  to  a series of the  a strategy  76  questions  f o r e g o i n g d i s c u s s i o n and  for  Each research question  research  a n a l y s i s of (Qn)  is  the  intended  data to  (see  focus  attention and t o  on a n i s s u e o f p r a c t i c a l  support examination  hypotheses.  Each h y p o t h e s i s  or n o n - d i r e c t i o n a l  the  listing  of  (Hn)  forms o f  tabular  repair  They w i l l ,  the will  and r e f e r e n c e . the  help to  strategy.  employed t o  test  analysis follows  the  the  (PQn)  and  related  form the  answers  will  initial  they  how d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s  for  (whether o r n o t  example)  prior  to  in  they  to  testing.  is  the  reference  the  t e a c h e r - l e d groups?  distribution  between  Do g r o u p t y p e HI:  analysis  however,  be t r e a t e d  have t o be t r a n s f o r m e d ,  PQ1: How homogeneous a r e  Ql:  directional  research purpose  since the  determine  research design w i l l  PQ2: What  and  the hypothesis t e s t i n g  analysis strategy,  will  hypotheses  in  two q u e s t i o n s a r e p r o c e d u r a l of  generate  the  statistics  n o t be c o n s i d e r e d p a r t  of  stated  interest  hypotheses.  The f i r s t  part  is  steps of  d e s c r i p t i o n of the  h y p o t h e s e s and t h e  ensuing questions  f o r m d e p e n d i n g on t h e  a n d numbered f o l l o w i n g A brief  of  or theoretical  frequencies  for  repair  and  and w i t h i n g r o u p s ?  and t a s k  The f r e q u e n c y o f significantly  of  influence repair  the  use of  repair?  i n dyads does not  b y g r o u p membership o r t y p e  vary of  task  performed. Q2:  Do g r o u p t y p e H2:  and t a s k  The f r e q u e n c y o f significantly  influence reference  by e i t h e r  performed.  77  the  use of  reference?  i n dyads does not  g r o u p membership o r  vary task  Q3:  Is  experiential  activity  behavior than expository H3:  Repair occurs  a better  source of  repair  activity? significantly  more f r e q u e n t l y  t a s k s which emphasize e x p e r i e n t i a l  activity  than d u r i n g t a s k s which emphasize  expository  during  activity. Q4:  How a r e  expository H4a:  a n a p h o r i c and e x o p h o r i c r e f e r e n c e  and e x p e r i e n t i a l  task  Anaphoric reference frequently  occurs s i g n i f i c a n t l y  activity  Exophoric reference frequently  occurs s i g n i f i c a n t l y  activity  emphasize e x p o s i t o r y Q5:  What a r e t h e  repair,  characteristically  appear  of  No h y p o t h e s e s were t e s t e d although generalizations  report  of  the  a n a l y s i s of A summary o f were t e s t e d , the  t h e most those  frequently which  i n combination with each  i n context  which  activity  particularly  repair  more  emphasize  than during tasks  textual profiles  o c c u r r i n g forms o f  which  activity.  during t a s k s which  experiential  more  emphasize  than during tasks  emphasize e x p e r i e n t i a l H4b:  to  activity?  d u r i n g t a s k s which  expository  related  will  results  for  other?  this  question,  about the  qualities  be d e v e l o p e d  of  following  obtained through  the  variance.  c o n d i t i o n s under which these  including test  number and l o c a t i o n o f  statistics, tables  78  hypotheses  directionality,  or tabular  summaries,  and is  listed  i n T a b l e 1.  Table 1 Summary o f C o n d i t i o n s f o r T e s t i n g Hypotheses R e l a t i n g t o Group, Task, Reference  and R e p a i r C r i t i c a l values  Question/ hypothesis number  Statistical tests  PQ1  Friedman 2way ANOVA/ Chi-square  PQ2  Sq. r o o t / l o g . trans./Comp. alpha l e v e l s  HI  ANOVA/F  direction 2-tailed  p_ < .025  Number of tables* 1 Sum.  1 Sum. (App. G) 2-tailed  < .025  12, 2 x 5 1 Sum.  H2  II  H3  II  H4a  II  II  •i  1, 2  X  2  H4b  II  II  II  1, 2  X  2  II  1-tailed  II  < .05  2, 2 X 5 1 Sum. 1 (Sum.) 6, 2 X 2 (App. I) 6, 2 X 2 (App. J)  * The number o f t a b l e s i n d i c a t e d does not i n c l u d e p o s t hoc  analyses.  S i n c e r e p a i r has 12 exponents and r e f e r e n c e has 2 exponents i n t h i s study, t h e number o f a n a l y s e s i s c o n s i d e r a b l y l a r g e r than t h e number o f hypotheses. produced  I n a l l , 33 ANOVA t a b l e s were  ( i n c l u d i n g t h e main and summary t a b l e s found i n t h e  t e x t or appendices),  i n a d d i t i o n t o a number o f post-hoc  comparisons made whenever major sources of v a r i a n c e t o be l o c a t e d . conceived  In g e n e r a l , the r e s e a r c h d e s i g n  needed  was  t o move s t r a t e g i c a l l y through the p r o c e s s  of  analysis, requiring that c e r t a i n hypothesis-testing  or  v a l i d a t i o n procedures be completed b e f o r e b e g i n n i n g  others.  T h i s i s s u e i s more f u l l y developed i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n . General S t r a t e g y The  f o r Data A n a l y s i s  f i r s t phase of the s t r a t e g y  (PQ1-PQ2) was  towards the i n t e r n a l v a l i d i t y of the d e s i g n and over whether o r not t o t r a n s f o r m showed a skewed d i s t r i b u t i o n . the data were performed.  a decision  dependent v a r i a b l e s which  Two  The  directed  p r e l i m i n a r y treatments of  f i r s t treatment concerned  the  degree o f homogeneity found w i t h i n each of the groups (n = 6) formed f o r the study.  B a s i c a l l y , the problem was  to  determine the sources o f any  d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h i n groups w i t h  r e s p e c t t o use  r e f e r e n c e d u r i n g the  tasks. was  of r e p a i r and  Although the composition  of dyads w i t h i n the groups  c o n t r o l l e d f o r p r o f i c i e n c y i n E n g l i s h and  (teachers and  students  five  i n each dyad) i t was  i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s would probably  status  assumed t h a t  emerge on some o f  v a r i a b l e s d u r i n g performance o f some of the t a s k s .  the  Given  t h i s p o i n t o f view, i t became necessary t o determine the sources and  account f o r any p a t t e r n of d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h i n  the groups p r i o r t o conducting analyses way  of variance.  and  attempting  to interpret  In order t o do t h i s , a Friedman  A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e  by Ranks ( S i e g e l , 1956)  80  was  Two-  conducted f o r each group the  statistical  (see T a b l e 2 f o r a summary o f  analysis).  The second p r e l i m i n a r y treatment o f t h e d a t a determined the  need f o r t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f t h e f r e q u e n c i e s r e c o r d e d f o r  each dependent Fidell  v a r i a b l e used i n t h e study.  Tabachnick and  (1983) note t h a t t h e "F t e s t i s r o b u s t  t o v i o l a t i o n s o f n o r m a l i t y and homogeneity o f v a r i a n c e , as l o n g as sample s i z e s a r e r e l a t i v e l y e q u a l , b u t not t o skewness" (p. 77). Although e x c e s s i v e l y skewed d i s t r i b u t i o n s a r e c a n d i d a t e s f o r t r a n s f o r m a t i o n , t h e authors a l s o note t h a t i n p r a c t i c e t h e advantages  o f attempting t o  n o r m a l i z e d i s t r i b u t i o n s may be s m a l l , p a r t i c u l a r l y when t h e t r a n s f o r m e d v a r i a b l e s a r e rendered more d i f f i c u l t t o interpret.  The approach used here was t o s e l e c t  seven o f t h e 14 dependent  randomly  v a r i a b l e s , a p p l y both square r o o t  and l o g a r i t h m i c t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s t o each o f t h e s e , and then compare t h e e f f e c t s f o r group and t a s k i n repeated-measures ANOVAs performed on the v a r i a b l e s i n both transformed and untransformed s t a t e s .  The s e l e c t i o n i n c l u d e d v a r i a b l e s w i t h  severe p o s i t i v e skewness, moderate skewness and near-normal skewness.  As i n t h e case o f t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f w i t h i n - g r o u p  homogeneity, a b r i e f summary o f t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e s e t e s t s (Table 3) i s p r e s e n t e d below i n P r e l i m i n a r y Treatment  of the  Data. The second l e v e l o f s t r a t e g y  (H1-H2) e n t a i l e d a  c o n s e r v a t i v e approach t o t e s t i n g group and t a s k d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e use o f r e p a i r and r e f e r e n c e . 81  The two n u l l  hypotheses  a t t h i s l e v e l propose no d i f f e r e n c e s between group and and r e q u i r e a l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e which i s t w i c e  tasks  as  s t r i n g e n t as t h a t normally r e q u i r e d f o r d i r e c t i o n a l hypotheses  (p_ < .025).  T h i s i s due t o the use of a  r e l a t i v e l y n o v e l c o n c e p t u a l approach t o t a s k s and groups i n the d e s i g n , and thus t o the e x p l o r a t o r y nature o f the r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s and a s s o c i a t e d hypotheses.  At the same  time i t s h o u l d be s t r e s s e d t h a t t h i s l e v e l of a n a l y s i s i s t h e key t o f u r t h e r treatment  and  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e d a t a .  R e s u l t s o b t a i n e d from t h i s phase of the study would be used t o c o n s t r u c t t h e s p e c i f i c components of an approach t o h y p o t h e s i s t e s t i n g i n the f o l l o w i n g phase. A c c o r d i n g l y , once these i n i t i a l hypotheses were t e s t e d , i t was  then p o s s i b l e t o pursue the r e s u l t s more  a g g r e s s i v e l y — t o argue, i n e f f e c t , t h a t t h e  additional  hypotheses were founded i n the p r e v i o u s l y t e s t e d o n e s — a n d test  (with d i r e c t i o n a l hypotheses and l e s s s t r i n g e n t  p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l s ) a d d i t i o n a l hypotheses about the r e l a t i o n s h i p of group and t a s k t o r e p a i r and r e f e r e n c e . T h i s t h i r d phase o f the s t r a t e g y (H3-H4b) i s based on combining and s e l e c t i n g t a s k s on both c o n c e p t u a l empirical  and  ( i . e . , p r i o r h y p o t h e s i s - t e s t i n g ) grounds.  particular,  i t was  In  designed t o d i r e c t a n a l y s i s of r e p a i r  and  r e f e r e n c e t o t a s k s which appear as c o n c e n t r a t e d sources of e x p e r i e n t i a l or e x p o s i t o r y b e h a v i o r . The  f o u r t h phase of the study extended the r e s u l t s of  the p r e v i o u s phase i n t o a q u a l i t a t i v e examination 82  of  p a t t e r n s o f r e p a i r i n t r a n s c r i p t i o n s excerpted  from  o v e r l a p p i n g areas o f the r e s e a r c h d e s i g n : t e a c h i n g which employ e x t e n s i v e e x p o s i t o r y b e h a v i o r  and  two tasks  non-teaching  t a s k s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by p a r t i c i p a n t s ' e x p e r i e n t i a l b e h a v i o r . The procedures i n v o l v e d a t t h i s l e v e l o f q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s i n c l u d e d d e s c r i b i n g and c o n t r a s t i n g formal  and  . f u n c t i o n a l q u a l i t i e s of the s e l e c t e d s e t s of v a r i a b l e s . e s s e n t i a l p o i n t of t h i s phase of the study was p a t t e r n s and  to  The  capture  r e g u l a r i t i e s w i t h i n the data which were not  pursued o r adequately  d e s c r i b e d through a n a l y s i s o f  variance. Methodology S e l e c t i o n and Treatment of Subjects  f o r the study were s e l e c t e d from the  membership of two (ESS)  clubs  Subjects  p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t y E n g l i s h Speaking S o c i e t y  ( t o t a l membership = 45)  Kobe area of western Japan, and English teachers  l o c a t e d i n the Osaka-  from a l i s t o f 14 u n i v e r s i t y  (seven Japanese and  of E n g l i s h ) known t o the r e s e a r c h e r .  seven n a t i v e speakers The  object of  s e l e c t i n g from among t h i s group of 59 p r o s p e c t i v e  subjects  was  t o form an equal number of t e a c h e r - l e d NS-NNS and  NNS  dyads.  NNS-  A l l prospective subjects received a general  e x p l a n a t i o n of the r e s e a r c h and  i n v i t a t i o n to p a r t i c i p a t e  under s p e c i f i c c o n d i t i o n s (Appendix B). The  c o n d i t i o n s d i f f e r e d somewhat depending on whether  the p r o s p e c t i v e s u b j e c t s were ESS  members or t e a c h e r s .  ESS  members were asked t o take a s t a n d a r d i z e d E n g l i s h language 83  p r o f i c i e n c y t e s t , the CELT (Comprehensive E n g l i s h Language Test)  - S t r u c t u r e (see Appendix D).  Members s c o r i n g i n an  i n t e r m e d i a t e range (65 t o 80 percent,  see norms p u b l i s h e d i n  H a r r i s & Palmer, 1986a) would be asked t o take a s t a n d a r d i z e d , o r a l p r o f i c i e n c y examination LPI—Language P r o f i c i e n c y Interview  i n E n g l i s h , the  (see Appendix  D;  E d u c a t i o n a l T e s t i n g S e r v i c e , 1982), t o c o n f i r m the  initial  f i n d i n g o f i n t e r m e d i a t e p r o f i c i e n c y based on the CELT and establish a level for conversational a b i l i t y — t h a t  to  i s , for a  l e v e l of competence which would be e x e r c i s e d d u r i n g performance of the communication t a s k s . between 1+ and conversation  Members s c o r i n g  2 on the LPI f o l l o w i n g a 15-minute  telephone  (roughly an i n t e r m e d i a t e range on the s c a l e  between 0, no a b i l i t y t o communicate i n the language and  5,  e q u i v a l e n t t o an educated n a t i v e speaker) would be  invited  t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a s e r i e s of d y a d i c c o n v e r s a t i o n s  with  e i t h e r a Japanese or a n a t i v e speaker of E n g l i s h .  The  Japanese t e a c h e r s were a l s o asked t o take t h e LPI  and  i n v i t e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e o n l y i f t h e i r s c o r e was  3 or g r e a t e r  ( p r o f e s s i o n a l competence i n the language).  such t e s t s  were a d m i n i s t e r e d  t o the NSs  No  of E n g l i s h .  The main purpose of s e l e c t i n g s u b j e c t s by E n g l i s h p r o f i c i e n c y was  t o ensure t h a t a l l dyads would c o n s i s t of  p a r t i c i p a n t s a t comparable l e v e l s , t h a t i s , a l e a r n e r a t an i n t e r m e d i a t e l e v e l of p r o f i c i e n c y and a t e a c h e r of n a t i v e or near-native p r o f i c i e n c y .  84  Assignment t o Dyads Once a p o o l o f p r o s p e c t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t s had been o b t a i n e d , the p r o c e s s of assignment t o e i t h e r the Japanesel e d o r n a t i v e - l e d dyads was  initiated.  members whose p r o f i c i e n c y was  The names of a l l ESS  t e s t e d a t an  intermediate  l e v e l were s h u f f l e d and randomly a s s i g n e d t o e i t h e r a NS  or  a NNS  14  teacher.  t e a c h e r s was  T h i s p r o c e s s continued u n t i l each o f the  matched w i t h an ESS member.  Next,  individuals  i n each matched group were c o n t a c t e d i n o r d e r t o arrange f o r a r e c o r d i n g date.  Whenever ESS members i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e i r  schedule would not i n f a c t permit matching and r e c o r d i n g w i t h a t e a c h e r a t any of the dates, times and suggested  by the r e s e a r c h e r , the member was  places  dropped from  f u r t h e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n and the next member on the l i s t  was  c o n t a c t e d and asked t o p a r t i c i p a t e . Because of s c h e d u l i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s , two matched scheduled  groups c o u l d not be accommodated and were dropped  from the study. completed Although  and  E v e n t u a l l y 12 dyads were scheduled  p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the balance o f the no attempt was  made t o a l l o c a t e  and  study.  specific  p r o p o r t i o n s o f male and female l e a r n e r s t o the mixed  and  homogeneous groups, one male and f i v e females were a l l o c a t e d t o the n a t i v e - l e d group and two males and the J a p a n e s e - l e d  group.  f i v e females  to  This representation of learners  w i t h i n the r e s e a r c h groups approximates the r a t i o o f males t o females  i n the two  ESS  c l u b s , about 1:4,  although  o p p o r t u n i s t i c s e l e c t i o n of the t e a c h e r s r e s u l t e d i n a r a t i o  85  of 11:1  a c r o s s both r e s e a r c h groups.  a form i n d i c a t i n g informed  consent  A l l s u b j e c t s completed  to p a r t i c i p a t i o n  (Appendix C ) . Data C o l l e c t i o n Although  Sites  the 12 t e a c h e r s i n d i c a t e d a w i l l i n g n e s s t o  p a r t i c i p a t e a t any convenient the ESS  local site,  i t was  f e l t that  members would o f f e r more r e l a x e d a s s i s t a n c e i f they  c o u l d be r e c o r d e d on t h e i r own ESS members were recorded  campus.  A c c o r d i n g l y , most  i n conversation with a teacher  whom they had not been i n t r o d u c e d p r e v i o u s l y ) on t h e i r campuses; two  (to own  were recorded on the a l t e r n a t i v e campus  because of s c h e d u l i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s .  Eight recording  s e s s i o n s were conducted i n a p a r t i t i o n e d area o f the researcher's o f f i c e .  Four s e s s i o n s were conducted on  the  a l t e r n a t i v e campus i n the area of a language l a b o r a t o r y r e s e r v e d f o r s m a l l group c o n v e r s a t i o n s . r e s e a r c h e r was  present  In a l l cases,  the  i n the same room as the s u b j e c t s ,  although the t e c h n i c a l nature of the r e c o r d i n g (see Data C o l l e c t i o n Procedures,  below) p e r m i t t e d the r e s e a r c h e r t o  " i g n o r e " t h e d y a d — t o s i t a p a r t from the dyad and engage i n a c t i v i t y u n r e l a t e d t o the d y a d i c  conversations.  C o l l e c t i o n and Coding o f Data Task Order A l l dyads experienced  the same f i v e communication t a s k s  i n an o r d e r d i c t a t e d by a standard L a t i n Square assignment o f t a s k o r d e r t o each o f the dyads i n e i t h e r the mixed or homogeneous group types  (see Ferguson, 1981;  86  Eames e t a l . ,  1985).  I n p r a c t i c e , t h i s meant t h a t t h e o r d e r o f t h e  f i r s t dyad's t a s k s would be r o t a t e d by one t a s k f o r t h e second dyad's scheduled  combination, and so on u n t i l t h e  l a s t dyad f o r t h e group (NS-NNS o r NNS-NNS) had worked through i t s scheduled was  tasks.  The r a t i o n a l e f o r doing  this  t o reduce t h e c a r r y - o v e r e f f e c t s which may be produced  when a l l s u b j e c t s undergo t h e same treatment o r d e r al.,  (Eames e t  1985).  Task D e s c r i p t i o n The  f i v e communication t a s k s used i n t h e study  i n c l u d e d 1) COMl, a l e c t u r e on how t o f i n d  character  s t r i n g s i n a t e x t through use o f t h e word p r o c e s s i n g program of a s m a l l , " l a p t o p " computer (the NEC 8201A) without t h e computer p h y s i c a l l y present ,  2) COM2, a demonstration o f how  t o f i n d c h a r a c t e r s t r i n g s on t h e NEC 8201A w i t h t h e computer p h y s i c a l l y present,  3) DIS, i n f o r m a l d i s c u s s i o n o f any t o p i c  of mutual i n t e r e s t t o t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s ( t r a v e l , h o l i d a y p l a n s , computer, and so on), 4) LEG1, r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a s m a l l Lego (snap-together)  toy with the p a r t i c i p a n t s s i t t i n g  back-to-back and u s i n g a s e t o f sequenced,  graphic  i n s t r u c t i o n s s u p p l i e d w i t h t h e toy, and 5) LEG2, f a c e - t o f a c e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a Lego t o y o f s i m i l a r d i f f i c u l t y LEG1)  (re:  w i t h one p a r t i c i p a n t g i v i n g t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s as t h e  o t h e r assembled t h e p i e c e s . During  t h e computer-based t a s k s , t h e t e a c h e r  supplied  i n f o r m a t i o n i n an attempt t o i n s t r u c t t h e l e a r n e r i n use o f the s t r i n g s e a r c h f u n c t i o n , although  87  t h e t e a c h e r had been  b r i e f e d t o r e q u e s t p e r i o d i c summaries from the  learner.  a d d i t i o n , the hands-on demonstration i n v o l v i n g the f u n c t i o n encouraged r a t h e r gesturing  on the t e a c h i n g function. not  and  The  search  f r e e exchange, q u e s t i o n i n g  by both p a r t i c i p a n t s .  In  and  Both computer t a s k s focused  l e a r n i n g o f a p a r t i c u l a r computer  Lego r e c o n s t r u c t i o n  tasks,  i n contrast,  were  so much i n s t r u c t i o n - o r i e n t e d as p r o b l e m - o r i e n t e d .  Although the t e a c h e r was without allowing required  verbal  asked t o convey i n s t r u c t i o n s  the l e a r n e r t o see them, the Lego t a s k c o o p e r a t i o n from both p a r t i c i p a n t s i n o r d e r  t o work towards r e c o n s t r u c t i o n d i f f e r e n c e between the two required  o f the o b j e c t .  Lego t a s k s was  The  essential  t h a t one  (LEG1)  p a r t i c i p a n t s t o communicate without v i s u a l feedback  whereas the o t h e r the a c t i v i t y .  (LEG2) made v i s u a l feedback the c e n t e r of  (See Wagner, 1983  Lego i n c o n v e r s a t i o n  strategy  for further discussion  research;  Littlewood,  of  1981  for  a d e s c r i p t i o n o f Lego used i n communicative language teaching.)  The  f i n a l task,  open d i s c u s s i o n o f  any  i n t e r e s t i n g t o p i c , resembled Long's (1980) unguided d y a d i c conversations:  C o o p e r a t i o n i s not d i r e c t e d towards  s o l u t i o n o f a problem, n o t h i n g need be taught, no materials  are hidden from view and  a v a i l a b l e as c o n v e r s a t i o n a l  y e t none are  resources.  physical  typically  This task  was  s e l e c t e d t o a l l o w p a r t i c i p a n t s a chance t o s t r u c t u r e t a l k as background and  knowledge d i c t a t e d .  88  the  their  Data C o l l e c t i o n  Procedures  P r i o r t o recording the dyadic conversations, a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s were b r i e f e d as t o t h e nature o f t h e data collection.  The t e a c h e r s were sent a packet  containing a  d e s c r i p t i o n o f each t a s k and a d d i t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s which i l l u s t r a t e d use o f t h e s t r i n g s e a r c h f u n c t i o n on t h e computer.  The t e a c h e r s and t h e r e s e a r c h e r met a few days  b e f o r e a scheduled r e c o r d i n g s e s s i o n and f u r t h e r b r i e f e d on the o p e r a t i o n o f t h e t a s k s w i t h t h e l e a r n e r s .  In  p a r t i c u l a r , t e a c h e r s had an o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r a c t i c e use o f the computer and assembly o f a t l e a s t one o f t h e Lego s e t s . A few minutes p r i o r t o t h e scheduled r e c o r d i n g , t h e l e a r n e r s a l s o r e c e i v e d a g e n e r a l b r i e f i n g on t h e nature o f t h e t a s k s and t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n them.  Although  b r i e f e d i n d e t a i l on what t o expect, participate  actively  they were not  they were encouraged t o  i n t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n s and t o  i n f o r m a t i o n o f use i n completing  ask f o r  a t a s k whenever they needed  it. J u s t b e f o r e r e c o r d i n g commenced t h e t e a c h e r and l e a r n e r were i n t r o d u c e d and, depending on t h e scheduled  first  task,  s a t f a c i n g away from each other, towards each o t h e r , o r side-by-side.  The s e a t i n g arrangements f o r a l l t a s k s a r e  diagrammed as f o l l o w s :  89  C0M1:  [][] A  (side-by-side) A  T L COM2:  T>[]<L  (face-to-face)  DIS:  T>[]<L  (face-to-face)  LEGl:  []<T L>[]  (back-to-back)  LEG2:  T>[]<L  (face-to-face)  The desk i s r e p r e s e n t e d w i t h a " [ ] " ;  the p a r t i c i p a n t s '  (T =  t e a c h e r , L = l e a r n e r ) d i r e c t i o n of s i g h t i s i n d i c a t e d by "<",  ">"  and  " " symbols. A  the  Depending on the o r d e r o f t a s k s  e s t a b l i s h e d f o r a g i v e n dyad, the r e s e a r c h e r arranged and b r i e f e d p a r t i c i p a n t s f o r t h e i r f i r s t breaks between the remaining  task.  desks  During  t a s k s , desks were arranged  in  the a p p r o p r i a t e p a t t e r n and p a r t i c i p a n t s b r i e f e d as t o t h e i r a c t i v i t y on the ensuing t a s k .  A l l t a s k s were conducted  with  the p a r t i c i p a n t s s i t t i n g and f a c i n g i n the a p p r o p r i a t e direction. Once the p a r t i c i p a n t s had taken t h e i r  initial  p o s i t i o n s , they were n o t i f i e d t h a t they would c o n t i n u e each of  the t a s k s u n i n t e r r u p t e d f o r seven minutes and t h a t they  would have a two-minute break between each t a s k . T a s k - s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n t o the p a r t i c i p a n t s  just  b e f o r e b e g i n n i n g the t a s k s i n c l u d e d the f o l l o w i n g : 1) C0M1: how  The t e a c h e r was  asked t o t e a c h the l e a r n e r  t o operate the computer's s t r i n g s e a r c h without  m a n i p u l a t i o n of the computer or r e c o u r s e t o the t e x t i t contained.  direct files  (The t e a c h e r had p r e v i o u s l y s t u d i e d a t h r e e -  90  page d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e f u n c t i o n and r e h e a r s e d i t s operation.)  The l e a r n e r was n o t i f i e d t h a t t h e t e a c h e r would  o c c a s i o n a l l y r e q u e s t a summary o f t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s . 2) COM2:  The t e a c h e r was asked t o t e a c h use o f t h e  s e a r c h f u n c t i o n through m a n i p u l a t i o n o f t h e a p p r o p r i a t e and  keys  use o f any t e x t f i l e i n t h e computer's memory.  P a r t i c i p a n t s were n o t i f i e d t h a t they c o u l d p o i n t t o o r touch a n y t h i n g o f use i n t h e t a s k s i t u a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g t h e keys and  screen d i s p l a y . 3) DIS:  P a r t i c i p a n t s were asked t o agree on a t o p i c o f  mutual i n t e r e s t s h o r t l y b e f o r e t h e t a s k began and t o d i s c u s s the  s e l e c t e d t o p i c " f r e e l y " , t h a t i s , without any attempt  to teach o r l e a r n anything i n p a r t i c u l a r .  Both p a r t i c i p a n t s  were s p e c i f i c a l l y encouraged t o c o n t r i b u t e  t o the discussion  whenever i t seemed a p p r o p r i a t e supplied  t o do so. The r e s e a r c h e r  a t o p i c whenever t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s were unable t o  make t h e i r c h o i c e d u r i n g 4) LEG1:  t h e break.  The t e a c h e r was handed a s e t o f v i s u a l  (i.e.,  non-text) i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r t h e Lego t o y and asked t o r e l a t e information learner.  on t h e c o r r e c t assembly o f t h e t o y t o t h e  The t e a c h e r was a l s o asked t o h e l p t h e l e a r n e r t o  assemble t h e t o y without l o o k i n g a t t h e l e a r n e r ' s work. disassembled t o y was s c a t t e r e d  on t h e l e a r n e r ' s desk and t h e  l e a r n e r asked t o assemble t h e t o y i n response t o s u p p l i e d by t h e t e a c h e r .  The  information  The l e a r n e r was a l s o i n s t r u c t e d t o  keep t h e t e a c h e r informed as t o whether an i n d i v i d u a l step i n t h e procedure had been completed.  91  5) LEG2: but was  The  t e a c h e r r e c e i v e d the v i s u a l i n s t r u c t i o n s  asked not t o show them t o the l e a r n e r .  disassembled  t o y was  The  s c a t t e r e d on the l e a r n e r ' s desk  and  the l e a r n e r asked t o assemble the t o y i n response t o the teacher's informed  i n s t r u c t i o n s . However, both p a r t i c i p a n t s were t h a t they were f r e e t o p o i n t t o o b j e c t s , but t h a t  the t e a c h e r c o u l d not p h y s i c a l l y p i c k up and assemble p i e c e s on the l e a r n e r ' s b e h a l f . Each t a s k was  s t a r t e d by a v e r b a l i n s t r u c t i o n t o  p a r t i c i p a n t s t o begin.  the  As the s i g n a l t o commence work  g i v e n , the r e s e a r c h e r moved t o the o p p o s i t e end o f  was  the  r e c o r d i n g room, s a t down a t a desk and s t a r t e d a stopwatch and the r e c o r d i n g equipment.  No  f u r t h e r communication  between the r e s e a r c h e r and the p a r t i c i p a n t s o c c u r r e d  during  performance o f the t a s k , except f o r the v e r b a l s i g n a l t o the p a r t i c i p a n t s t o stop t h e i r work a few  seconds beyond the  seven-minute mark. Video and audio c a s s e t t e r e c o r d i n g s were made o f a l l tasks.  V i d e o t a p i n g was  intended t o p r o v i d e a p a r a l l e l  r e c o r d o f the t a s k s which c o u l d be used t o i n t e r p r e t problematic  p o i n t s i n the audio r e c o r d .  Although  v i d e o t a p i n g can be a more o b t r u s i v e method of c o l l e c t i o n than a u d i o t a p i n g , v i d e o t a p i n g as u n o b t r u s i v e was  p l a c e d approximately  focused  c a r e was  taken t o make the  as p o s s i b l e .  2.5  data  The v i d e o camera  meters from the  subjects,  j u s t b e f o r e c o n v e r s a t i o n began and then  untouched f o r the d u r a t i o n of the f i v e t a s k s . 92  left Also,  v i d e o t a p i n g o p e r a t i o n s were s t a r t e d and stopped from the r e s e a r c h e r ' s  position.  Audio t a p i n g employed two,  c l i p - t y p e microphones  f o r each dyad member) w i t h 3-meter cords independently  (one  feeding  i n t o a j u n c t i o n and then plugged i n t o  microphone j a c k of a c a s s e t t e r e c o r d e r . was  remotely  the  Recorder o p e r a t i o n  c o n t r o l l e d from the r e s e a r c h e r ' s p o s i t i o n by use of a  remote c o n t r o l s w i t c h and c a b l e .  The two-minute breaks  between t a s k s were used by the p a r t i c i p a n t s t o r e l a x , o r by the r e s e a r c h e r t o accomplish  such housekeeping f u n c t i o n s as  c h e c k i n g the equipment and g i v i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r the task.  A complete s e s s i o n thus r e q u i r e d l e s s than one  T o t a l r e c o r d i n g time f o r both of the groups (mixed homogeneous) was  about 420 minutes or seven  next hour.  and  hours.  Coding and Treatment of the Data The  seven hours of recorded t a l k on the t a s k s were  transcribed  ( t r a n s c r i p t i o n conventions  are l i s t e d i n  Appendix F; t r a n s c r i p t i o n samples are i n Appendix E)  and  r e c o r d e d on a f l o p p y d i s k f o r l a t e r m a n i p u l a t i o n w i t h a p e r s o n a l computer.  Each t a s k was  t r a n s c r i b e d as a  separate  f i l e and r e q u i r e d an average of s i x - a n d - a - h a l f typed pages of t e x t .  About 32.5  pages were r e q u i r e d f o r each dyad  approximately  390  pages f o r the e n t i r e corpus.  corresponding  t o the f i r s t minute of t r a n s c r i p t i o n was  and  Text left  uncoded; the f o l l o w i n g s i x minutes were coded and served the b a s i s f o r determining  as  f r e q u e n c i e s f o r r e p a i r and  r e f e r e n c e , the dependent v a r i a b l e s . 93  Coded t r a n s c r i p t s f o r  each dyad's s i x minutes of t a l k averaged about 5.5 l e n g t h o r about 330 pages f o r the coded The  c l a r i f i c a t i o n request  repair:  (CCLAR), comprehension check (CCOM),  c o n f i r m a t i o n check (CCON), d e f i n i t i o n  (DDEF), d i s p l a y  (DDQ), echo (EECH), l e x i c a l u n c e r t a i n t y  other-expansion  repetition  (LLEX),  (OOEXP), o t h e r - r e p e t i t i o n (OOREP),  r e f e r e n t i a l question  (EEXO).  corpus.  f o l l o w i n g coding c a t e g o r i e s ( i n parentheses) were  then added t o the typed t r a n s c r i p t s : 1)  question  pages i n  (RRQ), s e l f - e x p a n s i o n (SSEXP),  self-  (SSREP); 2) r e f e r e n c e : anaphora (AANA), exophora  R e p a i r s and  forms of r e f e r e n c e o r i g i n a t i n g w i t h  the  l e a r n e r were a d d i t i o n a l l y coded w i t h an S f o l l o w i n g the main code (thus, f o r example, RRQS). Coding R e l i a b i l i t y . Nine NSs  o f E n g l i s h were t r a i n e d by the r e s e a r c h e r t o  r e c o g n i z e seven of the 14 r e p a i r and r e f e r e n c e c a t e g o r i e s i n context:  comprehension checks,  questions,  i n d i c a t i o n s of l e x i c a l u n c e r t a i n t y , r e f e r e n t i a l  q u e s t i o n s , exophoric Although  c o n f i r m a t i o n checks, d i s p l a y  r e f e r e n c e and anaphoric  reference.  the REs were s e l e c t e d randomly, both c a t e g o r i e s of  r e f e r e n c e were i n c l u d e d d e l i b e r a t e l y because of t h e i r c o n c e p t u a l p o s i t i o n i n the study. g i v e n 21 s h o r t e x c e r p t s  key  The n i n e coders were  (one t o t h r e e t u r n s long)  of  t r a n s c r i b e d t a l k s e l e c t e d from the d y a d i c c o n v e r s a t i o n s both groups and asked t o a l l o c a t e each e x c e r p t t o c a t e g o r y among the seven a v a i l a b l e .  Specifically,  coders were asked t o d e c i d e on a category 94  one the  f o r a word or  of  phrase u n d e r l i n e d i n the e x c e r p t .  Three examples of each  c a t e g o r y appeared on the r a t e r s ' forms; these were randomly s e l e c t e d by the r e s e a r c h e r f o r o r d e r of i n c l u s i o n on forms. of  the  U s i n g index numbers f o r c a t e g o r i e s i n the n i n e s e t s  coded e x c e r p t s i n a d d i t i o n t o the r e s e a r c h e r ' s o r i g i n a l  c o d i n g o f the same t e x t s (k = 10), K e n d a l l ' s C o e f f i c i e n t of Concordance W was df  c a l c u l a t e d a t .908  = 20, p_ < .0001  (Chi-square = 181.68,  ), a l e v e l o f i n t e r - r a t e r  c o n s i d e r e d adequate f o r the  reliability  study.  Analysis of T r a n s c r i p t s . The  frequency  of each code i n the d i s c o u r s e o f each  t r a n s c r i b e d t a s k was  counted by running the word  frequency  program o f a s p e l l i n g checker w i d e l y used w i t h a v a r i e t y of word p r o c e s s o r s  (The WORD P l u s , see Holder,  1982).  Ranked  f r e q u e n c i e s by t a s k f o r a l l dependent v a r i a b l e s were then compared w i t h a Friedman Two-way A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e Ranks w i t h i n each group type  by  (mixed and homogeneous)  f o l l o w i n g the p l a n o u t l i n e d above i n General S t r a t e g i e s f o r Data A n a l y s i s . A n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e w i t h i n the scope of the g e n e r a l s t r a t e g y was  based on comparison of means f o r the v a r i o u s  exponents o f r e p a i r and r e f e r e n c e , i n d i v i d u a l l y , by t a s k group:  One  exponent was  the b a s i s of each ANOVA t a b l e  ( e x c l u d i n g summary t a b l e s ) . compiled  f o r each speaker  R e p a i r f r e q u e n c i e s were  i n each dyad—making  teacher-  l e a r n e r comparisons f e a s i b l e f o r f u t u r e use of the data; beyond t h i s and the c o u n t i n g of d e s c r i p t i v e data by dyad 95  and  p a r t i c i p a n t , t h e h y p o t h e s i s t e s t i n g proceeded on t h e b a s i s o f comparing  group by t a s k without d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between  t e a c h e r s and l e a r n e r s .  The b a s i c u n i t o f a n a l y s i s f o r t h e  q u a n t i t a t i v e phases o f t h e study thus remained t h e dyad. Whenever an e f f e c t reached s i g n i f i c a n c e a c c o r d i n g t o the p r e - s e t c r i t e r i a  (see T a b l e 1, above), Tukey's HSD  m u l t i p l e - c o m p a r i s o n procedure was r u n on a l l combinations o f group means w i t h i n t h e ANOVA t o l o c a t e t h e main sources o f variance.  Sources o f v a r i a n c e (at both p_ < .05 and < .01)  were ranked from h i g h e s t t o lowest and appear on t h e summary ANOVA t a b l e s i n Chapter 4. because  Tukey's HSD t e s t was s e l e c t e d  i t r e p r e s e n t s a balance between power and  c o n s e r v a t i v e approaches t o m u l t i p l e comparison al.,  1974; N i e e t a l . ,  (Huck, e t  1975), and i s a w i d e l y known approach  t o p o s t hoc a n a l y s i s f o r groups w i t h equal n's (Ferguson, 1981).  A l l a n a l y s e s were conducted on a Macintosh P l u s  p e r s o n a l computer u s i n g StatView 512+ (Feldman 1986)  and CLR ANOVA ( C l e a r l a k e Research,  & Gagnon,  1985).  The sampling procedure and focus o f t h e q u a l i t a t i v e analysis  (Chapter 6) were based on t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e  analysis of variance.  The f i r s t c r i t e r i o n f o r s e l e c t i o n o f  t r a n s c r i p t s was t h e s i g n i f i c a n t l y f r e q u e n t use o f a r e p a i r exponent  i n a p a r t i c u l a r task.  significant effects,  Given post-hoc a n a l y s i s o f  i t was p o s s i b l e t o l o c a t e t h e main  s o u r c e ( s ) o f v a r i a n c e by t a s k .  Thus, REs showing  t h e most  s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s s e r v e d as p o i n t e r s t o a r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l number o f t r a n s c r i p t s , so t h a t , f o r example, examination 96  o f the form, f u n c t i o n and context of d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s  would  focus on the 12 t r a n s c r i p t s of the t a s k i n which d i s p l a y questions  o c c u r r e d most f r e q u e n t l y .  An a d d i t i o n a l c r i t e r i o n f o r s e l e c t i o n r e q u i r e d a p r e l i m i n a r y sampling of a group's t r a n s c r i p t s t o whether REs  appeared t o co-occur,  accomplished i n some p a t t e r n e d way l o o k a t how  such c o - o c c u r r i n g REs  n e g o t i a t e d exchanges.  One  way  see  t h a t i s whether r e p a i r  was  so as t o suggest a c l o s e r were i n v o l v e d i n  of looking at t h i s b a s i s f o r  s e l e c t i o n i s t h a t i t l e a d s t o examination of n a t u r a l l y o c c u r r i n g p a i r s which would not otherwise  be s t u d i e d i n a  r e s e a r c h d e s i g n emphasizing treatment o f dependent v a r i a b l e s , one o f how  a t a time.  d i f f e r e n t REs  Prospective candidates  function together,  f o r study  f o r example, might  i n c l u d e e x p r e s s i o n of l e x i c a l u n c e r t a i n t y c o - o c c u r r i n g definition.  One  e x t e n s i o n of t h i s way  of o r g a n i z i n g  examination o f the t r a n s c r i p t s i s the n o t i o n o f task categories  with  overlapping  (see the d i s c u s s i o n of complementary t a s k  s t r u c t u r e s i n Chapters 5 and  6).  T h i s n o t i o n was  mentioned  b r i e f l y i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the c a t e g o r i c a l s t r u c t u r e of the research design.  I t re-emerges i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h  the  q u a l i t a t i v e s t r a t e g y because i t o f f e r s a method f o r s e l e c t i n g a v e r y l i m i t e d number of REs together  i n t r a n s c r i p t s which f i t the  descriptions.  which occur  frequently  overlapping  An example o f t h i s would be the s e t of  t r a n s c r i p t s which f a l l w i t h i n the category  of  12  expository  approaches t o t e a c h i n g t a s k s , t h a t i s , s e l e c t i o n of the  97  12  t r a n s c r i p t s f o r COMl. The  c h o i c e o f which p a r t s o f these t r a n s c r i p t s t o  e x c e r p t and compare was handled  opportunistically; that i s ,  i t was based on t h e r e s e a r c h e r ' s b e s t judgement f o l l o w i n g a p r o c e s s o f e s t a b l i s h i n g and r e v i s i n g c a t e g o r i e s i n which t o e l a b o r a t e t h e v a r i o u s forms o f t h e RE (or s e t o f REs) under consideration.  T h i s s o r t o f pragmatic  p r o b a b i l i s t i c ) sampling  (as opposed t o  i s f u r t h e r d i s c u s s e d i n Goetz and Le  Compte (1984) and Merriam and Simpson  (1984).  P r e l i m i n a r y Treatment o f t h e Data A s s e s s i n g Homogeneity w i t h i n Groups T a b l e 2 summarizes t h e l e v e l o f homogeneity w i t h i n each group ( t h a t i s , t h e l e v e l o f i n d i v i d u a l d y a d i c d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h i n each group) by a l l dependent v a r i a b l e s as t e s t e d by Friedman's Two-way A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e by Ranks. square v a l u e s have been c o r r e c t e d f o r t i e d ranks  A l l Chi(thus  i n c r e a s i n g somewhat t h e chances o f o b t a i n i n g a s i g n i f i c a n t value f o r Chi-square). Three o f t h e REs and one form o f r e f e r e n c e l i s t e d i n Table 2 — c o n f i r m a t i o n  checks,  d i s p l a y questions, i n d i c a t i o n s  of l e x i c a l u n c e r t a i n t y and exophora—were employed more f r e q u e n t l y by one o r more o f t h e dyads w i t h i n each o f t h e groups than by t h e remaining evidence  dyads i n t h e groups.  This  o f h e t e r o g e n e i t y can be put i n t o some p e r s p e c t i v e  by p o i n t i n g out t h a t t h e r e p a i r b e h a v i o r o f t h e mixed group was p a r a l l e l e d by t h a t o f t h e homogeneous group (the sources  98  Table 2 L e v e l o f Homogeneity W i t h i n Groups by Dependent V a r i a b l e Chi-square by group Variable  Mixed  Homogeneous  Major source o f rank o r d e r d i f f e r e n c e s (mixed/homogeneous)  Clarification request  8.89  8.44  Comprehension check  11.87*  14.96*  LEG1 > DIS/LEG1 > DIS  17.64*  LEG2 > DIS  Confirmation check  8.74  Definition  8.12  Display question Echo Lexical uncertainty Otherexpansion Otherrepetition  8.55 14.07*  16.72*  > LEG1/COM1 > LEG2  DIS  > LEG2/DIS > LEG2  8.14  6.62 12.96* 12.73*  .67  12.91* 4.13  4.85  15.14*  8.79  Selfexpansion  8.89  4.21  Selfrepetition  5.28  14.31*  Anaphora  3.06  8.17  Exophora  17.20*  17.52*  Referential question  C0M1  Note, d f = 4 i n a l l cases * p_ < .025  99  LEG1 > COM2  DIS  >  —  COM1  COM1  LEG2 > LEG1/LEG2  > DIS  > LEG1  of s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were the same) and prospectively,  t h a t v i r t u a l l y a l l sources o f w i t h i n - g r o u p  d i f f e r e n c e s indicated during preliminary data were r e p l i c a t e d d u r i n g Chapter 4, T a b l e One  way  noting,  treatment of  the a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e  the (see  22).  o f l o o k i n g a t these p a r a l l e l r e s u l t s i s t h a t  p r o f i c i e n c y i n E n g l i s h was  apparently  not r e s p o n s i b l e  for  w i t h i n - g r o u p d i f f e r e n c e s i n the homogeneous (JapaneseJapanese) group s i n c e these d i f f e r e n c e s were a l s o found i n a group w i t h n a t i v e speakers of E n g l i s h .  Another i s t h a t  i n d i v i d u a l o r i d i o s y n c r a t i c d i f f e r e n c e s are a l s o u n l i k e l y t o have been r e s p o n s i b l e they o c c u r r e d  f o r these p a r t i c u l a r d i f f e r e n c e s  i n both groups.  of comprehension checks and  Moreover, i n two  d i s p l a y questions,  since  cases  (use  i.e.,  behaviors t y p i c a l l y associated with teachers conducting i n s t r u c t i o n ) the p a r a l l e l outcomes suggest t h a t some of t e a c h e r s i n both groups may similar "teacherly"  have been p e r f o r m i n g i n a  fashion.  Without d e v e l o p i n g t h i s  d i s c u s s i o n beyond a f a i r l y simple l e v e l o f e x p l a n a t i o n , may  be u s e f u l t o mention t h a t these p r e l i m i n a r y  terms o f fundamental between-group s i m i l a r i t i e s and within tasks.  (about h a l f o f  in  sources  Although the homogeneity of  groups i s c l e a r l y a mixed a f f a i r  it  results  a n t i c i p a t e those o b t a i n e d i n the a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e  of variance  the  the  the  dependent v a r i a b l e s showed some degree o f w i t h i n - g r o u p difference)  a number of areas i n which homogeneity was  demonstrated t u r n out t o be r e c u r r e n t p a t t e r n s 100  not  which expand  t o become c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f both groups d u r i n g performance of s p e c i f i c  tasks.  A s s e s s i n g t h e use o f T r a n s f o r m a t i o n s T a b l e 3 l i s t s seven o f t h e 14 dependent  variables  r a n g i n g from t h e l e a s t t o t h e g r e a t e s t degree o f skewness. Table 3 Comparison  o f S e l e c t e d Transformed and Untransformed  V a r i a b l e s by S i g n i f i c a n c e o f ANOVA E f f e c t s Treatment o f dependent v a r i a b l e by t r a n s f o r m a t i o n and • level of significance (group-task) Dep. var.  Skew  Normality Test p_  Comp. check  1. 851  .272  .018  .792- . 000  .768- .000  .850- .000  Conf. check  1.817  .188  .073  .582- .000  .430- .000  .683- .000  Def.  1. 364  .315  .007  .179- .011  .167- .008  . 193-.017  Exo.  1. 323  .217  .046  .733- . 000  .797- .000  .976- .000  Sq. r o o t  Log.  Untrans.  Otherrep.  •  980  .183  .078  .578- . 061  .752- .044* . 485-.085  Selfrep.  •  565  .103  .212  .585- .000  .494- . 000  . 688-.000  Echo  •  271  . 109  .200  .619- .004  . 620-. 006  .599- .005  * movement from a n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t t o a s i g n i f i c a n t v a l u e a t p < .05 The c o e f f i c i e n t o f n o r m a l i t y and a s s o c i a t e d l e v e l o f 101  significance  ( v i a StatView 512+)  d e f i n i t i o n s and  indicate  that  comprehension checks are p o s i t i v e l y skewed  t o a severe degree (p_ < .025), although a l l of remaining v a r i a b l e s including  the  are p o s i t i v e l y skewed t o l e s s e r degrees,  s e v e r a l which show what might be termed moderate  skewness.  Among the p o s s i b l e  range, Tabachnick and  Fidell  remedies f o r skewness of t h i s (1983) recommend a square  t r a n s f o r m a t i o n f o r moderate p o s i t i v e skewness and logarithmic  same time the v a l u e of r e t a i n i n g the  i t s o r i g i n a l form.  Both transformed and  d i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r the s e r i e s of ANOVAs.  l i s t e d variables  untransformed  were then used i n a  t a s k (df = 4) were compared i n o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h  reference affected  In 13  of 14  distributions for  significance levels.  v a l u e s f o r T a b l e 3 w i l l be  the  the  logarithmic  p r o b a b i l i t y v a l u e f o r the  In one  .05  the  slightly  (square r o o t  and  Since transformation  e f f e c t on the  significance  r e s u l t s , a l l a n a l y s e s of v a r i a n c e were conducted  e v a l u a t e d u s i n g the  of case,  t r a n s f o r m a t i o n moved  untransformed) t o s l i g h t l y below .05. appeared t o have v i r t u a l l y no  the  overall relationship  e f f e c t s f o r t a s k from  above a t y p i c a l c r i t i c a l v a l u e of  F  G.)  mean s c o r e s a c r o s s t a s k s f o r a g i v e n v a r i a b l e . other-repetition,  repair  (A t a b l e of  found i n Appendix  r e s u l t nor  1) the  cases t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l t e r e d n e i t h e r  s i g n i f i c a n c e of the  the  data i n  S i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s f o r group (df =  e x t e n t t o which t r a n s f o r m i n g the and  a  t r a n s f o r m a t i o n f o r severe p o s i t i v e skewness,  n o t i n g , a t the  and  root  of  and  o r i g i n a l (untransformed) d i s t r i b u t i o n s . 102  Summary This the  chapter  h a s f o c u s e d on t h e  procedures used to  factorial  carry  it  d e s i g n were o u t l i n e d  implementation was l i n k e d  to  the  the  initial  w h i l e more a g g r e s s i v e , outlined  for  analysis  of variance,  transcripts  for  conservative,  for  the  out.  the  Bases f o r  and a s t r a t e g y  design through  a procedure  combination of was o u t l i n e d  of  design of  study  the  for  analysis of  variance  hypothesis t e s t i n g . largely  exploratory  phase of  directional  a qualitative the  A procedures  research  strategy,  hypothesis testing  secondary phase of  was d e s c r i b e d f o r  the  the  study.  stage  was  Beyond  evaluation  last  and  of  of  the  selected  the  research  strategy. At the  center  comparison of occurring in teacher-led  of  the  frequencies five  task  homogeneous.  conversational undertaken  c o n s i s t i n g of  and a J a p a n e s e l e a r n e r  c o n s i s t i n g of  a Japanese l e a r n e r The r e s u l t s  for  situations  dyads: mixed,  speaking teacher  r e s e a r c h methodology  of  of  of  the  repair b y two k i n d s  a native  of  and  E n g l i s h and  English.  the  a n a l y s i s of variance  4.  These f i n d i n g s w i l l  related  the  research design i n Chapter  103  are  presented  t h e n be i n t e r p r e t e d 5.  of  English-  English,  a Japanese teacher  i n Chapter to  is  and  CHAPTER 4: QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE T h i s chapter  DATA  begins with a summary of r e s u l t s f o r the  nine d e s c r i p t i v e f e a t u r e s which were not c a l c u l a t e d on b a s i s o f i n t r a - t e x t u a l codings.  the  Although the summary i s not  p a r t o f the h y p o t h e s i s - t e s t i n g s t r a t e g y , i t does f o l l o w the p a t t e r n e s t a b l i s h e d i n the r e s e a r c h d e s i g n t a s k s and groups.  f o r comparison o f  Next, r e s u l t s from the a n a l y s i s o f  v a r i a n c e are presented  i n two  s e c t i o n s , the f i r s t  reporting  r e s u l t s f o r comparisons between i n d i v i d u a l t a s k s and  the  second f o r comparisons between t a s k s combined o r s e l e c t e d on the b a s i s o f the d i s t i n c t i o n between e x p o s i t o r y experiential activity.  and  Each of these s e c t i o n s i s f u r t h e r  d i v i d e d i n t o r e s u l t s f o r the two  s e t s of v a r i a b l e s coded  w i t h i n the t r a n s c r i b e d t e x t s — r e f e r e n c e and r e p a i r . The  D e s c r i p t i v e Features by Group and  Tables standard  4,  5, 6, 7, 8, and  of  Talk  Task  9 r e p o r t the means and  deviations f o r three categories of d e s c r i p t i v e  f e a t u r e s by group and t a s k : words ( t o t a l words, words per minute (WPM), unique words, type-token r a t i o utterances turns turn  ( t o t a l utterances,  words per u t t e r a n c e  ( t o t a l t u r n s , words per t u r n (UPT)).  (TTR)), (WPU)  (WPT), u t t e r a n c e s  S i n c e each t a b l e summarizes r e s u l t s f o r  h a l f o f the d e s i g n dyads i n each i s 6,  and  per one  (one group at a time), the number of i . e . , n = 6. 104  A l l decimal f r a c t i o n s have  been rounded t o the nearest hundredth. T a b l e 4 shows a f a i r l y symmetrical the t o t a l word and WPM by t h e l e a r n e r .  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  averages a t t a i n e d by the t e a c h e r  and  In g e n e r a l , as t e a c h e r s spoke more,  l e a r n e r s spoke l e s s , the g r e a t e s t gap  of t h i s  sort  o c c u r r i n g d u r i n g the f a c e - t o - f a c e Lego t a s k  (LEG2); t o t a l  word count, f o r example, averaged about 712  words f o r  t e a c h e r s and  152  words f o r l e a r n e r s .  Learners were most  l i k e l y , however, t o speak d u r i n g o r d i n a r y c o n v e r s a t i o n  (DIS)  whereas t e a c h e r s were more l i k e l y t o reduce the r a t e of t h e i r own  speech d u r i n g t h i s t a s k t o accommodate the  learners.  T a l k d u r i n g DIS  e v e n l y balanced and TTR  i n the mixed-group dyads was  i n terms of t o t a l words, WPM,  more  unique words  ( r e s p e c t i v e l y , T = 445.33/L = 370.17, T = 74.22/L =  61.70, T = 178.67/L = 147.00, T = .40/L  =.  41)  than  during  other tasks. Highest  average TTRs f o r l e a r n e r s were achieved  e x p e r i e n t i a l a c t i v i t y , d u r i n g the two o b s e r v i n g and m a n i p u l a t i n g (.42).  The  d u r i n g DIS  t a s k s which e n t a i l e d  o b j e c t s , COM2 (.47)  t e a c h e r s ' h i g h e s t average TTR  was  and LEG2 a l s o achieved  (.4 0); the lowest average f o r the e n t i r e mixed  group (.24), however, was Whereas DIS producing  during  a t t a i n e d by t e a c h e r s d u r i n g LEG2.  and LEG2 were g e n e r a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r  the h i g h e s t and  lowest means f o r the word-based  measures (depending on the r o l e of the p a r t i c i p a n t ) , a t the d y a d i c l e v e l COMl, the most " l e c t u r e - l i k e " task,  105  was  Table 4 Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s Conversational A c t i v i t y  f o r Word-based Measures o f  by M i x e d - g r o u p T a s k Task  Variable Total  C0M1  COM2  DIS  LEG1  LEG2  Mean SD  Mean SD  Mean SD  Mean SD  Mean SD  864.33 71.30 670.67 77.11 192.50 93.30  822.33 127.95 665.83 129.33 156.50 45.79  815.50 89.64 445.33* 108.35 370.17** 96.71  746.67* 121.52 523.83 87.49 222.83 39.98  864.67** 103.60 712.17** 82.04 152.50* 39.13  144.03 11.86 111.92 13.03 32 . 09 15.55  137.06 21.32 110.97 21.55 2 6 . 09 7.63  135.92 14.94 74.22* 18.06 61.70** 16.12  124.45* 20.25 87.31 14.58 37.14 6. 66  144.08** 17.26 118.70** 13.67 25.42* 6.52  247.50 16.95 179.67 22.40 67.67 24.70  251.17 17.58 180.33** 20.25 7 1 . 00 10.00  325.83** 30.02 178.67 34.14 147.00** 26.58  219.50* 13.17 140.33* 15.48 79.17 3 .19  235.00 23.37 165.33 11.98 61.33* 6.35  .29 . 03 .27 . 02 .38 . 08  .31 .04 . 28 . 04 .47** . 10  .40** .01 .40** . 05 .41 . 05  .30 . 04 .27 . 04 . 36* .06  .27* .02 .24* . 02 .42 .08  words  dyad teacher learner WPM dyad teacher learner U n i q u e words dyad teacher learner TTR dyad teacher learner  **  h i g h e s t mean among f i v e  tasks; *  tasks.  106  l o w e s t mean among  five  virtually  i d e n t i c a l t o LEG2 i n terms of t o t a l number of  words and WPM  generated.  Moreover, comparisons of means  a t the d y a d i c l e v e l a c r o s s the f i v e t a s k s i n d i c a t e a narrow range f o r each of the word-based measures, except f o r TTR.  When t e a c h e r or l e a r n e r c o n s t i t u e n t s of the dyads  are c o n s i d e r e d  i n d i v i d u a l l y , however, much l a r g e r gaps  between the means become e v i d e n t . Summary f i g u r e s f o r the homogeneous group (Table 5) s i m i l a r t o those  f o r the mixed group.  are  Although homogeneous  dyads, taken as a group, used a l a r g e r number of words and WPM  d u r i n g COMl than d u r i n g the f o u r other t a s k s ,  symmetrical,  t e a c h e r - l e a r n e r p r o d u c t i o n of words i s most  c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e d i n DIS  and  LEG2:  Compared t o t h e i r  performance on other t a s k s , t e a c h e r s used t h e i r average number of words (about  412)  and WPM  lowest  (about  o r d i n a r y d i s c u s s i o n w h i l e l e a r n e r s produced t h e i r averages d u r i n g d i s c u s s i o n (about J u s t the r e v e r s e was and WPM)  The  and  in  highest  58, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) .  t r u e f o r word p r o d u c t i o n  ( t o t a l words spoke  l e a r n e r s the l e a s t d u r i n g LEG2.  c e n t r a l p o s i t i o n of DIS  based measures i s concerned was 1  347  69)  d u r i n g the f a c e - t o - f a c e Lego t a s k ; t e a c h e r s  the most and  dyads  the  and LEG2 as f a r as worda l s o i n d i c a t e d by both the  and the i n d i v i d u a l p a r t i c i p a n t s * use of unique words,  and by TTR.  On the average, dyads, t e a c h e r s and  learners  used the l a r g e s t number of unique w o r d s — a n d achieved largest TTRs—during undirected discussion.  107  With the  their  Table 5 Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s of  f o r Word-based Measures  C o n v e r s a t i o n a l A c t i v i t y by H o m o g e n e o u s - g r o u p T a s k Task  Variable Total  COMl  COM2  DIS  LEG1  LEG2  Mean SD  Mean SD  Mean SD  Mean SD  Mean SD  794.50** 64.68 545.50 132.58 249.00 84.08  714.50 75.03 540.83 79.55 173.67 66.13  758.67 51.87 411.67* 148.82 346.67** 109.78  704.33* 50.24 534.83 89.22 169.17 54.70  744.67 104.88 627.33** 111.49 117.33* 18.42  132.42** 10.78 90.92 22 .10 41.50 14.01  119.08 12.50 90.14 13.26 29.61 12.23  126.44 8.65 68.61* 24.80 57.78** 18.30  116.56* 9.78 89.14 14.87 28.20 9 . 12  124.14 17.45 104.56** 18.58 19.56* 3 . 07  204.50 24.80 154.83 4 0 . 68 92.33 17.89  191.00 24.02 150.83 13.09 72.50 25.70  275.00** 35.74 168.50** 62.91 148.50** 38.72  203.17 59.37 147.67 28.74 71.83 17.49  175.50* 16.83 145.33* 21.48 56.83* 5.19  .27 .04 .30 .05 .44 . 10  .36** .04 .41** . 02 . 44** .04  .29 . 08 . 28 . 02 .43 . 04  .24* .02 .24* .03 .49 .09  words  dyad teacher learner WPM dyad teacher learner U n i q u e words dyad teacher learner TTR dyad teacher learner  **  .26 .03 .29 . 04 . 39* . 08  h i g h e s t mean among f i v e  tasks;  tasks.  108  * l o w e s t mean among  five  e x c e p t i o n of l e a r n e r s (whose lowest average TTR  is  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h C0M1), the lowest TTRs f o r the dyads i n g e n e r a l and t e a c h e r s  i n p a r t i c u l a r are a s s o c i a t e d w i t h  These r e s u l t s c l o s e l y p a r a l l e l those Two first,  and,  groups are,  as a s t r o n g g e n e r a t o r  a t the d y a d i c l e v e l , e c l i p s i n g LEG1 and WPM  f o r the mixed group.  f u r t h e r p a r a l l e l s between the two  the p o s i t i o n of C0M1  of words  i n terms o f t o t a l words  second, the r e l a t i v e l y narrow range of  averages among the f i v e t a s k s a t the d y a d i c l e v e l  as  compared w i t h the much g r e a t e r range f o r t e a c h e r s  and  learners.  LEG1.  A t the l e v e l of t o t a l words, f o r example, the  range f o r the dyad i s about 90 words (between C0M1  and  LEG1), on the average; the t e a c h e r s ' range i s about words, w h i l e the l e a r n e r s ' i s about 229,  between DIS  216 and  LEG2. When utterance-based considered emerges.  measures f o r the mixed group are  (Table 6), a p o l a r i t y between COM1 With one  and LEG2  e x c e p t i o n — t h a t of the l e a r n e r g e n e r a t i n g  the h i g h e s t number of WPU  d u r i n g DIS—COM1 was  the source  of  the s m a l l e s t , and LEG2 the l a r g e s t , number of u t t e r a n c e s . The  l a r g e s t gap between these two  t a s k s was  found  i n the  teachers' t a l k  (roughly 65 u t t e r a n c e s as compared w i t h  l e a r n e r s ' gap,  about 15 u t t e r a n c e s ) .  WPU  were a t t h e i r  h i g h e s t average l e v e l , on the other hand, d u r i n g COM1 t h e i r lowest d u r i n g LEG2.  the  and  at  For t e a c h e r s , t h i s l e n g t h e n i n g  of  u t t e r a n c e s d u r i n g i n s t r u c t i o n about use of the computer, as compared w i t h f a c e - t o - f a c e c o n s t r u c t i o n of Lego, averaged 109  about  f o u r words  (3.68).  used the greatest  Although l e a r n e r s ,  number o f u t t e r a n c e s  like  teachers,  d u r i n g LEG2,  their  Table 6 Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s of  Conversational Activity  f o r U t t e r a n c e - b a s e d Measures  by M i x e d - g r o u p T a s k Task  Variable  COMl  COM2  DIS  LEG1  LEG2  Mean SD  Mean SD  Mean SD  Mean SD  Mean SD  133. 00* 1 7 . 39 72 . 3 3 * 9 . 87 63 . 5 0 * 12 . 99  166. 24. 95. 17. 66. 11.  1 4 0 . 50 32 . 62 7 8 . 00 14. 64 7 1 . 00 13 . 96  180. 24. 136. 34. 76. 10.  Utterances dyad teacher learner  r dyad teacher learner  **  7. 1. 9. 1. 2.  00** 17 48** 23 93 • 97  50 18 50 01 00 98  133. 22. 79. 42. 68. 12.  5 . 22 1. 12 7 . 15 1. 95 2 . 38 • 62  h i g h e s t mean among f i v e  67 49 33 20 17 54  5. 84 1. 03 7 . 05 2 . 28 5. 4 1 * * • 71  tasks;  5 . 49 94 8 . 01 1. 86 3 . 19 • 51  * l o w e s t mean among  67* 57 83* 44 50* 05  4. 63* * 76 5. 80* 1. 03 1. 9 8 * • 38  five  tasks. largest to  i n c r e a s e i n WPU ( 3 . 4 3 )  d i s c u s s whatever  they  o c c u r r e d when t h e y were  free  liked.  U t t e r a n c e - b a s e d m e a s u r e s f o r t h e homogeneous g r o u p (Table  7)  were v e r y  s i m i l a r t o t h o s e o b t a i n e d f o r t h e mixed  110  group.  Both the p a t t e r n of  C0M1 a n d L E G 1 , and t h e between i n the the  LEG1 and DIS  extreme average v a l u e s  lengthening of  are  reflected  learners'  i n the  homogeneous g r o u p , h o w e v e r ,  between  utterances  tables.  Learners  u s e d more u t t e r a n c e s  on  a v e r a g e d u r i n g b a c k - t o - b a c k Lego c o n s t r u c t i o n t h a n  Table 7 Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s of  f o r U t t e r a n c e - b a s e d Measures  C o n v e r s a t i o n a l A c t i v i t y by H o m o g e n e o u s - g r o u p T a s k Task  Variable  C0M1  COM2  DIS  LEG1  LEG2  Mean SD  Mean SD  Mean SD  Mean SD  Mean SD  1 2 2 . 50* 2 1 . 14 63 . 3 3 * 1 1 . 24 59. 17* 1 5 . 47  163.00 3 1 . 01 94.83 10.53 68.17 23 .78  146. 28. 79. 23. 67. 9.  67 66 67 28 00 90  154. 00 12 . 02 8 3 . 50 6. 72 70. 5 0 * * 8 . 17  187.83* 24.92 122.50* 21.30 65.33 9.81  5 . 30 • 87 5 . 78 1. 80 5. 4 6 * * 2. 43  4 . 61 .59 6. 45 1. 24 2 . 38 • 65  Utterances dyad teacher learner WPUr dyad teacher learner  **  6. 7 2 * * 1. 69 8. 8 2 * * 2 . 63 4 . 19 • 71  h i g h e s t mean among f i v e  4.49 .80 5.73 . 82 2 . 61 .87  tasks;  *  l o w e s t mean among  3.83* .54 5.18* .83 1.82* . 32  five  tasks. during face-to-face construction. Some d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e m i x e d and homogeneous  g r o u p s on t u r n - b a s e d measures w i l l 8 shows t h a t most t u r n s d u r i n g performance of  now be c o n s i d e r e d .  among t h e m i x e d g r o u p w e r e  the  face-to-face  Table  taken  Lego t a s k ;  Table 8 Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s of  Conversational Activity  f o r T u r n - b a s e d Measures  by M i x e d - g r o u p T a s k Task  Variable Total  COMl  COM2  DIS  LEG1  LEG2  Mean SD  Mean SD  Mean SD  Mean SD  Mean SD  turns  dyad teacher learner  75.83 15.87 39.00 7.72 36.83 8.23  81.17 15.37 42.00 8.07 39.17 7.36  73.33* 21.06 36.67* 10.63 36.67* 10.48  82.67 9.83 40.67 3.27 40.33 4.27  91.50** 29.66 48.00** 14.31 43.33** 15.85  11.91** 3.35 18.09** 5.51 5.26 2.28  10.49 2.87 16.47 5.15 4.02 1. 03  11.90 3.78 13.47 6.05 10.37** 2.31  9.14* 1.48 12.92* 2.17 5.55 1.02  10.55 4.60 16.21 6.37 3.98* 1.74  1.90 .40 1.86 . 32 1.95 . 53  1.68* .28 1.68* .42 1.76 .29  WPT dyad teacher learner UPT dyad teacher learner  **  1.86 .49 1.93 .53 1.78 .47  h i g h e s t mean among f i v e  2.00 . 16 2.29 .26 1. 6 9 * .14  tasks;  tasks.  112  *  l o w e s t mean among  2.28** .83 2.74** .63 2.01** .90  five  fewest were taken d u r i n g the d i s c u s s i o n t a s k  (Dyad:  v s . 73.33; Teacher: 48.00 v s . 36.67; Learner: 3 6.67).  Learners took t h e i r l o n g e s t t u r n s  91.50  43.33 v s .  (WPT)  during  d i s c u s s i o n , however, w h i l e t e a c h e r s took t h e i r s d u r i n g performance of C0M1. found  O v e r a l l , v e r y s m a l l d i f f e r e n c e s were  among the t a s k s at the dyadic l e v e l .  measure of t u r n l e n g t h , was  UPT,  another  g e n e r a l l y at i t s h i g h e s t  level  d u r i n g LEG2 (Lego c o n s t r u c t e d f a c e - t o - f a c e ) and a t i t s lowest  l e v e l d u r i n g LEG1  although  (Lego c o n s t r u c t e d  back-to-back),  l e a r n e r s were more l i k e l y t o make the  u t t e r a n c e s per t u r n when undertaking demonstration  fewest  the computer  (COM2).  The homogeneous group g e n e r a l l y d i f f e r e d from the mixed group on t h e turn-based  measures (Table 9 ) .  d i f f e r e n c e s between groups were found t u r n s and WPT.  The  clearest  i n averages f o r t o t a l  The homogeneous group, f o r example, took i t s  g r e a t e s t number of t u r n s d u r i n g LEG1  (with LEG2 the  of most t u r n s f o r the mixed group).  Although  source  teachers i n  both groups demonstrated a common low average frequency UPT  i n the back-to-back Lego t a s k  and  1.98  (1.68  f o r the homogeneous group),  for  f o r the mixed group  l e a r n e r s i n the  groups d i f f e r e d as t o t h e i r p r o d u c t i o n of u t t e r a n c e s .  two UPT  means f o r the mixed group of l e a r n e r s were h i g h e s t d u r i n g COM1.  Homogeneous group l e a r n e r s , on the o t h e r hand  produced t h e i r h i g h e s t average number of u t t e r a n c e s per t u r n during  C0M1.  I n s p e c t i o n of the t a b l e s r e v e a l s one p o i n t o f 113  s i m i l a r i t y between groups which o c c u r r e d  i n many o f t h e  o t h e r measures o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y , teachers' preference  namely t h e  f o r t a l k d u r i n g COMl and t h e l e a r n e r s '  Table 9 Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s f o r Turn-based Measures o f Conversational A c t i v i t y  by Homogeneous-group Task Task  Variable Total  COMl  COM2  DIS  LEG1  LEG2  Mean SD  Mean SD  Mean SD  Mean SD  Mean SD  turns  dyad teacher learner WPT dyad teacher learner UPTi dyad teacher learner  54.17* 24.98 27.83* 12.38 26.33* 12.61  72. 67 13.92 37.00S 7.40 35.33 6.74  77.83 23.76 39.83 12 .48 37.83 11.27  87.33** 14.42 43.00** 6.78 43.67** 8.36  71.17 10.81 37.33 5.68 33 .83 5.34  19.15 13.08 25.40** 18.98 11.35 5.94  10.23 2.77 15.49 5.68 4.83 1.21  11.12** 5.52 10.75* 2.90 11.38** 9.27  8.34* 1.56 12.67 2.75 4.07 1.72  10.56 1.43 16.99 3.10 3.55' .90  2.71 1.22 2.73 1.37 2.69** 1.27  h i g h e s t mean among f i v e  2.29 .49 2 . 68 .78 1.92 .44  2.13 1.01 2.31 1.28 1.94 .78  1.81** .31 1.98* .33 1.66* .34  2.69 .51 3.32 .60 2.00 .53  t a s k s ; * lowest mean among f i v e  tasks. 114  p r e f e r e n c e f o r talk, d u r i n g DIS, r e l a t i v e l y h i g h l e v e l s of t a l k  T a b l e s 8 and 9 show these ( r e l a t i v e t o t a l k i n other  t a s k s ) i n the form of words u t t e r e d per t u r n .  Learners i n  both groups produced t h e i r l a r g e s t average number o f WPT t h e d i s c u s s i o n t a s k , DIS, produced t h e i r s d u r i n g The  whereas t e a c h e r s i n both groups  C0M1.  scope and s i g n i f i c a n c e of t a s k and  d i f f e r e n c e s w i l l now  on  be summarized.  group  Unlike the preceding  d e s c r i p t i v e s e c t i o n , the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s r e p o r t r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d from a n a l y s e s of v a r i a n c e on v a l u e s f o r r e p a i r r e f e r e n c e and e v a l u a t e the extent t o which t h e support the hypotheses.  and  results  No d e t a i l e d examination  o f the  means and standard d e v i a t i o n s w i l l be p r e s e n t e d here  (see  Appendix K f o r the complete l i s t i n g by dyad, t e a c h e r  and  learner).  Although  o c c a s i o n a l r e f e r e n c e w i l l be made t o  t e a c h e r - l e a r n e r d i f f e r e n c e s , the fundamental u n i t of a n a l y s i s w i l l be the dyad. The A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e : R e p a i r by Group and I n d i v i d u a l Task (H1-H2) HI:  The  frequency  of r e p a i r i n dyads does not v a r y  s i g n i f i c a n t l y by group membership or type of t a s k performed. Among the 12 r e p a i r exponents (REs) s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s f o r task:  t e s t e d , 10 showed  clarification  request,  comprehension check, c o n f i r m a t i o n check, d e f i n i t i o n , d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n , echo, l e x i c a l u n c e r t a i n t y , r e f e r e n t i a l s e l f - e x p a n s i o n and other-expansion.  Two  question,  (other-expansion  and o t h e r - r e p e t i t i o n ) showed no e f f e c t s f o r group or t a s k . 115  No s i g n i f i c a n t noted. of  i n t e r a c t i o n s between group and t a s k were  The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s f o r t a s k i s thus r e j e c t e d f o r 10  12 REs a t E < .025  p_ > .025.  and accepted f o r the remaining two a t  The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s i s accepted f o r the  f a c t o r a t p_ > .025.  group  The t a b l e s and f i g u r e s which f o l l o w  d e s c r i b e these r e s u l t s i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l . C l a r i f i c a t i o n Request; A t r e n d towards a s i g n i f i c a n t  CCLAR  e f f e c t f o r group  noted f o r CCLAR (F = 5.172, d f = 1, p_ = .046, Table  was  > .025).  At  10  E f f e c t s of Group Membership and Task on  Clarification  Requests Source o f variation  df  Sum of squares  Mean square  Group Error Task G x T Error  1 10 4 4 40  40.017 77.367 101.900 15.233 180.467  40.017 7.737 25.475 3 .808 4.512  F  Epsil. corr.  p_  5.172  .046  5.646 .844  .001* .506  * p_ < . 025 . the same time c l e a r d i f f e r e n c e s between t a s k s were i n d i c a t e d (F = 5.646, d f = 4, p_ = .001), w i t h s i g n i f i c a n t (p_ < .05)  differences  noted s p e c i f i c a l l y between d i s c u s s i o n on the  one  hand and the two Lego t a s k s on the other, and between the f i r s t computer t a s k (COM1) and back-to-back  Lego.  The Lego  t a s k s comprise the c e n t r a l source f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n r e q u e s t s among the f i v e t a s k s .  F i g u r e 4 d e p i c t s these d i f f e r e n c e s i n 116  7  * = Mixed o = Homogeneous  6 Range of Means f o r DV: CCLAR  5 4 3 2 1 0  l_  Task:  COMl  F i g u r e 4.  COM2  DIS  LEG1  LEG2  P l o t o f means by t a s k f o r CCLAR.  Comprehension Check: CCOM T a b l e 11 i n d i c a t e s a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t f o r t a s k T a b l e 11 E f f e c t s o f Group Membership and Task on Comprehension Checks Source o f variation  df  Sum o f squares  Mean square  Group Error Task G x T Error  1 10 4 4 40  .26 70.87 184.43 17.567 638.867  .26 7.09 46.11 4.39 15.972  p_ .038 11.191 1.066  .850 .001* .386  * p < .025. (E = .001) d u r i n g comprehension checks, a r e p a i r type  117  Epsil, corr.  .57  employed almost e x c l u s i v e l y by the t e a c h e r s i n both  groups.  C o n t r a s t s between a l l t a s k means showed t h a t CCOM was s i g n i f i c a n t l y more f r e q u e n t l y (p_ < .05) back Lego t a s k than i t was t a s k s , as i s i l l u s t r a t e d 6 5 Range of Means f o r DV: CCOM  d u r i n g the  used  back-to-  d u r i n g any of the f o u r o t h e r  i n Figure  5.  * = Mixed o = Homogeneous  4 3 2 1 0 -1  Task:  I. C0M1  F i g u r e 5.  .1.  .1. COM2  l_  DIS  LEG 2  LEG1  P l o t o f means by t a s k f o r CCOM.  C o n f i r m a t i o n Check: CCON Although  the magnitude of d i f f e r e n c e s between t a s k s i s  v i r t u a l l y the same f o r both comprehension checks confirmation requests p_ = .001  and  ( r e s p e c t i v e l y , F = 11.191, df = 4,  F = 11.680, df = 4, p = .001), the major  source o f v a r i a n c e w i t h i n CCON (Table 12) face  and  ( r a t h e r than back-to-back) Lego t a s k .  i s the f a c e - t o LEG2 i s  s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from a l l o t h e r t a s k s a t p_ < .05 from a l l t a s k s except  LEG1  a t p < .01.  It i s also  i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t group means were v i r t u a l l y 118  and  interesting  t o note t h a t group means were v i r t u a l l y  T a b l e 12 Effect  o f Group Membership and Task on C o n f i r m a t i o n  Source o f variation  df  Sum o f squares  Mean square  Group Error Task G x T Error  1 10 4 4 40  6. 017 339.633 746.167 32.567 638.867  6. 017 33.963 186.542 8.142 15.972  Checks Epsil.  F .177  . 683  11.680 .510  .001* .729  * p_ < . 025. identical CCON.  f o r each o f the two Lego t a s k s f o r both CCOM and  F i g u r e 6 shows t h e r e l a t i v e l y h i g h l e v e l o f  c o n f i r m a t i o n checks d u r i n g performance o f LEG2.  Task: F i g u r e 6.  COMl  COM2  DIS  P l o t o f means by t a s k f o r CCON.  119  LEG1  LEG2  T a b l e 13 shows t h a t within-group differences  (i.e.,  task)  f o r d e f i n i t i o n a l s o reached s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l s  (F = 3.434, d f = 4, p_ = .017),  l a r g e l y through t h e  T a b l e 13  Source o f variation  df  Group Error Task G x T Error  1 10 4 4 40  Sum o f squares  Mean square  2.817 14.833 15.567 3.100 45.333  2.817 1.483 3.892 .775 1.133  Epsil corr.  F  p_  1.899  . 198  3.434 .684  .017* .607  .61  * p_ < .025. contribution  o f t e a c h e r s i n both groups d u r i n g t h e  d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e computer's s t r i n g s e a r c h f u n c t i o n As F i g u r e 7, f o l l o w i n g ,  Task: F i g u r e 7.  COMl  indicates, the differences  COM2  DIS  LEG1  (COMl).  between  LEG2  P l o t o f means by t a s k f o r DDEF.  t h i s t a s k and, r e s p e c t i v e l y ,  discussion 120  and back-to-back  t h i s t a s k and, r e s p e c t i v e l y , d i s c u s s i o n and back-to-back Lego were r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e and, f o l l o w i n g p a i r w i s e comparisons o f means, s i g n i f i c a n t  (p < .05).  Although  d e f i n i t i o n s were employed i n f r e q u e n t l y , they o c c u r r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more f r e q u e n t l y d u r i n g C0M1 than d u r i n g e i t h e r DIS o r LEG2. D i s p l a y Question: DDQ Tasks a r e c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d i n T a b l e 14 by t h e frequency o f d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s p_ = .001).  (F = 23.220, d f = 4,  O v e r a l l , DDQs were most l i k e l y t o occur d u r i n g  COM2, t h e f a c e - t o - f a c e demonstration  o f t h e computer's  T a b l e 14 E f f e c t s o f Group Membership and Task on D i s p l a y Questions Source o f variation  df  Sum o f squares  Mean square  Group Error Task G x T Error  1 10 4 4 40  11.267 99.733 834.233 44.900 359.267  11.267 9.973 208.558 11.225 8.982  Epsil.  F  P  1 .130  . 313  23 .220 1 .250  .001* . 306  * E < .025. s t r i n g search function.  As F i g u r e 8 shows, COM2 served as  the p i v o t a l source o f s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between t a s k s , a l t h o u g h C0M1 was found t o be a secondary d i f f e r e n c e s between t a s k s .  source o f  These two t a s k s were  s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from t h e o t h e r s o f t h e frequency o f d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s . 121  (p < .01) i n terms  Echo: A significant examining  the frequency  p_ = . 0 0 5 ) . Table  effect  For both  EECH  f o r t a s k was a l s o  of echoes  f o u n d when  (F = 4 . 4 5 5 ,  g r o u p s EECH was l e a s t  d f = 4,  frequent  during  15  Effects  o f Group  M e m b e r s h i p and T a s k on E c h o e s  Source of variation  df  Sum o f squares  Mean square  Group Error Task G x T Error  1 10 4 4 40  5.400 183.000 224.667 30.600 504.333  5.400 18.300 56.167 7. 650 12.608  F .295 4.455 . 607  E .599 . 005* . 660  = p_ < . 0 2 5 . f r e e d i s c u s s i o n a n d most  frequent during 122  t h e computer  tasks.  However, as F i g u r e 9 i n d i c a t e s i t was t h e d i f f e r e n c e between COM1  and COM2 on the one hand and DIS on t h e o t h e r which  served as t h e major sources  of variance  Lexical Uncertainty:  (significant at £ <  LLEX  L e x i c a l u n c e r t a i n t y was most f r e q u e n t l y expressed  by  p a r t i c i p a n t s i n both groups d u r i n g f r e e d i s c u s s i o n ; i t was least  l i k e l y t o be expressed  demonstration  d u r i n g the computer  (COM2) and f a c e - t o - f a c e Lego (LEG2) t a s k s .  A l l t a s k d i f f e r e n c e s taken t o g e t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t  f o r task  (Table 16) i n d i c a t e d a  (F = 8.016, d f = 4,  p_ = .001) .  123  T a b l e 16 E f f e c t s o f Group Membership and Task on L e x i c a l U n c e r t a i n t y Source o f variation  df  Group Error Task G X T Error  1 10 4 4 40  Sum o f squares 2.817 30.967 71.767 9.100 89.533  Mean square  F  2.817 3.097 17.942 2.275 2.238  p_  Epsil. corr.  .910 .363 8.016 .001* 1.016 .411  .51  * p_ < .025. Post hoc p a i r w i s e comparisons between means (Figure 10) i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e e f f e c t was a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e c o n t r a s t s between DIS and t h e two t a s k s which e n t a i l e d manipulation of objects:  LEG2 and COM2.  Task:  COM2  F i g u r e 10.  COMl  face-to-face  These  DIS  differences  LEG1  LEG2  P l o t o f means by t a s k f o r LLEX.  were s i g n i f i c a n t a t p < .01. S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s a t  124  p_ < .01 were a l s o found between C0M1 and LEG2. Other-expansion: OOEXP Other-repetition:  OOREP  N e i t h e r t a s k nor group e f f e c t s were noted f o r OOEXP (Table 17) and established  OOREP (Table 18) f o l l o w i n g t h e c r i t e r i o n  f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e (p_ < .025), a l t h o u g h r e s u l t s  f o r OOREP suggested a p o s s i b l e t r e n d towards s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r t a s k (F = 2.208, d f = 4, p_ = .085).  S i n c e no  s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found f o r these RE's, no s p e c i f i c examination w i l l be made o f t h e means. T a b l e 17 E f f e c t s o f Group Membership and Task on Other-expansion Source o f variation  df  Sum o f squares  Mean square  Group Error Task G x T Error  1 10 4 4 40  18.150 236.700 44.400 27.600 366.800  18.150 23.670 11.100 6.900 9.170  F  p_  .767  .402  1.210 .752  .322 .562  Epsil. corr.  .70  T a b l e 18 E f f e c t s o f Group Membership and Task on O t h e r - r e p e t i t o n Source o f variation  df  Sum o f squares  Mean square  Group Error Task G X T Error  1 10 4 4 40  20.41 388.83 100.90 28.500 457.000  20.417  .525  .485  25.225 7.125 11.425  2.208 .624  .085 .648  125  F  p_  Epsil, corr.  .66  R e f e r e n t i a l Question: RRQ Table  19 shows an e f f e c t  f o r task  = 4 , p_ = .001) which i s r e f l e c t e d  (F = 11.920, d f  i n t h e d i f f e r e n c e between  the r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l number o f RRQ's d u r i n g computer instruction  (COMl, COM2) and t h e r e l a t i v e l y h i g h  number  T a b l e 19 E f f e c t s o f Group Membership and Task on R e f e r e n t i a l Questions Source o f variation  df  Sum o f squares  Mean square  Group Error Task G x T Error  1 10 4 4 40  12.150 204.700 1347.567 60.767 1130.467  12.150 20.470 336.892 15.192 28.262  F .594 11.920 .538  E .459 . 001* .709  * E < .025. during n o n - i n s t r u c t i o n a l tasks  (DIS, LEG1, LEG2).  Comparison among t h e means i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e s i g n i f i c a n t differences and  (p_ < .05) l i e between each o f t h e computer t a s k s  each o f DIS, LEG2 and LEG1 (the sequence here  indicating  s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between means from h i g h e s t t o lowest).  A similar pattern of s i g n i f i c a n t differences  appeared a t p_ < .01, although  s p e c i f i c comparisons between  COM2 and LEG1/LEG2 were not s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h i s l e v e l . graph o f t h e means  A  (Figure 11) r e v e a l s t h a t t h e p a t t e r n f o r  RRQ was a v i r t u a l m i r r o r image o f t h e p a t t e r n f o r DDQ a s i g n i f i c a n t concentration of r e f e r e n t i a l questions 126  (i.e.,  during  the non-teaching t a s k s ) .  S e l f - e x p a n s i o n : SSEXP The r a t e o f s e l f - e x p a n s i o n v a r i e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y by task  (F = 3.167, d f = 4, p_ = .024) but not by group, as  T a b l e 20 E f f e c t s o f Group Membership and Task on S e l f - e x p a n s i o n Source o f variation  df  Sum o f squares  Mean square  Group Error Task G x T Error  1 10 4 4 40  570. 417 2846. 433 599. 567 406. 167 1893. 067  570.417 284.643 149.892 101.542 47.327  * p_ < . 025. 127  F  p_  2. 004  .187  3. 167 2. 146  .024* .093  Epsil. corr.  T a b l e 20 shows.  A t r e n d towards the i n t e r a c t i o n of group  and t a s k which d i d not reach s i g n i f i c a n c e was C l o s e r i n s p e c t i o n of the means ( F i g u r e 12)  Task:  COMl  F i g u r e 12. f a i r l y low  COM2  also  observed.  indicates a  DIS  LEG1  LEG2  P l o t of means by t a s k f o r SSEXP. frequency  f o r SSEXP by t a s k except  f o r LEG2,  and,  i n p a r t i c u l a r , the response of the mixed group t o LEG2. Although  the performance of the mixed dyads produced a  s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e (p < .05)  between DIS  and LEG2, no  o t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the means f o r s e l f r e p e t i t i o n by t a s k were found. S e l f - r e p e t i t i o n : SSREP T a b l e 21 shows t h a t the occurrence d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y by t a s k p = .001) task.  of  self-repetition  (F = 7.829, d f =  4,  but not by group or the i n t e r a c t i o n of group  and  U n l i k e the s i g n i f i c a n t l y frequent use of SSEXP d u r i n g  f a c e - t o - f a c e Lego, however, i t was  the r e l a t i v e l y  infrequent  use of SSREP d u r i n g o r d i n a r y d i s c u s s i o n which served as 128  the  source  of the e f f e c t f o r task.  A l l dyads employed  T a b l e 21 E f f e c t s o f Group Membership and Task on S e l f - r e p e t i t i o n Source o f variation  df  Sura o f squares  Mean square  Group Error Task G x T Error  1 10 4 4 40  26.667 1562.867 1964.667 488.667 2509.467  26.777 156.287 491.167 122.167 62.737  F  P.  .171 7.829 1.947  Epsil.  .688 . 001* . 121  * p_ < .025. s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s f r e q u e n t l y d u r i n g DIS than d u r i n g LEG2, f o l l o w e d by COM1 and then COM2 (p_ < .01). F i g u r e 13 i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p 40 Range of Means f o r DV: SSREP  among t h e t a s k s .  * = Mixed o = Homogeneous  30  20  10 Task:  COM1  COM2  DIS  LEG1  LEG2  F i g u r e 13. P l o t o f means by t a s k f o r SSREP. T a b l e 22 summarizes a l l s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s those  (i.e.,  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h task) by RE and d e t a i l s t h e major  129  sources o f v a r i a n c e w i t h i n each e f f e c t .  Sources  are l i s t e d  by t h e magnitude o f d i f f e r e n c e between means, from l a r g e t o small.  Thus, f o r each RE, t h e l a r g e s t d i f f e r e n c e between  two means i s l i s t e d  first,  f o l l o w e d by t h e next l a r g e s t , and  so on u n t i l t h e s m a l l e s t s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i s encountered. As t h e t a b l e i n d i c a t e s , d e f i n i t i o n s , d i s p l a y  questions  and echoes were a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e dayds• performance o f the two t e a c h i n g t a s k s , COMl and COM2.  The main sources f o r  p r o d u c t i o n o f c l a r i f i c a t i o n r e q u e s t s , comprehension c o n f i r m a t i o n checks,  checks,  expressions of l e x i c a l uncertainty,  r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s and s e l f - and other-expansions, o t h e r hand, were t h e non-teaching  on t h e  t a s k s , DIS, LEG1 and LEG2.  DIS was t h e primary s e t t i n g f o r p r o d u c t i o n o f r e f e r e n t i a l T a b l e 22 S i g n i f i c a n t R e p a i r Exponents and Sources  of Variance f o r A l l  Tasks Main sources o f v a r i a n c e Repair exponent  F ratio  E  Clarification request  5. 646  . 001  LEG1 > DIS LEG2 > DIS  LEG1  > DIS  Comprehension check  11.191  . 001  LEG1 LEG1 LEG1 LEG1  LEG1 LEG1 LEG1 LEG1  > DIS > LEG2 > COM2 > COMl  E < .05  > DIS > LEG2 > COM2 > COMl  p_ < .01  t a b l e continues  130  Table  22  (cont'd.)  Significant  Repair  Exponents  and S o u r c e s o f  Variance  for  All  Tasks Main Repair exponent  F ratio  Confirmation check  11 . 680  E  < . 05  E  . 001  sources of  LEG2 LEG2 LEG2 LEG2  > > > >  variance  E  DIS COM2 COM1 LEG1  < .01  LEG2 > DIS LEG2 > COM2 LEG2 > COM1  — — —  3 .434  . 017  C0M1 C0M1  > LEG2 > DIS  23 .220  . 001  COM2 COM2 COM2 COM2 COM1  > > > > >  Echo  4 .455  . 005  COM2 C0M1  > DIS > DIS  Lexical uncertainty  8 . 016  . 001  DIS :> :LEG2 DIS :> iCOM2 COM1 > LEG2 C0M1 > COM2  DIS > LEG2 DIS > COM2 COM1 > LEG2 COM1 > COM2  '. 001  DIS : COM1 DIS :> COM2 LEG2 > COM1 LEG 2 > COM2 LEG1 > COM1 LEG1 > COM2  DIS > COM1 DIS > COM2 LEG2 > COM1  Definition Display question  Referential question  11 .920  LEG1 LEG2 DIS COM1 LEG1  Selfexpansion  3 . 167  . 024  LEG 2  > DIS  Selfrepetition  7 .829  . 001  LEG2 COM1 COM2  > DIS > DIS > DIS  questions  and e x p r e s s i o n s  b y LEG1 and L E G 2 ) ,  whereas  of  lexical  in  > > > > >  COM2 > COM1 >  LEG1 LEG2 DIS COM1 LEG1 DIS DIS  — — —  LEG1 > COM1  LEG2 > COM1 > COM2 >  uncertainty  LEG1 and L E G 2 , 131  COM2 COM2 COM2 COM2 COM1  DIS DIS DIS  (followed  particular,  were primary  sources  for clarification  comprehension checks, other-repetition.  c o n f i r m a t i o n checks,  and  These r e s u l t s apply t o the  performances of both groups of dyads: the t a s k s was  requests, self-  and  task  R e p a i r of t a l k d u r i n g  not s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o the f a c t t h a t  h a l f of the groups were l e d by n a t i v e speakers  of E n g l i s h  and h a l f by Japanese. H2:  The  frequency  of r e f e r e n c e i n dyads does not  vary  s i g n i f i c a n t l y by e i t h e r group membership or t a s k performed. Both types of r e f e r e n c e , anaphora and exophora, showed s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s f o r task.  As i n the case of r e p a i r ,  e f f e c t s f o r group and none f o r the i n t e r a c t i o n of group t a s k were s i g n i f i c a n t . hypothesis accepted  With r e s p e c t t o t a s k , the  (Table 23)  and  null  i s thus r e j e c t e d f o r r e f e r e n c e a t p_ < .025  f o r group (at p > .025).  no  and  T a b u l a r r e s u l t s f o r each  ANOVA, one  f o r anaphora  and one  f o r exohpora  (Table 24)  as the dependent v a r i a b l e s , are p r e s e n t e d  below.  A s i n g l e g r a p h i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t a s k means f o r both  of  these v a r i a b l e s however, i s a l s o presented  and  ( F i g u r e 14)  i s i n t e n d e d t o i l l u s t r a t e the complementary a l l o c a t i o n of both  forms o f r e f e r e n c e d u r i n g each of the t a s k s . Anaphora: AANA Although  a t r e n d towards group d i f f e r e n c e s i n the  o f anaphora i s i n d i c a t e d i n Table 23, t a s k was < .025).  significant COMl was  o n l y the e f f e c t f o r  (F = 3.178, df = 4, p_ =  .023,  the source of l e a s t anaphora, LEG1  132  use  the  Table  23  Effects  o f Group M e m b e r s h i p and T a s k on A n a p h o r i c R e f e r e n c e  Source of variation  df  Sum o f squares  Mean square  Group Error Task G x T Error  1 10 4 4 40  735.000 1791.933 2529.167 518.833 7936.400  735.000 179.193 632.292 129.708 198.410  * p_ <  E  4.102  .070  3 .178 . 654  .023* . 628 . 69  .025.  greatest;  differences  were s i g n i f i c a n t  (p_ <  between  t h e means f o r t h e s e  Whereas AANA showed a t r e n d  EEXO towards  group  EEXO was e m p l o y e d by d y a d s i n b o t h g r o u p s t o a identical  degree  during the f i v e  nearly  tasks.  o f G r o u p M e m b e r s h i p and T a s k on E x o p h o r i c R e f e r e n c e  Source of variation  df  Group Error Task G x T Error  1 10 4 4 40  Sum o f squares  Mean square  . 067 .533 .667 . 600 . 133  . 067 71.053 5884.917 98.400 122.328  710 23539 393 4893  F  p_  .001 48.108 .804  Epsil. corr.  .976 .001* .530 .51  .025.  Significant -  (F = .001)  differences,  24  Effects  * E <  tasks  .05). Exophora:  Table  Epsil. corr.  Z  48.108,  differences  d f = 4,  were f o u n d between  p = .001).  Moreover,  133  tasks,  however  extreme v a l u e s  for  (F  exophora were achieved  i n the two Lego t a s k s , t h e h i g h e s t  mean f o r EEXO d u r i n g f a c e - t o - f a c e Lego and t h e lowest back-to-back Lego.  during  These extremes served as p o l e s f o r t h e  o t h e r t a s k s : S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between means f o r LEG2 and  a l l o t h e r t a s k s , and between LEG1 and t h e o t h e r t a s k s ,  were noted  (p < .01).  R e l a t i o n s h i p s between means f o r AANA and EEXO a r e presented  i n g r a p h i c form t o g e t h e r  i n F i g u r e 14. F i g u r e 14  i n d i c a t e s t h a t as one form o f r e f e r e n c e i n c r e a s e d i n frequency,  t h e o t h e r tended t o decrease.  major source  (But see LEG2, a  o f both forms o f r e f e r e n c e , f o r t h e e x c e p t i o n  t o t h i s trend.)  Thus, anaphora i s a t a h i g h l e v e l  relative  t o exophora d u r i n g COMl, t h e l e c t u r e about t h e computer 60 50  = = = =  Mixed/AANA Homogeneous/AANA Mixed/EEXO Homogeneous/EEXO  40 Range of Means f o r DV: AANA, EEXO  30 20 10  .1. Task: F i g u r e 14.  COMl  COM2  DIS  LEG1  LEG2  P l o t o f means by group and t a s k f o r AANA and  EEXO  134  search function.  These p o s i t i o n s change d u r i n g COM2, t h e  computer demonstration,  so t h a t anaphora becomes s l i g h t l y -  l e s s f r e q u e n t , on t h e average  d u r i n g COM2.  LEG2, t h e o n l y o t h e r t a s k b e s i d e s COM2 which e n t a i l e d s e e i n g and p o i n t i n g out o b j e c t s , boosted t h e frequency o f both exophora and anaphora.  Exophora was generated  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more f r e q u e n t l y d u r i n g f a c e - t o - f a c e Lego than d u r i n g any o f t h e o t h e r t a s k s .  Anaphora, moreover,  o c c u r r e d a t r o u g h l y t h e same l e v e l s i n both LEG2 and LEG1, a l t h o u g h homogeneous dyads working through t h e back-to-back Lego t a s k used anaphoric r e f e r e n c e a t a somewhat g r e a t e r frequency than t h e i r mixed-dyad c o u n t e r p a r t s , thus making LEGl a r e l a t i v e l y more f r e q u e n t source o f a n a p h o r i c r e f e r e n c e than COM2 T a b l e 25 summarizes a l l s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s by c a t e g o r y T a b l e 25 S i g n i f i c a n t Reference All  C a t e g o r i e s and Sources  of Variance f o r  Tasks Main sources o f v a r i a n c e  Reference category  F_ r a t i o  Anaphora  3.187  Exophora  48.108  p_  p. < .05  .023  LEGl > COM2  . 001  LEG2 LEG2 LEG2 LEG2 COM2 COM2 COM2  135  LEGl DIS COMl COM2 LEGl DIS COMl  p_ < .01  LEG2 LEG2 LEG2 LEG2 COM2 COM2 COM2  > LEGl > DIS > COMl > COM2 > LEGl > DIS > COMl  of  r e f e r e n c e and l i s t s the major sources of v a r i a n c e w i t h i n  each e f f e c t .  As i n the case of r e p a i r , these sources are  l i s t e d by the magnitude of d i f f e r e n c e between means, from large to small. The A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e : R e p a i r and Reference i n Groups During Combined and S e l e c t e d Tasks The f o l l o w i n g r e s u l t s are based on two treatments of the d a t a designed t o compare t a s k s on the b a s i s of t h e i r e x p e r i e n t i a l and e x p o s i t o r y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  The  first  treatment combined and then averaged LEG2 and COM2, the  two  t a s k s which a l l o w e d p a r t i c i p a n t s t o observe and p o i n t out o b j e c t s i n t h e i r immediate environment,  into a  new  independent v a r i a b l e d e s i g n a t e d , f o r purposes of a n a l y s i s , as E X P E R 1 — t h e e x p e r i e n t i a l t a s k c a t e g o r y . compared w i t h C0M1,  EXPER1 was  the o n l y t a s k c a t e g o r y which d i d not  a l l o w p a r t i c i p a n t s t o observe and p o i n t out o b j e c t s i n the c o n v e r s a t i o n a l environment of  and which r e q u i r e d the t e a c h i n g  f u n c t i o n a l procedures a b s t r a c t l y , t h a t i s , w i t h o u t d i r e c t  e x p e r i e n c e w i t h the o b j e c t of i n s t r u c t i o n .  C0M1  was  re-  d e s i g n a t e d as EXPOS1—the e x p o s i t o r y t a s k — f o r purposes the a n a l y s i s .  T h i s treatment of the data w i l l be  of  referred  t o below as EXPER-EXP0S1. DIS,  the f r e e d i s c u s s i o n t a s k , and LEG1,  information-exchange task, were dropped Although LEG1  a non-teaching  from the a n a l y s i s .  c o u l d have been used as the e x p o s i t o r y stem i n  t h e EXPER-EXPOS treatment of the data o u t l i n e d above, i t was 136  a relatively (Table  25)  source of  unimpressive source of  expository  Nevertheless, the  reference  and r e m a i n e d c o n c e p t u a l l y l e s s i n t e r e s t i n g  d i r e c t e d towards  of  anaphoric  the  activity  than  teaching of  COMl,  a task  cognitive  results  largely  knowledge.  L E G l was u s e d i n a s u p p l e m e n t a r y  EXPER-EXPOS d i m e n s i o n , t h e  as a  exploration  of which  are  s u m m a r i z e d i n A p p e n d i x H. The s e c o n d t r e a t m e n t o f a n d COMl ( r e - d e s i g n a t e d , for  to  s i m p l y s e l e c t e d LEG2  influence  This treatment of  a s EXPER2 a n d EXPOS2)  of  the  the  remaining  three  data w i l l  be  referred  c o m b i n i n g and s e l e c t i n g t a s k s  in  these  and e x p o s i t o r y  tasks  a s EXPER-EXPOS2 One o b j e c t  ways was t o differ  of  e x a m i n e how e x p e r i e n t i a l  when a t e a c h i n g o r i e n t a t i o n  experiential is  data  respectively,  comparison without the  task variables.  the  not,  task,  EXPER-EXPOS2) designed to Repair H3:  through c r e a t i o n  through use of  employing each s e t are  test  of  EXPER2. task  reported the  together  significantly  results.  each s e t  Significant  experiential  of  (EXPER-EXPOS1 and were  hypotheses.  more f r e q u e n t l y  activity  than  (H3) during  during  activity.  (p < .05)  similar  between  and e x p o s i t o r y t a s k s were s h a r e d b y E X P E R -  137  it  ANOVAs  o f ANOVAs p r o d u c e d v e r y  differences  the  and when  and E x p o s i t o r y A c t i v i t y  t a s k s which emphasize e x p o s i t o r y general,  EXPER1,  into  inasmuch as t h e y  same d i r e c t i o n a l  occurs  integrated  The r e s u l t s  t a s k s which emphasize e x p e r i e n t i a l  In  of  categories  During E x p e r i e n t i a l Repair  is  EXP0S1 and EXPER-EXPOS2 on f o u r o f the twelve r e p a i r exponents ( c o n f i r m a t i o n checks,  definitions,  u n c e r t a i n t y and r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s ) .  lexical  EXPER-EXP0S1 and  EXPER-EXPOS2 a l s o shared n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t t a s k d i f f e r e n c e s f o r t h e remaining  e i g h t REs ( c l a r i f i c a t i o n  comprehension checks, expansions,  d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s , echoes,  other-  o t h e r - r e p e t i t i o n s , s e l f - e x p a n s i o n s and s e l f  repetitions).  H3 thus f i n d s o n l y l i m i t e d support, i . e . ,  w i t h r e s p e c t t o f o u r o f t h e twelve The  requests,  r e p a i r exponents.  o n l y cases o f s i g n i f i c a n t between-group d i f f e r e n c e s  ( c l a r i f i c a t i o n requests) interaction  and s i g n i f i c a n t group/task  ( s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n ) found thus f a r i n t h e a n a l y s i s  of v a r i a n c e a l s o o c c u r r e d i n both EXPER-EXP0S1 and EXPEREXP0S2.  Although  t h i s f i n d i n g does not s p e c i f i c a l l y  t o H3, i t does suggest  relate  some i n t e r e s t i n g d i f f e r e n c e s between  the mixed and homogeneous groups which w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n t h e next  chapter.  R e s u l t s f o r t h e two s e t s o f ANOVAs a r e summarized i n detail  i n T a b l e 26.  r e s u l t s are contained  The ANOVA t a b l e s which document these i n Appendix I ( f o r EXPER-EXP0S1) and  Appendix J ( f o r EXPER-EXPOS2). Among t h e f o u r REs which showed s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s f o r t a s k , two were more frequent d u r i n g t h e e x p e r i e n t i a l ( c o n f i r m a t i o n checks and r e f e r e n t i a l questions) more f r e q u e n t d u r i n g t h e e x p o s i t o r y t a s k s expressions  of l e x i c a l u n c e r t a i n t y ) .  138  tasks  and two were  ( d e f i n i t i o n s and  Thus, when t h e p o i n t  Table  26  Significant  Repair  Experiential Expository  Categories  and S o u r c e s o f V a r i a n c e  and E x p o s i t o r y T a s k s U s i n g COMl a s  for  the  Stem ANOVA EXPER-EXP0S1  Repair exponent  F  ratio  11. , 125  Clar. request Confirm. check  8. ,360  Definition  5. ,768  Lexical uncert.  14. ,989  Refer. question  28. ,324  Selfrep.  z  E  ratio  E  .05  .01  . 019  M > H M > H  M > H  7, .895 14. .426  . 004  E L > EY E L > EY  E L > EY  14. .426  . 004  EY > E L E L > EY  E L > EY  12, .707  . 005  EY > E L EY > E L  EY > E L EY > E L  44, .471  .001  E L > EY E L > EY  E L > EY E L > EY  . 008 .016 . 033 .003 . 003  6. ,805  . 026  8, .282  Note.  Groups: M = Mixed,  Experiential, of  EY = E x p o s i t o r y ;  differed  tasks,  on t h e  the  . 016  df  = 1 in  restricted  number o f  b a s i s of  at H at M at H at M  -—  —  EXPOS1 > M EXPER1 > H EXPOS2 • > M EXPER2 • > H  H = Homogeneous; T a s k s : E L =  c o m p a r i s o n was e n t i r e l y  expository  Main s o u r c e s of v a r i a n c e (p <)  EXPER-EXPOS2  repair  to  all  cases  experiential  exponents  and  which  t a s k was c o n s i d e r a b l y n a r r o w e d  139  from  the i n i t i a l  list  of 12.  T h i s was  the e x p e r i e n t i a l t a s k was was  j u s t as much the case when  o r i e n t e d towards t e a c h i n g as i t  when t h e e x p e r i e n t i a l t a s k c o n t a i n e d no  o r i e n t a t i o n , t h a t i s , when i t was  such  e n t i r e l y concerned w i t h  c o n s t r u c t i n g a Lego t o y . The  i n t e r a c t i o n between group and t a s k  F i g u r e 15)  i s somewhat more complex than the simple main  e f f e c t s otherwise 37 Range of Means f o r DV: SSREP  (illustrated in  noted  i n Table  26.  * = Mixed/EXPER-EXPOSl o = Homogeneous/EXPER-EXPOSl  34 31 28 25  Task:  + = Mixed/EXPER-EXP0S2 . = Homogeneous/EXPER-EXP0S2  Experiential  F i g u r e 15.  Expository  P l o t of means by group and  experiential-  e x p o s i t o r y t a s k s f o r SSREP One  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h i s p l o t i s the s i m i l a r i t y  group p a t t e r n s f o r s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n d u r i n g the tasks.  Regardless  of  experiential  of whether the e x p e r i e n t i a l t a s k  was  o r i e n t e d towards t e a c h i n g or not, dyads l e d by a Japanese t e a c h e r produced s i g n i f i c a n t l y more s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n dyads l e d by a n a t i v e speaker of E n g l i s h . l e d by n a t i v e E n g l i s h speakers  Conversely,  were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r 140  than dyads  producing  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n d u r i n g  C0M1,  the t e a c h i n g - o r i e n t e d e x p o s i t o r y t a s k , than dyads l e d by  the  Japanese speakers of E n g l i s h . Anaphoric Reference  During;  E x p e r i e n t i a l and E x p o s i t o r y A c t i v i t y H4a:  Anaphoric r e f e r e n c e occurs  (H4a)  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more  f r e q u e n t l y d u r i n g t a s k s which emphasize e x p o s i t o r y  activity  than d u r i n g t a s k s which emphasize e x p e r i e n t i a l a c t i v i t y . As noted i n the p r e v i o u s  s e c t i o n , r e s u l t s from the  a n a l y s i s o f anaphora r e j e c t e d the assumption t h a t t h e r e were no d i f f e r e n c e s between t a s k f r e q u e n c i e s . w i t h i n - s u b j e c t s f a c t o r , AANA was f r e q u e n t l y d u r i n g LEG1  Given a f i v e - t a s k  found t o occur more  than COM2.  A question  remains,  however, whether t h i s f i n d i n g a l s o extends t o the c o n t r a s t between independent v a r i a b l e s s p e c i f i c a l l y  constructed  (EXPER-EXP0S1 and EXPER-EXP0S2) t o r e f l e c t the between e x p e r i e n t i a l and e x p o s i t o r y t a s k s .  distinction  These two  o f t a s k have been a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the c o n c e p t u a l  kinds  framework  f o r the study and can be examined f u r t h e r w i t h the use  of  r e f e r e n c e i n order t o d i s t i n g u i s h between them. Comparison of EXPER1 and EXP0S1 r e v e a l e d no d i f f e r e n c e s i n the dyads although  1  use of anaphoric  reference,  a t r e n d f o r between-group d i f f e r e n c e s was  = 4.167, d f = 1, p_ = .068).  noted (F  When means f o r EXPER2 (the  uncombined, n o n - t r a i n i n g - o r i e n t e d Lego task) compared  significant  and EXPOS2 are  (Table 27), however, a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t f o r t a s k  i s observed:  F = 5.558, df = 1, p_ < .040. 141  (This d i f f e r e n c e  Table  27  Effects  o f G r o u p M e m b e r s h i p a n d S e l e c t e d T a s k s on A n a p h o r i c  Reference: Source of variation Group Error Task G x T Error  * p <  C o n t r a s t i n g : LEG2 w i t h COMl (EXPER-EXPOS2) df  Sum o f squares  Mean square  1 10 1 1 10  345.042 2667.083 392.042 77.042 705.417  345.042 266.708 392.042 77.042 70.542  Epsil. F  E  1.294  .282  5.558 1.092  .040* .321  .05  rather  c l o s e l y r e s e m b l e s t h e one r e p o r t e d  25)  for the difference  the  back-to-back  (see T a b l e  i n use of anaphoric reference  Lego and computer d e m o n s t r a t i o n  during  tasks).  * = Mixed/EXPER-EXPOSl o = Homogeneous/EXPER-EXPOSl  46  +<— — — ,__  43 Range of Means f o r DV: AANA  above  40  :r_=-*+  37 34 31 28 Mixed/EXPER-EXPOS2 Homogeneous/EXPER-EXPOS 2  25  .1. Experiential  Task: Figure  16.  Plot  expository  tasks  Expository  o f means b y g r o u p a n d f o r AANA. 142  experiential-  Anaphora was  found t o be even more frequent d u r i n g the  experiential  t a s k than d u r i n g the e x p o s i t o r y t a s k , as i s  indicated  i n F i g u r e 16.  The  r e s u l t s are c o n s i s t e n t w i t h  those o b t a i n e d d u r i n g comparisons among the f u l l range of f i v e tasks. reported  H4a  thus f i n d s no support  from the  data  here. Exophoric Reference Experiential  H4b:  Exophoric  During  and E x p o s i t o r y A c t i v i t y  (H4b)  r e f e r e n c e occurs s i g n i f i c a n t l y more  f r e q u e n t l y d u r i n g t a s k s which emphasize e x p e r i e n t i a l a c t i v i t y than d u r i n g t a s k s which emphasize e x p o s i t o r y activity. Recalling examination  r e s u l t s f o r exophora r e p o r t e d d u r i n g  o f H2,  significant differences  were  between LEG2 and COM2 on the one hand and the t h r e e t a s k s on the o t h e r .  Indeed, although  f r e q u e n t d u r i n g the back-to-back Lego t a s k was  the  found  remaining  anaphora  was  (LEG1), exophora  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more frequent than anaphora d u r i n g t h i s  task.  As T a b l e 28 and 29 i n d i c a t e ,  obtained  f o r both s e t s of comparisons between the  experiential  and e x p o s i t o r y t a s k s :  49.258, d f = 1, p = .001; 1, E ~  s i m i l a r r e s u l t s were  For EXPER-EXP0S1, F =  f o r EXPER-EXPOS2, F = 57.794, df =  •001.  143  T a b l e 28 E f f e c t s o f Group Membership and S e l e c t e d Tasks on E x o p h o r i c Reference: C o n t r a s t i n g LEG2 and COM2 w i t h C0M1 Source o f variation  df  Sum o f squares  Mean square  Group Error Task G x T Error  1 10 1 1 10  38.760 1099.104 6224.260 213.010 1263.604  38.760 109.910 6224.260 213.010 126.360  F  *  (EXPER-EXPOS1) p_  353  Epsil. corr.  .566  49. 258 1. 686  .001* .223  1.00  * p_ < .05 T a b l e 29 E f f e c t s o f Group Membership and S e l e c t e d Tasks on E x o p h o r i c Reference: C o n t r a s t i n g LEG2 w i t h C0M1 Source o f variation  df  Sum o f squares  Mean square  Group Error Task G x T Error  1 10 1 1 10  5. 042 2451. 417 14162. 042 345. 042 2450. 417  5. 042 245. 142 345. 042 345. 042 245. 042  (EXPER-EXPOS2) F  p_  .021  .889  57. 794 1. 408  . 001 .263  Epsil. corr.  * p_ < .05 These r e s u l t s u n i f o r m l y support H y p o t h e s i s 4b.  The  c o n s i s t e n c y w i t h which t h e groups produced exophora both forms o f e x p e r i e n t i a l  task i s indicated  144  under  i n F i g u r e 17.  Mixed/EXPER-EXPOSl Homogeneous/EXPER-EXPOS1 Mixed/EXPER-EXPOS2 Homogeneous/EXPER-EXPOS2  60 Range of Means f o r DV: EEXO  50 40 30 20 10 0  Task:  Experiential  F i g u r e 17.  Expository  P l o t o f means by group and E x p e r i e n t i a l -  E x p o s i t o r y t a s k s f o r EEXO. Summary A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e was used t o t e s t f i v e hypotheses about t h e e f f e c t o f t a s k o r group on r e p a i r and r e f e r e n c e . At the i n i t i a l  l e v e l o f a n a l y s i s , i n which a l l t a s k s  were compared on each o f t h e 12 r e p a i r exponents and two forms o f r e f e r e n c e , s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between t a s k s were found f o r 10 o f t h e 12 REs (except other-expansion o t h e r - r e p e t i t i o n ) , and f o r r e f e r e n c e . i n d i c a t e d an a l l o c a t i o n o f RE t o t a s k : requests,  and  The r e s u l t s a l s o clarification  comprehension checks, c o n f i r m a t i o n checks,  expressions  of l e x i c a l uncertainty, r e f e r e n t i a l  questions,  s e l f - e x p a n s i o n s and s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s t o t h e non-teaching tasks  (DIS, LEGl, LEG2), d e f i n i t i o n s , d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s and  echoes t o t h e t e a c h i n g t a s k s  (COMl, COM2).  Both forms o f  r e f e r e n c e , anaphora and exophora, o c c u r r e d w i t h  145  greatest  frequency  i n the non-teaching t a s k s .  At the same time,  no  s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the mixed and homogeneous groups were found.  The  n u l l hypotheses, t h a t t h e r e are  s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between t a s k s i n the frequency repair  (HI) and  The two  reference  second l e v e l of a n a l y s i s focused on the e f f e c t of  e x p o s i t o r y t a s k s , on the p r o d u c t i o n Regardless teaching  task:  of  (H2), were thus r e j e c t e d .  theorized task constructs, e x p e r i e n t i a l tasks  initial  no  of r e p a i r and  o f whether the e x p e r i e n t i a l t a s k was (LEG2 + COM2) or not  list  of REs  and reference.  oriented to  (LEG2 a l o n e ) , o n l y f o u r of the  d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y on the b a s i s of  c o n f i r m a t i o n checks and r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s  (most  c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the e x p e r i e n t i a l t a s k s ) , d e f i n i t i o n s and  i n d i c a t i o n s of l e x i c a l uncertainty  (typically associated  w i t h the e x p o s i t o r y t a s k ) . S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the n a t i v e and Japanese-led  speaker-led  groups were found only f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n  r e q u e s t s , whereas the frequency  of s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n was  t o d i f f e r on the b a s i s of both group membership and The  task.  homogeneous dyads produced the g r e a t e s t amount of  r e p e t i t i o n d u r i n g the e x p e r i e n t i a l t a s k s and the  On the b a s i s of these r e s u l t s one  d i r e c t i o n a l hypotheses (H3) a l e v e l of support One supported  gained p a r t i a l support,  l i m i t e d t o f o u r of the twelve  of the d i r e c t i o n a l hypotheses (4a) was by the data; anaphora was,  146  self-  least  d u r i n g the e x p o s i t o r y t a s k ; j u s t the r e v e r s e o b t a i n e d the mixed group.  found  for  of three that i s ,  REs. not  i n f a c t , used a t a  h i g h e r mean frequency  d u r i n g one o f t h e e x p e r i e n t i a l t a s k s  ( c o n t r a r y t o t h e hypothesis)  and a t about t h e same mean  frequency  The f i n a l h y p o t h e s i s  during the other.  however, was s t r o n g l y supported groups i n both s e t s o f t a s k s .  (H4b),  by r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d  f o r both  Exophora was generated  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more o f t e n d u r i n g e x p e r i e n t i a l t a s k s than during the expository  task.  D i s c u s s i o n and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f these r e s u l t s i n Chapter 5.  147  follows  CHAPTER  5:  DISCUSSION OF THE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE This  chapter  a d i s c u s s i o n of  concludes the  a n a l y s i s of variance  r e s u l t s presented  The d i s c u s s i o n i s o r g a n i z e d i n t o research questions. "answered" is,  i n the  conditions,  this  to  a particular  for  broader background of It  reference repair  the  of  the  set  of  data  intended to  that  and r e s e a r c h  interpret  and to  the  r e s e a r c h i n SLA a n d s e c o n d l a n g u a g e  for  and r e f e r e n c e  major  been  results with reference  quantitative  and n o t ,  the  hypotheses,  s h o u l d be s t r e s s e d t h a t t h e s e  a r e b a s e d on t h e  chapter.  s e c t i o n s keyed t o  context  discussion is  suggest explanations  education.  previous  A l t h o u g h t h e s e q u e s t i o n s have  limited  with reference  i n the  through  treatment of  t h e moment,  as q u a l i t i e s  What h a s b e e n l e a r n e d  so  interpretations  repair  and  on an e x a m i n a t i o n of  spoken  of  texts.  far?  The U s e o f R e p a i r b y G r o u p a n d T a s k The G e n e r a l L a c k o f One o f lack of  the  clearest  differences  The f o r e i g n -  findings  between  in their  avoiding misunderstanding.  in this  groups i n the  approaches to T h i s i s not  groups acted i d e n t i c a l l y  differences  Differences  a n d J a p a n e s e - l e d d y a d s were  indistinguishable  that the  Group  between  which f o l l o w s  them.  examines t h e  Indeed,  study i s the use of  repair:  largely overcoming or the  same a s s a y i n g  or that there part  are  no  of the d i s c u s s i o n  few a r e a s w h i c h do seem t o  148  broad  d i s t i n g u i s h t h e groups. dyadic  However, t h e g e n e r a l p i c t u r e o f  i n t e r a c t i o n i s t h a t c u l t u r a l and language background  do not c o n s t r a i n c o n v e r s a t i o n a l r e p a i r . S p e c i f i c Group D i f f e r e n c e s Some apparent group d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h i n s p e c i f i c t a s k s , however, a r e worth examining.  As noted p r e v i o u s l y , a t r e n d  f o r o v e r a l l group d i f f e r e n c e s was found f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n requests  (F = 5.172, d f = 1, p = .0462).  Although t h e  groups produced i d e n t i c a l f r e q u e n c i e s f o r t h i s form o f r e p a i r d u r i n g d i s c u s s i o n , and v e r y s i m i l a r  frequencies  d u r i n g t h e back-to-back Lego t a s k , members o f t h e mixed dyads requested  c l a r i f i c a t i o n much more f r e q u e n t l y d u r i n g  the two t a s k s , taken t o g e t h e r , which e n t a i l e d s e t t i n g o b j e c t i v e s and t e a c h i n g use o f t h e l a p t o p computer (COMl and COM2), and t o a l e s s e r degree d u r i n g t h e f a c e - t o - f a c e problem-solving  task  (LEG2).  More p r e c i s e l y , i t was l a r g e l y  the l e a r n e r s i n t h e dyads l e d by n a t i v e speakers o f E n g l i s h who requested they  c l a r i f i c a t i o n , and they tended t o do so when  f e l t themselves t h e s u b j e c t s o f i n s t r u c t i o n .  This  r a t h e r l i m i t e d area o f group d i f f e r e n c e suggests t h a t Japanese l e a r n e r s may f e e l somewhat f r e e r t o ask t h e i r American and B r i t i s h p a r t n e r s f o r h e l p d u r i n g sessions—specifically,  instructional  f o r t h e i r partners to c l a r i f y  something not immediately u n d e r s t o o d — t h a n t o ask f o r s i m i l a r h e l p from t h e i r Japanese p a r t n e r s . One a d d i t i o n a l t r e n d towards group d i f f e r e n c e s was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s e l f - e x p a n s i o n s d u r i n g t h e f a c e - t o - f a c e Lego 149  task.  Members o f mixed-group dyads were e v i d e n t l y much more  w i l l i n g t o expand t h e i r own  conversational utterances  in  o r d e r t o c l a r i f y meaning than were members o f the Japaneseled  dyads (see F i g u r e 12,  above).  Others have a l s o noted  the impact o f e t h n i c a l l y mixed dyads on  conversational  performance (e.g., Long & P o r t e r , 1985;  Varonis  1985).  Because the t a s k i n which t h i s k i n d of d i f f e r e n c e  occurred i t may  & Gass,  allowed  both p a r t i c i p a n t s t o view the c o n s t r u c t i o n ,  be surmised t h a t t e a c h e r s  monitor the l e a r n e r ' s progress  i n both groups were a b l e t o  a c c u r a t e l y , but t h a t  the  n a t i v e t e a c h e r s were r e a d i e r than t h e i r Japanese counterparts  t o head o f f p o t e n t i a l misunderstanding by  i n c r e a s i n g the redundancy of t h e i r  utterances.  To put the i s s u e of group d i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r s p e c t i v e , however, i t should be p o i n t e d out t h a t group d i f f e r e n c e s d i d not prove s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t o v e r a l l , as p r e d i c t e d  by  the n u l l - h y p o t h e s i s , and t h a t the more important d i f f e r e n c e s are based i n the performance of t a s k s without r e g a r d group membership.  to  As noted i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n , these  d i f f e r e n c e s were almost wholly  task-based and  typically  emerged as r e p a i r s a l l o c a t e d t o e i t h e r t e a c h i n g o r  non-  teaching s i t u a t i o n s . The  R e l a t i o n s h i p of R e p a i r A l l o c a t i o n of R e p a i r  Teaching and Non-teaching The  a l l o c a t i o n of r e p a i r s t o t a s k  second major f i n d i n g o f the study. 150  and  Task:  to tasks (see Table  Repairs  22)  are not  i s the  equally  u s e f u l d u r i n g performance o f v a r i o u s t a s k s , nor a r e they e q u a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e means o f making t h e d i s c o u r s e more comprehensible.  I t i s not enough simply t o say t h a t r e p a i r  happens more o f t e n when members a r e c o o p e r a t i n g t o s o l v e a m o t i v a t i n g problem.  Although  more a c c u r a t e t o say, f i r s t ,  t h i s i s generally true, i t i s t h a t p a r t i c u l a r r e p a i r s work  b e s t i n p a r t i c u l a r environments and, second, t h a t groups w i t h d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r a l and language backgrounds appear competent a t knowing which r e p a i r s serve which t a s k s .  This  k i n d o f competence i s one o f t h e more a p p e a l i n g f e a t u r e s o f s t u d i e s i n IT which have noted t h a t NNSs can n e g o t i a t e and r e p a i r e f f e c t i v e l y i n t h e i r t a r g e t language (see, e s p e c i a l l y , P o r t e r , 1983; Doughty & P i c a , 1986). In a d d i t i o n t o r e j e c t i o n o f t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s f o r t a s k , then,  i t i s necessary  relationships: teaching tasks  to specify task/repair  d e f i n i t i o n s , echoes and d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s t o (COMl and COM2); c l a r i f i c a t i o n  comprehension checks,  c o n f i r m a t i o n checks,  expressions of  l e x i c a l uncertainty, r e f e r e n t i a l questions, and  s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n t o non-teaching  tasks  requests,  self-expansion  (DIS, LEGl and  LEG2). Some e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h i s a l l o c a t i o n o f t a s k s i s p o s s i b l e by p o s i t i n g what might be c a l l e d " r u l e s o f t a l k " f o r each o f t h e t a s k groupings.  Ordinarily,  teaching  s i t u a t i o n s r e q u i r e t e a c h e r s t o o r g a n i z e and sequence i n s t r u c t i o n a l content which they a l r e a d y possess r e l a t i v e t o the learner.  as e x p e r t s  The t e a c h e r i s expected t o 151  demonstrate  a degree o f p r e c i s i o n i n conveying t h e m a t e r i a l ,  o r a t l e a s t t o show s p e c i a l concern f o r t h e comprehensibility of the material with respect t o the learner.  L e a r n e r s a r e expected t o be a t t e n t i v e t o what t h e  t e a c h e r p r e s e n t s and t o demonstrate  this attentivenessi n  v a r i o u s ways, although, e s p e c i a l l y i n Japan,  learners are  not n o r m a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i n i t i a t i n g communication on t h e comprehensibility of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l presentation. Competent performance  on non-teaching t a s k s i s somewhat  more dependent on p a r t i c i p a n t s ' r e q u e s t i n g and o f f e r i n g evidence o f c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y than on p l a n n i n g o r a t t e n t i v e n e s s p e r se.  Problem-solving tasks, i n p a r t i c u l a r ,  r e v o l v e around mutual exchange o f i n f o r m a t i o n and f r e q u e n t checks t o determine t h e p r e s e n t s t a t u s o f t h e problem respect t o a solution.  with  P l a n n i n g and e x e c u t i o n o f t a c t i c a l  moves o c c u r w i t h i n t h e t a s k i t s e l f and depend on t h e q u a l i t y of feedback p a r t i c i p a n t s generate f o r each o t h e r from moment t o moment.  In g e n e r a l , members' r i g h t s t o manipulate t h e  discourse are d i s t r i b u t e d r e l a t i v e l y evenly  (as P i c a , 1987  has a l s o noted) although they a r e not n e c e s s a r i l y e x e r c i s e d when openings  f o r such m a n i p u l a t i o n become a v a i l a b l e .  Examples o f A l l o c a t i o n t o Teaching; Tasks:  Definition  and Echo. Given these c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s , t h e a l l o c a t i o n o f d e f i n i t i o n s and echoes t o t h e t e a c h i n g t a s k s makes some sense.  D e f i n i t i o n happens when speakers a r e concerned  the n a t u r e o f an o b j e c t and t h e importance 152  with  o f communicating  i t to a l i s t e n e r .  T h i s i s fundamentally a concern w i t h  knowledge o f concepts r a t h e r than, o r , perhaps  i n addition  t o , i n f o r m a t i o n of immediate use i n the s o l u t i o n of a problem.  Echoes unambiguously demonstrate  learner  a t t e n t i v e n e s s t o the stream of t e a c h i n g t a l k .  Echoes  appear t o have much l e s s t o do w i t h e v i n c i n g comprehension o f t h e t e a c h e r than w i t h r e a s s u r i n g the t e a c h e r t h a t the l i s t e n e r i s aware of a t o p i c as i t i s conveyed.  One  of the  l e a r n e r ' s major r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s d u r i n g c o o p e r a t i v e problems o l v i n g , on the o t h e r hand, i s t o v o l u n t e e r f r e q u e n t evidence o f understanding or t o r e q u e s t enough i n f o r m a t i o n t o p r o v i d e such evidence. d u r i n g the Lego t a s k s .  T h i s i s p r e c i s e l y what o c c u r r e d  O r d i n a r y d i s c u s s i o n , as a form o f  s o c i a l d i s c o u r s e , moreover, i s c l e a r l y and f r e q u e n t l y punctuated by evidence of a t t e n t i v e n e s s ( t y p i c a l l y i n the form o f i n a r t i c u l a t e "mm's"), although t h e r e seems t o be p r e s s i n g need t o e x p r e s s l y and c o n t i n u a l l y re-nominate  no  the  speaker's t o p i c s — s o m e t h i n g which l e a r n e r s i n both groups accomplished  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more f r e q u e n t l y i n COMl and COM2  than i n any of the o t h e r t a s k s .  Support  f o r t h i s way  of  i n t e r p r e t i n g e c h o i c b e h a v i o r i s found i n Gass and V a r o n i s (1986) who an  a l s o found t h a t echoing e v i n c e s s o l i d a r i t y w i t h  interlocutor.  A l l o c a t i o n o f Question Types t o Teaching and Tasks: D i s p l a y and R e f e r e n t i a l  Non-teaching  Questions.  I n t e r e s t i n g l y , the " p i v o t a l " forms of r e p a i r i n each of the two t a s k c a t e g o r i e s ( r e p a i r s w i t h the l a r g e s t F r a t i o s 153  and  s m a l l e s t alpha l e v e l s ) a r e t h e two b a s i c q u e s t i o n  t y p e s — d i s p l a y and r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s . l i t e r a t u r e reviewed e a r l i e r 1983;  Duff,  R e c a l l i n g the  ( i n p a r t i c u l a r Long & Sato,  1986), d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s a r e q u i n t e s s e n t i a l l y  the technique  o f t e a c h e r s and o t h e r s determined t o t e s t  knowledge, s i m p l i f y p u t a t i v e l y complex i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l and p o i n t out s a l i e n t f e a t u r e s i n a presumably confusing f i e l d .  Although  the asking of d i s p l a y questions  can q u a l i f y as r e p a i r b e h a v i o r h i g h frequency  i n n e a r l y any s e t t i n g , t h e  of d i s p l a y questions  i n teaching  ( r e l a t i v e t o o t h e r s i t u a t i o n s ) suggests  situations  t h a t they a r e a  fundamental and r e c o g n i z a b l y a p p r o p r i a t e c l a s s o f b e h a v i o r f o r anyone engaged i n a t e a c h i n g t a s k . R e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s a r e on t h e o t h e r s i d e o f t h e equation.  The r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n i s fundamentally  non-teaching  part of  s i t u a t i o n s , p a r t i c u l a r l y those which a l l o w  freedom t o s t r u c t u r e t h e d i s c o u r s e content  (as i n DIS) and  make language t h e s e r v a n t o f t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s , as i s t h e case i n t a s k s r e q u i r i n g t h e c o o p e r a t i v e exchange o f i n f o r m a t i o n f o r s u c c e s s f u l completion  (LEG1 and LEG2).  P a r t i c i p a n t s who know, as t e a c h e r s , f o r example, t h a t d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s a r e a p p r o p r i a t e forms o f b e h a v i o r when knowledge i s t o be taught,  know e q u a l l y w e l l t h a t  r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s a r e a p p r o p r i a t e ways t o i n i t i a t e r e p a i r when i n f o r m a t i o n i s t o be exchanged. I t appears, then, t h a t t a s k i s a k i n d o f frame f o r r e p a i r i n which c o n v e r s a t i o n a l r o l e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s 154  can and do s h i f t depending on the t a s k .  Pica's  (1987)  o b s e r v a t i o n about the nature of the t a s k i n f l u e n c i n g the p r o d u c t i o n of m o d i f i e d v a l u e here.  i n t e r a c t i o n i s of some  explanatory  Given the requirement of a more-or-less  exchange o f i n f o r m a t i o n , even the normally  equal  dominant p o s i t i o n  of the t e a c h e r can be a l t e r e d t o permit g r e a t e r n e g o t i a t i o n w i t h a l e a r n e r d u r i n g task-based t o e x p l a i n why  talk.  This p o s i t i o n helps  o r d i n a r y d i s c u s s i o n , which c l e a r l y does not  c o n t r o l f o r e i t h e r one-way or two-way exchange of i n f o r m a t i o n , was  most f r e q u e n t l y the s e t t i n g f o r  expressions  o f l e x i c a l u n c e r t a i n t y and r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s , teachers  and  why  i n both groups reduced t h e i r t a l k t o accommodate  unaccustomedly v o l u b l e l e a r n e r s and thus t o h e l p b r i n g the r e l a t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n of both p a r t n e r s i n t o b a l a n c e . When c o o p e r a t i o n was t a s k , as was  the case i n both Lego t a s k s , somewhat d i f f e r e n t  r e p a i r s , those clarification  i n v o l v i n g constant  Whereas f r e e d i s c u s s i o n permits p a r t i c i p a n t s  have accepted  temporarily)  checks of comprehension or  of v i t a l i n f o r m a t i o n , f o r example,  predominated. who  imposed by the demands o f the  reasonably  equal s t a t u s e s  ( i f only  t o pass up u n c l e a r m a t e r i a l without  information-gap  comment,  t a s k s undertaken by p a r t i c i p a n t s o f  s t a t u s r e q u i r e moment-to-moment m o n i t o r i n g d i s c o u r s e i n o r d e r t o keep i t on t r a c k .  and r e p a i r of the  I t may  be  t h a t s i m i l a r f i n d i n g s were r e p o r t e d i n P i c a (1987) p o i n t e d t o the the " e q u a l i z i n g nature exchange t a s k "  (p.  16). 155  of an  equal  recalled who  information  A l l o c a t i o n o f r e p a i r t o t a s k s can, o f course, be e l a b o r a t e d beyond t h e f a i r l y simple d i v i s i o n between t e a c h i n g and non-teaching  tasks.  F o r example, t h e r e s u l t s  a l s o suggest t h a t one non-teaching  task, d i s c u s s i o n , i s  p a r t i c u l a r l y associated with expressions of l e x i c a l u n c e r t a i n t y and more o r l e s s equal use o f r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s by both t e a c h e r s and l e a r n e r s . There a l s o appears  t o be a d i s t i n c t i o n between LEG1 and  LEG2—between a two-way t a s k and a one-way t a s k — s o t h a t comprehension checks are, g i v e n t h e data gathered i n t h i s study, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e two-way t a s k , whereas c o n f i r m a t i o n checks a r e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e one-way t a s k .  This p a r t i c u l a r  d i s t i n c t i o n g a i n s some e x p l a n a t o r y f o r c e from t h e nature o f the t a s k s :  When p a r t i c i p a n t s a r e working towards a  s o l u t i o n , s i t t i n g back-to-back,  t h e p a r t i c i p a n t who s u p p l i e s  d i r e c t i o n s has a s p e c i a l stake i n knowing immediately d i r e c t i o n s were understood.  i f the  A c o n f i r m a t i o n check, on t h e  o t h e r hand, i s a l i s t e n e r ' s r e l a t i v e l y c o n f i d e n t response (as opposed t o a c l a r i f i c a t i o n request) t o a d i r e c t i o n o f f e r e d by a speaker who can, l i k e t h e l i s t e n e r , unambiguously observe the e f f e c t o f t h e d i r e c t i o n . Whatever t h e e x p l a n a t o r y q u a l i t y o f these ways o f l o o k i n g a t t h e r e s u l t s , they remain minor streams i n comparison w i t h t h e primary d i s t i n c t i o n between t a s k s which are conducted  through t e a c h i n g and t a s k s which a r e c a r r i e d  out through n e g o t i a t i o n .  Considering the p o t e n t i a l 156  a p p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s r e s e a r c h t o second and i n s t r u c t i o n a l methodology, i t may  seem odd  f o r e i g n language t o suggest t h a t  n o n - i n s t r u c t i o n a l t a s k s c o u l d p l a y a u s e f u l r o l e i n the design of i n s t r u c t i o n .  However, the r e s u l t s do i n d i c a t e  t h a t t e a c h e r s ' p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t a s k s which r e f l e c t normal s m a l l group c o n v e r s a t i o n a l processes  produces s i g n i f i c a n t l y  d i f f e r e n t forms of r e p a i r than t a s k s which r e f l e c t group i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r o c e s s e s . reported  i n P i c a and  A related finding i s  Long's (1986) study which compared  i n s t r u c t i o n a l and n o n - i n s t r u c t i o n a l d i s c o u r s e . c o n v e r s a t i o n a l and  small  i n s t r u c t i o n a l processes  While both  may  be u s e f u l t o  l e a r n i n g a second o r f o r e i g n language, the b u l k o f evidence reported  i n the l i t e r a t u r e  (see P i c a & Long, 1986)  supports  the view taken here, namely t h a t the k i n d o f t a l k  involved  i n t e a c h e r - l e d c o n v e r s a t i o n a l and p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g  t a s k s more  f r e q u e n t l y produces n e g o t i a t i o n and value  r e p a i r b e l i e v e d t o be  of  i n a c q u i r i n g an a d d i t i o n a l language than the k i n d of  t a l k which t y p i f i e s t e a c h e r - l e d i n s t r u c t i o n a l The Use Anaphora and  of Reference by Group and  tasks. Task  exophora were found t o d i f f e r by  c o n t r a r y t o the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s , r e s p e c t s , r e f e r e n c e and  task,  but not by group.  r e p a i r share a g e n e r a l  level  In these of  similarity. Beyond t h i s g e n e r a l own  l e v e l , however, r e f e r e n c e has i t s  p a t t e r n of a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h t a s k .  from the r e s u l t s t h a t anaphora and mixed w i t h i n the same t a s k .  I t should be  exophora are  I t i s the r e l a t i v e 157  recalled  typically distribution  of these two  forms of r e p a i r w i t h i n and between t a s k s ,  however, which suggests a d i s t i n c t i o n between t a s k s emphasizing  the e x i s t e n c e of shared e x p e r i e n c e  p e r c e p t i o n of t h e speech s i t u a t i o n ) and those  (including emphasizing  the need t o b u i l d shared experience through language i n o r d e r t o accomplish the g o a l s of the t a s k .  The need t o  c r e a t e a s e t o f shared e x p e r i e n c e s and p e r c e p t i o n s i s an u n d e r l y i n g f e a t u r e of C0M1,  DIS and LEG1,  so i t was  not  s u r p r i s i n g t o f i n d t h a t anaphora, a form of endophoric r e f e r e n c e which h e l p s t o l i n k p r i o r w i t h c u r r e n t elements the d i s c o u r s e , was  a g r e a t d e a l more f r e q u e n t than  Tasks i n which shared p e r c e p t i o n predominated  of  exophora.  (COM2 and  LEG2) showed a rough e q u i v a l e n c e of f r e q u e n c i e s f o r anaphora and exophora (see F i g u r e 14, above).  Thus, w h i l e anaphora  appears t o be a u b i q u i t o u s f e a t u r e of task-based t a l k i n g e n e r a l , the r e l a t i v e f r e q u e n c i e s of anaphora and exophora change i n response t o the e x p e r i e n t i a l l e v e l of a g i v e n task.  Exophora appears t o serve as the e x p e r i e n t i a l  barometer i n spoken t e x t s , i n d i c a t i n g how e x t e n s i v e l y p a r t i c i p a n t s are a b l e t o presume on each o t h e r ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the speech  situation.  T h i s c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of r e f e r e n c e i n t a s k i s q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from the one presented here p r e v i o u s l y w i t h respect to r e p a i r — i . e . , a c c o r d w i t h the way  Gaies  teaching/non-teaching—but  does  (1983), Gass and V a r o n i s (1985a)  and Wagner (1983) have d i s c u s s e d t h e i r s t u d i e s o f task-based discourse.  The p o i n t of departure w i t h p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s , 158  however, i s the focus on how  t e x t u a l cohesion  t a s k s which emphasize v a r i o u s l e v e l s of shared and not s p e c i f i c a l l y on how  "experience"  and  be p o s s i b l e t o add some  t o the s p e c u l a t i o n s about the r o l e of  r e p o r t e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e .  shared experience  experience  meanings are n e g o t i a t e d .  Given t h i s focus, i t may e m p i r i c a l refinement  i s achieved i n  Participants'  of a c u l t u r e , o f knowledge of the  world  of the p a r t i c u l a r c o n v e r s a t i o n a l s e t t i n g i n which they  f i n d themselves e v e n t u a l l y f i n d e x p r e s s i o n i n t e x t u a l reference.  While i t i s p o s s i b l e , of course, t o argue t h a t  s h a r i n g o f assumptions i n c r e a s e s n e g o t i a t i o n i n g e n e r a l (see, i n p a r t i c u l a r , Gass & V a r o n i s , 1985a) i t i s perhaps more a c c u r a t e t o say t h a t shared experience  simply  r e f e r e n c e t o the here-and-now (through exophora). c e r t a i n p o i n t p a r t i c i p a n t s ' common experience  increases At a  renders  n e g o t i a t i o n s u p e r f l u o u s , so i t i s not u n i v e r s a l l y the  case  t h a t t a l k w i l l be n e g o t i a t e d when i n t e r l o c u t o r s have almost e v e r y t h i n g i n common.  I t i s p o s s i b l e t o observe t h i s more  complex r e l a t i o n s h i p among t a s k , n e g o t i a t i o n and  experience  when the t a s k s t o be s t u d i e d range beyond the one-way/twoway  d i s t i n c t i o n , as i s the case here, when i t was  example, t h a t more exophoric  reference  (but l e s s  found, f o r definition)  o c c u r r e d d u r i n g COMl than d u r i n g e i t h e r the one-way or way  problem-solving  tasks  (LEG2 and LEGl,  two-  respectively).  S p e c i f i c A l l o c a t i o n s of Reference t o Task The balance between anaphora and exophora d u r i n g t a s k based d i s c o u r s e appears v e r y much i n f l u e n c e d by the k i n d o f 159  t a s k i n which p a r t i c i p a n t s f i n d themselves (Table 25). Anaphora o c c u r r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more f r e q u e n t l y d u r i n g LEG1 (a two-way i n f o r m a t i o n exchange t a s k which l i m i t e d t h e a b i l i t y o f p a r t i c i p a n t s t o share p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e t a s k m a t e r i a l s ) than d u r i n g COM2 (the f a c e - t o - f a c e of t h e computer's s t r i n g s e a r c h f u n c t i o n ) .  demonstration  Exophora  o c c u r r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more f r e q u e n t l y d u r i n g t h e two t a s k s which allowed p a r t i c i p a n t s t o observe,  examine and  manipulate t h e o b j e c t s o f t h e i r d i s c u s s i o n (COM2 and LEG2) than d u r i n g a l l o f t h e remaining  tasks, including ordinary  discussion. These r e s u l t s suggest  t h e emergence o f an e x p e r i e n t i a l  f a c t o r which depends i n l a r g e p a r t on t h e s h a r i n g o f experience  and p e r c e p t i o n between t h e two p a r t i c i p a n t s .  Without such s h a r i n g , without  t h e t a n g i b i l i t y and d i r e c t  experience  t a s k s become much more  of task processes,  dependent on t h e c o h e s i v e intelligible.  f u n c t i o n o f anaphora t o make them  With t a n g i b i l i t y and d i r e c t experience  built  i n t o t a s k p r o c e s s e s , p a r t i c i p a n t s use exophora t o p o i n t out the e s s e n t i a l f e a t u r e s o f t h e t a s k environment; n e g o t i a t i o n of t h e t a l k i n some o f these t a s k s may w e l l c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e i r c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y , although n e g o t i a t i o n i s a p p a r e n t l y not t h e o n l y r e s o u r c e p a r t i c i p a n t s employ t o improve t h e comprehensibility of t h e i r  talk.  Thus, an a d d i t i o n a l major f i n d i n g o f t h i s study t o understanding  t h e f i v e t a s k s i n terms o f t e x t u a l  q u a l i t i e s and t h e r e l a t i o n o f these t o an e d u c a t i o n a l 160  relates  p e r s p e c t i v e on language use. earlier,  i t i s now  Based on r e s u l t s  reported  p o s s i b l e t o t h i n k o f t a s k s as  having  e x p e r i e n t i a l o r e x p o s i t o r y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s based on  the  r e l a t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n s of anaphora and exophora t o the spoken t e x t s .  The  e m p i r i c a l dimensions of t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e  have o n l y been suggested,  however, and then o n l y w i t h  r e s p e c t t o two  exponents (anaphora and exophora) of a t h e o r y  of reference.  The  remainder o f t h i s chapter w i l l be devoted  f i r s t t o an examination examination  of r e p a i r and then t o a f u r t h e r  of r e f e r e n c e o c c u r r i n g i n the l i m i t e d group o f  t a s k s found t o be most c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h reference  exophoric  (LEG2 and COM2) i n comparison w i t h COMl, the  l e c t u r e - l i k e t a s k which b e s t embodies e x p o s i t o r y R e p a i r During Combined and S e l e c t e d  behavior.  Tasks:  Towards a Framework f o r Complementary Task S t r u c t u r e s When t a s k s are combined or s e l e c t e d t o r e f l e c t reference-based  concept  of e x p e r i e n t i a l and  the  expository  t a s k s , the number o f s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s dwindles and  one  r e s u l t i n p a r t i c u l a r , the r e s u l t f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n  requests,  shows s i g n i f i c a n t group d i f f e r e n c e s .  recalled  I t should be  t h a t when the f i v e t a s k s were t r e a t e d as repeated  measures,  the mixed and homogeneous groups tended t o d i f f e r on b a s i s o f c l a r i f i c a t i o n r e q u e s t s , a t r e n d which  the  reached  s i g n i f i c a n c e when c l a r i f i c a t i o n r e q u e s t s o c c u r r i n g i n the e x p o s i t o r y t a s k were compared w i t h those o c c u r r i n g i n both forms of the e x p e r i e n t i a l t a s k EXP0S-EXPER2).  ( i . e . , EXP0S-EXPER1 and  S i n c e c l a r i f i c a t i o n r e q u e s t s are  161  largely  based on the c o n t r i b u t i o n s  of Japanese l e a r n e r s i n both  groups, the s i g n i f i c a n t l y l a r g e r number o f such r e q u e s t s i n the mixed group suggests g r e a t e r  conversational  activity  among l e a r n e r s when a n a t i v e speaker i s a v a i l a b l e f o r feedback.  One  p o s s i b l e way  group i s t o c o n s i d e r  of l o o k i n g a t t h i s e f f e c t f o r  the l e a r n e r ' s p e r c e p t i o n  o f the  native  speaker as more open t o a c l a r i f i c a t i o n r e q u e s t than a Japanese t e a c h e r would b e — m o r e w i l l i n g t o respond u s e f u l l y o r i n f o r m a t i v e l y t o the r e q u e s t . cannot be measured d i r e c t l y ,  Since t h i s  perception  i t should be h e l p f u l t o examine  the t r a n s c r i p t s i n order t o compare the a c t u a l responses of the t e a c h e r s .  Q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s i n the  of t e a c h e r s from the two and  reported.  groups can be  responsiveness  inspected  directly  For the time b e i n g i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note  t h a t when the q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s i s focused d i f f e r e n c e s between the e x p e r i e n t i a l and  on  expository  tasks,  a  s i n g l e , s i g n i f i c a n t group d i f f e r e n c e emerges. Beyond t h i s d i f f e r e n c e between the groups, experiential-expository  contrast also severely  scope o f s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s while, repeating  limits  a t the same time,  structure.  s m a l l e r number of s i g n i f i c a n t r e p a i r exponents,  appearance o f a group d i f f e r e n c e f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n and  the  the  the r a t h e r c l e a r a l l o c a t i o n of r e p a i r t o a  b i f u r c a t e d task The  the  i n t e r a c t i o n between group and  explanations.  c o n t r a s t s were made through 162  requests  task f o r s e l f -  r e p e t i t i o n , have f a i r l y s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d experiential-expository  the  The the  e l i m i n a t i o n o f other tasks.  Because o f t h e n e a r l y i d e n t i c a l  r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d f o r both EXPER-EXP0S1 and EXPER-EXPOS2, i t appears  t h a t t h e t a s k s e l i m i n a t e d from t h e a n a l y s e s o f  variance  ( f i r s t DIS and LEG1,  and then DIS,  LEG1 and COM2)  were t h e main sources o f v a r i a n c e f o r comprehension  checks,  d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s , echoes and s e l f - e x p a n s i o n s — n o n e  o f which  a t t a i n e d s i g n i f i c a n t group o r t a s k d i f f e r e n c e s .  Put i n  somewhat d i f f e r e n t terms, DIS, LEG1 and COM2 served t o suppress group d i f f e r e n c e s f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n r e q u e s t s and i n t e r a c t i o n between group and t a s k f o r s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n . Once t h e s e t a s k s were removed from t h e a n a l y s i s , t h e nons i g n i f i c a n t t r e n d s f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n r e q u e s t s and s e l f r e p e t i t i o n which developed  during the i n i t i a l ,  r e p e a t e d measures ANOVA developed  five-task  into, respectively, a  s i g n i f i c a n t group d i f f e r e n c e and a s i g n i f i c a n t  interaction.  REs which r e t a i n e d t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l s o f d i f f e r e n c e f o r task i n the experiential-expository contrasts  ( c o n f i r m a t i o n checks, d e f i n i t i o n s , e x p r e s s i o n s o f  l e x i c a l u n c e r t a i n t y and r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s ) can be viewed as s t r a t e g i c b e h a v i o r s o f use i n two d i f f e r e n t , complementary, t a s k s t r u c t u r e s .  although  Where T a b l e 22 i n d i c a t e s  t h a t c o n f i r m a t i o n checks and r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s a r e a l l o c a t e d t o non-teaching  t a s k s and t h a t d e f i n i t i o n s and  indications of l e x i c a l uncertainty are allocated t o teaching t a s k s , T a b l e 26 shows t h a t these t a s k s a l s o  fall,  r e s p e c t i v e l y , w i t h i n t h e e x p e r i e n t i a l and e x p o s i t o r y t a s k structures.  These r e s u l t s r e i n f o r c e t h e s u g g e s t i o n made 163  e a r l i e r t h a t t e a c h i n g and e x p o s i t o r y b e h a v i o r non-teaching  (or c o n v e n t i o n a l l y negotiated)  overlap—that  and e x p e r i e n t i a l  a c t i v i t y o v e r l a p , and thus t h a t some forms o f r e p a i r a t l e a s t can be expected t o appear i n what may be termed complementary t a s k s t r u c t u r e s .  Although t h e r e i s c l e a r l y no  i d e n t i t y between t e a c h i n g and e x p o s i t o r y t a s k s on t h e one hand and non-teaching o r e x p e r i e n t i a l t a s k s on t h e other, i t does seem p o s s i b l e t o draw a rough approximation o f how a l i m i t e d number o f REs f a l l w i t h i n t h e complementary t a s k s t r u c t u r e s , as f o l l o w s :  TASK  PROCESSES  Experiential + c o n f i r m , check + r e f e r e n . ques. TASK GOALS  Educational  Social  + definition + l e x i c a l uncert. Expository F i g u r e 18.  A l l o c a t i o n o f f o u r r e p a i r exponents t o  complementary t a s k s t r u c t u r e s . Extending  t h e r e s e a r c h d e s i g n somewhat i n o r d e r t o  accommodate t h e r e s u l t s , F i g u r e 18 emphasizes t h e g o a l and p r o c e s s  of t a l k i n various contexts.  164  I t thus broadens  the n o t i o n o f t a s k t o an e x p l i c i t concern w i t h t h e reasons people have f o r t a l k i n g w i t h each o t h e r and t h e ways by which they accomplish  t h e i r g o a l s through language.  This  framework f o r t a s k s appears more complex t h a t t h e onedimensional it  v e r s i o n s o f use i n e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h ,  i s intended t o r e f l e c t more o f t h e world  c o n v e r s a t i o n a l exchanges a c t u a l l y occur.  although  i n which  R e c a l l i n g the  d i s c u s s i o n o f dimensions o f t a s k and i n t e r l a n g u a g e t a l k i n Chapter 2, f a i r l y s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d comparisons can be made between t h e two-dimensional framework o u t l i n e d here and others reported i n the l i t e r a t u r e : Varonis  Long (1980) and Gass and  (1985a) w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e one-way/two-way t a s k  d i s t i n c t i o n , Duff  (1986) on convergent and d i v e r g e n t t a s k s ,  Doughty and P i c a (1986) and P i c a (1987) on r e q u i r e d v s . o p t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n exchange t a s k s , and P i c a (1987) on i n f o r m a t i o n exchange v s . decision-making F i g u r e 18 should g o a l s and p r o c e s s e s can s h i f t over time,  tasks.  be i n t e r p r e t e d b r o a d l y .  of s o c i a l t a l k i n ordinary  Since the circumstances  i t may be more u s e f u l t o view t h e  f i g u r e as a k i n d o f snapshot taken d u r i n g one phase o f a social interaction.  From t h i s p o i n t o f view, a t a s k  c o n s t i t u t e s t h e frame i n which i n s t r u c t i o n a l p l a n n e r s and r e s e a r c h e r s may d e c i d e t o o r g a n i z e t a l k and thus t o capture something o f t h e complexity  o f communicative  behavior.  The u n f i l l e d quadrants i n t h e f i g u r e suggest a d d i t i o n a l s l o t s f o r REs under t a s k c o n d i t i o n s which were n o t encountered i n t h i s study.  In p r i n c i p l e ,  165  f o r example, a  non-teaching  task with expository c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s — t h e  exchange o f anecdotes o r r e p o r t o f a t r i p abroad, f o r e x a m p l e — c o u l d produce a d i s t i n c t i v e d i s t i l l a t i o n o f REs g i v e n o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r i n t e r a c t i o n by t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s . I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h i s way o f l o o k i n g a t complementary t a s k s t r u c t u r e s w i l l be e x p l o r e d again i n Chapter 7. present,  For the  i t i s perhaps s u f f i c i e n t t o i n d i c a t e t h a t  p a r t i c u l a r s e t s o f r e p a i r b e h a v i o r may be expected  t o occur  g i v e n t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n o f t a s k f a c t o r s and t h a t t a s k s may be e v a l u a t e d f o r t h e i r o r i e n t a t i o n t o g o a l as w e l l as p r o c e s s . Reference During Combined and S e l e c t e d Tasks This l a s t viewpoint  s e c t i o n re-examines r e f e r e n c e from t h e  o f an e x p e r i e n t i a l - e x p o s i t o r y c o n t r a s t .  Before  d i s c u s s i n g t h e r e s u l t s f o r r e f e r e n c e i n d i v i d u a l l y , some g e n e r a l p o i n t s w i l l be r a i s e d which apply t o both forms o f reference. First,  i t may be r e c a l l e d t h a t t h e groups were  s e p a r a t e d by a l a r g e , i f not s i g n i f i c a n t , gap i n t h e use o f both  forms o f r e p a i r d u r i n g C0M1, t h e e x p o s i t o r y t a s k .  homogeneous (Japanese-led)  The  group o f dyads employed anaphora  demonstrably more o f t e n d u r i n g t h i s t a s k then t h e mixed ( n a t i v e speaker-led)  group (see F i g u r e 16).  r e v e r s e o b t a i n e d f o r exophoric p r e f e r r e d exophoric ( F i g u r e 17).  reference:  J u s t the  The mixed group  r e f e r e n c e over t h e homogeneous group  These r e s u l t s r e i n f o r c e t h e i m p r e s s i o n  r e p o r t e d e a r l i e r t h a t exophora and anaphora a r e e s s e n t i a l l y complementary i n spoken t e x t s , e s p e c i a l l y so when a range o f  166  speech c o n t e x t s can be examined f o r t h e r e l a t i v e distributions.  The r e s u l t s a l s o suggest  that different  groups can p e r c e i v e t h e same context, o r t a s k , i n d i f f e r e n t ways, as i n d i c a t e d by t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e f o r a g i v e n form o f reference.  The p o i n t should not be o v e r s t r e s s e d , however,  p a r t i c u l a r l y s i n c e t h e group d i f f e r e n c e s a c r o s s both s e t s o f t a s k s i n d i c a t e d o n l y a t r e n d i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f group differences. Anaphora During E x p e r i e n t i a l and E x p o s i t o r y Tasks R e j e c t i o n o f t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s t h a t anaphora i s u n r e l a t e d t o t a s k , i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e f i n d i n g t h a t anaphora d i d not occur more f r e q u e n t l y d u r i n g e x p o s i t o r y t a s k s  than  d u r i n g e x p e r i e n t i a l t a s k s , r e q u i r e some e x p l a n a t i o n .  Anaphora  appears t o be a u b i q u i t o u s f e a t u r e o f task-based though s i g n i f i c a n t l y more anaphora was found (nominally, a non-teaching  talk.  Even  i n LEGl  task with expository  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ) than i n COM2 (a t e a c h i n g t a s k w i t h e x p e r i e n t i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ) , anaphora was a l s o found a t n e a r l y e q u i v a l e n t l e v e l s d u r i n g t h e t h r e e remaining  tasks.  When t a s k s were s p e c i f i c a l l y l i m i t e d t o e x p e r i e n t i a l e x p o s i t o r y comparisons, anaphora was found t o be even more frequent during the e x p e r i e n t i a l task. cannot alone be expected  Thus, anaphora  t o serve as t h e t e x t u a l s i g n a t u r e  f o r t e a c h i n g and e x p o s i t i o n , a c o n c l u s i o n c l e a r l y a t odds w i t h t h e view o f anaphoric  reference presented  i n Chapter 2.  T h i s p o i n t i s worth r e s t a t i n g w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e Cummins* c o n c e p t u a l  framework (1983).  167  Although  anaphora  demonstrably  s e r v e s t o l i n k elements  i n a t e x t , i t does not  thus a u t o m a t i c a l l y work as evidence of the c o g n i t i v e c o m p l e x i t y or l e v e l o f c o n t e x t u a l support i n the t e x t . Other f a c t o r s must be i m p l i c a t e d i n such u s e f u l concepts  as  c o g n i t i v e complexity and c o n t e x t u a l support, and i t i s here t h a t another f i n d i n g o f the study can be r e s t a t e d t o i n c o r p o r a t e these concepts:  I t i s the b a l a n c e between  anaphora and exophora which p r o v i d e s some evidence f o r the degree t o which p a r t i c i p a n t s t r e a t t h e i r t a l k as more or l e s s complex, as o f f e r i n g more or l e s s c o n t e x t u a l support. Exophora During E x p e r i e n t i a l and E x p o s i t o r y Tasks E x o p h o r i c r e f e r e n c e i s c l e a r l y the more a c t i v e i n the anaphora-exophora b a l a n c e .  factor  Exophoric r e f e r e n c e  o c c u r r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more f r e q u e n t l y d u r i n g the e x p e r i e n t i a l t a s k s than d u r i n g the e x p o s i t o r y t a s k s ( i n which i t was  v i r t u a l l y absent).  Regardless o f the number of  t a s k s used i n the a n a l y s i s — f i v e or t w o — a n d r e g a r d l e s s of group membership, the two n o m i n a l l y e x p e r i e n t i a l t a s k s c o n s i s t e n t l y i n f l u e n c e d the speakers t o produce s u s t a i n e d l e v e l of exophoric r e f e r e n c e .  a h i g h and  The p o s i t i o n of  e x o p h o r i c r e f e r e n c e i n the e x p e r i e n t i a l t a s k s c l e a r l y a c c o r d s w i t h H a l l i d a y and Hasan's (1976) view o f i t s f u n c t i o n i n spoken and w r i t t e n t e x t s and supports Mohan's (1986) view t h a t e x p e r i e n t i a l a c t i v i t y p l a y s a key r o l e i n communicating p r a c t i c a l knowledge. T h i s s t r o n g r e l a t i o n s h i p between c e r t a i n k i n d s of t a s k s and exophora suggests something  of the t r a n s p a r e n c y and  168  immediacy of e x p e r i e n t i a l t a s k s . t a s k s are not u n i f o r m l y and  r e p a i r , and  Even though e x p e r i e n t i a l  the source of frequent  negotiation  allow p a r t i c i p a n t s to achieve c l a r i t y  meaning a t l e a s t as much through shared p e r c e p t i o n negotiation,  e x p e r i e n t i a l tasks elevate  comprehensibility  of t h i n g s and  of  as  the  events i n the s i t u a t i o n t o a  p o s i t i o n of t a c t i c a l importance.  Comprehensibility  can  be  an outcome of n e g o t i a t i o n as w e l l as a common u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the s i t u a t i o n i n which p a r t i c i p a n t s f i n d themselves. i s the e x p e r i e n t i a l task,  i n p a r t i c u l a r the  It  non-teaching  e x p e r i e n t i a l t a s k , which seems t o have emerged as a k i n d compromise between t a s k s which p r o h i b i t n e g o t i a t i o n  of  and  those which e n f o r c e i t . Summary Several  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the r e s u l t s have been  h i g h l i g h t e d i n t h i s chapter.  F i r s t , the g e n e r a l  lack of  group d i f f e r e n c e s suggests t h a t Japanese t e a c h e r s  of E n g l i s h  are not working under a s t r a t e g i c handicap i n comparison w i t h t h e i r n a t i v e E n g l i s h speaking c o u n t e r p a r t s .  Teachers i n  both groups were e q u a l l y competent i n r e c o g n i z i n g responding t o the l e a r n e r s ' c a l l s f o r a s s i s t a n c e .  and The  r e s u l t s f u r t h e r suggest t h a t the a b i l i t y t o r e p a i r t a l k i n a f o r e i g n language may  become a c o n v e r s a t i o n a l  resource  of  l e a r n e r s a t a r e l a t i v e l y e a r l y stage i n t h e i r a c q u i s i t i o n of the f o r e i g n language.  Both groups of i n t e r m e d i a t e  level  l e a r n e r s i n t h i s study, f o r example, used t h e i r i n t e r l o c u t o r s w i t h equal competence t o c l a r i f y  169  information,  c o n f i r m understanding new  and otherwise  ask q u e s t i o n s  to  elicit  information. Second, the major d i f f e r e n c e s i n the frequency  r e p a i r are found i n q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i s t i n c t  of  tasks.  D i f f e r e n t k i n d s of r e p a i r are a l l o c a t e d t o d i f f e r e n t t a s k s , the b a s i c d i v i s i o n l y i n g between t e a c h i n g and teaching tasks.  non-  Whereas t e a c h i n g t a s k s are a s s o c i a t e d w i t h  r e l a t i v e l y p a s s i v e or f o r m u l a i c behavior, and a s k i n g d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s ,  such as  echoing  non-teaching t a s k s seem t o  generate a wider range of r e p a i r s and n e g o t i a t i o n o f meaning between the p a r t i c i p a n t s . by  The  negotiation i s characterized  fr eq uent c o n t r i b u t i o n s from l e a r n e r s and a s h a r i n g of  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r g i v i n g and g e t t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n by both members of the t e a c h e r - l e a r n e r group. T h i r d , j u s t as r e p a i r i s d i s t i n g u i s h e d by and a l l o c a t e d to task, reference i s d i s t r i b u t e d to task i n a d i s t i n c t i v e way,  anaphora t o t a s k s emphasizing the need t o b u i l d  a c r o s s the d i s c o u r s e through language and emphasizing the e x i s t e n c e of shared speech s i t u a t i o n .  used i n a l l of the t a s k s , exophoric  exophora t o t a s k s  perceptions  Although anaphoric  experience.  The  of  the  r e f e r e n c e was  r e f e r e n c e was  l a r g e l y i n t a s k s i n which p a r t i c i p a n t s shared and  links  freely  found  perception  n o t i o n of an e x p e r i e n t i a l t a s k  was  developed t o encompass these p r o p e r t i e s of t a n g i b i l i t y d i r e c t experience  i n the t a s k d i s c o u r s e , and c o n t r a s t e d  and with  the concept of an e x p o s i t o r y t a s k i n which one p a r t i c i p a n t i s mainly r e s p o n s i b l e f o r conveying  170  i n f o r m a t i o n and  keeping  parts  of  the  contrastive  discourse intact. way,  considerably, that  but  experience  approaches to  allocation  at  the  of  and e x p o s i t i o n a r e  and r e l a t e d ,  of  the  two  sets of  w i t h i n t h e s e two  e n v i s i o n a complementary  of  a very  task  not  few r e p a i r  impression  teaching B a s e d on  uncertainty  typify  this  perhaps a l s o not  which very The  to  clearly  intersection provides so  it  and e x p r e s s i o n s o f  point  of  tasks are  surprising that  the  is possible  most c o n s e r v a t i v e d i s c o u r s e e n v i r o n m e n t ,  n o n - t e a c h i n g and e x p e r i e n t i a l is  it  behaviors.  surprising that definitions  lexical  narrows  inter-  and e x p o s i t o r y .  structure  this  language.  structures,  sets,  in  different  t e a c h i n g and e x p o s i t o r y b e h a v i o r d u r i n g t a s k s  perhaps the is  fundamentally  task  overlap  repair  task  i s s u e concerns the  experiential  distinguishes  to  same t i m e r e i n f o r c e s t h e  and n o n - t e a c h i n g , of  repair  accomplishing tasks through  A fourth, relationship  the  When t a s k s a r e v i e w e d  intersection.  When  taken together,  confirmation  questions predominate—just  which might  be e x p e c t e d d u r i n g c o o p e r a t i v e d i s c o u r s e o u t s i d e  structures,  value  however,  of  this  may l i e  way o f  i n the  p l a n n e r s have a c h o i c e i n t h e  instruction, foreign  of  behavior  classrooms.  The p o t e n t i a l  other  sort  c h e c k s and  referential  o f most  the  it  fact  learning.  s m a l l group t a s k s per and r e p a i r  Participation  se n e i t h e r of  the  inhibits  and  structure  a s s i s t s e c o n d and by t e a c h e r s nor  group's talk.  171  task  that teachers  way t h e y  c h o o s i n g g r o u p s and t a s k s t o  language  negotiation  looking at  in  encourages What d o e s seem  t o matter i s the k i n d o f t a s k employed, the  experiential  q u a l i t i e s o f the t a s k and the degree t o which language i s used t o accomplish e d u c a t i o n a l purposes.  172  CHAPTER 6 : QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE Unlike  the p r e v i o u s two  TASK TRANSCRIPTS  c h a p t e r s , t h i s c h a p t e r i s an  a n a l y s i s of the t r a n s c r i p t s themselves; the data are expressed d i r e c t l y i n the words of the Although the c o d i n g scheme has purposes, i t i s not the o f i n t e r e s t here but  participants.  been r e t a i n e d  for descriptive  frequency of coded b e h a v i o r which i s  r a t h e r the ways i n which p a r t i c i p a n t s  accomplish r e p a i r and Two  reference  through  t o p i c s have been s e l e c t e d  d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between d i s p l a y and  discourse.  f o r examination: r e f e r e n t i a l questions  o u t l i n i n g the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of r e p a i r o c c u r r i n g has  been r e f e r r e d t o i n the p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r  complementary t a s k s t r u c t u r e s , expository  behavior i n teaching  a c t i v i t y i n non-teaching t a s k s .  t a s k s and  as  Both t o p i c s have been Their  further,  reinforce  f i n d i n g s reached e a r l i e r w i t h examples from the focus of a n a l y s i s from  f o r e i g n language t e a c h i n g  i n what  experiential  q u a l i t a t i v e treatment here i s intended t o  averages t o s p e c i f i c cases and  and  namely the c o n f l u e n c e o f  broached i n the q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s .  t e x t s , t o s h i f t the  thus  spoken  statistical  thereby t o a s s i s t second  professionals  to recognize  and  key  forms o f r e p a i r i n c o n t e x t . Beyond p r o v i d i n g  s p e c i f i c cases of i n d i v i d u a l REs  in  c o n t e x t , however, the q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s w i l l attempt t o r e l a t e the complementary t a s k s t r u c t u r e s  173  o u t l i n e d i n Chapter  5 to r e p a i r processes i n selected t r a n s c r i p t s . occurring  s e t s of REs  Thus,  w i l l be examined a t a l e v e l o f  coreality  which c o u l d not otherwise be achieved through q u a n t i t a t i v e methods.  Finally,  of v a r i a n c e  i t should be  reported  s t r e s s e d t h a t the  i n Chapter 4 has  provided  analysis  a l i s t of  REs  f o r the q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s which are c l e a r l y a l l o c a t e d t o p a r t i c u l a r tasks  i n T a b l e 22.  T h i s means t h a t d i r e c t i o n s  f o r the t e x t u a l a n a l y s i s t o f o l l o w are p r o v i d e d s t a t i s t i c a l r e a s o n i n g r a t h e r than by an preliminary  by  observer's  i n d u c t i o n of s a l i e n t c a t e g o r i e s .  Before b e g i n n i n g the a n a l y s i s , i t s h o u l d a l s o pointed  out t h a t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of how  various  r e p a i r are accomplished through d i s c o u r s e to a l t e r n a t i v e explanations. conversational  be  forms o f  are always  subject  Although i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of  the  data o b t a i n e d i n t h i s study r e q u i r e s some  u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the c u l t u r a l and  s o c i a l background o f  the  p a r t i c i p a n t s , t h a t i s , a l e v e l of u n d e r s t a n d i n g beyond what might be c a l l e d a common-sense e x p l i c a t i o n o f a t a l k between two  people, i t would s t i l l be unreasonable t o c l a i m  other perceptions  that  cannot be a p p l i e d a t l e a s t as a r t f u l l y , i f  not as v a l i d l y , t o the d a t a .  T h i s aspect o f q u a l i t a t i v e  a n a l y s i s i s b r i e f l y reviewed i n the  following chapter  d i s c u s s i o n about the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of  conclusions  a c h i e v e d through t e x t u a l a n a l y s i s . D i s p l a y and The  R e f e r e n t i a l Questions  d i s t i n c t i o n between d i s p l a y and r e f e r e n t i a l  q u e s t i o n s was  one  of the c l e a r e s t achieved d u r i n g  174  the  during  analysis the  of v a r i a n c e .  transcripts  How d o e s t h i s  distinction  and u n d e r what c i r c u m s t a n c e s i s  question preferred  over the  these  examine t h o s e t r a n s c r i p t s  issues  highest  i s to  average  other?  that  questions)  on t h e  questions)  on t h e  is,  transcripts  one h a n d and DIS  may be c o n v e n i e n t t o  t e a c h i n g o f how t h e portable the  f u n c t i o n with the  indeed i t  string  is  a fairly  then,  An i m p o r t a n t  This sort  to  of  of  all  largely  learner  display  of  image  may n o t  of be  behavior  during  p a s s i v e and d i r e c t e d b y  role  the  It  learner's  teacher's  consistent with  s o u r c e o f knowledge and  learner's  inspection  procedure;  popular  about.  D i s p l a y questions are thus  examining the  for  understanding,  of  the  expository presentation  t h e most s a l i e n t are  the  laptop  about  available  teacher.  as the  Task  characteristic  information  f i n d t h a t the  such a procedure i s  for  (display  (referential  common i n s t r u c t i o n a l  what t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g  the  the  t h a t COM2 e n t a i l e d  computer a c t u a l l y  may r e p r e s e n t  surprising,  each of  s e a r c h f u n c t i o n on a  presentation  and m a n i p u l a t i o n . information  the  Demonstration  recall  computer o p e r a t e s .  t a s k was t h e  with  i n which  COM2  and LEG2  dealing  of  other.  COM2: The I n s t r u c t i o n a l It  for  in  one f o r m  One way o f  f r e q u e n c i e s were r e c o r d e d f o r  question types,  appear  the  the  responsibility  i.e.,  for  having  understanding.  B a s e d on an e x a m i n a t i o n  of  COM2 t r a n s c r i p t s ,  t o b e many f o r m s o f d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n , serves a function appropriate  to  however,  there  each of  communication i n a  175  seem which  teacher-  d i r e c t e d i n s t r u c t i o n a l environment.  A frequent a c t i v i t y i n  t h i s s o r t o f environment, o f course, i s t h e t e a c h e r g e t t i n g a demonstration  o f i n f o r m a t i o n which i s supposed t o have  been passed t o t h e l e a r n e r d u r i n g a p e r i o d o f i n s t r u c t i o n . The most t y p i c a l s o r t o f q u e s t i o n d u r i n g COM2 was, i n f a c t , s p e c i f i c a l l y intended by t h e t e a c h e r t o d i s p l a y t h e l e a r n e r ' s understanding, illustrate  as t h e f o l l o w i n g two examples  ( t r a n s c r i p t r e f e r e n c e i n square b r a c k e t s ,  in capital letters,  teacher  l e a r n e r i n lower case, d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s  underlined): (1)  THAT'S RIGHT. - NOW - UH - PRESS THE BUTTON. DO /Hm YOU REMEMBER THE NAME OF THE - KEY - THAT WE HAVE TO PRESS - TO FIN Ah, F - l . CAN  YOU FIND F - l ?  F - l . Ah-hah! [2COM2] (2)  CAN YOU PUSH - PUSH THE ARROW? YOU PUSH THE ARROW? Uh,  WHAT HAPPENS WHEN  I must f i n d i t ?  OKAY. NOW WHAT DID YOU TYPE? ++ WHAT DID YOU TYPE JUST NOW? "The". OKAY. WHA. WHY - WHY DID YOU TYPE "THE"? I must f i n d out t h e - t h e o r y . The - f i r s t o f . OKAY, WELL, IT ISN'T THAT YOU'RE LOOKING, YOU'RE REALLY NOT LOOKING FOR THE WORD, "THEORY". YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THE WORD "THE". [4COM2] 176  As b o t h examples i l l u s t r a t e , learner is  it  t o merely push the the  clearly  seems t o learner  a partial  i s not right  key,  but p a r t  the  transcript)  is  to  say i s  more o r d i n a r y partners  e x p l i c a t i o n or  teacher  ordinarily  But i t  is  in other parts  of  i s asking the  query each other  i s p r e c i s e l y the  o b v i o u s and  subject matter,  the  i n s t r u c t i o n of  s u c h a s COM2, w h i c h o f f e r already-known.  opportunities  content,  of  instructional  exchange,  conversational  It  appears,  relatively  already-  for  that  c o n s t r a i n e d by  a learner  content.  the  context  then,  articulates  I s s u e s beyond  intelligibility  are  the  particularly  of the  discourse  unimportant  sources  activity.  A secondary f u n c t i o n of t e a c h e r - l e a r n e r emerged d u r i n g i n s p e c t i o n o f t h e pointing-out,  learner  situations  t o use language are  such as the mutual  and i n f o r m a t i o n  in  a motivating  t e a c h e r ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f how w e l l  understanding of  about  a l r e a d y known t o  devoted to  learners'  the  Conversational  center of t a l k  about the  of  task  known w h i c h s e r v e s a s t h e  talk  Part  t o be s a i d d u r i n g what m i g h t b e c o n s i d e r e d  obvious o r about t h i n g s which are  those,  the  it.  kind of  conversational a c t i v i t i e s .  do n o t  questioner.  (as  What  a series of procedures.  o f what t h e  likely  is that  a c t i o n o r even j u s t i f y  summary o f  Very l i t t l e  a l t h o u g h d o i n g so  however,  what c o n s t i t u t e s s u c c e s s f u l work on t h i s action,  the  demonstration of understanding.  be e v e n more i m p o r t a n t , verbalize  enough f o r  talk  which  COM2 t r a n s c r i p t s was  f o c u s i n g on something t h e  177  verbal  teacher considered  useful  f o r moving smoothly through t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l  procedure.  The " d i s p l a y "  observed i n t h e f o l l o w i n g (3)  q u a l i t i e s o f p o i n t i n g - o u t can be examples:  OKAY, UH, CAN YOU FIND THE Yes,  - BUTTON SAYING "SHIFT"?  I can. /OKAY, OH, PLEASE - DO NOT PRESS THAT SHIFT. [6COM2]  (4)  OKAY. NOW IT'S IDENTIFIED. YOU SEE WHERE THE CURSOR IS THERE? ++ SEE IT BLINKING? + Blink. THERE, YOU SEE IT BLINK? Yeah, t h e - f i r s t , /CURSOR  the f i r s ,  t h i s one? Kore?  RIGHT, OKAY. DON'T TOUCH THAT, THOUGH. IT'S FOUND THE FIRST LETTER, "A".  OKAY. + NOW, [7COM2]  The  t e a c h e r has t e m p o r a r i l y stopped t h e a c t i o n  the  learner  and brought  t o t h e p o i n t o f an important i n s t r u c t i o n .  The  t e a c h e r c l e a r l y has a motive beyond c o n f i r m i n g a common perception of the situation. instruction  Here t h e t e a c h e r breaks t h e  i n t o two components, one which e s t a b l i s h e s  specific topic  (the  s h i f t button, t h e b l i n k i n g  another which d i r e c t s b e h a v i o r touch t h a t " ) .  c u r s o r ) and  ("do n o t p r e s s t h a t " ,  "do not  T h i s approach t o i n s t r u c t i o n resembles such  forms o f language s i m p l i f i c a t i o n as t o p i c a l i z a t i o n 1983)  a  and decomposition o f lengthy p r o p o s i t i o n s  However, i t i s perhaps e a s i e r  (Hatch,  (Long, 1980).  t o interpret the pointing-out  178  questions  in  (3)  operationalize  and  (4)  seem n o t setting  teacher's  intended to  instructional rivet  the  setting.  learner's  information  conditions for  attention,  (5)  then,  o f meaning as  efficiently.  q u e s t i o n s which immediately  take the  be  conveying procedural  Q u e s t i o n s w h i c h s e t up k e y b e h a v i o r a r e to  to  to  Questions  s o much o r i e n t e d t o w a r d c l a r i f i c a t i o n up t h e  attempt  a c c u r a c y and s e q u e n c e — v a l u e s l i k e l y  p r o m o t e d i n any f o r m a l which are  above as t h e  form o f  direct  closely  related  performance but  which  a polite suggestion:  YOU WANT TO MOVE THE CURSOR AROUND A L I T T L E BIT TO SEE WHAT I T DOES? Yes. YEAH.  SO I T  JUST GOES SPACE BY SPACE IN  THIS  CASE. [12COM2]  (6)  Y E A H , CAN YOU MOVE THAT? ++ J - CAN YOU JUST T R Y . PLAY WITH I T ? + Y E A H , UP AND DOWN OR L E F T , - RIGHT - A L L RIGHT. NOT THE T O P , YEAH, DOWN. OKAY. / A h not /Top? - Right, l e f t . [9COM2]  (7)  OKAY.  CAN YOU PUSH " A " ? ++  RIGHT.  Yes. [4COM2]  179  (8)  AND. HOW ABOUT TRYING AGAIN? HOW MANY WE HAVE.  SEE HOW MANY- WE'LL SEE  (4) How ma + Ha How many /MAYBE YOU CAN PUSH F-2 AGAIN. WE'LL SEE HOW MANY WE HAVE HERE. THERE'S ANOTHER ONE. Aaah. WHY DON'T YOU KEEP PUSHING UNTIL YOU GET TO THE END? KEEP PUSHING F-2. [3COM2] A s t r a t e g y which emphasized language s i m p l i f i c a t i o n would not n o r m a l l y employ t h e k i n d s o f p o l i t e s u g g e s t i o n s c i t e d i n (5-8), above.  As t h e examples i n d i c a t e , p o l i t e  suggestions  are t y p i c a l l y much l e s s d i r e c t than simple i m p e r a t i v e forms ("Move t h e c u r s o r around . . .") and thus employ more complex syntax.  T h i s p r o p e r t y o f such r e q u e s t s  t h a t c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y (as might be achieved s i m p l i f i c a t i o n o f t h e syntax)  indicates  through  i s n o t n e a r l y as important as  the t e a c h e r ' s m a n i p u l a t i o n o f t h e l e a r n e r ' s b e h a v i o r i n a i d o f moving through t h e l e s s o n c o n t e n t .  C l e a r l y the teacher  i s n o t deaf t o t h e l e a r n e r ' s r e q u e s t f o r h e l p i n (8), s i n c e the t e a c h e r r e p e a t s and expands on t h e i n i t i a l f o r " t r y i n g again".  The disingenuous  justification  quality of the  q u e s t i o n , however, puts i t s q u a r e l y i n t o t h e d i s p l a y c a t e g o r y and t h e o v e r a l l impression i s t h a t t h e t e a c h e r i s e x e r c i s i n g a r e g i s t e r e x p r e s s l y employed f o r t r a i n i n g s i t u a t i o n s — a kind of teacher t a l k . be imagined  S i m i l a r r e g i s t e r s can  f o r a number o f o t h e r s e t t i n g s , such as asylums  and h o s p i t a l s , i n which r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d by dependence and r e l a t i v e incompetence on t h e p a r t o f one o f 180  the  interlocutors. A v a r i a t i o n on the use o f q u e s t i o n s as d i r e c t i v e s i s a  k i n d o f prompt o r reminder  i n which the t e a c h e r asks a  q u e s t i o n and then proceeds t o supply p a r t o f the answer. Once a g a i n an i m p r e s s i o n o f the l e a r n e r ' s r e l a t i v e and dependence i s conveyed  by the prompting  ignorance  form o f d i s p l a y  question: (9)  WHAT'S THE SPELLING OF "TOGETHER"? T-O-G-E- t-h-e-r. T-H-E-R.  AND YOU WANT TO FIND A WORD?  t-h-e. T-H-E.  THEREFORE, THIS - CURSOR IS SHOWING. [10COM2]  S i n c e t h i s form o f the q u e s t i o n i s designed t o produce a response from the l e a r n e r , i t thus might seem t o f u n c t i o n as a check o f the l e a r n e r ' s a b i l i t y t o s p e l l . Because the q u e s t i o n seems so n a i v e , however, because t h e t e a c h e r wants t o produce  the response which  i s v i r t u a l l y a s s u r e d even as  the q u e s t i o n i s posed, an a l t e r n a t i v e motive may be a t work. As i t t u r n s out, the d i s t i n c t i o n between T-H-E  produced  with  l e a d i n g and f o l l o w i n g spaces, and without them, i s c r u c i a l t o the computer's a b i l i t y t o l o c a t e a s t r i n g spaces are important i n s t r i n g s e a r c h i n g .  accurately;  The t e a c h e r  a p p a r e n t l y wanted t o t e s t the l e a r n e r ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h i s q u a l i t y o f s t r i n g s e a r c h i n g even though the might  instruction  seem t o be caught up w i t h a s p e l l i n g problem. 181  This  b i t o f t a l k has helped t o e x p l a i n why t h e c u r s o r d i d n ' t f i n d the, t h e word, and so i t was probably  worth t h e t e a c h e r ' s  investment i n having t h e l e a r n e r focus on a r e l a t i v e l y simple,  known p i e c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n i n o r d e r t o make an  important  inference.  A general  feature of t h i s kind of i n s t r u c t i o n a l  d i s c o u r s e , then, may w e l l be t h e t e a c h e r ' s use o f d i s p l a y questions  t o l e a d the l e a r n e r e v e r - s o - m i n c i n g l y  t o the point  of an i n e s c a p a b l e c o n c l u s i o n which had not p r e v i o u s l y been made e x p l i c i t . of d i a l o g u e  The t r a n s c r i p t s show numerous l o n g patches  i n which t h e t e a c h e r has t h e l e a r n e r move  g r a d u a l l y towards an i n e s c a p a b l e c o n c l u s i o n .  The t e a c h e r ' s  t o l e r a n c e f o r engaging i n t h i s l e v e l o f somewhat t e d i o u s d i s c o u r s e may, i n f a c t , run out a t times,  even though a  p i e c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n may s t i l l be worth b r i n g i n g i n t o t h e discussion.  I n such cases the t e a c h e r may f i n d i t more  e f f i c i e n t t o simply ask t h e q u e s t i o n and then supply t h e whole answer without respond.  ever r e a l l y i n t e n d i n g t h a t t h e l e a r n e r  The f o l l o w i n g examples i l l u s t r a t e t h i s pre-emptive  approach: (10)  WHEN WE WERE GOING THROUGH, I SHOULD HAVE STOPPED YOU AT TWO POINTS. WE HAD THE WORD "THEORY", T-H-E-O-R I-E-S. WHY DID IT STOP AT THE WORD "THEORY"? BECAUSE WE TYPED IN T-H-E, BUT WE DIDN'T LEAVE A SPACE IN /Hnn FRONT OR A SPACE IN BACK... [4COM2]  182  (11)  YES, AND WHAT HAPPENS? WE'VE COME UP TO ANOTHER + ANOTHER VERSION, ANOTHER USE OF THE WORD "NEEDS". THAT'S TWO TIMES. [5COM2]  (12)  OKAY. + SO. WHAT HAVE YOU GOT? NOW- THERE ARE - FIVE THINGS AT THE, UH, BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN, RIGHT? [9COM2]  The pre-empting q u e s t i o n e f f e c t i v e l y t u r n s d i a l o g u e  into  monologue, i f o n l y t e m p o r a r i l y , and reduces t h e opportunities f o r negotiation.  I t i s , however, a f a i r l y  f a m i l i a r i n s t r u c t i o n a l r e s o u r c e which t h e t e a c h e r may f i n d of  v a l u e even when t h e l e a r n e r may be prepared t o attempt  a  response. T h i s s m a l l group o f d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n types by no means  exhausts  t h e v a r i e t y o f d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s found  the 12 t r a n s c r i p t s .  I t does, however, account  m a j o r i t y o f d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s found  throughout f o r the great  i n the f a i r l y  t r a d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l context r e p r e s e n t e d by COM2.  When  t h e s e t t i n g changes r a d i c a l l y from one which i s l a r g e l y o r i e n t e d t o s e r v i n g e d u c a t i o n a l aims t o ones which r e v o l v e around i n f o r m a t i o n exchange o r p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g ,  a very  d i f f e r e n t k i n d o f q u e s t i o n predominates. DIS  and LEG2: D i s c u s s i o n and Cooperative DIS had t h e fewest  Problem-solving  formal c o n s t r a i n t s o f any t a s k .  T h i s i s not t o say, o f course, t h a t d i s c u s s i o n which has been g i v e n no e x p l i c i t o b j e c t i v e s i s without v e r y c o n t r o l s on s t r u c t u r e and development.  The term  powerful "free  d i s c u s s i o n " i s r e s e r v e d f o r t h e d i s c u s s i o n t a s k , however, 183  largely  to  i n d i c a t e t h a t the p a r t i c i p a n t s  r e s e a r c h e r were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the  talk.  By c o n t r a s t t h e  the  content  v e r y much i n f l u e n c e d by t h e  content  the  and d i r e c t i o n  and d i r e c t i o n o f  initial  t o b u i l d t h e model t o g e t h e r  materials  t h e model i t s e l f ,  and b y  i n c l u d i n g the  the  the  graphic  i n s t r u c t i o n s w h i c h r e q u i r e d each p i e c e t o be p l a c e d i n particular  way.  This task  of  LEG2 was  instructions to  participants of  and n o t  i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by i t s  a  f o c u s on  c o o p e r a t i v e l y c o n s t r u c t i n g a m o d e l w h i c h c a n be v i e w e d b y both p a r t i c i p a n t s . (although  less  c o n s i s t i n g of  learner  than of  a smaller degree,  contrast to both of  the  exchange o f  the  teaching tasks questions.  (or  at  a n d LEG2  functions for  Referential  Lego a n d ,  number and v a r i e t y  believed)  The f o l l o w i n g  discussion of  184  questions supply  t o be  of  examples  questions  Most o f  clear  the  are prepared to  referential  e x c e r p t s have been t a k e n from t h e  and  information.  i n terms of  least  a conversation partner.  greatest  DIS  Compared  face-to-face  d i s c u s s i o n and p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g s e t t i n g s .  (the  "information  b a c k - t o - b a c k Lego t a s k s p r o v i d e a  referential  suggest a range of  and a n  s t a t u s gap b e t w e e n t e a c h e r  discussion,  i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h i s known to  the dyad as  and a l e a r n e r .  h a v e g r e a t c u r r e n c y when p a r t i c i p a n t s  interest  accurate  i n s t r u c t i o n a l purposes,  a n d r e q u i r e d an a c t i v e  occurrence of  speak of  a teacher  importance of the  Taken t o g e t h e r , to  to  an " i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e r "  tasks with purely  reduced the  i s t h u s p e r h a p s more  consistent)  consumer" r a t h e r to  It  in  the  transcripts  referential  questions  o c c u r r e d d u r i n g f r e e d i s c u s s i o n ) although p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g o f the s o r t e n f o r c e d d u r i n g performance o f t h e f a c e - t o - f a c e Lego t a s k produced a s m a l l and i n t e r e s t i n g s e t o f r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s which d i d not occur d u r i n g d i s c u s s i o n . T h i s s e t w i l l be examined b r i e f l y f o l l o w i n g examination  of  the d i s c u s s i o n t r a n s c r i p t s . DIS:  Free D i s c u s s i o n W i t h i n t h e broad  range o f q u e s t i o n s c l a s s i f i e d as  " r e f e r e n t i a l " which o c c u r r e d d u r i n g d i s c u s s i o n , t h e most common q u e s t i o n i s a response t o t h e p r e v i o u s extension of the current t o p i c .  Responsiveness here means  acknowledgement o f t h e p r e v i o u s speaker's encouragement t o expand on i t .  speaker's  u t t e r a n c e and  The r e s p o n s i v e  question  o r d i n a r i l y aims a t e l i c i t i n g f r e s h c o n v e r s a t i o n a l m a t e r i a l , although  i t may w e l l be t h e case t h a t t h e m a t e r i a l i t s e l f i s  o f l e s s importance than the f a c t o f c o n v e r s a t i o n  being  extended c o o p e r a t i v e l y . (13)  YEAH. I LIKED KOCHI AND I WAS A LITTLE BIT SURPRISED. Ah!  On what p o i n t ?  WELL, BEFORE I WENT TO SHIKOKU, I TOLD SOME OF MY FRIENDS THAT I WAS GOING TO SHIKOKU. AND THEY SAID, "SHIKOKU! AH!" IT'S REALLY IN THE STICKS. IT'S - UH - THERE ARE ONLY FARMERS. [2DIS] There i s no e x t e r n a l l y imposed g o a l o r d i r e c t i o n f o r t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n although  the p a r t i c i p a n t s do seem t o share an  i n t e r e s t i n drawing each other out. 185  This increases the  chances t h a t t u r n s w i l l be l i n k e d t o a t o p i c or t h a t candidate  t o p i c s can be examined f o r i n c l u s i o n i n the  conversation.  A l l o w i n g a speaker t o e l a b o r a t e on  the  s p e a k e r s t o p i c of i n t e r e s t i s t y p i c a l l y the i n i t i a l  effect  1  of a responsive  q u e s t i o n ; the e v e n t u a l  e f f e c t o f such  g e n e r o s i t y , however, i s t o seed the c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h  points  which can be taken up by a l i s t e n e r . (14)  YEAH. + AND  + WELL, MY  HOMETOWN IS QUITE NEAR.  Where? UH,  SANDA.  Sanda? HAVE YOU  HEARD OF SANDA?  No. IT'S  IN THE  MIDDLE OF,  UH,  HYOGO - PREFECTURE. [9DIS]  The  a l t e r n a t i o n of r e f e r e n t i a l questions  from  one  p a r t i c i p a n t t o the o t h e r as e x e m p l i f i e d i n (14)  i s the b a s i s  o f i n f o r m a t i o n exchange about a t o p i c which i s so c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f the d i s c u s s i o n t a s k .  Depending on  l e v e l o f p r o f i c i e n c y , such r e s p o n s i v e q u e s t i o n s may  the be a  l e a r n e r ' s major c o n t r i b u t i o n towards development o f a t o p i c and  a u s e f u l means of g e t t i n g more out of the  than i s put  conversation  into i t .  Frequently, produce balanced  however, r e s p o n s i v e  q u e s t i o n s do  not  exchanges of i n f o r m a t i o n but i n s t e a d serve  e i t h e r t o t e a s e out a t o p i c p i e c e by p i e c e o r t o r a i s e 186  c a n d i d a t e t o p i c s f o r acceptance o r r e j e c t i o n by t h e next speaker.  Such cases t y p i c a l l y produce r e l a t i v e l y  long  r e s p o n s i v e s t r i n g s w i t h one member o f t h e dyad a s k i n g and the o t h e r member answering q u e s t i o n s . (15)  FUNA? Funa. Yes + umm ++ t h a t i s one ++ urn - t h a t i s a k i n d of + g o l d f i s h . UH HUH. Oh. AND YOU CAUGHT THAT IN THE POND? Urn y e s . I t i s t y p i c a l Japanese f i s h which i s i n r i v e r ++ r i v e r o r pond. AND THEN YOU. YOU. DID YOU YOU TAKE THAT HOME AND EAT IT THEN? Ha ha so ha ha ohhh no f e umm so few p e o p l e e a t i t b u t almost doesn't e a t . AH. SO YOU THROW IT BACK? Yeah. YOU CATCH IT AND THEN THROW IT BACK IN? Yeah. WHEN YOU CAME TO FISH IN THE OCEAN. WAS THAT DIFFERENT? [3DIS]  T h i s way o f c o n s t r u c t i n g a t o p i c c l e a r l y puts a burden on the t e a c h e r , t h e more p r o f i c i e n t member o f t h e dyad, b u t i t a l s o makes i t e a s i e r f o r t h e l e a r n e r t o e x e r c i s e some r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r d i r e c t i n g the t a l k .  The t e a c h e r ' s  q u e s t i o n s a r e l a r g e l y r e s p o n s i v e t o t h e l e a r n e r , even though  187  the l e v e l of q u e s t i o n s i m p l i f i c a t i o n i s not  especially  r e s p o n s i v e t o the l e a r n e r ' s demonstrated a b i l i t y t o handle u n s i m p l i f i e d yes/no q u e s t i o n s . An even g r e a t e r c o n v e r s a t i o n a l burden i s taken on when t o p i c s are thrown out f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n by the  listener.  T h i s a d d i t i o n a l g e n e r a l category o f r e f e r e n t i a l r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s which h e l p t o b r i n g new the c o n v e r s a t i o n — l e n d s  questions—  material into  a degree o f u n p r e d i c t a b i l i t y t o the  c o n v e r s a t i o n and e n r i c h e s i t w i t h o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r p a r t i c i p a n t s to insinuate personally i n t e r e s t i n g material i n t o the ongoing t a l k . immediately;  Sometimes the t o p i c i s pursued  sometimes, however, t o p i c s must be r a i s e d  a f t e r the o t h e r u n t i l one the c o n v e r s a t i o n .  i s found t o be worth b l e n d i n g  one into  T h i s method o f examining p r o s p e c t i v e  t o p i c s i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n (16), below. (16)  UH HUH. (2) MMM. DO YOU HAVE ANY UH (2) CLUB. CLUB ACTIVITIES CONNECTED WITH OTHER UH ++ THE ESS. UH ESS OF OTHER UNIVERSITIES? Mmm.  Yes we  AH  have. So c a l l e d K-I-  K-I-E-F...  HAH. /mmm.  AH HAH.  DO  Yes. Ahh YOU  YOU  HAVE A PART TIME JOB? UH  as a t u t o r .  TEACH ENGLISH.  Yes. /UH Or  HUH.  history.  UH HUH.  WHERE ARE  YOU  FROM?  188  FROM OSAKA OR  [10DIS]  The  l e a r n e r i s r e s p o n s i v e , and even v o l u n t e e r s i n f o r m a t i o n ,  but i s somehow unable t o h e l p t h e t e a c h e r f i n d a q u a l i f y i n g topic.  Even though a s t a b l e t o p i c i s not y e t a v a i l a b l e , t h e  participants s t i l l  t r e a t each o t h e r ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n s as  worthy o f response. E v e n t u a l l y , however, new t o p i c s a r e i n t r o d u c e d i n t o t h e discussion  (17-18) and form s t a b l e r e s o u r c e s f o r exchanging  information.  The f o l l o w i n g example shows one common way i n  which t h i s i s accomplished (17)  through  a r e f e r e n t i a l question.  WHERE- WHERE IN KANSAI., UH, IS YOUR HOMETOWN? Mmmm. Kobe C i t y . AH, KOBE CITY? HAH HA HA HA. + WELL, AAAND. UHH. DO YOU- HAVE YOU EVER SORT OF, UM. + EXPERIENCED NEW YEAR'S IN KOBE? No. N000. ++ UHHH , + RIGHT. THEN WHAT- WHAT SORT OF THINGS YOU'RE GOING TO DO? ++ DURING - DURING THE NEW YEAR'S? During New  Year's?  YEAH. /Mmmm. To t e l l t h e t r u t h , my- um, my b r o t h e r i s studying  still-  YEAH. F o r - entrance examination? + And I would l i k e t o /AH, HAH-HAH-HAH. h e l p him. YOU WOULD LIKE TO HELP HIM, YEAH. /Hmmm. And a l s o , I wanted to meet my f r i e n d s . [9DIS] The t e a c h e r ' s i n i t i a l q u e s t i o n i s t h e end o f a s t r i n g o f 189  responsive  questions  next q u e s t i o n ,  which a r e not t o p i c a l l y developed.  however, begins a p e r i o d o f development i n  which both p a r t i c i p a n t s share more o r l e s s e q u a l l y . question  The  contains  a group o f markers ("WELL, AAAND,  This UHH")  which f u n c t i o n t o h o l d a t u r n and i n d i c a t e t h e imminence o f a fresh t o p i c t o the l i s t e n e r .  Although an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  of such markers i s q u i t e s p e c u l a t i v e a t t h i s p o i n t , i t appears t h a t t h e speaker intends one  l i n e of questioning  t o s i g n a l the exhaustion of  and t h e b e g i n n i n g o f another; t h e  l i s t e n e r i s a l s o n o t i f i e d t h a t what i s about t o be mentioned i s p r o b a b l y worth c o n s i d e r a t i o n as t h e next t o p i c . Markers o f t h e s o r t employed i n (17) appear throughout the t r a n s c r i p t s as l i k e l y t o p i c boundaries.  Frequently,  however, t o p i c s a r e "pushed" much more a g g r e s s i v e l y simply marking t h e i r d e s i r a b l e s t a r t i n g p o i n t . i n d i c a t e s , p a r t i c i p a n t s may p r e f a c e  than  As (18)  a referential  question  w i t h m a t e r i a l which i n v i t e s a p a r t i c u l a r response from t h e l i s t e n e r and which thus has t h e e f f e c t o f d i r e c t i n g t h e course o f t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n . (18)  Uh, so - some my f r i e n d s l i k e s - wearing kimono, but many o f - o f - most o f my f r i e n d s don't l i k e i t . How about your - w i f e ? Does your w i f e wear kimono? MMM, WELL, OF COURSE MY WIFE IS ENGLISH, SO SHE THINKS IT LOOKS VERY - SHE DOESN'T FEEL UH COMFORTABLE + WEARING KIMONO. SHE FEEL IT'S - LOOKS A BIT + STRANGE. /Comfortable! Ha,  ha. Yes, I understand. [5DIS]  190  T h i s s e t t i n g up o f t h e c o n d i t i o n s f o r t h e t e a c h e r ' s i s apparently e f f e c t i v e .  The t e a c h e r ' s  response  response  prompts t h e l e a r n e r t o r e - a s s e r t an i n t e r e s t i n t h e t o p i c , although  evidence  o f the learner's  misunderstanding  ("Comfortable!") i n i t i a t e s some c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n i n t h e form o f a restatement.  The n e g o t i a t i o n i s r e s o l v e d  s u c c e s s f u l l y i n t h i s case, but even without  a successful  r e s o l u t i o n t h e f a c t remains t h a t t h e l e a r n e r was a b l e t o s e t up a s t r e t c h o f t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n and cooperate  in its  development. The  t r a n s c r i p t s f o r DIS a l s o demonstrate how  p a r t i c i p a n t s s e t up t h e i r own p r o s p e c t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n a c r o s s more than one t u r n through use o f r e f e r e n t i a l questions.  Although  the l i s t e n e r i s t y p i c a l l y i n v i t e d t o  n e g o t i a t e t h e i d e n t i t y o f a t o p i c a l focus  (a person, a  t h i n g , a p l a c e ) , i t i s not so much t h e l i s t e n e r ' s responses t h a t matter as i t i s t h e i n i t i a l speaker's  intention to  expand a t o p i c o f p e r s o n a l i n t e r e s t w i t h t h e formal cooperation o f a conversation partner: (19)  DO YOU KNOW. YOU KNOW WOODY ALLEN. DON'T YOU? /Hmm. I - Allen? WOODY. WOODY ALLEN. Yeah, I know. YEAH.  WOODY ALLEN AS A PERSON - IS - MISERABLE. /Hmm, oh. [4DIS]  191  "Formal c o o p e r a t i o n " i n (19) means t h a t the l i s t e n e r i s g i v e n o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o answer the q u e s t i o n , t o take  official  t u r n s i n o r d e r t o c o n t i n u e c o o p e r a t i v e work on the topic.  The n e g o t i a t i o n done here i s s i g n i f i c a n t i n terms of  the k i n d s of r e p a i r s the l e a r n e r e x p e r i e n c e s request f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n ,  r e p e t i t i o n and  (including a  self-repetition).  I t i s a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t , however, f o r what i t demonstrates about the ways i n which r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s can  be  employed t o e f f e c t the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f d i s c o u r s e beyond the next c o n v e r s a t i o n a l t u r n . LEG2: C o o p e r a t i v e  Problem-solving  The two p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g t a s k s (LEG1  and LEG2) were,  l i k e f r e e - d i s c u s s i o n , important sources f o r the p r o d u c t i o n of r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s . however, because i t was  LEG2 w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d here,  a somewhat r i c h e r source o f  r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s than LEG1  (see T a b l e 22).  In  a d d i t i o n , LEG2 extends the range of q u e s t i o n s found i n the d i s c u s s i o n t a s k , the o n l y o t h e r non-teaching  t a s k which  i n v o l v e d the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n f a c e - t o - f a c e t a l k . The t r a n s c r i p t s f o r both Lego t a s k s i n d i c a t e an i n t e n s e concern w i t h f i n d i n g and p l a c i n g p i e c e s i n accordance the g r a p h i c i n s t r u c t i o n s .  I t i s not s u r p r i s i n g , then, t h a t  an e s s e n t i a l f e a t u r e of the d i s c o u r s e was  n e g o t i a t i o n over  the p r e c i s e l o c a t i o n and appearance of o b j e c t s , and r e l a t i o n s h i p of one o b j e c t t o another. d i s t i n g u i s h e d LEG2, however, was to  with  the  What p a r t i c u l a r l y  the p a r t i c i p a n t s '  ability  see what they were t a l k i n g about and the i n f l u e n c e o f  192  this  quality  already  o f p e r c e p t i o n h a d on t h e  noted i s the  reference.  Another,  relatively  high level  noted here,  b a s e d on t h e  search for  participant,  for  discourse.  to  may t a k e t h e  next  intended to  be i n f o r m a t i o n  turn to  this  kind of  the partner saving)  (20)  referential  c o o p e r a t i v e exchange a r e to provide e f f i c i e n t  information,  U H , NO, I Which -  -  is  distinction.  questions which help  (i.e.,  isn't  other  question during  time-  and  q u e s t i o n s which request a  GUESS THAT -  the  r e s p o n d w i t h what  o f use i n making t h e  Among t h e most common f o r m s o f  One  a s k how s e v e r a l  o b j e c t s might be d i s t i n g u i s h e d from each o t h e r ; participant  turns  an o b j e c t .  may t a k e a t u r n  effect  exophoric  i s the pacing of  or placement of  example,  of  One  labor-  focus;  THAT I S N ' T I T . /No?  w h i c h one? / C A N YOU FIND ANOTHER ONE?  WHERE IS  AH.  IT?  UH Mmm. THINK IT ONE YOU This  MIGHT BE CLOSE + IS  i s not  + this  U H , U H , TRY I T . THE SAME WAY.  THAT I T ?  OR IS  THAT THE  one?  SEE I F  YOU CAN PUT I T  IN  THERE -  IN  [2LEG2] The t e a c h e r provide useful is  in this  case,  information  c o n t i n u a l l y checking the  table What  of  to the  course, is trying  conversation partner  p o s i t i o n o f t h e p i e c e s on  a g a i n s t t h e p o s i t i o n o f p i e c e s on t h e serves well  to  the  instructions.  as a t e a c h e r ' s d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n i n  193  and  the  i n s t r u c t i o n a l c o n t e x t becomes a r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n i n the problem-solving  context.  Exophoric r e f e r e n c e i s an  p a r t o f v i r t u a l l y a l l t u r n s and i s t y p i c a l l y through  expressed  the medium o f the r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n .  The  t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of one k i n d of q u e s t i o n i n t o another v i r t u a l l y not a t a l l on who  integral  depends  i s t a l k i n g t o whom, but r a t h e r  on the u n d e r l y i n g i n t e n t i o n of one of the p a r t i c i p a n t s ,  the  " t e a c h e r " , t o e i t h e r t e a c h or t o exchange i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h an equal i n the b u s i n e s s of moving a problem towards solution.  In (20), above, both p a r t i c i p a n t s must ask  and  answer q u e s t i o n s which focus the p a r t n e r ' s a t t e n t i o n ; both p a r t i c i p a n t s thus e f f e c t i v e l y commit each o t h e r t o s u p p l y i n g the needed i n f o r m a t i o n . During c o n s t r u c t i o n of the Lego model p a r t i c i p a n t s would f r e q u e n t l y request each o t h e r t o assess performance or p e r c e p t i o n , o r t o otherwise p r o v i d e guidance placement of p i e c e s .  i n the  In a c o o p e r a t i v e s i t u a t i o n ,  r e q u e s t s i n the form of r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s are  such powerful  i n f l u e n c e s on the speed w i t h which the problem i s s o l v e d and frequently constitute useful alternatives to a direct-and-respond  strategy.  simple  Indeed, the n e g o t i a t i o n which  o f t e n f o l l o w s the request, f a r from wasting time i n roundabout d i s c u s s i o n , i s a c e n t r a l f e a t u r e of i n f o r m a t i o n exchange d u r i n g p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g .  efficient The f o l l o w i n g  e x c e r p t s i l l u s t r a t e t h r e e commonly employed r e q u e s t s f o r a s s i s t a n c e : r e q u e s t f o r assessment (21), r e q u e s t f o r direction  (22) and request f o r e x p l a n a t i o n 194  (23).  (21)  ON THE T O P .  T H E Y ' R E BLACK,  Umituti.  that  Isn't  right?  T H E Y ' R E SMALL.  Here?  YEAH, T H A T ' S , T H A T ' S ONE. YEAH. AND THE OTHER ONE ALSO + ALSO IS - NO, T H A T ' S NOT I T [4LEG2] (22)  THE TRUCK. BUT YOU MUST TURN THE WHEELS SO THAT T H E , THE P I E C E WITH BUMPS IS U P . I,  I  can connect?  YEAH. Um hut.  The bumps.  YOU WANT TO CONNECT THE WHEELS TO THE MAIN BLACK PIECE. THERE YOU GO. [12LEG2] (23)  It's  i m p o s s i b l e , maybe. / I T ' S IMPOSSIBLE? + I T I S ? + UH + DON'T WE FIND - SIMILAR - SQUARE ONE WHICH - CAN / T h i s - Huh? PUT IN THERE? + YOU C A N ' T (4) WOW. WHAT HAPPENED? I  don't  know. [10LEG2]  All  of  t h e s e c a n be d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m r e q u e s t s  c l a r i f i c a t i o n by v i r t u e than the  of  their  f o c u s on t h e  language by which t h e t a s k  Accordingly,  the  negotiation  i s moved  is precipitated  task  by  q u e s t i o n s — q u e s t i o n s about c o n t e n t  rather  language—which involve the  c o n s t r u c t i o n of appropriate is  an a p p r o p r i a t e  content  for  sometimes o n l y b a r e l y  the  the and  listener  response.  What  195  action  in  constitutes  t u r n which f o l l o w s the  s u g g e s t e d by t h e  rather  forward.  referential than  for  question  form i n which  the  q u e s t i o n i s put.  Given a t a s k i n which sequenced  i n f o r m a t i o n i s v i t a l t o s u c c e s s f u l communication, such as LEG2, e f f i c i e n t r e q u e s t s f o r d i r e c t i o n can be made w i t h a s i n g l e word and can a l s o s i g n a l completion  o f one s t e p and  r e a d i n e s s f o r t h e next: (24)  WE HAVE THREE WHEELS. Yeah.  TAKE, TAKE THEM.  ++ And?  ALL RIGHT. PICK UP THE PIECE AND PUT THE WHEELS ON THE BOTTOM. [4LEG2] Sometimes, however, a p a r t n e r ' s p e r c e p t i o n must be a s s e s s e d e x p l i c i t l y b e f o r e t h e next s t e p can be taken. would o r d i n a r i l y be accomplished  by t h e person  This  giving  d i r e c t i o n s , although n o t h i n g i n p r i n c i p l e p r o h i b i t s t h e r e c i p i e n t o f d i r e c t i o n s from checking on t h e p a r t n e r ' s view of o b j e c t s i n t h e t a s k environment.  Assessment o f  p e r c e p t i o n may s i g n i f y t h a t t h e t a s k has reached  a turning  p o i n t o r t h a t t h e p a r t n e r has demonstrated u n c e r t a i n t y , o r an u n c o n v i n c i n g degree o f c e r t a i n t y , about what t o do next. F u n c t i o n s o f t h i s s o r t a r e i l l u s t r a t e d i n (25), below. (25)  YEAH. AND UH, THEN PUT THE LONG BLACK PIECE ON THEM. + DO YOU SEE HOW THE WHEELS HAVE BUMPS + TO HOLD PIECES? Mm, I /BETWEEN THE TWO WHEELS. Between t h e two wheels. YEAH. LOOK WHAT'S BETWEEN THE TWO WHEELS. LOOK AT THE PART BETWEEN THE TWO WHEELS. PICK UP A PIECE OF 196  WHEEL. YEAH, OK. SEE THE PART? IT HAS A BUMP. IT HAS A THING WITH BUMPS TO + HOLD SOMETHING. OK, YEAH. /two, uh f o u r , f o u r bumps. Mm /OK. [12LEG2] What seems t o d i s t i n g u i s h q u e s t i o n s framed t o check a p a r t n e r ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e s i t u a t i o n from  questions  i n t e n d e d t o check l e a r n i n g (as i n t e a c h i n g t a s k s ) i s the emphasis on g e t t i n g t o t h e next s t e p .  A partner's  p e r c e p t i o n becomes e n t i r e l y i r r e l e v a n t once t h i s has been accomplished  and t h e r e i s no s p e c i a l v a l u e p l a c e d on t h e  i n f o r m a t i o n beyond f a c i l i t a t i n g t h e t a s k  itself.  D i s p l a y and R e f e r e n t i a l Questions: Summarizing t h e C o n t r a s t s Between the Teaching The  and Non-teaching Tasks  a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e demonstrated  significant  d i f f e r e n c e s between t a s k s on t h e b a s i s o f q u e s t i o n  types,  most p a r t i c u l a r l y on t h e b a s i s o f d i s p l a y and r e f e r e n t i a l questions.  The t e x t u a l a n a l y s i s has f u r t h e r examined t h e  c o n t e x t s i n which p a r t i c u l a r k i n d s o f d i s p l a y and r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s occur and o u t l i n e d v a r i o u s d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n s which a r e accomplished  by these q u e s t i o n s .  This  a n a l y s i s has c l a r i f i e d t h e i n t e n s i v e use o f d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s d u r i n g t h e two t e a c h i n g t a s k s — t h a t d i s p l a y questions are e s s e n t i a l features of a teacher's instructional behavior—and  underscored  the r o l e of  r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s as fundamental s t r u c t u r e s o f o r d i n a r y s o c i a l exchange. 197  The  t e x t u a l a n a l y s i s has a l s o suggested  several  d i f f e r e n c e s between t a s k s based on the predominance of e i t h e r d i s p l a y or r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s . it  These d i f f e r e n c e s ,  s h o u l d be emphasized, are based on the o b s e r v a t i o n of  d y a d i c d i s c o u r s e i n an experimental  r a t h e r than a  n a t u r a l i s t i c s e t t i n g , although the q u a l i t a t i v e method of a n a l y s i s has t r e a t e d the d i s c o u r s e as n a t u r a l t e x t s . 1) Whereas r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s serve a broad of f u n c t i o n s r e l a t e d t o i n f o r m a t i o n exchange i n teaching tasks, d i s p l a y questions narrowly  focus  variety  non-  relatively  on the e x t e n t and q u a l i t y o f l e a r n i n g a s s o c i a t e d  with a teacher's  i n s t r u c t i o n a l purposes.  2) F o l l o w i n g from 1), the scope o f r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s i n a g i v e n non-teaching  t e x t appears much  wider than i n a g i v e n t e a c h i n g t e x t .  Opportunities f o r  l e a r n e r s t o n e g o t i a t e the language by which the t a s k i s accomplished  w i t h a w i l l i n g p a r t n e r are thus  considerably  i n c r e a s e d over the o p p o r t u n i t i e s a v a i l a b l e d u r i n g  formal  instruction. 3) By d e f i n i t i o n , d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s have o n l y  one  c o r r e c t answer; the a r b i t e r of c o r r e c t n e s s i s i n v a r i a b l y teacher.  the  T h i s f e a t u r e of d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s c o n t r i b u t e s t o  t h e i r r e l a t i v e e f f i c i e n c y i n accomplishing  educational  purposes, although they would appear t o be  relatively  i n e f f i c i e n t i n c r e a t i n g the c o n d i t i o n s f o r f r e e l y e x p l o r i n g t o p i c s which have not been planned  p r i o r to  instruction.  R e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s are o f t e n open-ended; w h i l e they 198  may  i n f l u e n c e b e h a v i o r , they do n o t n e c e s s a r i l y r e q u i r e a specific 4)  response. F o l l o w i n g from 3 ) , r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s a r e  especially  u s e f u l i n opening up c o n v e r s a t i o n a l t o p i c s which  o c c u r as each speaker takes a t u r n .  Indeed,  although  r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s a r e n o t necessary f o r i n f o r m a t i o n exchange t o occur, i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o imagine c o n v e r s a t i o n s i n which they do not p l a y an important p a r t i n making exchange o f i n f o r m a t i o n e a s i e r .  Although t h e p o i n t i s  s p e c u l a t i v e and r e q u i r e s f u r t h e r assessment,  non-teaching  t a s k s which emphasize t h e s o l u t i o n o f problems may be conducted w i t h g r e a t e r e f f i c i e n c y — w i t h g r e a t e r speed and d i r e c t movement towards t h e s o l u t i o n — w h e n  referential  q u e s t i o n s a r e a p p l i e d t o t h e t a s k than when they a r e n o t . T h i s would seem t o be an unintended, although e f f e c t o f use o f r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s .  felicitous,  In contrast,  d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s a r e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y i n t e n d e d t o improve the e f f i c i e n c y o f i n s t r u c t i o n .  I t i s s t i l l v e r y much an  open q u e s t i o n , however, whether i n s t r u c t i o n which i s conducted w i t h t h e use o f d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s r e s u l t s f a s t e r o r h i g h e r l e v e l o f achievement  than without  ina their  use. 5) The n e g o t i a t e d c h a r a c t e r o f non-teaching  talk  i s marked by r e c o u r s e t o r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s (and such o t h e r r e p a i r b e h a v i o r s as c o n f i r m a t i o n checks, r e q u e s t s and s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s ) .  Although  clarification  referential  q u e s t i o n s a r e o r d i n a r i l y o s t e n s i b l y t a r g e t e d on t h e c o n t e n t 199  of  the  talk—ways  spacecraft—they to-moment  to  of  a l s o v e r y much i n v o l v e d i n t h e  initiates  to  the  of n e g o t i a t i o n  likely  is  a  toy  momentthe  r e q u e s t may l e a d  expand o r e x e m p l i f y  knowledge  a  q u e s t i o n which a statement  Since the  also  language  fundamentally  or understanding,  the  which does o c c u r d u r i n g a t e a c h i n g t a s k  kind is  by s u c h moves a s l e a r n e r - p r o d u c e d e x p r e s s i o n s  uncertainty  Under t h e s e  each of  a referential  d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s , by c o n t r a s t ,  lexical  t a l k to  a period of n e g o t i a t i o n .  concerned with t e s t i n g  of  of  or rephrase,  listener  characterized  c o n s t r u c t i o n of  J u s t as a c l a r i f i c a t i o n  repeat  presses the thus  are  s p e n d New Y e a r ' s ,  comprehensibility  participants. partner  to  or teacher-produced  instructional  conditions,  that teachers w i l l  which e f f e c t i v e l y  shift  it  definitions.  i s not  especially  e n t e r t a i n q u e s t i o n s from  the  power t o  nominate  learners  and  control  d i s t i n c t i o n t o be drawn b e t w e e n  display  topics. 6)  The f i n a l  and r e f e r e n t i a l distribution tasks.  questions i s e x p l i c i t l y  o f power and r i g h t s  of  the  teacher's  o r g a n i z i n g and c a r r y i n g out constitute  the of  the  over t a l k during  D i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s c a n be v i e w e d  operationalization  is  concerned with  a kind of  center  learner,  of  ready  control  ideally,  Display  instructional  l e a r n i n g without engaging the  information.  responsibility  evidence t h a t the  is willing  Beyond a f a i r l y  to  narrowly  for questions  teacher p r o c e s s and t h a t  demonstrate  teacher  200  various  as  instruction.  i n the  the  the  extent  i n an e x c h a n g e  construed l e v e l  of of  exchange, perhaps i n t h e form o f a r o l e i n a textbook  drill  o r an e x p r e s s i o n o f l e x i c a l u n c e r t a i n t y which t h e t e a c h e r chooses t o d e a l with, t h e l e a r n e r i s u n l i k e l y t o e x e r c i s e much c o n t r o l over e i t h e r t h e t e a c h e r ' s o r t h e l e a r n e r ' s participation.  R e f e r e n t i a l questions  conversational or problem-solving s i g n i f y a s h i f t i n t h e balance r e p a i r i n g and e l a b o r a t i n g t a l k .  i n ordinary  t a s k s , by way o f c o n t r a s t ,  of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r In t h e t r a n s i t i o n from  i n s t r u c t i o n a l t o n o n - i n s t r u c t i o n a l contexts, teachers up some o f t h e i r c o n t r o l over t h e d i s c o u r s e w h i l e  give  learners  take much o f i t i n . Repair The  i n Complementary Task S t r u c t u r e s  d i s c u s s i o n next t u r n s from t h e forms o f d i s p l a y and  r e f e r e n t i a l questions  i n various task settings t o the  f u n c t i o n s o f two s m a l l groups o f r e p a i r s found i n complementary t a s k s t r u c t u r e s ( F i g u r e 18). These s t r u c t u r e s are t h e r e p a i r s found a t t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n o f t h e t e a c h i n g and  e x p o s i t o r y t a s k s on t h e one hand ( h e r e a f t e r Group 1.  i n c l u d i n g d e f i n i t i o n s and e x p r e s s i o n s  of l e x i c a l  u n c e r t a i n t y ) , and t h e non-teaching and e x p e r i e n t i a l t a s k s on the o t h e r  (Group 2, i n c l u d i n g c o n f i r m a t i o n checks and  r e f e r e n t i a l questions).  I t should be s t r e s s e d t h a t Group 1  and Group 2 s t r u c t u r e s a r e merely convenient  ways o f  summarizing t h e r e s u l t s o f a q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s . F u r t h e r , Group 1 and Group 2 s t r u c t u r e s a r e o n l y suggested by t h e a n a l y s i s and not demonstrated by i t .  The b r i e f  examination which f o l l o w s thus has a f o u n d a t i o n , 201  although i t  must s t i l l be d e s c r i b e d as a f a i r l y s p e c u l a t i v e way o f d i s t i l l i n g the discourse into c l e a r l y c o n t r a s t i n g s e t s . The  g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n s t o be r a i s e d d u r i n g t h e a n a l y s i s a r e ,  "What a r e t h e l i n k s ,  i f any, between t h e r e p a i r s i n each o f  the t a s k s t r u c t u r e s ?  What does t h e d i s c o u r s e l o o k l i k e when  the r e p a i r s i n each category co-occur?".  T h i s view o f t h e  t r a n s c r i p t s i s intended t o o f f e r some i n s i g h t i n t o t h e "short l i s t s " , are found  the d i s t i l l a t i o n ,  o f r e p a i r exponents as they  i n two, a p p a r e n t l y v e r y d i f f e r e n t ,  task  environments. Group 1: D e f i n i t i o n s and E x p r e s s i o n s of L e x i c a l U n c e r t a i n t y More than any o f t h e o t h e r t a s k s , COMl was concerned w i t h communication o f a b s t r a c t knowledge from t e a c h e r t o l e a r n e r e n t i r e l y through a v e r b a l medium.  By comparison,  the back-to-back lego task, LEGl, p e r m i t t e d r e f e r e n c e t o g r a p h i c i n s t r u c t i o n s and r e q u i r e d one o f t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s t o move o b j e c t s around on t h e t a b l e .  As an i n s t r u c t i o n a l  moreover, COMl i n v o l v e d t h e t e a c h e r i n frequent,  task,  short  d i g r e s s i o n s over b i t s o f knowledge r e l a t e d t o , b u t n o t e s s e n t i a l f o r , proper o p e r a t i o n o f t h e computer.  These  d i g r e s s i o n s t y p i c a l l y took t h e form o f d e f i n i t i o n s , some o f which were e l i c i t e d by t h e l e a r n e r , some o f which seemed t o a n t i c i p a t e a q u e s t i o n from t h e l e a r n e r over a step i n t h e procedure.  Although  just-mentioned  d e f i n i t i o n s which were  a p p a r e n t l y u n r e l a t e d t o l e x i c a l u n c e r t a i n t y were found i n the t r a n s c r i p t s , evidence  o f l e x i c a l u n c e r t a i n t y more 202  t y p i c a l l y helped  t h e t e a c h e r t o weave a b s t r a c t knowledge i n  the form o f a d e f i n i t i o n i n t o t h e t a l k .  This  fairly  s o p h i s t i c a t e d k i n d o f v e r b a l performance, i t should be noted, i s t h e p r o v i n c e o f t h e t e a c h e r d u r i n g talk.  instructional  Although t e a c h e r s may e l i c i t d e f i n i t i o n s from t h e i r  l e a r n e r s i n o r d e r t o t e s t knowledge, i t i s more t y p i c a l l y the case t h a t t e a c h e r s t r e a t l e x i c a l u n c e r t a i n t y , both t h e i r own and t h e l e a r n e r ' s , as a k i n d o f t r i p w i r e f o r p r o d u c t i o n of a d e f i n i t i o n . T h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p o f l e x i c a l u n c e r t a i n t y and d e f i n i t i o n , s p e c i f i c a l l y o f l e x i c a l uncertainty occasioning  definition  (LLEX -> DDEF), i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n t h e next e x c e r p t . e x c e r p t begins w i t h a d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n designed c o g n i t i v e knowledge (understanding  The  to test  o f t h e concept  string).  LLEX and DDEF a r e i n d i c a t e d by u n d e r l i n i n g and m a r g i n a l n o t a t i o n ; r e p a i r exponents f o r which t h e l e a r n e r i s r e s p o n s i b l e a r e shown w i t h an S added (e.g., LLEXS). (2 6)  DO YOU KNOW WHAT A - PIECE OF STRING IS? String IN OTHER WORDS, THREAD? Thread?  Ah. t h r e a d .  Uh -  THAT'S IT. A STRING IS JUST A THICK PIECE OF THREAD BUT IN, IN COMPU UH, COMPUTER / r i b - r i b b o n , r i b b o n . No. DOESN'T HAVE A RIBBON. TH - THERE'S A SPECIAL MEANING OF THE WORD STRING IN THE COMPUTER. IT JUST MEANS A WORD. A PHRASE OR SENTENCE.  LLEXS DDEF LLEXS  DDEF [2C0M1]  203  The  learner's l e x i c a l uncertainty  i s taken as evidence t h a t  more i n s t r u c t i o n i s r e q u i r e d , which the t e a c h e r  supplies  immediately i n the form of d e f i n i t i o n s — o n e f o l l o w i n g each i n d i c a t i o n of l e x i c a l  uncertainty.  An open-and-shut r e l a t i o n s h i p between l e x i c a l u n c e r t a i n t y and  d e f i n i t i o n i s a f a i r l y common p a t t e r n ,  a l t h o u g h i t i s not always the case t h a t o p p o r t u n i t i e s n e g o t i a t i o n are so a b b r e v i a t e d instructing.  For example, the impression  l e x i c a l u n c e r t a i n t y may and  by the t e a c h e r ' s  through the use  over words o r phrases (as i n excerpt d i r e c t requests  teacher  has  learner's  echoes,  26,  f o r information  r e c e n t l y i n s e r t e d i n t o the  Because such d e v i c e s  interest in  be demonstrated over s e v e r a l  of s e v e r a l d e v i c e s :  simply,  of a  serve t o r e c y c l e  m a t e r i a l , o r t o r e d i r e c t the d i s c o u r s e  for  turns  fumbling  above), o r , about something  the  conversation. conversational over s e v e r a l  turns,  n e g o t i a t i o n i s c l e a r l y i n evidence when they are employed. The  f o l l o w i n g i l l u s t r a t e s how  teacher's  l e a r n e r s can r i v e t  a t t e n t i o n t o the l e a r n e r ' s l e x i c a l  LLEX i n the form o f a fumbling search  priorities.  f o r the r i g h t word  does not s p e c i f i c a l l y p r e c i p i t a t e a d e f i n i t i o n , the o v e r a l l impression  although  i s that l e x i c a l uncertainty  b a s i s o f the l e a r n e r ' s c l a i m on the t e a c h e r ' s (27)  the  AND I THINK THIS IS THE UH + THE SWITCH FOR - ADJUSTING REFRECTION - OF THE UH LIGHTS R e f r a c t i o n means 204  i s the  attention.  MEANS What? AH, REFRECTION + OKAY, UM + HE HERE WE HAVE LIGHT OKAY. - AND ON THE SURFACE - OF THE GLASS.  DDEF  Yes. OKAY, THE LIGHT REFRECTS. Ah hnn - Yes, y e s . /RIGHT? - THAT THE REFRECTION. THE NOUN FORM OF REFRECT. /Uh ahhh, ahh, ah, I understand, y e s . /OKAY? [6COM1] The t e a c h e r ' s d i s c u s s i o n o f " r e f l e c t i o n " initial  (including the  attempt a t a d e f i n i t i o n ) i s c o n s t r u c t e d a c r o s s  s e v e r a l t u r n s and c l o s e l y f o l l o w s t h e l e a r n e r ' s interventions.  Even though t h e t a s k as a whole i s devoted  t o i n s t r u c t i o n , more s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e t e a c h e r ' s i n t e n t i o n t o cover a l i m i t e d s e t o f o b j e c t i v e s e s t a b l i s h e d b e f o r e t h e t a s k begins,  i t i s t h e l e a r n e r who manages t o channel p a r t o f t h e  i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r o c e s s towards r e s o l u t i o n o f t r o u b l e c r e a t e d d u r i n g t h e course o f t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n .  T h i s may not be  e s p e c i a l l y what t h e t e a c h e r had intended, although o f t h e d e f i n i t i o n a c r o s s t u r n s and through  extension  n e g o t i a t i o n does  i n d i c a t e t h a t Group 1 s e t t i n g s a r e not d r i v e n o n l y by a u t h o r i t a t i v e monologues. F u r t h e r v a r i a t i o n from t h e simple LLEX -> DDEF p a t t e r n appears i n t h e t r a n s c r i p t s . d e f i n i t i o n precedes  Sometimes, f o r example,  o r occurs v i r t u a l l y s i m u l t a n e o u s l y  205  with  an e x p r e s s i o n o f LLEX).  lexical  These are  comprises the relatively  cases i n which the  whether  o t h e r w i s e made d i f f i c u l t  excerpt  LLEX o r DDEF +  definition  a definition  itself  It  thus  matters  i s prepackaged or  t o b r e a k down,  if  b y one o f t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s .  it  i s going to  As t h e  be  following  s u g g e s t s , d e f i n i t i o n s may w e l l be a u s e f u l s o u r c e o f  negotiable material  (28)  (DDEF ->  source of negotiable t r o u b l e .  little  "challenged"  uncertainty  during teaching tasks.  S O , U H , WHEN YOU WANT TO MOVE THE MARKER, WE CALL THAT MARKER A CURSOR.  DDEF  Cursor. CURSOR. IT COMES FROM THE WORD MEANING " R U N " . OR MOVE. SO I T . IT SHOWS WHICH /cursor WORD THE COMPUTER IS WORKING ON. + SO THE /Mm hm BUTTONS AT THE RIGHT ++ CORNER CAN BE /Mm USED TO MOVE THE CURSOR UNTIL YOU FIND THE WORD YOU WANT. Mm.  The, uh,  + letters,  uh f i l e s ?  THE WORDS ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW.  DDEF  LLEXS AFTER /words  YOU TURN THE MACHINE ON, UH /moves + l e f t right?  or  MOVE, YEAH, THE CURSOR MOVES L E F T OR RIGHT. THE WORDS STAND S T I L L ON THE SCREEN AND THE CURSOR MOVES FROM ONE WORD TO THE NEXT WORD. / A h hah. C u r s o r moves! [12COMl] The d e f i n i t i o n the  poses a l e x i c a l  problem f o r  teacher handles through analogy,  reference  to parts  of  the  example  an i n v i s i b l e c o m p u t e r .  206  learner  which  and Virtually  all  of what t h e t e a c h e r says i s keyed t o t h e l e a r n e r ' s responses: request  an echo which c o u l d reasonably  for c l a r i f i c a t i o n  ("Cursor."),  be taken as a  a second echo  ("cursor") which appears t o i n f l u e n c e t h e t e a c h e r ' s r e f e r e n c e t o t h e c u r s o r keys, a d i r e c t request  for  c l a r i f i c a t i o n which prompts f u r t h e r r e f e r e n c e t o o b j e c t s on the imaginary  screen, and a r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n which  o b t a i n s c o n f i r m a t i o n through r e p e t i t i o n and expansion. L e x i c a l u n c e r t a i n t y and other i n d i c a t i o n s o f t r o u b l e i n t h i s example, then, a r e a product  o f d e f i n i t i o n and generate  n e g o t i a t i o n over meaning and r e p a i r p r e c i s e l y where they a r e needed. D e f i n i t i o n and l e x i c a l u n c e r t a i n t y a l s o co-occur  within  a g i v e n speaker's t u r n i n c l o s e p r o x i m i t y t o each o t h e r . Given t h e nature  o f C0M1, however, t h e d i f f i c u l t y t h e  speaker e x p e r i e n c e s — s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e i n d i c a t i o n o f l e x i c a l u n c e r t a i n t y — i s t r e a t e d q u i t e d i f f e r e n t l y depending on whether t h e speaker happens t o be t h e t e a c h e r o r t h e learner.  The p r e f e r e n c e  for self-repair  (see, f o r example,  Sacks e t a l . , 1977; Schwartz, 1980) i s v i t i a t e d i n t h e teacher's behavior  (29); o t h e r - r e p a i r (see Kasper, 1985),  however, i s more l i k e l y when t h e l e a r n e r s i g n a l s u n c e r t a i n t y (30) . (29)  OR. UH. - EY ++ UH. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO CALL THIS. BUT UH. - IT'S CALLED UH. GROUP OF WORDS. OR. THE WORD - IS CALLED "STRING". + AND SO UH, YOU CAN, I F YWITHOUT HELP OF A COMPUTER, YOU CAN  207  LLEX DDEF  LOCATE ++ UH, THE EXISTENCE - OF EACH, OF SUCH EXPRESSION OR WORDS. [8COM1] The  t u r n continues  f o r an a d d i t i o n a l 55 words and a l t o g e t h e r  i n c l u d e s seven r e l a t i v e l y l o n g pauses.  I n perhaps more  o r d i n a r y c o n v e r s a t i o n a l environments, l i s t e n e r s can use t h e s e pauses t o s t e a l a t u r n .  I n t h i s case,  the learner did  not attempt t o h e l p i n e i t h e r the p e r i o d o f l e x i c a l u n c e r t a i n t y o r the  definition.  When the l e a r n e r , however, has been i n s t r u c t e d t o produce a d e f i n i t i o n , and then s i g n a l s l e x i c a l  uncertainty,  i t may not be s u r p r i s i n g t o f i n d t h a t i t i s the t e a c h e r who t a k e s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r making the r e p a i r . (30)  WHAT'S TH- WHAT'S THE MENU? The menu i s the c h o i c e - uh - what - uh what - uh what can I ch- - uh, t h e c h o i c e o f - my - the s e c t i o n .  LLEXS DDEFS  OKAY. IN THE COMPUTER - THERE - ARE RECORDED IN THE MEMORY OF THE COMPUTER A NUMBER OF - FILES. THESE FILES CONSIST /Hmm. OF PAPERS WITH INFORMATION. [4COMl] Based on t h i s b r i e f examination o f a r e l a t i v e l y  small  group o f c o - o c c u r r i n g r e p a i r s i n t a s k s which are conducted through t e a c h i n g and e x p o s i t i o n , i t may be u s e f u l t o suggest the ambivalence o f the Group 1 t a s k .  Although  n e g o t i a t i o n over d e f i n i t i o n s and l e x i c a l u n c e r t a i n t y can and does occur  i n Group 1 t a s k s , a Group 1 t a s k can a l s o be  208  conducted by d i r e c t i n g or otherwise c o - o p t i n g responses.  learner's  T h i s s o r t of ambivalence i s g e n e r a l l y not  i n the non-teaching and final  the  e x p e r i e n t i a l task structure,  f i e l d of a n a l y s i s t o which the d i s c u s s i o n now Group 2: C o n f i r m a t i o n and  the turns.  Checks  R e f e r e n t i a l Questions  Although the q u a l i t i e s of r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s been o u t l i n e d i n the a n a l y s i s of d i s c u s s i o n and s o l v i n g t a s k s , the confluence confirmation  found  have  problem-  of r e f e r e n t i a l questions  checks r e q u i r e s a c l o s e r look.  In  and  general,  t r a n s c r i p t s f o r both Lego t a s k s show t h a t these forms o f r e p a i r taken t o g e t h e r  are p i v o t a l sources o f i n t e r a c t i o n .  What are the b a s i c p a t t e r n s r e f e r e n t i a l questions  and  confirmation  Perhaps the most t y p i c a l way conversational and  of i n t e r a c t i o n when  t h a t p a r t i c i p a n t s work through  problems, t h a t i s , problems over the meaning  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of an u t t e r a n c e ,  reformulation  of an u t t e r a n c e  i s a speaker's  i n response t o a  i n d i c a t i o n of non-comprehension, and partner  checks co-occur?  then commitment by  t o a course of a c t i o n which i s i n t u r n e v a l u a t e d  the o r i g i n a l speaker.  V a r i a t i o n s of t h i s p a t t e r n  i n s e r t i o n o f a d d i t i o n a l r e p a i r c y c l e s based on evaluation:  Was  the l e a r n e r )  l i k e l y t o s a t i s f y the speaker's  under c o n s i d e r a t i o n  209  by  the (here,  (teacher's)  Recalling that  (LEG2) e n t a i l e d continuous  feedback on the e f f i c a c y o f the p a r t n e r ' s  that  allow  the a c t i o n proposed by the p a r t n e r  u n d e r s t a n d i n g of a " c o r r e c t next step"? t a s k now  partner's  actions i n  the  assembling a toy model, i t comes as no s u r p r i s e t h a t p a r t i c i p a n t s enforced  a r a t h e r severe standard  the  of c l a r i t y i n  o r d e r t o accomplish the t a s k s u c c e s s f u l l y . The (31)  b a s i c p a t t e r n i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n (31), below:  THAT'S GOING TO GO SSET + OF POINTS. /second ?  ON  - THEE - SSECOND CCONS  Second? THE  CCONS  SECOND  SET.  + Like t h i s ? /YEAH. - I THINK SO,  RRQS EEXOS Eval.+  YES.  [7LEG2] The  i n d i c a t i o n of t r o u b l e  i s underlined  and  (from the l e a r n e r ' s  perspective)  l a b e l l e d (CCONS—a c o n f i r m a t i o n  check),  i s the l e a r n e r ' s attempted s o l u t i o n (RRQS EEXOS). teacher's  p o s i t i v e e v a l u a t i o n of the attempt  a l s o noted i n the margin of the e x c e r p t . teacher's  as  The  (Eval.+) i s  In t h i s case  the  i n i t i a l response t o the l e a r n e r ' s d i f f i c u l t y i s an  o t h e r - e x p a n s i o n , which t u r n s out t o be j u s t enough information  t o h e l p the l e a r n e r i d e n t i f y the  placement o f the o b j e c t .  The  correct  l e a r n e r ' s commitment t o a  course of a c t i o n i s a much more d i r e c t method of an unambiguous e v a l u a t i o n than the c o n f i r m a t i o n a purely verbal t a c t i c .  The  obtaining check  alone,  commitment i s i n d i c a t e d by  use  of e x o p h o r i c r e f e r e n c e ,  a v e r b a l t a c t i c which i s f r e q u e n t l y  accompanied by g e s t u r e s  such as p o i n t i n g or t o u c h i n g .  i n t e n s i f i e d approach t o g e n e r a t i n g  evaluation gives  l e a r n e r a powerful l e v e l , o f c o n t r o l over the q u a l i t y 210  This the and  p r e c i s i o n of efficient  feedback,  solution to  interaction,  then,  and u l t i m a t e l y the  the  quality  The p a t t e r n participants not  complexity—the capacity of create  of the  trouble  depth of  c o u r s e , when of  negotiation—is  be  the task to  exemplified  i n the  N E X T , YOU WANT TO FIND - TWO RECTANGULAR - YELLOW P I E C E S .  the  the  exchange does  E s s e n t i a l l y , the  l o o p s i n what w o u l d o t h e r w i s e  is  s i g n a l and  utterance.  level  keyed t o  c o n f i r m a t i o n c h e c k s and r e f e r e n t i a l  complexity  (32)  simplest level  forward.  movement f r o m one s t e p o f of  t e a c h e r ' s next  becomes more c o m p l e x , o f  task  of  and p h y s i c a l s i g n a l s d e s i g n e d t o  f i n d that the  c a r r y the  This pattern  i s marked b y a v e r b a l  a combination of verbal direct  problem.  p r o d u c e s a more  of  the  questions  to  straightforward next.  following  This  level  excerpt.  SMALL  Rectangular?!  CCONS  REC - RECTANGULAR, WHICH MEANS THAT THEY ARE - S - NOT SQUARE BUT LONG AND THIN. NOW + NO, NOT THOSE. THEY, Eval./Is this? RRQS EEXOS T H E Y ' R E FLAT P I E C E S , T H E Y ' R E •- FLAT /Flat? CCONS T H E Y ' R E OF THE SAME TYPE OF SHAPE AS THE - BASE - OF THE + S O , /Base? CCONS Y E S , BUT - SMALLER THAN THAT. YOU NEED Eval./Is this? RRQS EEXOS SMALL + SMALLER, S E E ? . Y E S . OKAY. NOW Eval.+ /Yes. [5LEG2] While  the  sufficient  learner's to  language i s not  generate  elaborate,  it  a h i g h l y r e s p o n s i v e stream  211  appears of  d i r e c t i o n s and e v a l u a t i o n .  The end o f t h i s c o r r e c t i v e  sequence i s s i g n a l e d by t h e l e a r n e r ' s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e c o r r e c t p i e c e , v e r y much l i k e t h e s i m p l e r p a t t e r n examined above (31).  Accomplishing  t h i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , however,  e n t a i l s much g r e a t e r e f f o r t by both p a r t i c i p a n t s : a candidate  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n which, i n f a c t , f a i l s , a d d i t i o n a l  c o n f i r m a t i o n checks t o r e c y c l e t h e search f o r t h e c o r r e c t p i e c e , i n f o r m a t i v e responses t o each c o n f i r m a t i o n check, and a f i n a l , p o s i t i v e e v a l u a t i o n which a l l o w s a new step t o be initiated. O v e r a l l , t h e impression  i s one o f q u i c k r e c o v e r y  from  the l o c a l a m b i g u i t i e s o f t h e t a s k , e f f e c t i v e v e r b a l c o o p e r a t i o n but, a t t h e same time, a r a t h e r t e r s e and unexpressive  q u a l i t y i n the learner's language—perhaps a  function of the high l e v e l of information a v a i l a b l e t o the l e a r n e r about o b j e c t s i n t h e t a s k s i t u a t i o n .  I t may be t h a t  l e a r n e r s i n such i n f o r m a t i o n - r i c h s i t u a t i o n s a r e simply unchallenged necessity.  t o use language beyond t h e minimum l i m i t s o f Although t h e b a s i c forms o f genuine  information  exchange a r e i n p l a c e , as e v i n c e d by t h e c e n t r a l p o s i t i o n o f c o n f i r m a t i o n checks and r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s , t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s a r e n o t e s p e c i a l l y prepared  t o make  c o n v e r s a t i o n beyond t h e p r a c t i c a l requirements o f t h e t a s k . The  k i n d o f language which t h e l e a r n e r may r e a s o n a b l y  apply  d u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the model thus c l e a r l y c o n t r a s t s with the r e l a t i v e l y more e x p r e s s i v e language used by l e a r n e r s during ordinary discussion.  Educational implications of  212  t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n w i l l be e x p l o r e d i n Chapter 7. For t h e moment, however, t h e focus i s on t h e q u a l i t y o f i n f o r m a t i o n exchange which i s supported  by c o n f i r m a t i o n  checks and r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s d u r i n g t h e f a c e - t o - f a c e Lego t a s k .  Beyond t h e g e n e r a l i s s u e o f p a r t i c i p a n t s u s i n g  c o n f i r m a t i o n checks t o encourage a p a r t n e r t o p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l o r expanded i n f o r m a t i o n , t h e r e i s a s p e c i f i c f u n c t i o n f o r r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s used w i t h  confirmation  checks i n o u t l i n i n g t h e l i m i t s o f t h e l o c a l problem on t h e which t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s a r e a t work.  T h i s f u n c t i o n resembles  the " s e t t i n g up" o f responses p r e v i o u s l y noted face-to-face tasks  i n other  (COM2 and DIS) i n which t h e q u e s t i o n i s  a p p a r e n t l y intended t o s e t l i m i t s on t h e forthcoming response.  Learners who a r e a b l e t o d i r e c t t h e i r p a r t n e r s i n  t h i s way can be s a i d t o be s u c c e s s f u l i n h e l p i n g t o manage the t a s k , as e x c e r p t (33)  (33) i n d i c a t e s .  UH BETWEEN THE TWO SQUARE ONES. ++ YOU CAN SNAP IT ON TOP OF THE TWO SQUARE ONES. Uh  t h i s way?  RRQS EEXOS  NO, THE OTHER WAY.  Eval.-  /NO.  The  o t h e r way?  CCONS EEXOS Eval.+  YEAH. OKAY. Top  PUT  IT ON TOP OF THEM.  o f them?  CCONS  YEAH. 0- ON TOP OF THE TWO SQUARE PIECES SO THE TW- SO YOU PUSH THE TWO SQUARE PIECES TOGETHER.  213  Eval.+  Th l i k e t h i s ?  RRQS EEXOS [3LEG2]  The  l e a r n e r ' s r e f e r e n t i a l questions bracket  attempts  ( i n t h e form o f c o n f i r m a t i o n checks) t o remove l a y e r s from the mystery o f how one p i e c e i s t o be p l a c e d i n r e l a t i o n t o the o t h e r s .  T h i s process  i s r e l a t e d t o z e r o i n g i n on t h e  p o s i t i o n i n g o f p i e c e s , not t o t h e meaning o f t h e t e a c h e r ' s i n i t i a l d i r e c t i v e nor t o t h e l e a r n e r ' s d i f f i c u l t y i n s h a r i n g the t e a c h e r ' s view o f t h e p i e c e s .  I n e i t h e r case, however,  the p a r t i c i p a n t s a r e a b l e t o move more-or-less s u c c e s s f u l l y through t h e t a s k by combining language and s i t u a t i o n a l r e f e r e n c e — t h e hallmark c o n d i t i o n s o f shared The  of problem-solving  done under  perception.  f i n a l l i n k between c o n f i r m a t i o n check and  r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n t o be d e s c r i b e d here i s t h e l e a r n e r ' s s e l f - r e p a i r which o b v i a t e s i n t e r v e n t i o n by t h e t e a c h e r t o add o r change i n f o r m a t i o n i n o r d e r t o make t h e d i r e c t i o n s more comprehensible.  R e p a i r occurs immediately  t h e l e a r n e r ' s p u b l i c demonstration (34)  following  o f a problem.  PLEASE FIND A BLACK ONE WITH A TWO TUBES /Hm ON THE BOTH SIDES, AND WITH TWO BUMPS ON IT. Tubes?  T h i s one? /OKAY, YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT, THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY.  CCONS RRQS Eval.+ [6LEG2]  In p r i n c i p l e , e i t h e r o f t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s has t h e r i g h t t o r e p a i r under these circumstances, 214  although,  as has been  p o i n t e d out w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o d e f i n i t i o n s f o l l o w i n g l e x i c a l u n c e r t a i n t y , i t i s the t e a c h e r who  i s more l i k e l y  to  i n t e r v e n e d u r i n g i n s t r u c t i o n a l t a s k s and make the r e p a i r (Kasper,  1985).  LEG2, however, renders the problem and i t s  s o l u t i o n as the c e n t r a l i s s u e and tends t o suppress the importance of s t a t u s d i f f e r e n c e s between t e a c h e r learner.  T h i s may  tasks i n general evidence  be a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f problem-centered (although  i t should be p o i n t e d out t h a t  has been presented  Lego t a s k t o support The  and  no  on b e h a l f of the back-to-back  the wider p o s s i b i l i t y ) .  t r a n s c r i p t s reviewed thus f a r , however, suggest  the  c e n t r a l r o l e o f c o n f i r m a t i o n checks i n i n d i c a t i n g t r o u b l e and  of r e f e r e n t i a l questions  i n p o i n t i n g out a  candidate  s o l u t i o n d u r i n g the performance o f problem-centered t a s k s . That these  f u n c t i o n s are o f t e n e x e r c i s e d by the l e a r n e r i n  the same t u r n d u r i n g the f a c e - t o - f a c e Lego t a s k f u r t h e r supports capable  the view r a i s e d here t h a t the l e a r n e r i s l a r g e l y of a s s e r t i n g normal c o n v e r s a t i o n a l r i g h t s g i v e n  the  appropriate task structure. Summary T h i s chapter has o f v a r i a n c e i n t o two  extended the f i n d i n g s o f the a n a l y s i s f i e l d s of q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s :  comparison o f d i s p l a y and r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s , examination of two  and  1) a 2)  an  s e t s of complementary t a s k s t r u c t u r e s ,  i n c l u d i n g d e f i n i t i o n s and  expressions  of l e x i c a l  d u r i n g the computer demonstration t a s k , and checks w i t h r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s 215  d u r i n g the  uncertainty  confirmation face-to-face  Lego t a s k . A number of f u n c t i o n s were found t o c h a r a c t e r i z e t e a c h e r - l e a r n e r t a l k d u r i n g the computer demonstration t a s k : d i s p l a y o f the l e a r n e r ' s knowledge presumably a c q u i r e d as a r e s u l t o f i n s t r u c t i o n , p o i n t i n g - o u t of o b j e c t s o r the t e a c h e r  operations  found u s e f u l f o r moving smoothly through the  i n s t r u c t i o n a l procedure, s e t t i n g up b e h a v i o r learner to "inescapable  and  c o n c l u s i o n s " the t e a c h e r  l e a d i n g the considered  e s s e n t i a l t o f u r t h e r i n g the g o a l s of i n s t r u c t i o n , and empting the l e a r n e r ' s o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o ask and  pre-  answer  q u e s t i o n s which c o u l d l e a d t o n e g o t i a t i o n over meaning. primary v e r b a l medium f o r accomplishing  these  functions  The was  found t o be v a r i o u s forms of the d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n . R e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s were found most f r e q u e n t l y i n the d i s c u s s i o n and  f a c e - t o - f a c e Lego t a s k s , both o f which  reduced the importance of the t e a c h e r - l e a r n e r s t a t u s gap encouraged a c t i v e exchange of i n f o r m a t i o n .  and  Referential  q u e s t i o n s were found t o serve a number o f l o c a l f u n c t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g encouraging a p a r t n e r t o expand m a t e r i a l j u s t introduced  i n t o the t a l k , g r a d u a l l y d e v e l o p i n g  a topic,  nominating t o p i c s f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n and d e v e l o p i n g a c r o s s a number of c o n v e r s a t i o n a l t u r n s . r e f e r e n t i a l questions p a r t i c u l a r , t o request  them  P a r t i c i p a n t s used  during cooperative problem-solving, i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of o b j e c t s or  r e l a t i o n s h i p s between o b j e c t s , assessment of performance and p e r c e p t i o n , e x p l a n a t i o n s  and d i r e c t i o n s .  The c e n t r a l  f u n c t i o n o f r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s , however, was 216  to a s s i s t  in  the exchange o f i n f o r m a t i o n between p a r t n e r s o f r e l a t i v e l y equal  status i n the task  setting.  Examination o f t h e two s e t s o f complementary t a s k s t r u c t u r e s emphasized t h e co-occurrence  o f c e r t a i n REs.  Although t h e l e a r n e r ' s l e x i c a l u n c e r t a i n t y d u r i n g t h e computer e x p l a n a t i o n t a s k  (C0M1) was t y p i c a l l y t h e t r i p w i r e  f o r a teacher-made d e f i n i t i o n , t h e d e f i n i t i o n s themselves c o u l d become t h e s u b j e c t o f n e g o t i a t i o n .  When r e p a i r d i d  occur, however, i t was o f t e n a case o f t h e t e a c h e r  taking  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r r e p a i r i n g t h e t a l k o f both p a r t i c i p a n t s . Confirmation  checks and r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s  occurring  together during the face-to-face problem-solving  task  (LEG2)  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y opened up t h e t a l k t o n e g o t i a t i o n over both content  and language.  Moreover, by combining t h e use  o f c o n f i r m a t i o n checks and r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s ,  both  p a r t i c i p a n t s attempted t o r e p a i r t h e i r own u t t e r a n c e s , a t y p i c a l f e a t u r e o f normal c o n v e r s a t i o n a l b e h a v i o r , t h e i r own t u r n s .  within  F i n a l l y , w h i l e c o n f i r m a t i o n checks took on  the key f u n c t i o n o f i n d i c a t i n g t r o u b l e , c o - o c c u r r i n g r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s were used by next-speakers e i t h e r as a p i v o t f o r f u r t h e r work on t h e problem o r as an o p p o r t u n i t y t o s i g n a l t h a t p a r t i c i p a n t s had achieved understanding  a common  and c o u l d move on t o something e l s e .  Perhaps t h e most g e n e r a l c o n c l u s i o n which can be reached from t h i s q u a l i t a t i v e phase o f t h e study  i s that  some t a s k s a r e b e t t e r f o r t e a c h e r s and o t h e r s a r e b e t t e r f o r l e a r n e r s ; from an i n t e r a c t i o n a l viewpoint, 217  some encourage  d i s p l a y o f the t e a c h e r ' s expression  competence w h i l e o t h e r s promote  of the l e a r n e r ' s competence.  I t should be a l s o  be noted t h a t w h i l e a l l t a s k s produced n e g o t i a t i o n over meaning, the q u a l i t y and extent of t h i s n e g o t i a t i o n c l e a r l y v a r i e d w i t h the t a s k .  In g e n e r a l , the t e a c h i n g  tasks  r e q u i r e d the l e a r n e r t o become a l a r g e l y p a s s i v e  recipient  of sometimes a b s t r a c t e x p l a n a t i o n and curbed t i m e l y o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r making sense of the shower o f t o which the l e a r n e r was  sometimes exposed  notes a s i m i l a r p a t t e r n i n classroom the non-teaching t a s k s achieved  explanation  (Chaudron,  behavior).  1983  Ironically,  g r e a t e s t e f f i c i e n c y when  they were conducted i n a p p a r e n t l y  roundabout  fashion—when  the p a r t i c i p a n t s had t o make s e v e r a l attempts t o reach a working l e v e l o f mutual c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y . The  two  task structures c l e a r l y diverged  what s i g n a l l e d t r o u b l e and how  i n terms o f  participants resolved i t .  In  COMl, movement from l e x i c a l u n c e r t a i n t y t o d e f i n i t i o n c o n s t i t u t e d the l e a s t r e s p o n s i v e ,  l e a s t complex l e v e l  n e g o t i a t e d exchange found i n the t r a n s c r i p t s . the a l t e r n a t i o n of c o n f i r m a t i o n checks and q u e s t i o n s were key ended and the two  of  In c o n t r a s t ,  referential  f e a t u r e s of the r e l a t i v e l y complex, open-  c o o p e r a t i v e exchanges i n LEG2.  T h i s d e p i c t i o n of  s e t s of r e p a i r s , i t should be s t r e s s e d , i s based on  examination o f a r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l number o f t r a n s c r i p t s (24 of the t o t a l of 60).  The  t r a n s c r i p t s d i s p l a y the .  d i s t i n c t i o n w i t h c l a r i t y , however, and,  h o p e f u l l y , make  f i n d i n g s from the a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e more t a n g i b l e t o the 218  educational p r a c t i t i o n e r . which f o l l o w s w i l l for  A c c o r d i n g l y , the f i n a l  extend these  chapter  findings into implications  educational practice.  219  CHAPTER SUMMARY, LIMITATIONS,  IMPLICATIONS  Chapter 7 concludes t h i s and r e f e r e n c e . the  course of  Limitations  of  misinterpreted educational  S e v e r a l major the  7:  study of  study or areas  will  conversational  p o i n t s h a v e b e e n made  study; these w i l l  the  AND CONCLUSION  be  during  now b e s u m m a r i z e d .  i n which i t  might  be d i s c u s s e d and i m p l i c a t i o n s  p r a c t i c e w h i c h a r e b a s e d on t h e  analyses w i l l  repair  be  for  empirical  highlighted. Summary  The s t u d y was c o n c e i v e d i n o r d e r t o systematically native  t h e ways i n w h i c h members o f  teacher-led  dyads modify t h e i r  order to  achieve understanding.  were t h e  observations,  language a c q u i s i t i o n , interactional of  the  setting  talk  supported i n the that the  i n which the  opportunities  are  to  acquire the  classroom-fronted behavior  literature  means o f  of  characteristics  t h e more l i k e l y  of  The  learners  in this  instruction  in  interaction.  been examined,  systematic treatment  native  and n o n - n a t i v e  was t h e  teachers  What h a d  as c o - p a r t i c i p a n t s  220  view  relatively  comparison with l e a r n e r - l e a r n e r however,  greater  traditional  language t e a c h e r s  g u i d i n g language  second  of  t a l k o c c u r s and t h a t t h e  language.  in  interest  second language a c q u i s i t i o n has been found a  inefficient  and n o n -  in English  e x t e n t and q u a l i t y  for modification, target  native  Underlying this  m o d i f i c a t i o n v a r i e s with the  the  of  examine  in  not  of dyadic  i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h l e a r n e r s , and the e f f e c t s such  treatment  has upon t h e t a l k produced w i t h i n the dyad. The terms used t o support the study were drawn from r e s e a r c h i n second language a c q u i s i t i o n , d i s c o u r s e a n a l y s i s and  language e d u c a t i o n , t h r e e f i e l d s w i t h s p e c i f i c  and  somewhat d i f f e r e n t i n t e r e s t s i n the uses of language i n context.  The  r e s e a r c h focused on the e f f e c t s of d i f f e r e n t  t a s k s on the ways the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t e a c h e r - l e d dyads r e p a i r c o n v e r s a t i o n a l t r o u b l e and r e f e r t o t h i n g s i n t h e i r spoken t e x t s .  U n d e r l y i n g t h i s f o r m u l a t i o n was  a s m a l l group  of d i s t i n c t i o n s of p o t e n t i a l v a l u e i n e d u c a t i o n a l p l a n n i n g and o f immediate use that t a s k s — t h e  i n c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the r e s e a r c h  s e t t i n g s f o r use of r e p a i r and  design:  reference—  v a r y q u a l i t a t i v e l y from those which emphasize e d u c a t i o n a l g o a l s t o those which emphasize s o c i a l g o a l s , and those which employ e x p e r i e n t i a l ,  from  "hands-on" p r o c e s s e s  i n the  achievement o f the o b j e c t i v e s t o those which emphasize the r o l e o f e x p o s i t i o n and  explanation.  These ways of l o o k i n g a t r e p a i r , t a s k and were o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d through the r e s e a r c h  reference  design,  s p e c i f i c a l l y through a s e r i e s of a n a l y s e s of v a r i a n c e which examined the d i f f e r e n c e between n a t i v e and  non-native  groups i n the use of r e p a i r and r e f e r e n c e d u r i n g a s e r i e s of five tasks.  A second type of a n a l y s i s focused on a s m a l l  group of r e p a i r exponents which were found t o d i s t i n g u i s h most c l e a r l y among the t a s k s . emphasized the forms and  The  second a n a l y s i s  f u n c t i o n s o f r e p a i r i n context, 221  p o i n t i n g d i r e c t l y t o the u t t e r a n c e s o f the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the t a s k t r a n s c r i p t s . Before summarizing the major c o n c l u s i o n s of the i t w i l l be u s e f u l t o put the conceptual bases and  the  f i n d i n g s of the study i n t o a common p e r s p e c t i v e .  The  Knowledge Framework o r i g i n a l l y developed suggested  study,  by Mohan (1986)  a r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e o r e t i c a l knowledge and  e x p o s i t o r y a c t i v i t y on the one hand, and between p r a c t i c a l knowledge and e x p e r i e n t i a l a c t i v i t y on the o t h e r . e x t e n s i o n o f the framework ( F i g u r e 2) was  An  o f f e r e d as a  t e n t a t i v e and p a r t i a l approach t o s p e c i f y i n g the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t a s k s , r e f e r e n c e and r e p a i r which might be expected language  when the framework i s a p p l i e d t o problems i n  education.  Among the l i n k s between the extended framework and  the  r e s u l t s o f the study are the unambiguous r e l a t i o n s h i p s found between t a s k s emphasizing p r a c t i c a l d i s c o u r s e , and a group of r e p a i r behaviors  c e n t e r i n g on q u e s t i o n s intended by  one  p a r t i c i p a n t t o o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n or guidance from the other.  As noted  i n Chapter 6,  f o r example, the  referential  q u e s t i o n s e r v e s numerous d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n s , alone or i n combination  w i t h other b e h a v i o r s .  I t i s p r i m a r i l y , however,  a means o f opening t a l k t o unforseen  t o p i c a l development  and  t o a more equal d i s t r i b u t i o n of power i n the d i s c o u r s e environment.  The  other s i d e of the extended Knowledge  Framework suggested  a l i n k between e x p o s i t o r y approaches t o  t e a c h i n g and the t e a c h e r ' s use of d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s t o t e s t 222  knowledge and ensure movement towards i n s t r u c t i o n a l goals.  predetermined  F o l l o w i n g t h i s s u g g e s t i o n , the  study  found s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the t e a c h i n g t a s k s and d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n and,  indeed, a n e a r l y  symmetrical  r e l a t i o n s h i p between d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s and  referential  q u e s t i o n s i n the t e a c h i n g and non-teaching  tasks.  Other l i n k s , and  f a i l u r e s t o l i n k , can be p o i n t e d out,  p a r t i c u l a r l y the f i n d i n g t h a t exophoric r e f e r e n c e p r o v i d e s unambiguous evidence  f o r the o p e r a t i o n of e x p e r i e n t i a l  a c t i v i t y , but t h a t anaphoric r e f e r e n c e i s f r e e l y used i n nearly a l l task settings.  Although  the framework s h o u l d  be  t r e a t e d w i t h c a u t i o n by o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s , i t has served the u s e f u l f u n c t i o n of g e n e r a t i n g f o c a l p o i n t s f o r the q u a n t i t a t i v e and q u a l i t a t i v e study of r e p a i r i n instructional The  settings.  following l i s t  summarizes the most g e n e r a l  c o n c l u s i o n s y i e l d e d by t h i s d u a l approach t o the r e s e a r c h . C o n c l u s i o n s Based on the A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e 1.  Teacher-led, dyadic tasks d i f f e r  significantly  depending on whether they are o r g a n i z e d t o support e d u c a t i o n a l or s o c i a l o b j e c t i v e s .  primarily  R e p a i r and r e f e r e n c e are  c l e a r l y a l l o c a t e d t o t h i s i n i t i a l d i v i s i o n o f the t a s k factor:  d e f i n i t i o n s , d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s and echoes t o the  teaching tasks, c l a r i f i c a t i o n requests, checks,  c o n f i r m a t i o n checks,  comprehension  e x p r e s s i o n s of  lexical  uncertainty, r e f e r e n t i a l questions, self-expansions, s e l f r e p e t i t i o n s , and anaphoric r e f e r e n c e and exophoric 223  reference  t o the non-teaching  tasks.  Tasks which are  explicitly  o r g a n i z e d t o e f f e c t i n s t r u c t i o n a l g o a l s are thus  relatively  l e s s l i k e l y t o r e f l e c t the breadth and q u a l i t y of n e g o t i a t i o n which c h a r a c t e r i z e s t a s k s o r i e n t e d towards achievement of s o c i a l g o a l s . 2.  The p r e f e r e n c e f o r s e l f - r e p a i r , as d i s t i n c t  from  o t h e r - r e p a i r , i s c o m p e l l i n g and a c t i v e when groups are o r g a n i z e d as t e a c h e r - l e a r n e r dyads.  Among the 12  repair  exponents, o n l y those which h i g h l i g h t e d t h e b e h a v i o r of the o t h e r member of the dyad ( o t h e r - r e p e t i t i o n and expansion) were without tasks.  other-  s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s i n any o f the  While the l i t e r a t u r e suggests t h a t o r d i n a r y t e a c h e r -  f r o n t e d language i n s t r u c t i o n encourages o t h e r - r e p a i r ( l a r g e l y r e p a i r of the l e a r n e r ' s t a l k ) , d y a d i c  interaction  which i s not focused on the t a r g e t language, even when o r i e n t e d towards communicating i n s t r u c t i o n a l g o a l s , does not support o t h e r - r e p a i r .  Tasks which have no s p e c i a l focus on  language i n s t r u c t i o n thus more c l o s e l y resemble normal c o n v e r s a t i o n a l b e h a v i o r i n terms of the p r e f e r e n c e f o r s e l f repair. 3.  In g e n e r a l , the l e a s t important  study were r e l a t e d t o the group f a c t o r .  d i s t i n c t i o n s i n the Given a t l e a s t a  p r o f e s s i o n a l l e v e l of competence i n E n g l i s h , Japanese t e a c h e r s are a t no s p e c i a l disadvantage  over t h e i r n a t i v e  E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g c o u n t e r p a r t s i n working w i t h l e a r n e r s i n dyadic task s e t t i n g s .  T h i s c o n c l u s i o n i s based on  the  v i r t u a l l y i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e types and l e v e l s of r e p a i r 224  and  r e f e r e n c e produced by dyads i n which E n g l i s h language p r o f i c i e n c y was c o n t r o l l e d . 4. although  Like repair, reference i s a l l o c a t e d t o tasks, t h e e s s e n t i a l d i s t i n c t i o n between t a s k s s h i f t s  a teaching-non-teaching e x p o s i t o r y dimension.  from  dimension t o an e x p e r i e n t i a l Concern w i t h t h e here-and-now and t h e  s h a r i n g o f p e r c e p t i o n as a c o n v e r s a t i o n a l r e s o u r c e an i n t e n s e use o f exophoric  reference.  Exophoric  produce reference  s e r v e s as a s i g n a t u r e o f e x p e r i e n t i a l c o n v e r s a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y , and i s thus d i s t i n g u i s h e d from anaphora which becomes a s i g n i f i c a n t r e s o u r c e  o n l y when normal access t o  the speech s i t u a t i o n has been c u t o f f . anaphoric  I n t h i s sense  r e f e r e n c e serves t o manage reduced  c o n t e x t u a l i z a t i o n and b u i l d l i n k s a c r o s s t h e d i s c o u r s e as they a r e needed. 5.  The c l e a r e s t , l e a s t q u a l i f i e d a l l o c a t i o n o f r e p a i r  t o t a s k occurs when t a s k s c o n t a i n both g o a l and p r o c e s s dimensions, t h a t i s , when a p a r t i c u l a r combination o f s o c i a l - e d u c a t i o n a l and e x p e r i e n t i a l - e x p o s i t o r y v a l u e s has been a p p l i e d t o p l a n n i n g t h e t a s k .  The i n t e r s e c t i o n o f  s o c i a l g o a l s and e x p e r i e n t i a l a c t i v i t y produces t h e most n e g o t i a t i o n and r e p a i r i n t e a c h e r - l e d dyads (as measured by the mean frequency questions)  o f c o n f i r m a t i o n checks and r e f e r e n t i a l  and thus resembles c o n v e r s a t i o n a l  behavior  o u t s i d e o f t r a d i t i o n a l t e a c h e r - f r o n t e d classrooms. e d u c a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s and e x p o s i t o r y a c t i v i t y a r e emphasized, d y a d i c t a l k i s o r i e n t e d t o t r a n s f e r r i n g 225  When  c o g n i t i v e knowledge which the t e a c h e r possesses p r i o r t o b e g i n n i n g the t a s k t o a l e a r n e r who participant.  i s assumed t o be a n a i v e  The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c r e p a i r b e h a v i o r s which  occur d u r i n g t h i s k i n d of t a s k i n c l u d e f r e q u e n t and e x p r e s s i o n s o f l e x i c a l u n c e r t a i n t y — f o r m s  definitions  of v e r b a l  b e h a v i o r o f p a r t i c u l a r use t o t e a c h e r s and l e a r n e r s i n traditional  classrooms.  C o n c l u s i o n s Based on the A n a l y s i s o f T r a n s c r i p t s 6.  Display questions, e s s e n t i a l t o o l s of teaching  s i t u a t i o n s , s e r v e a v a r i e t y of f u n c t i o n s r e l a t e d t o t r a n s f e r o f knowledge and c o n t r o l over the l e a r n e r ' s o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o d i r e c t the t a l k .  Beyond simply t e s t i n g t h e l e a r n e r ' s  knowledge, d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s a l s o f u n c t i o n t o c u t through ambiguity  which might otherwise have t o be n e g o t i a t e d ,  l e a d the l e a r n e r d i r e c t l y t o " i n e s c a p a b l e c o n c l u s i o n s " and pre-empt c h a l l e n g e s  (intended and unintended) t o t h e d i r e c t  l i n e the t e a c h e r has a p p a r e n t l y a l r e a d y developed t h e g o a l s of i n s t r u c t i o n .  W i t h i n a t e a c h e r - f r o n t e d frame o f  reference with e x p l i c i t i n s t r u c t i o n a l goals here i n t h e computer demonstration  (as was  found  t a s k ) , d i s p l a y questions  arguably improve the e f f i c i e n c y w i t h which the is delivered.  towards  instruction  U n f o r t u n a t e l y , however, t h i s k i n d o f  e f f i c i e n c y appears t o have l i t t l e e f f e c t on e n r i c h i n g the i n t e r a c t i o n a l q u a l i t y of t a l k conducted between t e a c h e r s learners. 7.  In t a s k s which are o r i e n t e d toward e x p o s i t o r y  communication of e d u c a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s , d e f i n i t i o n i s a 226  and  c e n t r a l concern o f t e a c h e r s .  D e f i n i t i o n may a n t i c i p a t e o r  be t r i g g e r e d by t h e l e a r n e r ' s l e x i c a l u n c e r t a i n t y . e i t h e r case,  d e f i n i t i o n can become a n e g o t i a b l e  In  resource  u n l e s s t h e t e a c h e r d i r e c t s o r co-opts t h e l e a r n e r ' s responses i n a i d o f movement towards an i n s t r u c t i o n a l Comparatively viewed  goal.  ( i . e . , viewed from t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f  t a s k s a l l o w i n g more-or-less e q u i v a l e n t r i g h t s t o p a r t i c i p a t i o n ) , d e f i n i t i o n co-occurring with  lexical  u n c e r t a i n t y i s a u s e f u l although weak source f o r n e g o t i a t i o n o f meaning s i n c e i t depends l a r g e l y on t h e t e a c h e r ' s  program  f o r operation of the task. 8.  R e f e r e n t i a l questions  instructional,  a r e a c e n t r a l f e a t u r e o f non-  face-to-face talk.  Beyond t h e g e n e r a l  f u n c t i o n o f opening up t h e t a l k t o n e g o t i a t i o n over both language and content, explanation basis.  bring  and d i r e c t i o n i n t o t h e d i s c o u r s e on an ad hoc  I n c o n j u n c t i o n with c o n f i r m a t i o n checks,  questions  referential  can a l s o be used t o e l i c i t e v a l u a t i o n , focus on  objects or operations repair.  r e f e r e n t i a l questions  i n t h e speech s i t u a t i o n and undertake  E x e r c i s e o f these f u n c t i o n s f r e q u e n t l y means t h a t  i n f o r m a t i o n exchanged by t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s f o l l o w s an i n d i r e c t pattern e n t a i l i n g evaluation,  backtracking,  r e v i s i o n and expansion b e f o r e t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n moves on t o new t o p i c s .  I t i s p r e c i s e l y t h i s p o t e n t i a l f o r roundabout  p u r s u i t and exchange o f i n f o r m a t i o n ,  f o r r e c u r s i v e and open-  ended i n t e r a c t i o n , which makes non-teaching t a s k s which employ some e x p e r i e n t i a l processes 227  prospectively useful  s e t t i n g s f o r a c q u i s i t i o n of another  language.  These c o n c l u s i o n s o u t l i n e the substance o f the e m p i r i c a l study but they a l s o p o i n t back t o r e s e a r c h which i l l u m i n a t e s the p o s i t i o n of f o r e i g n e r t a l k and i n t e r l a n g u a g e t a l k i n second language Sato  classrooms.  Chaudron (1983), Long &  (1983) and Wesche & Ready (1985), f o r example, p o i n t e d  out the r e l a t i v e i n e f f i c i e n c y of FT i n t r a d i t i o n a l , f r o n t e d classrooms.  In a s i m i l a r v e i n , t h i s study  t h a t the t e a c h i n g t a s k s encouraged  teacherfound  both the f o r e i g n  and  Japanese t e a c h e r s t o use such REs as d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s and d e f i n i t i o n s when attempting t o accomplish t h e i r  objectives  and t h a t the l e a r n e r s tended t o support the t e a c h e r s i n t h i s b e h a v i o r by c o n c e r n i n g themselves w i t h demonstrations a t t e n t i o n , by use of echoes,  f o r example.  of  S t u d i e s on the  f u n c t i o n a l p r o p e r t i e s of IT, on the o t h e r hand, have shown t h a t NNS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n i n shared-goal produces  environments  r e p a i r b e h a v i o r comparable t o and about as v a r i e d  as NS-NSS i n t e r a c t i o n i n c o n v e r s a t i o n a l s e t t i n g s (Duff, 1986;  P o r t e r , 1983;  P o r t e r and Long, 1985).  and information-exchange  The c o o p e r a t i v e  q u a l i t i e s o f the non-teaching t a s k s  i n t h i s study seem t o have produced  similar  p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h r e s p e c t t o such r e p a i r s as  results, clarification  r e q u e s t s , c o n f i r m a t i o n checks and r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s , a l t h o u g h i t should be r e c o g n i z e d t h a t the NNSs i n t h i s were Japanese t e a c h e r s who  study  were a b l e t o s e r v e as sources of  high-quality input. Although c o o p e r a t i o n was  e v i d e n t i n a l l o f the t a s k 228  conditions, the  two  very  different  complementary  Beyond t h e essential  offered  conclusion of  structures  the  right  outlined  study i s that  their  educational,  and d i r e c t  objects  learners  which are  of  Limitations  their of  the  areas  be u s e f u l t o p o i n t  i n which i t  become e v i d e n t , p o i n t i n g out  (although  is  i n w h i c h o t h e r s may want t o The f i r s t  of  extend  to  the  content  not  unlimited)  for  the  first lies  place.  As w i l l  or  soon  between  i s how f a r  one c a n  quasi-experimental  Although the  such  conduct of  w i t h i n a g r o w i n g SLA r e s e a r c h  this  tradition—  conversational data  generated  from  groups organized s p e c i f i c a l l y to demonstrate  behaviors  of  interest  to  treatment of  study,  limitations  problems of p r a c t i c e which o c c a s i o n  i n the  been  it.  q u e s t i o n t o be r a i s e d h e r e  studies to  statistical  dyadic  a s t u d y and c o n s i d e r i n g ways  from f i n d i n g s a c h i e v e d i n  investigation  its  relationship  generalize  studies  in  Study  some o f  a close  limitations  the  talk.  o u g h t t o be c l a r i f i e d .  there  the  out  5.  t r e a t e d a s more  B e f o r e g o i n g on t o p o s s i b l e a p p l i c a t i o n s will  in  language  an o r i e n t a t i o n  objectives  experience with the  it  i n Chapter  d i s c o u r s e when t h e y h a v e  conditions:  language,  than  the  or non-native—and  can negotiate  more t h a n social  task  cooperation prevailed  research findings discussed e a r l i e r ,  teachers—native settings  forms o f  the  gain automatic  researcher—its applicability  to  f i n d i n g s do n o t the world of  practice.  229  therefore  educational  As  i n a l l cases  i n which c o n t r o l over a l a r g e number of  v a r i a b l e s i s of importance t o the r e s e a r c h e r ,  l i n k s between  the r e s e a r c h d e s i g n and e d u c a t i o n a l p r a c t i c e are worth noting.  For example, most of the t a s k s comprising  the  f a c t o r are s i m i l a r t o those which language t e a c h e r s employ i n a task-based Yule,  1983;  Brumfit,  task  could  s y l l a b u s (see, f o r example, Brown &  1986;  L i t t l e w o o d , 1981;  A wide range o f t a s k s , i n terms of content  Long, 1985b).  and  focus, i s  made p o s s i b l e when the t e a c h e r r e l e a s e s c o n t r o l over language and  i n s t e a d expends e f f o r t on o r g a n i z i n g l e a r n e r s  t o s o l v e problems or exchange i n f o r m a t i o n . t h a t the r e p o r t i n g of the study may  To the  extent  have obscured some o f  the l i n k s w i t h e d u c a t i o n a l p r a c t i c e , i t i s a l s o worth p o i n t i n g out t h a t c h o i c e of s e v e r a l t a s k s was preliminary observations  based  on  of NNS-NNS (Japanese-non-Japanese)  t e a c h e r - l e a r n e r i n t e r a c t i o n devoted t o technology t r a n s f e r . T h i s p o i n t i s expanded somewhat i n the next s e c t i o n which outlines implications for educational p r a c t i c e . Another i s s u e r e l a t e d t o g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of  the  r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s i s the r e l a t i o n s h i p of method, o f s u b j e c t s e l e c t i o n or sampling procedures, of p r a c t i c e .  One  f o r i n s t a n c e , t o problems  area which has not r e c e i v e d much  d i s c u s s i o n i n t h i s study  i s the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y o f r e s u l t s  o b t a i n e d through the q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s , i n p a r t i c u l a r bases f o r s e l e c t i o n and p r e s e n t a t i o n of e x c e r p t s used t o d e p i c t s p e c i f i c p a t t e r n s of r e p a i r .  A purely  ideographic  approach t o c o n v e r s a t i o n a l data would not have been 230  the  e s p e c i a l l y concerned  w i t h s y s t e m a t i c sampling  o f data a t any  l e v e l i n t h e a n a l y s i s nor w i t h attempting t o g e n e r a l i z e beyond t h e d e f i n e d c o n t e x t ; a p u r e l y nomothetic seeking")  (or "law-  approach would have avoided o p p o r t u n i s t i c sampling  a l t o g e t h e r and would have emphasized t h e s y s t e m a t i c i t y by which t h e data were sampled and examined ( B u r r e l l & Morgan, 1979).  R e c a l l i n g t h a t t h e t e x t sampling procedure  something o f a compromise between t h e s e  was  methodological  extremes, t h e study may have t u r n e d out a s e r i e s o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s which a r e n e i t h e r a r t nor s c i e n c e and which may t h e r e f o r e f a i l t o convince a t e i t h e r  level.  Beyond simply a c c e p t i n g t h e q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s on i t s own m e r i t s , however, t h e r e i s always t h e o p t i o n f o r o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s t o re-examine and make sense o f t h e o r i g i n a l d a t a u s i n g t h e same assumptions which guided t h e f i r s t analysis.  T h i s c o u l d mean i n p r a c t i c e , f o r example, u s i n g  the o r i g i n a l r e p a i r exponents and re-examining  the o r i g i n a l  s e t s o f t r a n s c r i p t s i n o r d e r t o produce a comparable i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the data.  Rather than attempting t o  r e p l i c a t e t h e r e s u l t s i n t h i s way, however, i t might be a g r e a t d e a l more i n t e r e s t i n g t o t r e a t t h e q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s as a g e n e r a l format f o r examination  o f data  generated by s i m i l a r groups i n s i m i l a r c o n v e r s a t i o n a l settings.  What i s emphasized i n t h i s view o f t h e a n a l y s i s  i s n o t so much t h e f i n d i n g s i n t h e o r i g i n a l study b u t t h e uses t o which i t s methods can be p u t i n f u r t h e r s t u d i e s . The  l a s t l i m i t a t i o n taken up here i s t h e p r a c t i c a l 231  problem o f t e a c h e r s  s e r v i n g as p a r t n e r s i n c l a s s e s w i t h  l a r g e numbers o f l e a r n e r s , a problem which has n o t been c l a r i f i e d adequately  thus f a r .  Although t h i s study has  argued t h a t t e a c h e r - l e a r n e r d y a d i c i n t e r a c t i o n may be a u s e f u l a l t e r n a t i v e t o t e a c h e r - f r o n t e d whole-classroom i n s t r u c t i o n , r e l i a n c e on t e a c h e r - l e a r n e r groups t o t h e e x c l u s i o n o f o t h e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l forms i s u n l i k e l y t o be an e f f i c i e n t use o f t h e t e a c h e r ' s assumptions behind teachers  time.  One o f t h e e x p l i c i t  t h e study was t h a t a l t e r n a t i v e r o l e s f o r  i n f o r e i g n language e d u c a t i o n had n o t been  adequately  explored  i n the l i t e r a t u r e .  the e d u c a t i o n a l systems which support  Many t e a c h e r s and them would be  r e l u c t a n t t o g i v e up d i r e c t , t e a c h e r - l e a r n e r c o n t a c t  during  the course o f an i n s t r u c t i o n a l program i n f a v o r o f a syllabus organized  around l e a r n e r - l e a r n e r i n t e r a c t i o n .  Nothing i n t h i s study should be taken t o suggest t h a t t e a c h e r - l e d dyads a r e t h e o n l y o r b e s t approach t o f o r e i g n language i n s t r u c t i o n , however.  On t h e c o n t r a r y ,  while  c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a l t e r n a t i v e s among p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r t e a c h e r - l e a r n e r i n t e r a c t i o n served t o m o t i v a t e t h e study, i t should be s t r e s s e d t h a t o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r NNS-NNS exchange i n classroom  s e t t i n g s can take many u s e f u l forms beyond t h e  c o o p e r a t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f NNS t e a c h e r s and l e a r n e r s i n d y a d i c groups. Implications f o r Educational Practice What does t h e study o f f e r f o r those who p l a n and conduct f o r e i g n language  education? 232  F i r s t , the r e s u l t s support the c a p a c i t y o f non-native teachers  w i t h a p r o f e s s i o n a l l e v e l of competence i n the  t a r g e t language t o serve as c o - p a r t i c i p a n t s w i t h l e a r n e r s i n t a s k - o r i e n t e d groups.  non-native t e a c h e r s  in this  were l a r g e l y i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from the n a t i v e  English  speaking t e a c h e r s  The  i n terms of t h e i r use  of r e f e r e n c e  repair.  The  teachers  are a b l e t o employ what Tarone (1983) and  study  and  r e s u l t s suggest, f o r example, t h a t non-native  ( B i a l y s t o c k , 1983;  Faerch & Kasper, 1983)  others  have c a l l e d  s t r a t e g i c competence i n a v a r i e t y of d i s c o u r s e  settings,  t h a t l e a r n e r s do not t h e r e f o r e s u f f e r from exposure t o non-native teachers.  and  their  At the same time, i t appears t h a t  the  t h r e s h o l d of s t r a t e g i c competence f o r l e a r n e r s t o employ various  r e p a i r s i n a f o r e i g n language u s e f u l l y may  r e l a t i v e l y low. study, the  The  be  lowest common denominator i n t h i s  "intermediate  l e v e l " l e a r n e r s , comprehensibly  r e q u e s t e d c l a r i f i c a t i o n or expanded t h e i r u t t e r a n c e s , example, e q u a l l y w e l l w i t h t h e i r Japanese and  for  native  interlocutors. A f u r t h e r , and  r e l a t e d , a p p l i c a t i o n f o r the r e s u l t s i s a  measure o f support f o r t r e a t i n g E n g l i s h as an i n t e r n a t i o n a l language (Smith, 1981)  which does not r e q u i r e  (but  does not exclude) the i n p u t of n a t i v e speakers.  clearly  Even though  a l a r g e number o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n s around the world are q u i t e o b v i o u s l y and  s u c c e s s f u l examples of content taught  l e a r n e d by non-natives through the medium of E n g l i s h ,  there  is still  considerable  controversy 233  about the q u a l i t y of  language the  learned  from n o n - n a t i v e s .  comparison of  between  several  native-led  excluding non-native  the  grounds t h a t t h e i r  rate  source of A third  forms o f  and n o n - n a t i v e  for  of  quality  relates  foreign learners  the  selected.  find their  language e d u c a t i o n a l as e q u a l p a r t n e r s  second-  adult  expect  foreign  l a n g u a g e a s a medium o f  Indeed,  all  instructional  system, with i t s  examinations,  and o f  is  clearly the  planners  conservative teachers  and  interaction  language  for  example,  formal  and i t  foreign  interpersonal  classes,  234  a  communication. study  language  e m p h a s i s on r o t e  non-traditional  is  language  employed i n t h i s  foreign  of  instruction  begin to think of  the Japanese teachers of both the  a  repair,  treat  private)  and l e a r n e r s  foreign  for  The image and p r a c t i c e  (and t y p i c a l l y  including adult  and  in task-based  were v e t e r a n s  tasks  instructional  systems t o  test-oriented  system t h a t t e a c h e r s  English,  choice of  and o t h e r  way i n t o  classroom settings.  of  somehow a  Because the v a l u e s of  e s p e c i a l l y compelling in Japan, i n the  f o u n d no b a s i s  negotiation  may be u n r e a s o n a b l e t o  teacher-fronted,  only  reference  The f i n d i n g s show t h a t  and e x t e n t o f  task  eventually  designed for  are  to  system i n which teachers  it  to  input.  i n f l u e n c e d by the  practice,  limited  f r o m d y a d i c e x c h a n g e on  t a s k s can support n e g o t i a t i o n  educational  and  brand of E n g l i s h i s  implication  although the  operate  repair  led groups,  teachers  organizing dyadic interaction. variety  This study,  routes  to  learning fluency  and  in  E n g l i s h s p e a k i n g c l u b s and  educational experiences  overseas.  The most e f f e c t i v e model f o r classroom  language  l e a r n i n g , then, i s p r o b a b l y not t o be found i n t r a d i t i o n a l language classrooms  at a l l .  I t i s more l i k e l y t o be  i n c o n t e n t - a r e a i n s t r u c t i o n and s o c i a l exchanges i n non-school  environments—at  found  conducted  worksites, conferences,  meetings and o t h e r p l a c e s i n which NNSs gather t o o b t a i n e x p e r t i s e , exchange i n f o r m a t i o n o r s o l v e problems. T h i s model f o r the exchange of content can be a p p l i e d i n f o r e i g n language classrooms by t r e a t i n g t a s k s as environments which a l l o w d i f f e r e n t f a c e t s o f c o n t e n t - a r e a problems t o be e x p l o r e d a t d i f f e r e n t p o i n t s i n the s y l l a b u s . Some t a s k s are demonstrably  more a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t r e a t i n g  i n f o r m a t i o n as a p r a c t i c a l r e s o u r c e , o t h e r s as a t h e o r e t i c a l resource.  I t i s e n t i r e l y p o s s i b l e , f o r example, t o d e s i g n a  s y l l a b u s i n which t e a c h e r s i n i t i a t e a c y c l e o f t a s k s w i t h r e l a t i v e l y undemanding e x p e r i e n t i a l a c t i v i t i e s a l l o w i n g f o r a h i g h l e v e l of shared i n f o r m a t i o n , move on t o a c t i v i t i e s which make more performance demands on the l e a r n e r and  then  conclude w i t h t h e o r e t i c a l g e n e r a l i z a t i o n and e x p l a n a t i o n . W i t h i n l i m i t s , the t e a c h e r ' s r o l e can be a d j u s t e d t o s u i t c u l t u r a l e x p e c t a t i o n s — t h e t e a c h e r can, a f t e r e x p l i c i t l y d i r e c t i n s t r u c t i o n i n the dyad matter,  all,  (or, f o r t h a t  commission l e a r n e r - l e a r n e r g r o u p s ) — a n d  thus d e s i g n  o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o t r e a t content i n d i f f e r e n t ways.  The p o i n t  i s t h a t c h o i c e of t a s k c a r r i e s consequences, some o f which have been e l a b o r a t e d here, f o r the k i n d and q u a n t i t y o f 235  i n t e r a c t i o n i n which t h e l e a r n e r i s going t o p a r t i c i p a t e . I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Task-based Research Even though t h e p r e s e n t d i s c u s s i o n i s about t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of research to educational p r a c t i c e , there i s one  f i n a l i m p l i c a t i o n o f t h e study which n e c e s s a r i l y r e t u r n s  the d i s c u s s i o n t o t h e conduct o f task-based major problem f o r anyone u n d e r t a k i n g  research.  A  applied research i s the  development o f c a t e g o r i e s which capture some o f t h e r e a l i t y o f an a p p l i e d world:  t e a c h e r s , l e a r n e r s , classrooms,  c l a r i f i c a t i o n r e q u e s t s , exophoric  tasks,  r e f e r e n c e , and so on.  g e n e r a l , t h e c a t e g o r i e s i n t h i s study r e f l e c t  In  distinctions  which a r e v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i c a l t o those employed by o t h e r researchers.  I t makes some sense t o b u i l d on a body o f  p u b l i s h e d r e s e a r c h by a p p r o p r i a t e a p p l i c a t i o n o f i t s c a t e g o r i e s and frames o f r e f e r e n c e r a t h e r than p i o n e e r an e n t i r e l y novel s e t of c a t e g o r i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n s . Alternative, categories  i n d u c t i v e approaches t o g e n e r a t i n g  analytic  (see, f o r example, Schwartz, 1980; Gaies, 1983)  have a t l e a s t as much r e s p e c t a b i l i t y i n t h e t r a d i t i o n o f s o c i a l s c i e n c e s , however, and should be c o n s i d e r e d as a u s e f u l means o f e s t a b l i s h i n g v a l i d markers through the r e l a t i v e l y unexplored  t e r r i t o r y o f task-based  research.  To some e x t e n t t h e q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s o f Chapter 6 was an attempt t o move somewhat beyond t h e c u r r e n t l y used d e s c r i p t i v e frames.  T h i s phase o f t h e study should be  c o n s i d e r e d an e x t e n s i o n o f h y p o t h e s i s t e s t i n g  accomplished  through q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s , however, r a t h e r than what i t  236  might have been under an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t d e s i g n — a n attempt t o b u i l d new  research  frames of r e f e r e n c e  c a t e g o r i e s f o r the study of dyadic  and  i n t e r a c t i o n between  non-  n a t i v e speakers of E n g l i s h . F u r t h e r s t u d i e s of NNS-NNS d i s c o u r s e can stake out a middle ground between the extremes of d e d u c t i v e i n d u c t i v e approaches t o treatment of d a t a .  and  They can,  for  example, s t a r t w i t h some r a t h e r broad c a t e g o r i e s which have grown out o f e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h or o t h e r s ' attempts a t model-building,  c o n s t r u c t a s e t of narrower c a t e g o r i e s  on  the b a s i s o f a q u a l i t a t i v e study and then go on t o suggest o r t e s t a manageable s e t of hypotheses. dimensional  The  framework o u t l i n e d i n t h i s study,  on a t w o - f a c t o r  simple,  two-  itself  based  a c t i v i t y framework f o r e d u c a t i o n a l s e t t i n g s ,  can accommodate a v a r i e t y of n o v e l c a t e g o r i e s which have y e t to  be developed i n f u t u r e o b s e r v a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h .  The  n o t i o n o f complementary t a s k s t r u c t u r e s can be used t o s e l e c t rough o b s e r v a t i o n a l boundaries and a l l o c a t e b e h a v i o r a l c a t e g o r i e s which emerge d u r i n g a n a l y s i s of c o n v e r s a t i o n a l data. it  The  framework i t s e l f can be v a l i d a t e d ;  should c e r t a i n l y be m o d i f i e d t o a l l o w f o r more a c c u r a t e  d e s c r i p t i o n of discourse i n educational s e t t i n g s . Conclusion The  l i m i t a t i o n s and  an o u t l i n e o f areas research.  The  i m p l i c a t i o n s of the study  i n t o which o t h e r s may  r o l e of classroom  teachers  present  extend t h e i r  own  in this  p r o s p e c t i v e r e s e a r c h process has o n l y been i m p l i e d ; i t ought 237  t o be made e x p l i c i t .  C o n s i d e r i n g the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  and  c e n t r a l p o s i t i o n of t e a c h e r s i n f o r e i g n language e d u c a t i o n , t h e r e are v e r y few o t h e r s who  are i n a b e t t e r p o s i t i o n t o  pose good q u e s t i o n s about t h e i r work, t o seek an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the v e r b a l p r o c e s s e s which occur w i t h i n t h e i r classrooms  or i n r e l a t e d experimental s e t t i n g s and t o  o f f e r e x p l a n a t i o n s w i t h a b a s i s i n the r e a l i t y of professional practice.  I f t h i s study has h e l p e d  foreign  language t e a c h e r s t o view t h e i r t e a c h i n g from a f r e s h p e r s p e c t i v e i t w i l l have f u l f i l l e d one of i t s g o a l s .  If, in  a d d i t i o n , i t encourages t e a c h e r s t o examine t h e i r work from a r e s e a r c h p e r s p e c t i v e , i t w i l l have a c h i e v e d  an  u n a n t i c i p a t e d bonus. The  focus o f the study has been sharpened  by  a v a i l a b i l i t y o f c o n c e p t u a l t h i n k i n g accomplished  the by o t h e r s .  The debt i s r e c o g n i z e d and a hope expressed t h a t the  study  w i l l prove t o be of both t e c h n i c a l and c o n c e p t u a l v a l u e t o o t h e r s i n t h e i r p u r s u i t of s o l u t i o n s t o problems i n language education.  238  REFERENCES Abunahleh, L., A l l e n , S., A r t h u r , B., B e a l s , S., B u t l e r , M., Drezner, B., Frydenberg, G., G a l a l , M., Gass, S., H i l d e b r a n d t , K., Marios, L., & Ostrander, T. (1982). The scope and f u n c t i o n o f language r e p a i r i n f o r e i g n e r d i s c o u r s e . I n t e r l a n g u a g e S t u d i e s B u l l e t i n . 112-120. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1981). The c o n s t r u c t v a l i d a t i o n o f t h e FSI o r a l i n t e r v i e w . Language L e a r n i n g . 31. 67-86. B i y a l i s t o c k , E. 1983. Some f a c t o r s i n t h e s e l e c t i o n and implementation o f communication s t r a t e g i e s . I n C. F a e r c h & G. Kasper (Eds.), S t r a t e g i e s i n i n t e r l a n g u a g e communication (pp. 100-118). London: Longman. Breen, M. (1987a). Contemporary d e s i g n s i n s y l l a b u s d e s i g n : P a r t I . Language Teaching. A p r i l , 81-92. Breen, M. (1987b). Contemporary d e s i g n s i n s y l l a b u s d e s i g n : P a r t I I . Language Teaching. J u l y , 157-174. Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983a). D i s c o u r s e a n a l y s i s . Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983b). Teaching t h e spoken language: An approach based on t h e a n a l y s i s o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l E n g l i s h . Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . B r u l h a r t , M. M. (1985). F o r e i g n e r t a l k i n t h e ESL classroom: I n t e r a c t i o n a l adjustments t o a d u l t s t u d e n t s a t two language p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s . Unpublished master's t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver. B u r r e l l , G., & Morgan, G. 1979. S o c i o l o g i c a l paradigms and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s : Elements o f t h e s o c i o l o g y o f c o r p o r a t e l i f e . London: Heinemann E d u c a t i o n a l Books. Campbell, C., G a s k i l l , W., & Vanderbrook, S. (1977). Some a s p e c t s o f f o r e i g n e r t a l k . In C. R. Henning (Ed.), Proceedings o f t h e F i r s t Los Angeles Second Language Research Forum. Los Angeles: U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a . Cazden, C. (1972). The s i t u a t i o n : A n e g l e c t e d source o f s o c i a l c l a s s d i f f e r e n c e s i n language use. I n J . B. P r i d e & J . Holmes (Eds.), S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s (pp. 294313). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books. Chaudron, C. (1983). F o r e i g n e r t a l k i n t h e c l a s s r o o m — A n a i d t o l e a r n i n g ? I n H. S e l i g e r & M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom o r i e n t e d r e s e a r c h i n second language a c q u i s i t i o n (pp. 127-143). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 239  C l e a r l a k e Research. (1985). CLR ANOVA [Computer program]. Houston, TX: Author. Crookes, G. (1986). Task c l a s s i f i c a t i o n : A c r o s s d i s c i p l i n a r y review (Tech. Rep. No. 4 ) . Manoa: U n i v e r s i t y o f Hawaii S o c i a l S c i e n c e Research I n s t i t u t e , Center f o r Second Language Classroom Research. Cummins, J . (1983). Language p r o f i c i e n c y and academic achievement. In J . O i l e r (Ed.), Issues i n language t e s t i n g r e s e a r c h (pp. 108-129). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Doughty, C., & P i c a , T. (1986). " I n f o r m a t i o n gap" t a s k s : they f a c i l i t a t e second language a c q u i s i t i o n ? TESOL Q u a r t e r l y . 20. 305-325.  Do  Duff, P. A. (1986). Another l o o k a t i n t e r l a n g u a g e t a l k : T a k i n g t a s k t o t a s k . In R. R. Day (Ed.), T a l k i n g t o l e a r n : C o n v e r s a t i o n s i n second language a c q u i s i t i o n (pp. 147-181). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. E l l i s , R. (1984). Classroom second language Oxford: Pergamon.  development.  E l l i s , R. (1985). Understanding second language Oxford: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .  acquisition.  Elmes, D. G., Kantowitz, B. H., & Roediger, H. L. (1985). Research methods i n psychology. S t . P a u l , MN: West P u b l i s h i n g Company. E d u c a t i o n a l T e s t i n g S e r v i c e . (1982). ETS O r a l T e s t i n g Manual. P r i n c e t o n , NJ: Author.  Proficiency  Faerch, C , & Kasper, G. (1983). Plans and s t r a t e g i e s i n f o r e i g n language communication. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), S t r a t e g i e s i n i n t e r l a n g u a g e communication (pp. 20-60). London: Longman. Feldman, D. S., J r . , & Gagnon, J . (1986). StatView 512+ [Computer program]. Calabasas, CA: Abacus Concepts. Ferguson, C. A. (1971). Absence o f c o p u l a and the n o t i o n o f s i m p l i c i t y . In D. Hymes (Ed.), P i d g i n i z a t i o n and c r e o l i z a t i o n o f language (pp. 141-150). London: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Ferguson, C. A. (1975). Towards a c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f English foreigner talk. Anthropoligical Linguistics, 17, 1-14. Ferguson, G. A. (1981). S t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s i n psychology and e d u c a t i o n (3rd e d . ) . Tokyo: McGraw-Hill. 240  Freed, B. F. (1978). F o r e i g n e r t a l k : A study o f speech adjustments made by n a t i v e speakers o f E n g l i s h i n c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h non-native speakers. Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Freed, B. F. (1980). T a l k i n g t o f o r e i g n e r s v e r s u s t a l k i n g t o c h i l d r e n : S i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s . In R. C. S c a r c e l l a & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Research i n second language a c q u i s i t i o n : S e l e c t e d papers o f the Los Angeles Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n Research Forum (pp. 19-27). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. G a i e s , S. J . (1982). N a t i v e speaker - nonnative speaker i n t e r a c t i o n among academic p e e r s . S t u d i e s i n Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n , 5, 74-81. G a i e s , S. J . (1983). Learner feedback: An e x p l o r a t o r y study of i t s r o l e i n the second language classroom. In W. H. S e l i g e r & M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom o r i e n t e d r e s e a r c h i n language a c q u i s i t i o n (pp. 190-212). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Gass, S. M., & V a r o n i s , E. M. (1984). The e f f e c t o f f a m i l i a r i t y on the c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y o f non-native speech. Language L e a r n i n g , 34., 65-89. Gass, S. M., & V a r o n i s E. M. (1985a). V a r i a t i o n i n n a t i v e speaker speech m o d i f i c a t i o n t o non-native speakers. S t u d i e s i n Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n , 7, 37-57. Gass, S. M., fie V a r o n i s , E. M. (1985b). Task v a r i a t i o n and nonnative/nonnative n e g o t i a t i o n o f meaning. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input i n second language a c q u i s i t i o n (pp. 149-161). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Gass. S. M., & V a r o n i s , E. M. (1986). Sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n NSS/NSS i n t e r a c t i o n s . In R. R. Day (Ed.), T a l k i n g t o l e a r n : C o n v e r s a t i o n i n second language a c q u i s i t i o n (327-351). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Goetz, J . P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and q u a l i t a t i v e d e s i g n i n e d u c a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h . Orlando, FL: Academic P r e s s . Haastrup, K., & P h i l l i p s o n , R. (1983). Achievement s t r a t e g i e s i n l e a r n e r / n a t i v e speaker i n t e r a c t i o n . In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), S t r a t e g i e s i n i n t e r l a n g u a g e communication (pp. 14 0-158). London: Longman. H a l l i d a y , M. A. K., & Hasan, R. London: Longman.  (1976). Cohesion i n E n g l i s h .  241  H a r r i s , D. P . , & P a l m e r , L . A . ( 1 9 8 6 a ) . i n s t r u c t i o n s and t e c h n i c a l m a n u a l . Hill.  CELT e x a m i n e r s New Y o r k : McGraw-  H a r r i s , D. P . , & P a l m e r , L . A . ( 1 9 8 6 b ) . b o o k . New Y o r k : M c G r a w - H i l l .  CELT:  H a t c h , E . (1983). perspective.  1  P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c s : A second R o w l e y , MA: Newbury H o u s e .  Form A t e s t language  H e n z l , V . M. (1974) . L i n g u i s t i c r e g i s t e r o f f o r e i g n i n s t r u c t i o n . Language L e a r n i n g . 23., 2 0 7 - 2 2 2 .  language  H e n z l , V . M. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . F o r e i g n t a l k i n t h e c l a s s r o o m . I n t e r n a t i o n a l Review o f A p p l i e d L i n g u i s t i c s . 17, 167. H o l d e r , W. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . The WORD p l u s D i e g o , CA: O a s i s Systems. Huck,  [Computer  program].  159San  S . W . , C o r m i e r , W. H . , & B o u n d s , W. G . , J r . ( 1 9 7 4 ) . R e a d i n g s t a t i s t i c s and r e s e a r c h . New Y o r k : H a r p e r a n d Row.  Hymes, D. ( 1 9 6 7 ) . M o d e l s o f t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f l a n g u a g e a n d s o c i a l s e t t i n g . Journal of S o c i a l Issues. 27(2), 8-28. Hymes, D. ( 1 9 7 2 ) . On c o m m u n i c a t i v e c o m p e t e n c e . I n J . B . P r i d e & J . Holmes ( E d s . ) , S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s ( 2 6 9 - 2 9 3 ) . Harmondsworth, E n g l a n d : Penguin Books. Kasper, G. (1985). Repair i n f o r e i g n language t e a c h i n g . S t u d i e s i n S e c o n d Language A c q u i s i t i o n , 7 , 2 0 0 - 2 1 5 . Kramsch, C . J . 1985. C l a s s r o o m i n t e r a c t i o n and d i s c o u r s e o p t i o n s . S t u d i e s i n S e c o n d Language A c q u i s i t i o n , 7 , 169-183. K r a s h e n , S . ( 1 9 7 8 ) . T h e m o n i t o r model f o r s e c o n d l a n g u a g e acquisition. I n R. G i n g r a s ( E d . ) , S e c o n d l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n and f o r e i g n language t e a c h i n g (pp. 1 - 2 7 ) . A r l i n g t o n , VA: Center f o r A p p l i e d L i n g u i s t i c s . K r a s h e n , S . ( 1 9 8 0 ) . The i n p u t h y p o t h e s i s . I n J . E . A l a t i s ( E d . ) , C u r r e n t i s s u e s i n b i l i n g u a l e d u c a t i o n (pp. 1441 5 8 ) . W a s h i n g t o n , DC: G e o r g e t o w n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . K r a s h e n , S . (1981). Second language a c q u i s i t i o n and second l a n g u a g e l e a r n i n g . O x f o r d : Pergamon P r e s s . K r a s h e n , S . ( 1 9 8 2 ) . P r i n c i p l e s and p r a c t i c e i n s e c o n d l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n . O x f o r d : Pergamon P r e s s .  242  L i t t l e w o o d , W. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . C o m m u n i c a t i v e Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y  language Press.  teaching.  Long,  M. H . ( 1 9 8 0 ) . I n p u t , i n t e r a c t i o n , a n d s e c o n d l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n . Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a at Los A n g e l e s .  Long,  M. H . ( 1 9 8 1 ) . I n p u t , i n t e r a c t i o n , a n d s e c o n d - l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n . I n H. W i n i t z ( E d . ) , N a t i v e l a n g u a g e a n d f o r e i g n l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n ( A n n a l s o f t h e New Y o r k Academy o f S c i e n c e s , Volume 3 7 9 , p p . 2 5 9 - 2 7 8 ) . New Y o r k : T h e New Y o r k Academy o f S c i e n c e s .  Long,  M. H . ( 1 9 8 3 a ) . L i n g u i s t i c a n d c o n v e r s a t i o n a l adjustments t o n o n - n a t i v e s p e a k e r s . S t u d i e s i n Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n , 5, 177-193.  Long,  M. H . ( 1 9 8 3 b ) . N a t i v e s p e a k e r / n o n - n a t i v e speaker c o n v e r s a t i o n and t h e n e g o t i a t i o n o f c o m p r e h e n s i b l e i n p u t . A p p l i e d L i n g u i s t i c s , 4, 126-141.  Long,  M. H . ( 1 9 8 5 a ) . I n p u t and s e c o n d l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n t h e o r y . I n S . M. G a s s , & C . G . Madden ( E d s . ) , I n p u t i n s e c o n d l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n ( p p . 3 7 7 - 3 9 3 ) . R o w l e y , MA: Newbury H o u s e .  Long,  M. H . ( 1 9 8 5 b ) . A r o l e f o r i n s t r u c t i o n i n s e c o n d language a c q u i s i t i o n : Task-based language t e a c h i n g . In K. H y l t e n s t a m & M. Pienemann ( E d s . ) , M o d e l l i n g a n d a s s e s s i n g second language development (pp. 7 7 - 9 9 ) . San Diego: College H i l l Press.  Long,  M. H . , Adams, L . , M c L e a n , M . , & C a s t a n o s . (1976). Doing t h i n g s with words—Verbal i n t e r a c t i o n i n l o c k s t e p and s m a l l group c l a s s r o o m s i t u a t i o n s . In J . Fanselow & R. Crymes ( E d s . ) , On TESOL '76 ( p p . 1 3 7 - 1 5 3 ) . W a s h i n g t o n , DC: T E S O L .  Long,  M. H . , & P o r t e r , P. A . ( 1 9 8 5 ) . G r o u p w o r k , i n t e r l a n g u a g e t a l k , and s e c o n d l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 19, 207-228.  Long,  M. H . , & S a t o , C . ( 1 9 8 3 ) . C l a s s r o o m f o r e i g n e r t a l k d i s c o u r s e : Forms and f u n c t i o n s o f t e a c h e r s ' q u e s t i o n s . I n W. H . S e l i g e r & M. H . L o n g ( E d s . ) , C l a s s r o o m o r i e n t e d r e s e a r c h i n language a c q u i s i t i o n (pp. 2682 8 5 ) . R o w l e y , MA: Newbury H o u s e .  Lowe,  P . , J r . (1987). I n t e r a g e n c y Language R o u n d t a b l e O r a l P r o f i c i e n c y I n t e r v i e w [Review o f t h e L P I ] . I n J . C . A l d e r s o n , K. J . K r a h n k e & C . W. S t a n s f i e l d (Eds.), Reviews o f E n g l i s h language p r o f i c i e n c y t e s t s (pp. 434 7 ) . W a s h i n g t o n , DC: T e a c h e r s o f E n g l i s h t o S p e a k e r s o f Other Languages.  243  Malamah-Thomas, A . (1987). C l a s s r o o m i n t e r a c t i o n . Oxford University Press.  Oxford:  M a r t i n , J . R. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . The d e v e l o p m e n t o f r e g i s t e r . I n J . F i n e & R. 0 . F r e e d l e ( E d s . ) , D e v e l o p m e n t a l i s s u e s i n d i s c o u r s e ( p p . 1 - 3 9 ) . Norwood, N J : A b l e x . M e r r i a m , S . B . , & S i m p s o n , E . L . (1984) A g u i d e t o r e s e a r c h f o r e d u c a t o r s and t r a i n e r s o f a d u l t s . M a l a b a r , F L : Robert E . K r e i g e r . Mohan, B. (1986). Language and c o n t e n t . Addison-Wesley.  R e a d i n g , MA:  Newport, E . (1976). M o t h e r e s e : The speech o f mothers t o young c h i l d r e n . U n p u b l i s h e d d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t o n , University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Nie,  N. H . , H u l l , C . H . , J e n k i n s , J . G . , S t e i n b r e n n e r , K . , & B r e n t , D. H . ( 1 9 7 5 ) . S t a t i s t i c a l p a c k a g e f o r t h e s o c i a l s c i e n c e s (2nd e d . ) . New Y o r k : M c G r a w - H i l l .  O x f o r d , R. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . C o m p r e h e n s i v e E n g l i s h L a n g u a g e T e s t [ R e v i e w o f t h e C E L T ] . I n J . C . A l d e r s o n , K. J . K r a h n k e & C . W. S t a n s f i e l d ( E d s . ) , R e v i e w s o f E n g l i s h l a n g u a g e p r o f i c i e n c y t e s t s (pp. 2 2 - 2 4 ) . W a s h i n g t o n , DC: T e a c h e r s of E n g l i s h t o Speakers of Other Languages. Pica,  T. (1987). Second-language a c q u i s i t i o n , s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n , and t h e c l a s s r o o m . A p p l i e d L i n g u i s t i c s . 8, 3 - 2 1 .  Pica,  T . , & Doughty, C . (1985). I n p u t and i n t e r a c t i o n i n t h e communicative language c l a s s r o o m : A comparison o f t e a c h e r - f r o n t e d a n d g r o u p a c t i v i t i e s . I n S . M. G a s s & C . G . Madden ( E d s . ) , I n p u t i n s e c o n d l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n ( p p . 115-13 2 ) . R o w l e y , MA: Newbury H o u s e .  Pica,  T . , & L o n g , M. H . ( 1 9 8 6 ) . The l i n g u i s t i c a n d c o n v e r s a t i o n a l performance o f e x p e r i e n c e d and i n e x p e r i e n c e d t e a c h e r s . I n R. R. Day ( E d . ) , T a l k i n g t o l e a r n : C o n v e r s a t i o n i n second language a c q u i s i t i o n (pp. 8 5 - 9 8 ) . R o w l e y , MA: Newbury H o u s e .  Pica,  T . , Young, R . , & Doughty, C . (1987). The impact o f i n t e r a c t i o n on c o m p r e h e n s i o n . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 2 1 , 7 3 7 758.  P o r t e r , P. A . (1983). V a r i a t i o n s i n t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n s o f a d u l t l e a r n e r s o f E n g l i s h as a f u n c t i o n o f t h e p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l of the p a r t i c i p a n t s . Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Stanford U n i v e r s i t y , Palo A l t o .  244  P o r t e r , P . A . (1986) . How l e a r n e r s t a l k t o e a c h o t h e r : I n p u t a n d i n t e r a c t i o n t a s k - c e n t e r e d d i s c u s s i o n s . I n R. R. Day ( E d . ) , T a l k i n g t o l e a r n : Conversations i n second l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n ( p p . 2 0 0 - 2 2 2 ) . R o w l e y , MA: Newbury House. R u l o n , K. A . , content: I n R. R. language House.  & McCreary, J . (1986). Negotiation of T e a c h e r - f r o n t e d and s m a l l - g r o u p interaction. Day, T a l k i n g t o l e a r n : C o n v e r s a t i o n s i n second a c g u i s i t i o n ( p p . 1 8 3 - 1 9 9 ) . R o w l e y , MA: Newbury  S c a r c e l l a , R. & H i g a C . ( 1 9 8 1 ) . I n p u t n e g o t i a t i o n a n d age d i f f e r e n c e s i n second language a c q u i s i t i o n . Language L e a r n i n g , 31, 409-437. S c h a c h t e r , J . (1985). Three approaches t o t h e study i n p u t . Language L e a r n i n g . 3 6 , 2 1 1 - 2 2 5 .  of  S c h e g l o f f , E . A . , J e f f e r s o n , G . , & S a c k s , H . ( 1 9 7 7 ) . The preference f o r s e l f - c o r r e c t i o n i n the organization of r e p a i r i n c o n v e r s a t i o n . Language. 53, 361-382. S c h i n k e - L l a n o , L. (1986). F o r e i g n e r t a l k i n j o i n t c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t i e s . I n R. R. Day ( E d . ) , T a l k i n g t o l e a r n : C o n v e r s a t i o n s i n second language a c q u i s i t i o n (pp. 99117) . S c h w a r t z , J . ( 1 9 8 0 ) . The n e g o t i a t i o n f o r m e a n i n g : R e p a i r i n c o n v e r s a t i o n s between s e c o n d language l e a r n e r s o f E n g l i s h . I n D. L a r s e n - F r e e m a n ( E d . ) , D i s c o u r s e a n a l y s i s i n s e c o n d l a n g u a g e r e s e a r c h ( p p . 1 3 8 - 1 5 3 ) . R o w l e y , MA: Newbury H o u s e . S h o r t r e e d , I. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . The e f f e c t s o f t a s k c o m p l e x i t y a n d p r o f i c i e n c y on f o r e i g n e r t a l k d i s c o u r s e a n d c o m m u n i c a t i o n s t r a t e g i e s i n NS-NSS i n t e r a c t i o n . Unpublished master's t h e s i s . University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver. S i e g e l , S . (1956). Nonparametric s t a t i s t i c s f o r t h e b e h a v i o r a l s c i e n c e s . New Y o r k : McGraw H i l l . Smith, L. E . (Ed.). communication. Snow,  1981. E n g l i s h f o r c r o s s - c u l t u r a l London: M a c m i l l a n .  C . ( 1 9 8 7 ) . Beyond c o n v e r s a t i o n : S e c o n d l a n g u a g e l e a r n e r s ' a c q u i s i t i o n o f d e s c r i p t i o n and e x p l a n a t i o n . I n L a n t o l f , J . P. & L a b a r c a , A . ( E d s . ) , R e s e a r c h i n s e c o n d l a n g u a g e l e a r n i n g : F o c u s on t h e c l a s s r o o m ( p p . 3 - 1 6 ) . Norwood, N J : A b l e x .  T a b a c h n i c k , B. G . , & F i d e l l , L. S . (1983). U s i n g m u l t i v a r i a t e s t a t i s t i c s . New Y o r k : H a r p e r a n d Row. 245  T a r o n e , E . ( 1 9 8 3 ) . Some t h o u g h t s o n t h e n o t i o n o f 'communication s t r a t e g y ' . In C . F a e r c h & G. Kasper ( E d s . ) , S t r a t e g i e s i n i n t e r l a n g u a g e communication (pp. 6 1 - 7 4 ) . L o n d o n : Longman. T u r n e r , R. ( E d . ) . (1974). Ethnomethodolocry. England: Penguin Books.  Harmondsworth,  V a r o n i s , E . M . , & G a s s , S . M. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . T h e c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y o f n o n - n a t i v e s p e e c h . S t u d i e s i n Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n , 4, 114-136. V a r o n i s , E . M . , & G a s s , S . M. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . Non-native/non-native c o n v e r s a t i o n s : A model f o r n e g o t i a t i o n o f m e a n i n g . A p p l i e d L i n g u i s t i c s , 6, 7 1 - 9 0 . W a g n e r , J . (1983) . Dann du t a g e n e i n e e e e e — w e i s s e Platte—An a n a l y s i s o f interlanguage communication i n s t r u c t i o n s . In C. Faerch & G. Kasper ( E d s . ) , S t r a t e g i e s i n i n t e r l a n g u a g e communication (pp. 159-174). London: Longman. W e s c h e , M. B . , & R e a d y , D. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . F o r e i g n e r t a l k i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y c l a s s r o o m . I n G a s s , S . M. & Madden C . G . ( E d s . ) , Input i n second language a c g u i s i t i o n (89-113).  246  APPENDICES  (A-K)  247  a s k f o r f e e d b a c k and c l e a r up any p o i n t d u r i n g t h e conversations. I t i s most i m p o r t a n t t h a t y o u t r y t o g e t t h e most o u t o f t h e s e t a l k s : The t e a c h e r w i l l be g i v i n g y o u i n f o r m a t i o n and i s r e a d y and w i l l i n g t o h e l p y o u , b u t y o u w i l l h a v e t o do y o u r b e s t t o c o m m u n i c a t e t o o . I do a p p r e c i a t e y o u r h e l p i f y o u c a n s p a r e t h e t i m e . We s h o u l d be a b l e t o f i n i s h a l l t e s t i n g and c o n v e r s a t i o n s i n a t o t a l t i m e o f one h o u r and 45 m i n u t e s . I t h i n k y o u w i l l f i n d t h e e x p e r i e n c e t o be an e x c e l l e n t f o r m o f p r a c t i c e and a way o f l e a r n i n g what y o u r l e v e l i s . I f y o u w o u l d l i k e t o p a r t i c i p a t e , p l e a s e c a l l me w i t h i n t h e n e x t two weeks a t t h e t e l e p h o n e number l i s t e d a b o v e . In a d d i t i o n , f e e l f r e e a t any t i m e t o c a l l me w i t h any q u e s t i o n s y o u may h a v e . F i n a l l y , I want e v e r y o n e t o know t h a t y o u may f r e e l y d e c i d e n o t t o p a r t i c i p a t e and t h a t y o u c a n f r e e l y w i t h d r a w from the p r o j e c t a t anytime. Y o u r h e l p on t h e p r o j e c t w i l l be e n t i r e l y v o l u n t a r y and c o n f i d e n t i a l . A n d , i f y o u do d e c i d e n o t t o p a r t i c i p a t e , o r t o w i t h d r a w , i t w i l l n o t be h e l d a g a i n s t y o u i n any way. YOROSHIKU ONEGAI SHIMASU!  250  Appendix C Statement  of  Informed Consent  I consent to p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the research p r o j e c t , "The E f f e c t o f T a s k V a r i a t i o n i n T e a c h e r - l e d G r o u p s on R e p a i r o f E n g l i s h a s a F o r e i g n L a n g u a g e " c o n d u c t e d by R i c h a r d B e r w i c k , Kobe U n i v e r s i t y o f Commerce. I u n d e r s t a n d t h a t the main p u r p o s e s o f t h e p r o j e c t are t o e x a m i n e 1) how v a r i o u s c o n v e r s a t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n s influence the k i n d of v e r b a l a s s i s t a n c e p a r t i c i p a n t s o f f e r t o each o t h e r and 2) i f t h e a s s i s t a n c e d e p e n d s on w h e t h e r a g r o u p i s m i x e d ( n a t i v e E n g l i s h and J a p a n e s e ) o r homogeneous ( J a p a n e s e only). I a l s o u n d e r s t a n d t h a t I w i l l be w o r k i n g w i t h one o t h e r p a r t i c i p a n t i n a two-member g r o u p , t h a t o u r g r o u p w i l l engage i n f i v e b r i e f (5-7 m i n u t e ) c o n v e r s a t i o n s t o t a l i n g a b o u t one h o u r w i t h b r e a k s , and t h a t t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i l l be r e c o r d e d f o r l a t e r a n a l y s i s . My t o t a l participation time, i n c l u d i n g necessary b r i e f i n g s or E n g l i s h p r o f i c i e n c y t e s t s and t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n s , w i l l be l e s s t h a n one h o u r and 45 m i n u t e s . The f i v e s i t u a t i o n s i n c l u d e a f o r m a l d i s c u s s i o n , a d e m o n s t r a t i o n , two model r e c o n s t r u c t i o n t a s k s and a p e r i o d o f i n f o r m a l d i s c u s s i o n , i n a d d i t i o n t o an o p p o r t u n i t y t o evaluate the tasks immediately a f t e r they have been c o m p l e t e d . M r . B e r w i c k h a s a s s u r e d me t h a t my i d e n t i t y w i l l r e m a i n c o n f i d e n t i a l ( t h a t my name w i l l n o t be u s e d d u r i n g a n a l y s i s o f d a t a and r e p o r t i n g o f r e s u l t s ) . He h a s a l s o o f f e r e d t o a n s w e r any f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n s I may h a v e a b o u t t h e s t u d y and i t s p r o c e d u r e s i n o r d e r t o e n s u r e my f u l l u n d e r s t a n d i n g . M r . B e r w i c k h a s a l s o i n f o r m e d me t h a t I may r e f u s e t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e s t u d y , t h a t my s e r v i c e s may be w i t h d r a w n a t a n y t i m e f o r any r e a s o n I c h o o s e and t h a t s u c h w i t h d r a w a l w i l l i n no way be h e l d a g a i n s t me. F i n a l l y , I acknowledge r e c e i p t including a l l attachments.  DATE  of  a copy of  SIGNATURE  this  statement,  Appendix D E n g l i s h Language P r o f i c i e n c y Used t o 1.  The CELT -  Harris  Select  Tests  Subjects  Comprehensive E n g l i s h Language T e s t  & Palmer,  The CELT  1986b; O x f o r d ,  1987).  (Structure Section)  English  language  proficiency  college  and a d u l t  learners  is  a 75-item t e s t  designed for  of  (see  ESL/EFL at  high  school,  intermediate  advanced l e v e l s .  K u d e r - R i c h a r d s o n 20 r e l i a b i l i t i e s  range  .96  from  establish solution  .88 test  of  of  mark t h e of  the  for  norms.  grammar  The e x a m i n e e s speaker  to  are  the  six  reference  The S t r u c t u r e  problems  asked to  answer  test  questions  follow  (Form A)  S e c t i o n emphasizes  choose the  sheet with the  and  groups used  in a conversational  E n g l i s h would use i n t h e  of  correct  answer.  (see H a r r i s  the  context.  word o r p h a s e a  conversation  to  native  and t h e n Two  & Palmer,  to  examples 1986b,  p.  11) . Example  I:  "How o l d  is  George?"  " H e ' s two y e a r s Paul." (A) (B) (C) (D) Example  II:  that of as than  younger  (A) (B) (C) (D)  brother  (x)  "Have y o u f i n i s h e d Jones?" "Yes,  his  I  the  this  i t t o him gave g a v e i t t o him t o him gave i t gave t o him i t  253  report  morning." (x)  for  Mr.  No o v e r a l l reported  reliability  sum, t h e  Oxford  valid,  English.  The t e s t  (1987) c o n c l u d e s :  and u s e f u l  for  that  nonnative  appears t o measure E n g l i s h language  i n a way t h a t  is  easy to  administer  useful,  (p.  The L P I , Interview)  1982;  Lowe,  to  situation.  and t h e  ILR  The manual  The i n t e r v i e w  FSI  30 minutes. on a s c a l e o f  Service  is  a test  of  an  individual's  following description: c o n s i s t s of  a face-to-face  testers  for  conversation  a period of  10  The r e s u l t i n g s p e e c h s a m p l e i s t h e n 0  language)  (for to  no p r a c t i c a l 5  (for  ability  speaker)  strong performance w i t h i n a Examinees are  interview  (see E d u c a t i o n a l T e s t i n g S e r v i c e ,  an e d u c a t e d n a t i v e  interview.  (Foreign  ( I n t e r a g e n c y Language R o u n d t a b l e  w i t h one o r two t r a i n e d  of  (see E d u c a t i o n a l  c o n v e r s e i n a f o r e i g n language i n an  provides the  i n the  more  1987).  a l s o known a s t h e  Oral Proficiency Interview), ability  test  and  24)  Language P r o f i c i e n c y I n t e r v i e w  Testing Service,  is  speakers of  More work on n o r m i n g w o u l d make t h e  -  norms  E n g l i s h as  score.  The LPI  1982)  of  a u t h o r s have c r e a t e d a t e s t  reliable,  proficiency  2.  i s provided nor are  s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r Japanese l e a r n e r s  f o r e i g n langauge. In  estimate  ability  to  equivalent  e s t a b l i s h an i n i t i a l  level  rated  function to  with plus ratings  that for  level.  guided through s e v e r a l stages during  F o l l o w i n g a warm-up,  to  the  questions are designed to  ( b a s e d on a d e s c r i p t i o n o f  254  function,  content  and a c c u r a c y f o r each o f t h e f i v e  probe at the next unable to o f f e r level  highest level  or u n t i l  sustained responses,  a t w h i c h t h e examinee  to  overcome t h e d i f f i c u l t y  oral  such t e s t s ,  both content v a l i d i t y Lowe  (1987)  instrument  of producing v a l i d  invariable"  (p.  46).  "the t e s t  f o r the test  of the interview  interviewer's  ability  which are appropriate proficiency.  9 ) , and  fixed  in  a h i g h degree of  (Pearson product-moment  d e p e n d s on t h e  content  trained  f o r examinees a t d i f f e r e n t Bachman a n d P a l m e r  procedure"  lack  print  t o employ q u e s t i o n t y p e s o r o r a l  Lowe c i t e s  interview  (p.  and n o t e s t h a t t h e  c o n v e r g e n t and d i s c r i m i n a n t v a l i d i t y oral  assessments of  i s n o t an  Lowe a l s o r e p o r t s  exceeding .87),  was d e v e l o p e d  validity.  p o i n t s out t h a t  reliability  correlations validity  and f a c e  to the  assessment g o a l ,  because the procedure i s n e i t h e r  inter-rater  the  interview  given the o r a l  is  respond.  production with paper-and-pencil tests  argues t h a t  nor  t h e examinee  and t h e n r e t u r n  i s able to  The m a n u a l n o t e s t h a t t h e o r a l  levels),  (p. 4 6 ) ,  who f o u n d  version of  and n o t e s t h a t t h e  procedure possesses a h i g h degree o f face  255  levels of  (1981)  for "their  tasks  validity.  Appendix E Instructions of  to Raters  Dependent  and I n d e x  Variables  RATING CASES OF CONVERSATIONAL REPAIR AND REFERENCE I h a v e l i s t e d b e l o w t y p i c a l e x a m p l e s o f how r e p a i r and reference look in context. You w i l l b e r a t i n g o n l y s e v e n o f t h e 14 t y p e s l i s t e d ; y o u n e e d r e a d o n l y t h e s e v e n w h i c h a r e h e a d e d w i t h an a s t e r i s k (*). F I R S T — P l e a s e r e a d t h e examples below i n o r d e r t o g e t a f e e l f o r each t y p e . You w i l l f i n d t h e f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n f o r e a c h e x a m p l e : (a) an i n d e x number i n p a r e n t h e s e s f o r t h e i t e m , (b) a name, (c) a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n and (d) the c o n v e r s a t i o n a l excerpt w i t h i n which the r e p a i r o r r e f e r e n c e occurs. (Information i n the square b r a c k e t s f o l l o w i n g each e x c e r p t r e f e r s t o t h e t r a n s c r i p t i n which i t o c c u r s and has no b e a r i n g o n y o u r r a t i n g . ) SECOND—Once y o u h a v e r e a d t h e e x a m p l e s , y o u c a n go on t o the next f i v e pages. I h a v e l i s t e d 21 e x c e r p t s f r o m t r a n s c r i p t s o f c o n v e r s a t i o n s between a t e a c h e r and a l e a r n e r . N o t e t h a t e a c h e x c e r p t e x e m p l i f i e s o n l y one f o r m o f r e p a i r or r e f e r e n c e , which i s u n d e r l i n e d . A f t e r r e a d i n g each e x c e r p t , p l e a s e d e c i d e which kind of r e p a i r or reference i t illustrates. T h e n , w r i t e t h e i n d e x number f o r t h e r e p a i r o r r e f e r e n c e i n the space p r o v i d e d . The s e v e n r e p a i r and r e f e r e n c e c a t e g o r i e s , and t h e i r i n d e x numbers, have been r e p r o d u c e d f o r you a t t h e top of each r a t i n g sheet. NOTE THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLES (1) C l a r i f i c a t i o n R e q u e s t : The l i s t e n e r i n d i c a t e s l a c k o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h r o u g h an i m p l i e d o r e x p l i c i t r e q u e s t f o r t h e s p e a k e r t o e x p a n d o r r e f o r m u l a t e an u t t e r a n c e . CAN YOU FIND THAT PIECE? +++  I  beg your pardon?  [2LEGl]  *(2) Comprehension Check: A speaker checks whether l i s t e n e r has understood the u t t e r a n c e . BUMPS IS A KIND OF SMALL, U H , L I K E A C I R C L E . •S A L I T T L E BIT ELEVATED - C I R C L E , OKAY?  -  the CIRCLE,  [8LEG1] *(3) C o n f i r m a t i o n Check: A speaker requests c o n f i r m a t i o n t h a t t h e p r e v i o u s u t t e r a n c e has been h e a r d c o r r e c t l y by r e p e a t i n g a word o r p h r a s e f r o m t h e u t t e r a n c e and a d d i n g rising intonation. Where? UHH,  ++  Second  STARTING ON THE SECOND LINE  .  line?  [10LEG2] (4) D e f i n i t i o n : A s p e a k e r s t a t e s what a word o r p h r a s e means, e i t h e r i n r e s p o n s e t o o r i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f t h e l i s t e n e r ' s l a c k of comprehension; the d e f i n i t i o n t y p i c a l l y t a k e s t h e f o r m "A i s a ( t y p e o f ) B " . THAT'S IT. THREAD  A STRING IS JUST A THICK P I E C E OF BUT I N , IN COMPU UH, / r i b - ribbon. ribbon. COMPUTER DOESN'T HAVE A RIBBON.  No.  [2C0M1] *(5) Display Question: Requests the l i s t e n e r t o demonstrate knowledge o r i n f o r m a t i o n a l r e a d y p o s s e s s e d by t h e s p e a k e r a n d known by t h e l i s t e n e r t o be p o s s e s s e d b y t h e s p e a k e r . The " d i s p l a y " may a l s o t a k e t h e f o r m o f a r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n w h i c h i s a n s w e r a b l e by t h e s p e a k e r who p o s e s i t . APPEARING - ONE LETTER BEFORE [emph] T - H - E . SEE? - SO WHY DON'T WE K E E P - ++ IN ORDER TO FIND ANOTHER T - H - E WHAT SSSHALL I DO? [8COM2] (6) E c h o : Exact complete or ( t y p i c a l l y ) p a r t i a l r e p e t i t i o n , with f l a t or f a l l i n g i n t o n a t i o n , of the preceding speaker's utterance. MHMM.  NOW PRESS THE ONE THAT GOES DOWN.  Down [2COM2] 257  *(7) Lexical Uncertainty: H e s i t a n t or t e n t a t i v e attempt r e c a l l o r p r o p e r l y employ a p a r t i c u l a r w o r d ; o f t e n c h a r a c t e r i z e d by r e p e t i t i v e p r o d u c t i o n o f i n c o m p l e t e o r i n c o r r e c t forms o f the l e x i c a l i t e m . u h , I - II held oratorical contest, that contest.  I -  to  h - uh, I h e l d - the s p - u h - and I t o o k - t h e management - o f  [8DIS] *(8) Referential Question: A means o f e l i c i t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h i s unknown and o f i n t e r e s t t o t h e s p e a k e r , and w h i c h may b e p o s s e s s e d b y t h e h e a r e r . R e f e r e n t i a l questions are o r i e n t e d to the t o p i c r a t h e r than to the q u a l i t y of language by w h i c h t h e t o p i c i s e x p r e s s e d . UM -  I  THINK KOCHI IS  FAMOUS FOR -  UH ++  FIGHTING  DOGS.  Ahhh! UH -  WHAT -  WHAT DO YOU CALL THEM?  [2DIS] (9) S e l f - e x p a n s i o n : P a r t i a l or complete r e p h r a s i n g of o n e ' s own u t t e r a n c e , o f t e n o c c u r r i n g w i t h i n t h e s p e a k e r ' s t u r n but p o s s i b l y o c c u r r i n g w i t h i n the s p e a k e r ' s next t u r n . (The ">" i n d i c a t e s t h e r e f e r e n t i a l p o i n t f o r t h e e x p a n s i o n . ) Y E S , THAT O N E - AND THEN - >PUT IT - ON THAT - - THE LONGER ONE. + PUT THE SQUARE ONE ON THE LONG- LONG ONE . [10LEG2] (10) S e l f - r e p e t i t i o n : Exact, p a r t i a l or semantic (equivalent) r e p e t i t i o n of one's previous utterance within f i v e turns of that utterance. The s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n f r e q u e n t l y o c c u r s w i t h i n t h e s p e a k e r ' s own t u r n . (The ">" i n d i c a t e s the r e f e r e n t i a l point f o r the repetition.) YEAH + UMMM ++ L E T ' S JUST TRY THAT. THERE. LET'S JUST TRY IT THERE. WITH THIS THING.  YEAH >JUST TRY IT W E ' L L BE CREATIVE  [3LEG2] (11) O t h e r - e x p a n s i o n : P a r t i a l rephrasing of the previous speaker's utterance. R e p h r a s i n g t y p i c a l l y i n c l u d e s new m a t e r i a l i n a d d i t i o n to the r e p e t i t i o n . (The ">" i n d i c a t e s the r e f e r e n t i a l p o i n t f o r the expansion.)  258  I  SEE IT  ON P E O P L E ' S FRONT DOORS OR ON THEIR CAR. / Y e s , we p u t on c a r s OR ON THE FRONT OF THE CAR. IS IT FOR >GOOD LUCK FOR /Ah THE NEW YEAR FOR THE ++ DRIVING, OR /yes Yeah. It think.  means t h e  celebration  o r good l u c k .  Urn,  I  [12DIS] (12) O t h e r - r e p e t i t i o n : Exact, p a r t i a l or semantic repetition of the previous speaker's utterance w i t h i n f i v e turns of the utterance. (The ">" i n d i c a t e s t h e r e f e r e n t i a l p o i n t f o r t h e repetition.) Uh,  not  UH HUH.  inside. I  So,  S E E , GATE.  in  front  of  the  YOU SAID G A T E .  gate. UM HM.  [12DIS] *(13) Anaphoric Reference: Anaphoric r e f e r e n c e p o i n t s back t o something c o n c r e t e l y i d e n t i f i e d at a p r e v i o u s p o i n t i n the t e x t . Anaphora t y p i c a l l y t a k e s the form o f a pronoun ( t h u s , >BOOK . . . I T ) . IT c a n n o t be i n t e r p r e t e d w i t h o u t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e r e f e r e n t i a l s o u r c e (">"). SO. ARE A L L OF THE >PIECES TURNED RIGHT SIDE UP? (/Mhmm./) Yes,  yes they  are.  [2LEG1] *(14) Exophoric Reference: Exophoric r e f e r e n c e p o i n t s out o b j e c t s or r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n the c o n v e r s a t i o n a l context. It i s e n t i r e l y c o n t e x t - b o u n d and o r d i n a r i l y c a n n o t be i n t e r p r e t e d without shared perception or experience. The t e x t d o e s n o t show a p r i o r c o n c r e t e r e f e r e n t f o r an exophoric pronoun. TO THE RIGHT.  ++  YEAH! AND DOWN! ONE- ONE  DOWN! B E A U T I F U L ! Ah! T H A T S [emph] THE ONE I [8LEG2] 1  WANT.  -  YEAH,  C o m p r e h e n s i o n C h e c k (2) C o n f i r m a t i o n C h e c k (3) D i s p l a y Q u e s t i o n (5) Lexical Uncertainty (7)  R e f e r e n t i a l Question Anaphoric Reference Exophoric Reference  (8) (13) (14)  NOW PLEASE RATE THE FOLLOWING EXCERPTS BY F I L L I N G IN THE APPROPRIATE NUMBER Write the appropriate of each e x c e r p t . For  i n d e x number on t h e example:  THAT' S [emph] THE ONE I  line  to  the  right  WANT. 14  [8LEG2] <<  1  >>  <<  2  »  YOU UNDERSTAND? Yes, OKAY.  yes, ++  yes. DID  Hm.  YOU GET  IT?  [6LEG1]  WHEN WE WERE GOING THROUGH, I SHOULD HAVE STOPPED YOU AT TWO POINTS. WE HAD THE WORD, "THEORY", T - H - E - O - R - - I - E - S . WHY DID IT STOP AT THE WORD, "THEORY"? BECAUSE WE TYPED IN T - H - E , BUT WE D I D N ' T LEAVE A SPACE IN FRONT OR A SPACE IN (/Hnn./) BACK,  SO WHAT WE DID  JUST NOW WAS TO TYPE IN  THE L E T T E R S ,  [4COM2] <<  3  »  NEXT TO I T . RIGHT NEXT TO I T . T H A T ' S I T . YEAH. - AND THEN - HMMM. THIS IS A - THE NEXT ONE IS VERY COMPLICATED. TAKE TWO PIECES - OF UHHH YELLOW BUMPS, P L E A S E . /Two p i e c e s ? What k i n d [9LEG2]  of?  -  C o m p r e h e n s i o n C h e c k (2) C o n f i r m a t i o n C h e c k (3) D i s p l a y Q u e s t i o n (5) Lexical Uncertainty (7)  R e f e r e n t i a l Q u e s t i o n (8) Anaphoric Reference (13) Exophoric Reference (14) «  4  T H A T ' S GOING TO GO ONN- THEEE -  » SSECOND SSET + OF POINTS. /second ?  Second? THE SECOND S E T . [7LEG2] <<  5  >>  THEN F I L E " A " BUTTON, F I L E " B " BUTTON, F I L E " C " BUTTON AND THEN - THE ENTIRE D I F F , DIFFERENTLY. ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MANUSCRIPT APPEARS JUST L I K E MAGIC. YOU WILL LOVE I T . [10COM1] <<  6  »  YOU DO THAT? Put  it  YEAH,  on IN  where?  THE NEXT [emph]  STAGE.  [8LEG2]  Ohh,  ohh,  OKAY? -  I  see,  I  «  7  >>  <<  8  »  see..  P Y - L I K E A PYRAMID.  Okay. [10LEG]  SO WHAT ABOUT UH " T - H - E " THIS TIME? BUT, U H , BEFORE THAT, WE HAVE TO PUT, U H , BUTTON, OK, THAT ONE. DO YOU REMEMBER THE /mmm BUTTON YOU PRESS? OK, THAT ONE. YES THIS ONE. [6COM2]  261  C o m p r e h e n s i o n C h e c k (2) C o n f i r m a t i o n C h e c k (3) D i s p l a y Q u e s t i o n (5) Lexical Uncertainty (7)  R e f e r e n t i a l Question (8) Anaphoric Reference (13) Exophoric Reference (14) «  9  >>  T H E R E ' S A BLACK PIECE WITH A KIND OF ANTENNA. Antenna? D'YOU SEE  IT?  [4LEG1] « THAT  10  »  ONE.  This? OKAY,  YEAH.  -  RIGHT THERE.  THAT'S  RIGHT.  «  »  YOU'RE VERY  SMART.  [6LEG2]  OKAY.  S O , THE NEXT  Square board  11  CAN YOU FIND -  A SQUARE BOARD?  Mm.  OKAY, UH, WITH- ONE TWO THREE FOUR F I V E SIX TEN TWELVE, OKAY, TWELVE BUMPS ON I T . IT IS  SEVEN EIGHT NINE - BLACK COLOR.  [6LEG1] << YEAH. Ah!  I  L I K E D KOCHI AND I  On what  12  >>  WAS A L I T T L E  BIT  -  SURPRISED.  point?  WELL, BEFORE I WENT TO SHIKOKU, I TOLD SOME OF MY FRIENDS THAT I WAS GOING TO SHIKOKU, AND THEY S A I D , "SHIKOKU! AH!" [2DIS] « We're  understand.  OKAY,  YOU UNDERSTAND,  13  »  OKAY? + OKAY,  [6LEG1] 262  SO NOW YOU HAVE THREE  -  C o m p r e h e n s i o n C h e c k (2) C o n f i r m a t i o n C h e c k (3) D i s p l a y Q u e s t i o n (5) Lexical Uncertainty (7)  R e f e r e n t i a l Question (8) Anaphoric Reference (13) Exophoric Reference (14) «  14  »  T H E - COME THIS WAY. COME TOWARDS ME. T H A - - NEXT TO THAT. + T H A T ' S RIGHT.  BRING YOUR HAND + THAT'S IT.  -  [4LEG2] << YE Ah,  UHHH,  I  15  >>  THINK- GRAY [emph]  gray?  YEAH,  -  GRAY.  (3)  MAYBE WOULD YOU TURN IT  DOWN? TURN  [8LEG2] << JUST EXPERIMENT. HERE? PUT IT IN  16  >>  ++ WHY - WHY DON'T YOU MAKE I T GO - OVER THE - UH - NOW WHAT DOES THAT SAY THERE?  Mmm NEED DO.  MAKE IT  GO TO NEED DO.  THAT'S  IT.  [2COM2] « OKAY, THEN, U H , BOARD WITH - 1, Ah!  Yes, /8  I  17  »  PLEASE F I N D , UH, THE LONNNG + UH, WHITE 2 , 3, 4 , 5, 6, 7 , 8!  see.  BUMPS. + DID  YOU FIND  IT?  «  18  [8LEG1]  PLEASE,  YEAH.  -  UH - ,  NO,  -  »  THE BLACK P I E C E ,  Black? + YEAH,  THAT'S IT.  -  AND PUT IT  + UHHH,  [9LEG2]  263  YEAH.  PLEASE.  C o m p r e h e n s i o n C h e c k (2) C o n f i r m a t i o n C h e c k (3) D i s p l a y Q u e s t i o n (5) Lexical Uncertainty (7)  R e f e r e n t i a l Q u e s t i o n (8) A n a p h o r i c R e f e r e n c e (13) Exophoric Reference (14) «  THINK I T YOU This  MIGHT BE CLOSE + IS  i s not  + this  19  »  THAT I T ?  OR IS  THAT THE ONE  one?  [2LEG2] «  20  »  Hahhh! A t t h a t t i m e , i n y o u - how - what p l a c e you - - v i s i t - - v i s i t - f o r the t r i p ?  did  [6DIS] «  21  »  IN - ON THAT PAGE. NOW. AT THE TOP OF THE + OF THE + BARS. THERE ARE - F I V E BUTTONS. [4COM1]  264  Appendix F Transcription Most o f  the  following  f r o m Brown & Y u l e 1.  c o n v e n t i o n s have been  a very  (1983b).  brief  + a short ++  pause  for  The p o i n t  of  ( a b o u t 1/2  (about 1  pauses of  number o f  slashed  pause  a l o n g pause  (4)  sec.)  ( a b o u t 1 1/2 two  sec.)  sec.)  seconds or  seconds i s  overlapping  in  longer,  speech i s  represented  Omitted  and u n c l e a r  F o r words n o t  Ah h a h . Mm BIG,  OK.  segments:  heard c l e a r l y  - ?WORD  F o r w o r d s and w h i c h c a n n o t be g u e s s e d F o r words and p h r a s e s c u t  ? ? ? WORD  s h o r t by s p e a k e r  - WORD  Other: Rising  intonation  Inbreath Outbreath  A  -  - WORD?  SHHH 'HAAA  Lengthened sounds -  SSSSO. UHHHH.  T r a n s c r i b e r ' s comments 4.  by a  line:  /FOUR BUMPS. OH, T H A T ' S I T .  3.  estimated  parentheses  F o u r bumps w i t h s q u a r e bumps?  3.  adopted  Pauses: -  2.  Conventions  Spacing of Single  transcribed  spaced f o r  [emph]  text:  continuous or overlapping speech.  D o u b l e s p a c e d between  turns.  265  Appendix G ANOVA F r a t i o s  for  Selected  T r a n s f o r m e d and U n t r a n s f o r m e d V a r i a b l e s Listed  in Table 3  Treatment o f dependent v a r i a b l e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n (Group/Task) Dependent v a r i a b l e  square root  logarithmic  untransformed  Comprehension check  . 07 12.53  . 09 12.74  .04 11.19  Confirmation check  .32 13.99  .68 12.68  . 18 1 1 . 68  Definition  2 .10 3.77  2.22 4.00  1.90 3.43  . 12 49.18  . 07 30.73  .00 48.11  Otherrepetition  .33 2 .46  . 11 2.71  .53 2.21  Selfrepetition  .32 9.30  .50 10.33  .17 7.83  Echo  .26 4.67  .26 4.20  .30 4.46  Exophoric reference  Note. for  F ratios  are  each dependent  listed  first  by g r o u p a n d t h e n b y  variable  266  by  task  Appendix H Significant for  Repair  Categories  Experiential  and S o u r c e s o f  and E x p o s i t o r y  U s i n g LEG1 a s t h e E x p o s i t o r y  Variance  Tasks Stem  ANOVA  Repair exponent  EXPER-EXP0S1  EXPER-EXPOS2  F ratio  F ratio  Comp. check  14. ,533  Display question  65. ,681  .0017  5,.293  .0442  4,. 179  . 0682  Groups: M = Mixed,  Experiential,  —  . 0354  17. .962  Selfrepair  .0016  .0001 —  5.,912  p_  . 0034 18. , 343  Lexical uncert.  Note.  p_  12. .707  .0051  11, .942  . 0062  4,. 166  .0685  Main sources o f v a r i a n c e (p_ <) .05  .01  EY > E L EY > E L  EY > E L EY > E L  E L > EY  E L > EY  —  —  — H > M H > M EY > E L EY > E L EY > E L EY > E L a t EXPOS1 H > M a t EXPER1 H > M  -  H = Homogeneous; T a s k s : E L =  EY = E x p o s i t o r y ;  df = 1 i n a l l  267  cases  Appendix ANOVA T a b l e s Expository  I  Comparing  with Experiential  Tasks  (COMl v s . LEG2 + COM2)  Table  1-1  Analysis  of Variance  for Clarification  Source of variation  df  Sum o f squares  Group Error Task G X T Error  1 10 1 1 10  37.500 33.708 7.042 .667 51.542  Table  Mean square  37.500 3.371 7.042 .667 5.154  Requests F  p  11.125  .0075  1.366 .129  .2696 .7266  Epsil. corr.  1.00  1-2  Analysis  of Variance  for Confirmation  Source of variation  df  Sum o f squares  Mean square  Group Error Task G X T Error  1 10 1 1 10  .260 190.771 106.260 3.010 127.104  .014 19.077 106.260 3.101 12.710  268  Checks F  p  .014  .9093  8.360 .237  .0161 .6370  Epsil. corr.  1.00  Table  1-3  Analysis  of Variance  Source of variation  df  Group Error Task G x T Error  1 10 1 1 10  Table  Definitions  Sum o f squares  1.500 13.708 7.042 . 000 12.208  Mean square 1.500 1.371 7 . 042 . 000 1.221  E 1.094  . 3202  5.768 .000  .0372 1.0000  Epsil. corr.  1.00  1-4  Analysis  of Variance  Source of variation  df  Group Error Task G x T Error  1 10 1 1 10  Table  for  for Expressions of Lexical  Sum o f squares  Mean square  1.260 28.854 29.260 .844 19.521  1.260 2.885 29.260 .844 1.952  Uncertainty Epsil, corr.  .437  .5236  14.989 .432  . 0031 .5257 1.00  1-5  Source of variation  df  Sum o f squares  Mean square  Group Error Task G x T Error  1 10 1 1 10  16.667 107.167 253.500 6. 000 89.500  16.667 10.717 253.500 6.000 8.950  269  F  P  1.555  .2408  28.324 .670  .0003 .4320  Epsil. corr.  1.00  Table  1-6  Analysis of Variance  for  Self-Repetition  Source of variation  df  Sum o f squares  Mean square  Group Error Task G x T Error  1 10 1 1 10  60.167 1007.042 1. 042 181.500 266.708  60.167 100.704 1.042 181.500 26.671  270  F .597 . 039 6.805  p .4574 .8473 . 0261  Epsil. corr.  Appendix ANOVA T a b l e s Expository  J  Comparing  with Experiential  Tasks  (COMl v s . LEG2)  Table  J - l  Analysis  of Variance  for Clarification  Source of variation  df  Sum o f squares  Mean square  Group Error Task G X T Error  1 10 1 1 10  37.500 47.500 13.500 .667 54.833  37.500 4.750 13.500 .667 5.483  Table  Requests F  p  7.895  .0185  2.462 .122  .1477 .7346  Epsil. corr.  1.00  J-2  Analysis  of Variance  for Confirmation  Source of variation  df  Sum o f squares  Mean square  Group Error Task G X T Error  1 10 1 1 10  1.042 421.083 442.042 .042 127.104  1.042 42.108 442.042 .042 12.710  271  Checks F  p  .025  .8782  14.426 .001  .0035 .9713  Epsil. corr.  1.00  Table  J-3  Analysis  of Variance  Source of variation  df  Group Error Task G x T Error  1 10 1 1 10  Table  Definitions  Sum o f squares  Mean square  . 375 17.083 12.042 . 375 12.208  .375 1.708 12.042 .375 1.221  F  P  .220  .6495  10.865 .338  .0081 .5737  Epsil. corr.  1.00  J-4  Analysis  of Variance  Source of variation  df  Group Error Task G x T Error  1 10 1 1 10  Table  for  f o r Expressions of  Sum o f squares 1.500 27.500 28.167 . 667 22.167  Mean square 1.500 2.750 28.167 .8667 2.217  Lexical Uncertainty F  P  .545  .4772  12.707 .301  .0051 .5954  Epsil. corr.  1.00  J-5  Analysis  of Variance  for  R e f e r e n t i a l Questions  Source of variation  df  Sum o f squares  Mean square  Group Error Task G x T Error  1 10 1 1 10  5. 042 175.417 630.375 18.375 141.750  5 . 042 17.542 630.375 18.375 14.175  272  F  P  .287  . 6036  44.471 1.296  . 0001 .2814  Epsil. corr.  1.00  Table  J-6  Analysis  of Variance  for  Self-Repetition  Source of variation  df  Sum o f squares  Mean square  Group Error Task G x T Error  1 10 1 1 10  16.667 1425.667 6. 000 294.000 266.708  16.667 142.567 6.000 294.000 26.671  273  F  p_  . 117  .7395  .169 8.282  .6897 .0164  Epsil. corr.  Appendix K Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s MixedTable  for  and Homogeneous-group T a s k s  K-l  Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s  f o r Mixed-group Tasks Task  COMl  Variable  Mean SD  COM2  DIS  Mean SD  Mean SD  LEGl  Mean SD  LEG2  Mean SD  Anaphoric reference dyad teacher learner  33.67 3.78 3 6.17 4.45 2.50 2.67  31.33 11.84 30.33 11.43 1. 00 1.27  3.67 2.16 1.00 2.45 2.67 2.25  4.00 3.41 1.33 3.27 2 . 67 3.08  1.17 1.33 . 17 .41 1. 00 1.27  2.67 2.73 2.67 2.73 .00 . 00  .83 .75 .83 .75 . 00 . 00  .17 .41 .00 . 00 . 17 .41  40.83 20.02 29.167 16.38 1 1 . 67 6.98  41.83 17.79 38.17 15.74 3 .67 3.27  42 .50 7.79 41.50 7.84 1.00 .89  5.50 1.87 .50 .84 5.00 1.90  4, 83 3 43 50 84 4 33 3 01  Clarification request dyad teacher learner Comprehens i o n check dyad teacher learner  274  5, 4, 5, 4,  00 34 00 34 00 00  .83 .75 .83 .75 .00 .00  table  continues  Table K-l  (cont'd.)  Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s  f o r Mixed-group Tasks Task  C0M1  Variable  Mean SD  COM2  DIS  Mean SD  Mean SD  LEG1 Mean SD  LEG2 Mean SD  Confirmation check dyad teacher learner  3.5 2 . 35 .33 .82 3 .17 2.40  4.33 2.50 .33 .52 4.00 2.83  4. 00 4.43 2.83 4.92 1.17 1.17  7.33 1.97 .50 .84 6.83 2.40  12.00 10.26 .17 .41 11.83 10.48  2.00 1.27 1.67 1.37 .33 .52  1.50 1.38 1.33 1.37 . 17 .41  1.00 1.55 1.00 1.55 .00 . 00  . 67 .82 . 67 .82 .00 .00  .33 .82 .33 .82 .00 .00  5 . 67 2.66 5.67 2.66 .00 .00  9 .33 3.56 9.33 3.56 . 00 . 00  2 . 00 3.16 1.83 2.86 . 17 .41  . 33 .82 .33 .82 . 00 .00  1.00 1.67 1.00 1.67 .00 .00  7.67 1.75 .33 .52 7.33 1.37  8.83 4 . 02 .17 .41 8.67 4 . 03  4.17 2.48 . 50 .55 3.67 2.42  'inition dyad teacher learner Display question dyad teacher learner Echo dyad teacher learner  5.50 4.76 .33 .52 5.17 4.88  table 275  7.33 4.18 . 17 .41 7.17 4.07  continues  Table K - l  (cont'd.)  Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s  f o r Mixed-group Tasks Task  COMl  Variable  Mean SD  COM2  DIS  Mean SD  Mean SD  LEGl Mean SD  LEG2 Mean SD  Exophoric reference dyad teacher learner  1. 67 1.63 1.17 1.47 .50 .84  21.83 7.14 19.50 6.89 2 . 33 1. 63  4.83 7.47 2.50 3.99 2 . 33 3.93  1.50 1.38 .33 .52 1.17 1.17  57.83 21.78 42 .17 18.85 15.67 8.12  .67 . 52 . 67 .52 . 00 . 00  3 . 67 2.25 .83 .75 2.83 2 . 32  1.00 1.27 . 17 .41 .83 1.17  .33 .52 .17 .41 .17 .41  2 . 67 3.27 2 . 00 3 .10 . 67 .52  5 . 00 4 . 00 2.50 2.43 2.50 2.07  6.17 3 . 37 3.33 2.66 2.83 1. 60  2.67 1.86 1.67 1.51 1.00 1.27  Lexical uncertainty dyad teacher learner  2.17 1.17 1.17 1.33 1.00 1.27  Otherexpansion dyad teacher learner  4.00 3.58 2.00 1.79 2.00 2 .10  table  276  continues  Table K - l  (cont'd.)  Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s  f o r Mixed-group  Tasks  Task COMl  Variable  Mean SD  COM2 Mean SD  DIS Mean SD  LEGl Mean SD  LEG2 Mean SD  Otherrepetition dyad teacher learner  4.67 1.51 2.00 1.41 2 . 67 1.21  7.00 4 . 65 2.83 1.94 4.17 3.66  7.50 3.78 3.83 1.47 3 . 67 2.81  6.83 3.49 3 . 00 1.10 3.83 3.43  4.50 2.35 2.67 1.63 1.83 2.40  .83 .75 .17 .41 . 67 .82  4.67 5.13 2.83 4.07 1.83 2 .14  17.17 4.75 11.00 5.76 6.17 4.67  10.50 5.58 5.83 3.31 4.67 3 .88  12.83 4.62 5.00 5.59 7.83 7.20  29.50 9.52 26.83 8.64 2 . 67 2 . 66  24.83 1 1 . 02 23.33 10.46 1.50 1.23  21.17 6.31 12.83 5.71 8.33 3.33  26.83 9.81 24.33 9.40 2.50 1.87  36.67 20.77 28.67 11.31 8.00 16.77  Referential question dyad teacher learner Selfexpansion dyad teacher learner  table  continues  Table K - l  (cont'd.)  Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s  f o r Mixed-group  Tasks  Task  COMl  Variable  Mean SD  COM2  DIS  Mean SD  Mean SD  LEGl Mean SD  LEG2 Mean SD  Selfrepetition dyad teacher learner  Note,  25.50 5. 61 22.83 7.78 2 67 3 67  29 . 83 8.26 27.00 6.72 2.83 2.56  16.33 9.93 10.83 9.20 5.50 3.15  n = 6 f o r a l l mixed dyads.  278  33.50 10.75 21.50 12.99 3.00 2.37  24.50 12.50 32.67 11.15 .83 .75  Table  K-2  Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s  f o r Homogeneous-group T a s k s Task  COMl  Variable  Mean SD  COM2  DIS  Mean SD  Mean SD  LEGl Mean SD  LEG2 Mean SD  Anaphoric reference dyad teacher learner  27.50 18.26 22.17 16.38 5.3 3 5.01  18.67 7.82 16.00 5.25 2.67 2.66  30.50 13.55 20.17 12.07 10. 33 6.77  45.00 12.99 38.00 10.24 7.00  39.17 16.25 36.17 13.38 3 . 00  .83 .75 . 00 .00 .83 .75  1.83 1. 47 . 17 .41 1. 67 1. 63  1.17 1.94 .33 .52 .83 1.60  4.50 2.88 .50 .84 4.00 2.61  2.67 1.86 .50 1.23 2.17 .98  1.00 1.10 1.00 1.10 . 00 . 00  2.67 2.58 2.67 2 . 58 . 00 .00  .00 .00 . 00 . 00 .00 .00  5.50 3.21 5.50 3.21 . 00 . 00  1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17 . 00 . 00  Clarification request dyad teacher learner Comprehension check dyad teacher learner  table  279  continues  T a b l e K-2  (cont'd.)  Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s  f o r Homogeneous-group T a s k s Task  C0M1  Variable  Mean SD  COM2  DIS  Mean SD  Mean SD  LEG1  Mean SD  LEG2  Mean SD  Confirmation check dyad teacher learner  3.83 4.26 .17 .41 3.67 3.93  2.33 2.07 .50 .84 1.83 2.14  1.33 2 . 07 .50 1.23 .83 1.60  7.33 3.39 . 17 .41 7.17 3 . 06  12.33 4.08 .33 .52 12.00 3.90  1.33 1.75 1.3 3 1.75 .00 .00  .50 .55 .50 .55 .00 .00  .00 .00 .00 . 00 .00 . 00  .83 .98 .83 .98 . 00 .00  .33 .82 .33 .82 .00 .00  4.00 3.80 4.00 3.80 .00 .00  12.67 3.45 12.33 3.45 .33 .52  2 .33 3.33 2.17 3.37 . 17 .41  .50 .55 . 50 .55 .00 .00  3.17 4.58 3 .00 4.69 . 17 .41  9.50 5.36 .33 .52 9.17 5.53  8.67 3.77 3.3 3 5.35 5.3 3 3.39  2 . 67 2.58 1. 17 1.47 1.50 1.38  Definition dyad teacher learner Display question dyad teacher learner Echo dyad teacher learner  8.00 2.37 .67 .82 7.33 2.25 table  280  7 . 67 4.08 .00 .00 7.67 4.08 continues  T a b l e K-2  (cont'd.)  Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s  f o r Homogeneous-group T a s k s Task  C0M1  Variable  Mean SD  COM2  DIS '  Mean SD  Mean SD  LEG1 Mean SD  LEG2 Mean SD  Exophoric reference dyad teacher learner  10.17 16.65 8.33 14.67 1.83 2.99  2 1 . 67 3.67 16. 00 4.52 5. 67 5.09  1.33 1.97 .83 .93 .50 1.23  3 . 00 3.80 1.83 3.60 1.17 2.40  51.17 15.04 38.83 12.21 12.33 8.17  3.00 2.83 1.17 1.94 1.83 2.23  .83 .98 .50 .84 . 33 . 52  3.00 2.28 . 67 .52 2.33 2 . 07  2.67 1. 03 1.33 1.37 1.33 1. 63  .50 .55 .50 .55 .00 .00  4.50 3.78 2.17 1.72 2 . 33 2.94  4.50 3.45 2.83 2.79 1.67 1. 03  6.50 3.39 4.17 2.04 2.33 2 .16  5 . 00 3.16 2.83 2.79 2 .17 1.33  5.50 4.32 3.00 2 .19 2.50 2.51  7.17 6.43 4.00 3.29 3.17 3.31  9.17 5. 00 5.67 2 . 58 3 . 50 2 . 59  6.83 5. 64 3.33 2.25 3.50 3 . 51  7.83 4.17 4.67 2.25 3.17 2 .99  4.17 3.43 3.83 3.19 . 33 .52  Lexical uncertainty dyad teacher learner Otherexpansion dyad teacher learner Otherrepetition dyad teacher learner  table 281  continues  T a b l e K-2  (cont'd.)  Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s  f o r Homogeneous-group T a s k s Task  COMl  Variable  Mean SD  COM2  DIS  Mean SD  Mean SD  LEGl Mean SD  LEG2 Mean SD  Referential question dyad teacher learner  3.50 2.88 .50 1.23 3 . 00 2.83  6. 00 4 . 19 1. 83 1. 47 4 . 17 4 . 02  13 .33 8 . 38 10 .83 8 .98 2 .50 3 .73  13 . 17 6. 40 9 . 33 7 . 71 3 . 83 3 . 76  12. 5. 2. 2. 10. 4.  25.50 3.15 20.83 6.43 4 . 67 4.13  1 9 . 50 5. 72 1 7 . 33 5. 54 2 . 17 2 . 32  19 . 67 5 .24 10 .83 6 .56 8 .83 6 .49  22. 6. 21. 6. 1. 1.  17 91 00 78 17 33  20. 5. 20. 5.  34 .17 8.28 27.83 1 1 . 57 6.33 4 . 68  2 8 . 33 1 1 . 74 2 6 . 33 1 1 . 41 2 . 00 1. 79  12 .00 3 .41 7 .67 4 .59 4 . 33 3 .83  2 8 . 17 1 1 . 86 1 8 . 17 7 . 25 3 . 33 2 . 94  21. 7. 28. 11.  00 72 00 68 00 15  Selfexpansion dyad teacher learner  33 13 33 13 • 00 • 00  Selfrepetition dyad teacher learner  Note,  n = 6 f o r a l l homogeneous d y a d s .  282  50 82 00 97 • 17 41 m  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055821/manifest

Comment

Related Items